Tue. Nov 30th, 2021

REMEMBER UPHAAR

Lets work together for a SAFE India

Judgement dt 08.10.2021- Uphaar Tampering case

426 min read

Uphaar Tampering Case – Judgement dt 08.10.2021

IN THE COURT OF DR. PANKAJ SHARMA,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLND02-000056-2007
FIR No. 207/2006
PS : EOW
U/s : 120-B/409/201/109 read with 120B IPC
State Vs. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
Filing No. 10653/2007
Registration No. 39858/2016
Date of institution of case : 22.02.2007
Date of cognizance of case : 24.02.2007
Date of framing of charge : 31.05.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : 07.10.2021
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.10.2021
APPEARANCES :
Present : Ld. Addl. PP Sh. A.T. Ansari for the State.
Ld. Sr. Advocate Sh. Vikas Pahwa alongwith Sh. R.
Krishnamurthy & Ms. Neelam Krishnamurthy
(Complainant).
Ld. Counsel Sh. Sudarshan Rajan for Accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Manu Sharma for Accused P.P. Batra.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Rohit Sharma for Accused Anoop Singh.
Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. Pramod Dubey alongwith Sh. Vikas
Aggarwal for Accused Gopal Ansal.
Ld. Counsel Sh. Tanvir Ahmad Mir & Sh. Sidharth Kashyap
for Accused Sushil Ansal.
J U D G M E N T
S.
No.
HEADING PAGE
NO (s)
(A) THE BRIEF BACKGROUND & GENESIS OF FIR 3
(B) INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY POLICE 7
(C) THE CHARGE 12
(D) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 14-184
(E) OBJECTIONS DURING EXAMINATION OF
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
184-188
(F) STATEMENT U/S 313 CR.P.C OF ACCUSED PERSONS 189
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 1 of 274
(G) DEFENCE EVIDENCE 189-190
(H) EVALUATION OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 190
(I) COMPLAINT AND FIR 191
(J) THE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE REGARDING CHAIN
OF CUSTODY
191-198
(K) THE REMOVED / TAMPERED / OBLITERATED/
DEFACED DOCUMENTS
198-200
(L) DOCUMENTS PROVED DURING TESTIMONY OF
FIRE OFFICIALS, BANK OFFICIALS AND CBI
OFFICIALS
200-209
(M) POLICE WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION OF THIS
CASE
209-211
(N) RECORD PRODUCED BY ROC TO ESTABLISH
RELATIONSHIP OF ACCUSED WITH SEML
211-212
(O) RECORD FROM MTNL 212
(P) DOCUMENTS FROM API 213
(Q) CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION 213-215
(R) CONTENTION OF ACCUSED DINESH CHANDRA
SHARMA
215-226
(S) CONTENTION OF ACCUSED P. P. BATRA 226-232
(T) CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF SUSHIL ANSAL 232-245
(U) CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GOPAL
ANSAL
245-248
(V) CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANOOP
SINGH KARAYAT
248-249
(W) EVALUATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH
SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF LEGAL PROVISIONS AND
PRECEDENTS
249-272
(X) CONCLUSION 272-274
1. S. No. of the Case :CNR No. DLND02-000056-2007
2. Date of Commission of Offence : During the period started from filing
of charge-sheet in case RC No.3/ 97/
SIC IV/New Delhi on 15.11.1997
wherein accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 2 of 274
Ansal and H. S. Panwar were charge
sheeted amongst other accused for
offence under section 304/304A IPC
till 13.01.2003 when the fact of
missing documents came into the
knowledge of Trial Court.
3. Name of the complainant : Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, General
Secretary, AVUT
4. Name, parentage &
address of accused : (1) Dinesh Chandra Sharma S/o
Sh. Jagram Sharma, R/o 1/1609,
Mansarovar Park, Delhi,
(2)Sushil Ansal S/o Late Sh. Chiranji
Lal, R/o N-148, Pachsheel Park, New
Delhi,
(3) Gopal Ansal, S/o Late Sh. Chiranji
Lal, R/o 1, 6, Aurangazeb Road, New
Delhi,
(4) Prem Prakash Batra, S/o Late
Sh.M.L. Batra, R/o 15, Pocket, B-7,
Sector 3, Rohini, Delhi,
(5) Anoop Singh, S/o Late Sh. Ganga
Singh, R/o 554, Sector 3, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi,
(6) Har Swaroop Panwar (Since
deceased), S/o Sh. Khem Chand, R/o
1116, Sector 15, Part II, Gurgaon,
Haryana,
(7) Dharam Malhotra (Since
deceased), S/o Sh. C.L. Malhotra, R/o
122, Sector 37, Noida, UP,
5. Offence complained of or proved : u/s 409/120B/109 & 201
IPC
6. Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : All convicted under section 120B
and 409/120B and 201/120B IPC
THE BRIEF BACKGROUND & GENESIS OF FIR :
8. The relevant facts leading to registration of instant FIR are
connected to the Uphaar Tragedy as on 13.06.1997 a devastating fire
occurred at Uphaar Theatre, New Delhi which took 59 human lives
including women and children besides leaving large number of persons
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 3 of 274
injured. A case RC3 (S)/97/SIC.IV/CBI/ND under section 304/304A/337
IPC and section 14 of the Cinematograph Act was registered and
investigation was taken up by CBI. After completion of investigation, CBI
submitted a charge-sheet against Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, H.S. Panwar
and several other accused persons. The charges were framed against
accused persons in the said case and Sushil Ansal and other accused
persons challenged the said order by Crl. Rev. Petition no. 238/01 and
175/01 before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi but without success. While the
trial in the said CBI case is at a sufficiently advanced stage, the Public
Prosecutor noticed that several important documents which were seized by
the IO during the course of investigation and which were filed along with
the charge-sheet and which formed part of the judicial record were missing
from the record of the case while some other documents had been tampered
with and / or mutilated by tearing of a portion of the documents and
defaced. Vide an application dated 13.01.2003, the Ld. SPP brought this
fact to the notice of Ld. Presiding Officer and who in turn apprised the
same to Ld. District & Sessions Judge. On 20.01.2003, Ld. PP sought
permission of the Court to lead secondary evidence in respect of missing
documents and the documents which had been tampered with in the above
manner and the said prayer was allowed by the Ld. Court and the
prosecution was permitted to lead secondary evidence in regard to the
missing and tampered documents. Thinking this to be a handy work of
accused persons who were keenly watching the progress of the trial and
became apprehensive about the sanctity and fairness of the trial, got
Tampered / Mutilated the record in connivance with the Court official who
was In-charge of the custody of the judicial record. Thereafter, an
application under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C was moved seeking cancellation of
bail of the accused persons indicating that they were instrumental in
Removal/ Tampering with the judicial record with the clear motive of
escaping their responsibility from the commission of offence and with a
view to subvert the course of justice. The said prayer was declined by the
Court and the petitioner moved Crl. Main 2380/2003 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi praying for cancellation of bail of three accused
persons. During the pendency of said petition, it was prayed on behalf of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 4 of 274
the petitioners to summon the copies of the Fact Finding Report conducted
by Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ, New Delhi where Mr. S. C. Malik, Ld. ASJ
was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by Ld. District & Sessions Judge in a
Disciplinary Enquiry instituted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CAA) Rule 1965
and also the final order passed by the disciplinary authority against enquiry
instituted qua Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the Court official. The said prayer
was allowed and copies of the report of the Fact Finding Enquiry conducted
by Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ dated 03.04.2003, the report of
Enquiry dated 30.04.2004 of enquiry conducted by Sh. S. C. Malik, Ld.
Addl. District & Session Judge, Inquiry Officer and the order dated
25.06.2004 passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi against Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was placed on record. Upon receipt of said report,
petitioners moved another Crl. Main 2229/2006 under section 482 Cr.P.C
seeking direction of registration of a Crl. Case (FIR) on the basis of inquiry
reports and order passed by Ld. District & Sessions Judge owing to the
conduct of the Ahlmad of the Court. While disposing of Crl. Main
2229/2006 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi directed the Special Branch of
Delhi Police to register a case under appropriate provisions of law in regard
to the incident of Removal/ Tampering/ Mutilation of the documents from
the judicial record of the Trial Court and also directed that investigation
shall be entrusted to an officer not below the rank of Asstt. Commissioner
of Police who will conduct the investigation expeditiously and endeavour to
conclude the same within a period of three months from the date of the
order. However, later on, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi modified its order
dated 05.05.2006 and directed EOW to investigate the case. Accordingly,
the instant FIR was lodged on the complaint of Mr. R. Krishnamurthy,
General Secretary, Association of victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) in
terms of the order dated 05.05.2006 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in Crl. Misc. Main No. 2380/2006 and Crl. Misc. No. 2229/2006 which was
moved by AVUT seeking registration of FIR and investigation by an officer
not below the rank of Asstt. Commissioner of Police against the accused
persons which were involved in Removal/ Mutilation and Tampering of
documents from the Court records of the case pending trial before the Ld.
Addl. Sessions Judge, Delhi Smt. Mamta Sehgal titled as “State v. Sushil
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 5 of 274
Ansal and others” in RC3 (S)/97/SIC.IV/CBI/ND under section
304/304A/337 IPC and section 14 of the Cinematograph Act. As per the
FIR, the said tampering and disappearance of material evidence was owing
to a conspiracy hatched by Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, H.S. Panwar with
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Ahlmad to subvert the free and fair trial at the cost
of denting the truth. The action has been launched by AVUT to bring the
culprit to book so as to send a signal of deterrence to those who tried to
fiddle with the process of law so as to maintain sanctity and fairness of a
criminal trial and majesty of rule of law.
9. The list of documents that were alleged to be Tampered /
Removed / Mutilated are as below :
9(i). Documents no. D-20 which is a Seizure Memo dated 18.08.1997
which deals with the seizure of following documents :-
(a) Register of Director of Green Park Theatres;
(b) Register of Members;
(c) Register of Contract under section 301 of the Companies Act;
(d) Register of Directors of shareholding and shareholders;
(e) Register of share transfer;
(f) Share capital ledger;
(g) Counter foil register;
(h) Original letter with respect to Mr. Pranav Ansal;
(i) Original resignation letter of Mr. Vijay Aggarwal;
(j) Three pages of minutes of meeting of Directors of Ansal
Theatres and Club Hotels dated 02.06.1997;
9(ii). Document no. D-84 deal with letter dated 28.11.1996 from Ansal
Properties and Industries Ltd to the Divisional Officer DFS vide no. API
VP(S) 1996 intimating the removal of the defects pointed out by DFS vide
their inspection report dated 18.11.1996;
9(iii). Document no. D-89 is the occurrence book of control room
Headquarters DFS dated 12.05.1997;
9(iv). Document no. D-91 is the occurrence book of BCP Fire Station;
9(v). Document no. D-92 is the casual leave register maintained in Hdqs.
Delhi Fire Service. The document contains seizure memo of the register to
which page no. 50 deals with casual leaves (CL) status of H.S. Panwar;
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 6 of 274
9(vi). Document no. D-24 is the seizure memo dated 27.08.1997
alongwith original cheque no. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 for Rs. 50,00,000/-
drawn on Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar signed by Sushil Ansal in
his favour;
9(vii). Document no. D-25 is the seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 with
cheque no. 805578 dated 30.11.1996 for Rs. 1,50,000/- drawn on Punjab
National Bank, Tolstoy House, signed by Gopal Ansal in favour of Music
Shop and cheque no. 805590 dated 20.02.1997 for Rs. 2,96,550/- drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy House in favour of M/s Chancellor Club
signed by Gopal Ansal;
9(viii). Document no. D-26 is the seizure memo dated 27.08.1997
alongwith cheque no.183618 dated 23.05.1995 for Rs.9,711/- in favour of
Chief Engineer (Water) drawn on Syndicate Bank, Green Park Extension
signed by Gopal Ansal;
9(ix). Document no. D-28 deals with the file containing minutes of MD’s
conferences of the Uphaar Grand containing 1 to 40 pages. Page nos. 1, 9,
12, 14,16 & 19 were missing. The missing pages being nos. 1,9,12 deal
with the MD’s conference of various dates being meetings / conferences
held on 07.05.1997, 02.04.1997 & 01.05.1997 which indicate that
conference with respect to the management of the Uphaar Grand held under
the Chairmanship of Mr. Gopal Ansal as the Managing Director circulating
under the signatures of Major Ajit Chaudhary, Manager (Admn.), Uphaar
Grand;
After the registration of the present FIR, investigation was
entrusted to ACP Mr. Vijay Malik and later the investigation was carried out
by ACP Amit Roy, SIT/EOW, Crime Branch, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY POLICE
10. During investigation, it was revealed that the case No. RC3
(S)SIC.IV(CBI) was pending trial in the court of Hon’ble ASJ Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, Patiala House. On 19.07.2002, while the deposition of PW R.C.
Sharma was being recorded, a letter dated 28.11.1996 written by Mr. Vimal
K. Nagpal, Vice President (Service) Ansals Properties and Industries Ltd. to
Delhi Fire Services was found missing from the judicial file. Thereafter,
under the directions of the Ld. Trial Court judicial file of the case was
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 7 of 274
subjected to scrutiny and Ld. Prosecutor Mr. Y. K. Saxena submitted a
report dated 20.01.2003 mentioning therein that the following documents
were found Missing/ Torn and Obliterated.
10(i). Seizure memo dated 18.07.1997 for seizure of documents prepared
by IO, SIT, Crime Branch, Delhi Police-left side lower corner of second
page of the seizure memo is torn;
10(ii). Correspondence page no. 123 of file of Delhi Fire Services
regarding Uphaar Cinema, Green Park, New Delhi was found half torn
from lower portion the file was seized by the IO, SIT, Crime Branch vide
seizure memo dated 12.07.1997;
10(iii). One Register of Occurrence Book of Control Room Headquarters,
Delhi Fire Services seized by the IO during the investigation – pages 363 to
400 are missing. The relevant page is 379 which pertains to departure for
inspection of H.S. Panwar, Fire Officer, (an accused in the case) Delhi Fire
Services on 12.05.1997;
10(iv). One Occurrence Book register of Bhikaji Cama Place Fire Station,
New Delhi containing pages 1 to 400. Pages 95 to 104 are missing and on
pages 109 to 116 ink has been spread. The relevant pages are 96 to 113
which contains the inspection of Uphaar Cinema from the safety point of
view and movements of fire officers to attend fire calls;
10(v). Casual Leave Register maintained at Headquarter Delhi Fire
Services for the period 1995-1996. Page nos. 45 to 50 are missing. Relevant
page is page no. 50 which deals the casual leave status of accused H.S.
Panwar on 22.12.1996;
10(vi). Four cheques dated 26.06.1995, 23.05.1996, 30.11.1996 &
20.02.1997 signed by accused persons Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal
Ansal as authorized signatory of Green Park Theaters and Associated Pvt.
Ltd and Ansal Theatres and Club Hotels Pvt. Ltd alongwith seizure memos
of these cheques;
10(vii). File containing minutes of MD’s meeting and correspondence
containing 40 pages. Its page nos. 1, 9, 12, 14, 18 & 19 are missing. The
relevant pages are 1 to 17;
That an internal enquiry (Fact Finding Enquiry) was
conducted by the Hon’ble ASJ Ms. Mamta Sehgal with regard to Missing/
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 8 of 274
Obliterated documents. During enquiry, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma,
the then Ahlmad was found responsible for the same being custodian of the
judicial records. Accordingly, a regular Departmental Enquiry was ordered
vide order no.49206/F-962/Vig., dated 10.12.2003. The Departmental
Enquiry was conducted by Mr. S. C. Malik, Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Delhi. During Departmental Enquiry, accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma mentioned in column no. 3 was held responsible of High
Carelessness and Negligence amounting to serious misconduct on his part
resulting in loss of documents from the judicial file. Since the charge was
proved against accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, he was dismissed from
the service by the Hon’ble District Judge Mr. J.P. Singh vide order dated
25.06.2004. During the course of investigation, certified copies of all the
Missing/ Torn and Obliterated documents are collected from the Court after
observing all legal formalities. Thereafter, concerned PWs related to the
Missing/ Torn and Obliterated documents were examined including Mr. Raj
Singh Khatri, IO of main Uphaar CBI case and Spl. PP Mr. Y.K. Saxena.
Their examination revealed that the said Missing/ Torn and Obliterated
document were exhibited on the basis of photocopies of the same by the
PWs being secondary evidence with the approval of the Ld. Trial Court
under the provisions of section 65 of The Evidence Act. During the
examination, all the PWs pertaining to said Missing/ Torn and Obliterated
documents the same PWs corroborated their earlier statements made in the
Trial Court and had got exhibited the photocopies of the said Missing/ Torn
and Obliterated documents being secondary evidence. During course of
investigation, the Court staff who remained associated with the case file of
Uphaar Tragedy case during the trial since 15.11.1997 were examined.
During the course of investigation, Mr. Y. K. Saxena, Spl. PP CBI, Inspr.
Raj Kumar, CBI, Pairvi Officer for the case and Const. Virender Singh,
Naib Court in the Trial Court from CBI were also examined. During
investigation, Smt. Neelam Krishnamurthy and Mr. R. Krishnamurthy were
examined. Also, Mr. Dayal, Mr. Deepak Katpalia, Mr. P.P. Batra, Mr. Laxmi
Narain Soni, Mr. Vijay Katiyal were interrogated and they all stated that
they had nothing to do with Missing/ Torn and Obliterated documents and
they used to go only to assists their Advocates in the pairvi of the case.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 9 of 274
During the course of investigation, Call Data Records for the relevant
period i.e. 2002 to 2005 of mobile no. 9811027522 of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was obtained from Hutchinson Cellular Company and it
was found that accused had made several call to Mr. P.P. Batra, Steno in the
Legal Cell of Ansal Properties & Industries. Mr. P.P. Batra was interrogated.
During the investigation, sufficient evidence came on record against
accused Mr. Dinesh Chandra Sharma, accordingly, he was arrested in this
case on 22.11.2006. Accused Mr. Dinesh Chandra Sharma was granted bail
by the Hon’ble Court of ACMM on 04.12.2006. An application was moved
to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions for cancellation of bail and the Hon’ble
Court of Sessions canceled his bail on 23.12.2006 and he was directed to
surrender on the 8th January, 2007 to the court of Ld. ACMM. Subsequently,
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma appealed in the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi against the said orders of cancellation of bail but the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi did not admit his bail application. Accordingly, accused
surrendered on 08.01.2007 and continued in judicial custody till he got bail.
During custodial interrogation, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma disclosed
that he took charge of pending trial cases including of Uphaar tragedy case
from his predecessor Ahlmad Mr. Sunil Kumar Nautiyal and during taking
over charge he did not check each and every document. During
interrogation, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma disclosed that after
dismissal from service, he met Mr. P.P. Batra who worked in the legal
division of Ansal Properties, in the Tis Hazari Court and he requested Mr.
Batra for some job. Mr. Batra gave him the address of A-Plus Securities at
Saket Delhi. He went to A-Plus Securities and got a job of Supervisor for
Rs. 15,000/- per month. He worked with A-Plus Securities for about 8
months and left this job as his father asked him to help him in running a
school. Verification made at the office of A-Plus Security & Training
Institute Pvt. Ltd., A-96, MB Road, Saidulazab, Delhi revealed that fluid
was applied over the name of one of the employees in monthly wages and
remuneration register from November 2004 to June 2005. On questioning,
Mr. Anoop Singh, Chairman of A-Plus Security, he stated that they had
applied fluid over the name of Dinesh Chandra Sharma when they came to
know that Dinesh Chandra Sharma was linked with Uphaar tragedy case.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 10 of 274
Mr. Anoop Singh and other Directors Mr. Shiv Raj Singh and Mr. Anokhe
Lal Pal also told that monthly payment i.e. Rs. 15,000/- was given in cash
by Brig. (Rtd.) Mr. D.V. Malhotra, General Manager, Star Estate
Management Ltd. to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. However, they did not
produce any documentary proof of having received cash payment from
Brig. D.V. Malhotra, General Manager, Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd in
the matter. During investigation Brig. D.V. Malhotra, General Manager,
Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd was interrogated and he denied having
given any cash payment towards monthly wages of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma while he worked with A-Plus Security. Investigation
revealed that Dinesh Chandra Sharma after he was removed from service as
Ahlmad was provided a job in A-Plus Security & Training Institute, A-96,
Saidulazab, MB Road, New Delhi at the instance of Mr. P.P. Batra, Steno in
the Legal Cell of Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. Further more, Mr. P.P.
Batra along with other staff has also been frequent visitors and doing pairvi
of case on behalf of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal in the Trial
Court in case FIR No. RC3 (S)/97/CBI/SIC.-IV/ND and used to interact
with Mr. Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The possibility of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma tampering with the record at the instance of Mr. P.P. Batra acting in
the interest of his employer Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr. Gopal Ansal cannot
be ruled out. This view also gets strengthened from the nature of some
documents which either missing or tampered with namely D-24, being the
cheque No.955725 which was signed by Mr. Sushil Ansal for Green Park
Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd. and D-28, being the minutes of MD’s
conference which shows the direct control of Mr. Sushil Ansal and Mr.
Gopal Ansal over Uphaar Theatres. So far as missing document D-92 is
concerned which is a casual leave register and inspection proforma
whereby accused H.S. Panwar was shown that the inspection of Uphaar
Cinema was carried out by H.S. Panwar while being on casual leave.
During investigation, two wages and remuneration register of employees of
in which fluid were applied over the name of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma were seized through seizure memo and FSL report obtained.
Initially, charge-sheet was filed against accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma on
12.02.2007 and thereafter, first supplementary charge-sheet containing
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 11 of 274
CFSL report and some document was filed on 23.5.2007. Thereafter,
second supplementary charge-sheet dated 18.01.2008 was filed where
following persons were arrayed as accused :
i. Mr. Sushil Ansal;
ii. Mr. Gopal Ansal;
iii. Mr. H.S. Panwar;
iv. Mr. P.P. Batra;
v. Mr. D.V. Malhotra;
vi. Mr. Anoop Singh.
All these persons were summoned by Ld. ACMM vide order
dated 15.02.2008, the said summoning order was assailed before Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi by Mr. Sushil Ansal, Mr. D.V. Malhotra, Mr. Gopal
Ansal and Mr. P.P. Batra, however, their petitions were dismissed with cost
of Rs. 25,000/- each vide order dated 03.09.2009. Thereafter, third
supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 17.02.2014 alongwith fresh
documents. Vide order dated 31.05.2014, the Court ordered framing of
charges against Mr. Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Mr. Sushil Ansal, Mr. D.V.
Malhotra, Mr. Gopal Ansal, Mr. H.S. Panwar, Mr. Anoop Singh and Mr. P.P.
Batra for offences punishable under section 120B/109/201/409 IPC. The
said order was assailed by accused persons before Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi. Accused Anoop Singh, Sushil Ansal, D.V. Malhotra, Gopal Ansal,
however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2017.
11. The Charge was framed as under : –
I, Sanjay Khaganwal, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi do hereby charge you (1) Sushil Ansal,
(2) Gopal Ansal, (3) H. S. Panwar, (4) Dinesh Chandra Sharma, (5) P. P.
Batra, (6) D. V. Malhotra and (7) Anoop Singh as follows :
That during the period started from filing of the charge sheet
in case RC No. 3/97/SIC IV/New Delhi on 15.11.1997, wherein accused
Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H. S. Panwar were charge sheeted amongst
other accused persons for offence alleged under section 304 and 304A IPC.
Till 13.01.2003 when the fact of missing documents came into the
knowledge of the trial court of said case you all already entered into
criminal conspiracy for committing, the various offences like criminal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 12 of 274
breach of trust by a public servant by missing / destruction / tampering /
obliterating and spreading the ink over the documents which are vital for
the trial of the case to give advantage to accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal
and H. S. Panwar during the trial of the above mentioned case, which was
being tried in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld ASJ, PHC, New Delhi.
You, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the capacity of the
Government servant entrusted with the judicial record and having
dominion over the file and documents of the above mentioned case had
committed an act of criminal breach of trust regarding those documents.
Thereby all the accused aimed at causing, disappearance of evidence of
offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 10 years, or
giving false information to screen the offender of the above mentioned case,
Accused P. P. Batra acted as connecting link between Gopal Ansal, Sushil
Ansal, H. S. Panwar and Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He remained in
constant touch with Dinesh Chandra Sharma on his mobile phone and land
line phone installed in the office of Ansal Properties and Industries
Limited. Through accused P. P. Batra, Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H. S.
Panwar remained in touch with accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma for the
execution of the said agreement to commit various offences.
In pursuance to the said agreement after the dismissal from
the job accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was provided a job through P. P.
Batra on the directions of Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal with A Plus
Security Agencies. D. V. Malhotra who was the General Manager of SEML
actively participated and paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the A
Plus Securities Agencies for paying salary to the Dinesh Chandra Sharma
for the work he has done for the accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.
S. Panwar. Anoop Singh, the Chairman of A Plus Securities Agencies
employed him secretly and paid him salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month more
than the existing rate of salary and also tamper with the data showing
Dinesh Chandra Sharma as employee in the said firm by applying fluid on
the record of A Plus Securities Agencies over the name of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma and the amount paid to him. Over this fluid the name of
other employee was mentioned. All this was done to keep the conspiracy
secret and out of the reach of the investigation agency. Thereby, all of you
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 13 of 274
in furtherance of your common intention in pursuance of said agreement
committed an offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and within my cognizance.
Secondly, in furtherance of the above mentioned criminal
conspiracy accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma who was entrusted with the
having dominion over the case file of case no. RC No. 3/97/SIC IV/New
Delhi on 15.11.1997 in his capacity as a public servant Ahlmad of court
committed criminal breach of trust by destructing / missing / tampering /
obliterating / spreading over the ink on the documents of the said case file
so entrusted to him and thereby all of you have committed an offence
punishable u/s 409 IPC r/s Section 120B IPC.
Thirdly, in furtherance of above mentioned agreement of
criminal conspiracy Dinesh Chandra Sharma, knowingly or having reasons
to believe that in the said case offence alleged against the accused Sushil
Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H. S. Panwar is an offence punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years and caused the evidence
connecting with the said offence to disappear / missing / tampering /
obliterating / spreading over the ink over the documents or knowingly gave
false information with the intention to screen the offender Sushil Ansal,
Gopal Ansal and H. S. Panwar from legal punishment and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s 201 IPC r/w 120B IPC and within my
cognizance.
Fourthly, during the above mentioned period you Sushil
Ansal, Gopal Ansal, H. S. Panwar, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, P. P. Batra, D.
V. Malhotra and Anoop Singh abetted in the above mentioned manner of
commission of the offence falling u/s 409/201 IPC by accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 109
IPC r/w Section 120B IPC and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct you all be tried by this court on the
above mentioned offences.
All the accused persons pleaded not guilty for the charges
and claim trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
In Prosecution Evidence 43 witnesses were examined :
12. PW-1 Sanjay Singh Tomar was examined who was
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 14 of 274
Divisional Officer, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Station, Shankar Road, New
Delhi. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he has seen the seizure
memo dated 02.08.1997 by which certain record of Delhi Fire Service
(HQ), Connaught Lane, New Delhi was seized. On that day, he was
working there as Sub-Officer and record was seized in connection with
RC3 (S)/97/SIC.IV, New Delhi. As per seizure memo, Nine OB registers of
Bhikaji Cama Place, Fire Station and Safdarjung Fire Station were handed
over to CBI. That day, he had seen bunch of documents running into page
nos. 1 to 400 in which page nos. 95 to 104 were missing. Page nos. 109 to
116 cannot be read because of being ill-legible. When he handed over the
register the pages which are found missing were existing in the record and
ill-legible pages were legible. The bunch of documents from 1 to 400
(missing page no. 95 to 104) is marked as Mark PW1/A (Colly.). These
documents are marked since the original of the same are stated to be lying
in Hon’ble Supreme Court as submitted by Ld. SPP and at the time of
arguments on charge IO obtained the copy as per procedure being adopted
in Hon’ble Supreme Court for providing such copies.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
D.V. Malhotra, Sanjay Tomar has stated that he was posted temporarily at
Bhikaji Cama Place Fire Station for a period of 15 days in the year 1993.
The register Mark PW-1/A is maintained by the operational staff. The
witness denied the manner in which the operational register Mark PW1/A
was requisitioned and said that it was handed over to him by his senior and
he does not know his name. He further stated that no written order was
received by him from any of his superior Officer to carry the files to CBI
office from the Office of Delhi Fire Service HQ. He voluntarily stated that
he did not carry any file to CBI Office rather the files mentioned in Ex.
PW1/A were seized in the Office of Delhi Fire Services by the CBI officers.
He further stated that no list was given to him by CBI specifying the files
required to be seized by them, however, the list was given to the
department. He again stated that the requisition might not have been in the
form of list rather it may be general requisition. He denied the suggestion
that he was not present when the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A was drawn by
the CBI officer. He further denied the suggestion that he was merely called
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 15 of 274
by the CBI officer and his name was filled in the column “from whom
seized and where” and was made to sign on the page 2. The witness stated
that the documents were handed over in the Office of Delhi Fire Service
Headquarter and not in the Office of CBI as mentioned in the seizure
memo.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
H.S. Panwar, PW1 stated that he cannot tell the exact date when he came
to know that some pages are missing or are illegible. He also stated that he
cannot tell even the month and year. He volunteered that he came to know
of this fact in the court of Smt. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ. He also
volunteered that he came to know of this through CBI Counsel who showed
him certain documents in the Court. The witness stated that he had not
counted but certain number of pages were missing. He also stated that he
was not asked to count but only asked to verify whether the pages which
have been torn off from the documents were earlier present at the time in
the record when he handed over the same to CBI. The witness stated that
police officer did not record his statement.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, PW1 stated that he did not know the IO of the case and he
has come to depose in around 2003, he met with the IO of the case. The
witness replied to the Court question that IO seized seven registers. The
witness stated that he cannot tell the year in which these seven registers
pertained, however, these registers pertained to period before 1997. They
pertained to period between 1990 to 1997. He further stated that he deposed
that he submitted seven registers, however, same was without seeing the
seizure memo and he was not knowing the exact number, therefore, there is
a difference. He further stated that the register pertains to the year 1994 to
1997 but earlier stated to period 1990 to 1997. He denied the suggestion
that he lied about it or he is shifting stand. He stated that he did not put
initials on the registers while handing over the same but he counted the
pages. He stated that he did not know whether the IO put his initials on the
register while taking over the registers from him. He stated that no page
numbering was done on the registers by him, however, there was paging
existing already. The witness denied knowledge about its pagination. The
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 16 of 274
witness stated that this record was seized from him by Sub- Inspector of
CBI and at that time, his statement was recorded at the CBI, Headquarter.
The witness stated that his statement was recorded at the CBI Headquarter
whereas the documents were seized at his office and as such there is no
contradiction. The witness denied the suggestion that he is shifting his stand
on his lies being caught as earlier he has stated that his statement was
recorded at the time of seizure. The witness stated that he did not know
where are these original registers. These registers were called to the
Headquarter from the Station which it belonged to. The witness further
stated that these registers with General Office of Staff as generally other
office record is kept. He denied about the exact name of the staff who
handed over it to him. He further stated that no memo was prepared when
he took these registers from the staff. He stated that he checked the pages
when he took the registers from the staff. He further stated that he checked
these registers and all pages while receiving these registers from the staff.
He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately withholding the name of the
staff so as to prevent his lies from being exposed. He stated that he cannot
say whether in the instant case when records move from station to Head
Office whether any such entry was made. He volunteered that the record
was not received by him directly and no entry was made in Office
Movement Register when he took charge of these register. He also
volunteered that the registers were called from the office and handed over
directly to the CBI under seizure memo. He could not tell the time he
received these registers in the Head Office and handing over to CBI. He
stated that while handing over these registers to CBI, proper seizure memo
was obtained and the copy of the same was submitted in the Office. He
further stated that he gave copy of this seizure memo to his senior ADO Mr.
A. K. Bhatnagar. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately
withholding the relevant facts. The witness denied the suggestion that
neither while receiving nor while handing over to CBI, he counted the
pages. He further denied the suggestion that while receiving nor while
giving to CBI he checked whether all pages were legible. He stated that in
one of the bunches pages were 1 to 400, however, he did not remember
about other bunches. He denied the fact that he refers to any of his notes
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 17 of 274
while giving the page number during examination-in-chief. He stated that
he was having copy of the seizure memo vide which he had submitted all
these registers to CBI. He further stated that these missing pages and
illegible pages, he deposed from the seizure memo Ex. PW1/A. He denied
the fact that he is deposing falsely as no such page numbers of missing and
illegible pages are mentioned in the seizure memo. He further stated that he
did not remember the record mark PW1/D is the same file and the bunch of
documents contained in the same file shown to him while recording his
examination-in-chief. The witness denied the suggestion that said page is
perfectly legible and he is deposing falsely on oath and same is the reply in
respect of pages 110 to 116. He denied the suggestion that his examinationin-
chief was result of tutoring.
Accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma and P.P.
Batra were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, he stated that he had not countersigned the pages of the
register. He again stated that he did not remember if he had put his
signature on those pages. He affirmed that he is not the author or scribe of
Mark PW1/A. He volunteered that it was belonging to some other fire
station. He stated that he had not paginated the register in question. He
affirmed that he did not have any personal knowledge about the facts of this
case. He further stated that he had not filed any complaint with any
authority in the context of the register which was seized by the CBI. He
affirmed that he had been examined by the CBI only in the year 1997 and
not thereafter. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that he had become a
witness in the present case on the pressure of investigating agency.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-1 :
1 D-91 SEIZURE MEMO DATED 02.08.1997
of 9 OB REGISTERS OF BHIKAJI CAMA
PLACE & SAFDARJUNG FIRE STATIONS
Ex PW 1/A
13. PW-2 Mr. Y. K. Saxena was examined. In his examination-
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 18 of 274
in- chief, he deposed that he was Special Public Prosecutor, CBI in case
bearing no. RC-3/97/SIC-IV,CBI, New Delhi and stated that in the present
case, some documents were not traceable. He stated that he had noticed
some documents were either removed, tampered with by sprinkling blue ink
on the pages of some of the documents and some of the documents were
torn. He stated that he had moved a petition before the Ld. Trial Court of
Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ, Delhi. He stated that upon perusal of the
petition, Ld. ASJ had ordered for inquiry. He stated that he had seen
certified copy of the petition moved by him in his handwriting dated
20.01.2003 as Special P.P, CBI, New Delhi, the said certified copy of the
petition were running in two pages Ex.PW-2/A containing the details of
such torn, missing or tampered with putting ink therein at Sr. No. 1 to 9.
He stated that he had the copy of application bearing the noting of Ld. ASJ
with the remark of “Ahlmad to report by 21.01.2003”. He stated that no
other application was moved to bring the said fact by him.
The cross-examination of this witness could not take place due to his
demise.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-2 :
1 COPY OF PETITION 20.01.2006 MOVED
BY Spl.PP IN THE MAIN UPHAAR CASE
Ex PW 2/A
14. PW-3 Mukesh Chander Khullar was examined. In his
examination-in-chief, he stated that he was posted as Assistant Manager in
Punjab National Bank, Rajender Nagar (Fire Station Branch), New Delhi.
He stated that on the instructions of the Senior Manager of the Bank, he
went to the Office of CBI and handed over a cheque of Rs. 50 lakhs issued
in the current account of Green Park Theater Association Pvt. Ltd. He stated
that he did not know who was the authorized signatory of the said cheque
but it was issued in favour of Sushil Ansal. He stated that the said cheque
was taken over by the CBI officer through a seizure memo and he had also
put his signatures. The certified copy of the cheque is Ex. PW-3/A, seizure
memo Ex. PW-3/B. He stated that he had retained a copy of the said
cheque before handing over to the CBI officer which is Ex. PW-3/C. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 19 of 274
stated that in his examination-in-chief, the original cheque was not shown
to him.
PW-3 was cross-examined by accused P. P. Batra. In his
cross-examination, he stated that prior to this statement he had given his
statement in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal.
The opportunity of cross-examination of this witness was
afforded to accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Gopal
Ansal and Sushil Ansal. However, no cross examination was conducted.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-3 :
1 D-24, CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF CHEQUE
OF Rs 50 LACS SIGNED BY SUSHIL ANSAL
Ex PW 3/A
2 D-24, CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
SEIZURE MEMO Dt 27.08.1997 OF CHEQUE
OF Rs 50 LACS SIGNED BY SUSHIL ANSAL
DRAWN ON PNB
Ex PW3/B
15. PW-4 Jagannath was examined. In his examination-inchief,
he stated that he was posted as Stenographer in the court of Smt.
Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi. He
stated that earlier he was posted as Stenographer in the court of Sh. L. D.
Malik, the then Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Court and after he proceeded to
deputation, Smt. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ had taken over the
charge. He stated that at that time, Sh. Gajraj Singh was the Ahlmad posted
in the court of Sh. L. D. Malik, Ld. ASJ and the case files were in the
custody of Sh. Gajraj Singh, Ahlmad. He stated that after transfer of Sh.
Gajraj Singh, Ahlmad, Sh. Sunil Nautiyal had joined as Ahlmad and after
transfer of Sh. Sunil Nautiyal, Ahlmad, Dinesh Chandra Sharma had joined
as Ahlmad in the court of Smt. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He stated
that he was aware that Uphaar tragedy case is pending in that Court and
said case file was being kept by Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Ahlmad. He
stated that he came to know while recording of his evidence that some
documents were found missing from that file and upon this, notice was
issued to Dinesh Chandra Sharma to trace out those missing documents.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 20 of 274
He stated that thereafter he got transferred from the Court of Smt. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ and he was not aware about the fate of the inquiry.
PW-4 had identified Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
PW-4 was cross-examined on behalf of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. In his cross-examination he stated that he had joined as
Stenographer in the year 1973. He did not tell the date of his joining as
Stenographer in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He
stated that as per his memory, he was transferred from that Court in the year
2005 or 2006. He worked as Stenographer in the Court of Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ for about 3 – 4 years. He could not remember the
total number of staff with designation posted in the Court of Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ at that time. He stated that there might be 5-6
staff members in number. He did not remember about number of cases
pending in that Court at that time. He stated that Ahlmad room and Court
room was on same floor and the distance between the said two rooms were
5 to 10 yards. He did not remember the date when Sh. L. D. Malik, the
then Ld ASJ was transferred nor he remember when Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the
then Ld. ASJ had taken over the charge of that Court. He did not remember
the date when Mr. Nautiyal had joined the said Court or transferred to the
said Court. He did not remember the date when Mr. Gajraj Singh had
joined the said Court as Ahlmad or transferred to the said Court. He did not
remember the date when Dinesh Chandra Sharma had joined the said Court
and taken over the charge of the Ahlmad of that Court. He could not tell
the number of pages and volumes of the case file of Uphaar Tragedy case.
He could not tell during whose examination, it transpired that documents
were missing of the said case. He could tell how the files come in the Court
room on their date of hearing. He stated that he was not part of the
departmental inquiry conducted against the accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. He did not know about the number of pages and the nature of
documents found missing in the Uphaar Tragedy case. He stated that he
was called to join investigation in the present case only once. He could not
tell when he was called to join investigation, the day, date or time. He stated
that IO did not make any inquiry from him regarding any documents. He
stated that as per his memory, some documents were found later on. He did
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 21 of 274
not know about the re-construction of the missing documents. He denied
the suggestion that he was not aware about the facts of the case.
PW-4 was cross-examined on behalf of accused P. P.
Batra. He stated in his cross-examination that he could recognize some of
the accused who were charge-sheeted in the case. The witness was recalled
for further cross-examination upon application under section 311 Cr. P.C.
He stated that his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C was recorded by the
IO in the present case. He did not remember the date nor the name of the
IO. He could not tell whether it was recorded by Sh. Amit Roy, ACP or his
Assistant. He stated that he did not know about Chiranjiv Bharti School,
Palam Vihar, Gurgaon (Haryana). He did not have any idea if any of his
relative or acquaintance was given an employment in the said school while
he was serving as Steno in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ
during the pendency of trial of main Uphaar case. He denied the suggestion
that name of the relative / acquaintance is Mr. Thakur who got the said job
in the said School. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely
on this line. He denied the suggestion that only on his disclosure qua the
said fact investigation was carried out by the IO at Chiranjiv Bharti School,
Palam Vihar Gurgaon. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately
concealing this fact in order to cover up the lapses / illegalities committed
by him during his tenure as Steno in the Court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the
then Ld. ASJ.
PW-4 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Gopal
Ansal. In his cross-examination, he stated that whenever the case was
fixed for hearing, Reader of the Court used to receive the file from the
Ahlmad. Cause list was prepared one day before and date of hearing and
files were handed over to the Reader in the evening of the previous day to
the Reader of the Court. After completion of proceedings, all files were sent
back to Ahlmad probably in the evening or next date of hearing. He stated
that during the intervening period, file remain with the Reader. He did not
know when the evidences were recorded, the files remains with the Ld. PP
and who was In-charge of the case for conducting prosecution. He stated
that he did not remember who assisted the Ld. PP during evidence of any
witness. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately giving evasive
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 22 of 274
answers. He identified the complainant, however, he could not tell her
name. He stated that lunch time of the Court is from 01.30 p.m to 2.00 p.m.
He stated that during the lunch time, the files remain with the Reader and
kept in open Court. He affirmed that during that period, the files were not
kept under the lock. He stated that most of the time, Peon used to carry
files from Reader to Ahlmad and from Ahlmad to Reader. He stated that he
cannot tell whether file was inspected by the parties. He stated that when
Steno types the order during that period, file remains with Steno for typing
the orders and after typing the order by the Steno, Peon used to place the
file for signing before the Ld. Judge. He could not tell whether the file sent
for signature of the Ld. Judge remained on the table during the absence of
Ld. Judge. He could not tell whether the file of main Uphaar case was
accessed by the Naib Court for preparation of the summons. He stated that
during lunch time, Court room remained open, Advocates and litigants used
to come in the Court. There was one Assistant Ahlmad to assist the
Ahlmad. He did not know whether file was also accessed by Assistant
Ahlmad. He did not know the roles and duties of Court staff. He denied
the suggestion that he was giving evasive answers deliberately. He stated
that when Ahlmad used to be on leave, the responsibility of handling files
lies with Assistant Alhmad. He did not know whose responsibility was it to
take care of the file in the absence of Ahlmad and Assistant Ahlmad. He
stated that the charge of the files were never handed over to any of the
Ahlmad in his presence. He stated that some documents were missing from
the file of Uphaar tragedy which he heard from Ld. PP of the Uphaar case
and he had not checked the Uphaar case personally about the missing
documents. He stated that he never checked the documents of the Uphaar
chase during his entire tenure in the said Court. He did not know whether
10 days notice was given to the Ahlmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma in writing
or orally. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief at the instance of the prosecution.
Opportunity to cross-examination of PW-4 was granted to
accused Sushil Ansal and Anoop Singh, however, no cross-examination
was conducted.
16. PW-5 Usha Gogia, Branch In-charge (Vigilance Branch) Tis
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 23 of 274
Hazari Court, Delhi was examined. She stated in her examination-in-chief
that she had brought the original order dated 25.06.2004 passed by Sh. J. P.
Singh, the then Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. Certified copy of the
same is marked as Ex. PW-5/A. She stated that he had also brought the
original departmental inquiry report dated 30.04.2004 prepared by Sh. S. C.
Malik, Inquiry Officer and the then Ld Addl. District & Sessions Judge.
Certified copy of the same is marked as Ex PW-5/C. She stated that the
said documents were pertains to Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the then Ahlmad.
In her cross-examination on behalf of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma, she stated that she had never been associated with the
department inquiry proceedings conducted with respect to Dinesh Chandra
Sharma and she had no personal knowledge of the present case.
Opportunity to cross-examination of PW-5 was granted to
accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, Anoop Singh and P. P. Batra,
however, no cross examination was conducted.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-5 :
1 ORDER Dt. 25. 06.2004 OF LD. DISTT.
& SESSIONS JUDGE (J.P. SINGH)
Ex PW 5/A
2 DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY DATED
30.04.2004,(LD. ASJ S.C. MALIK)
Ex PW 5/B
3 ENQUIRY REPORT(FACT FINDING
REPORT), DTD. 03.04.2003 BY LD. ASJ
MAMTA SEHGAL
Ex PW 5/C
17. PW-6 Shyam Lal, (Senior Assistant) Retired was examined.
He stated in his examination-in-chief that he had worked as Ahlmad in the
court of Sh. Brijesh Sethi, the then Ld. MM, Patiala House Court and the
charge-sheet of the present case was filed on 15.11.1997. He stated that the
said case was committed to the Court of Sh. L. D. Malik, the then Ld ASJ.
He stated that before committal of the present case, he had checked the list
of documents including charge-sheet, seizure memo etc. and found all
documents intact. He stated that neither any document was missing nor ink
was found sprinkled on any documents nor any document was torn. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 24 of 274
stated that he had handed over the case file complete in all respect to Sh.
Gajraj Singh, Ahlmad in the court of Sh L. D. Malik, the then Ld ASJ.
PW-6 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was already
working in the court of Ld. MM before joining the court of Ld. Presiding
Officer Sh. Brijesh Sethi. He did not remember the date when he joined the
Court but joined as Ahlmad. After promotion, he was transferred to Bail
Branch and same was probably in the month of August, 2004. He stated that
the court of Ld. MM Sh. Brijesh Sethi was either Court no. 20 or 25 but it
was on the corner of First Floor. The chair and table on the Ahlmad was
itself in the Court room. He could not tell the size of the Court room. He
received the case file of Uphaar case in the Court room itself but he did not
remember the exact date. The record of the case was used to be kept in the
Court room. He was called by police at HQ somewhere situated in New
Delhi. He joined investigation only once but he did not remember the date.
At the time of his joining in the investigation, IO, DCP and one Inspector
were present. He said that the IO of the case was probably Inspector. He
stated that one Steno, one Reader, one Peon, one Naib Court apart from Ld.
Presiding Officer were posted at the time of filing of the charge-sheet of
main Uphaar case. He stated that he had not taken any assistance from the
Assistant Ahlmad posted at that time in that Court. He did not remember
the total number of pages of that case. He stated that the whole day was
spent in scrutinizing of the documents of the said case and on that day, he
had no other work to do and other work was done by Assistant Ahlmad
whose name he could not remember. He stated that in the absence of
Reader on account of leave, the work was looked upon by either Assistant
Ahlmad or Ahlmad. He stated that he took so many leaves between the
period from filing of the charge-sheet till its committal. He stated that IO
had filed only the original case file of that case. He stated that he did not
check the charge-sheet after returning from leave. He did not know when
the copy of charge-sheet and its documents were provided to accused
persons in the Court. He could not say about any application being filed by
any of the accused for supply of the deficient copies of documents saying
that it was not part of his job. He stated that he prepared the index of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 25 of 274
documents and charge-sheet and handed over the same to Gajraj Singh in
his Court and he had checked the documents. He handed over the said case
file after the order of committal of the Court. He did obtain the receipt of
handing over the said case file. He stated that the court of Sh Brijesh Sethi,
the then Ld. MM was not shifted during the period of filing the chargesheet
till its committal. He stated that he was alone when his statement was
recorded in the present case by the police. He could not remember as how
many leaves he had taken during the said period. He affirmed that case file
of main Uphaar case contained voluminous documents. He affirmed that
when the matter was used to be called out for hearing, accused persons,
complainant, IO used to appear in Court but they did not not use to come to
him. He stated that department inquiry was also conducted against him in
respect of some other case but he was not found guilty. He stated that he
received the entire case file on the same day. He denied the suggestion that
he had not received the entire case file on the same day or he himself had
paginated the case file before handing over to Mr. Gajraj Singh. He stated
that he had also prepared list of documents of the case and handed over to
Mr. Gajraj Singh. He stated that IO had not prepared any seizure memo
with respect to receipt of charge sheet by him and handing over the same to
Mr. Gajraj Singh. IO also not taken the copy of index prepared by him qua
the said case. He used to keep the charge-sheet in the almirah kept in that
room. He stated that there were 12- 13 almirah in that room with one key
each. The case files listed for the next day were to be handed over to the
Reader by him or Assistant Ahlmad or Peon. The Reader used to keep the
files in the almirah and he was having one almirah at that time. He stated
that he did not know how Reader used to place the files of next date of
hearing. He affirmed that he was promoted from Ahlmad to Reader. He
stated that after Court hours, Court room was locked by the watchman who
used to lock the Court room. He knew about department inquiry being
conducted by accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma regarding the present case.
He stated that he was also summoned in the inquiry only once. He could
not tell the name of the inquiry officer and the conclusion of the inquiry.
He denied the suggestion that he had not counted the pages of the chargesheet
filed by the IO at the time of receiving. He denied the suggestion that
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 26 of 274
he had not checked the paper of charge-sheet or he had received the same in
routine manner nor he kept the charge-sheet in proper manner. He denied
the suggestion that he had handed over the case file to Mr. Gajraj Singh in
routine manner without verifying / checking the file or that Mr. Gajraj
Singh had also received the file in routine manner. He denied the
suggestion that he had deposed falsely at the instance of the prosecution
and accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma has been falsely implicated. He
stated that he cannot tell the colour, size and the number of the bag. He
could tell the number of pages as well as documents inside each bag. The
bags were not sealed. The charge-sheet had been paginated by the IO. He
affirmed that he has no knowledge about total pages of charge-sheet and
documents. Mr. Gajraj Singh checked the documents of charge-sheet and
took one and half hour.
PW-6 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Sushil
Ansal. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no personal
knowledge about the present case. He had not handed over any document
pertaining to this case to the IO during investigation. He was never
involved in the present case. The room where Ld. Presiding Officer used to
hold Court comprised of even Ahlmad room in one corner. The files used
to be kept within the same room where the Court used to be presided over
and the Ahlmad and Assistant Ahlmad during his tenure apart from litigants
used to remain there within. He volunteered that litigants did not use to sit
with him. The litigants and their respective counsels very often used to
come and meet him and would make inquiries regarding the pending cases.
He stated that they would often conduct inspection of the case records after
filing inspection applications. He affirmed that very often Investigating
Officer / police personnel related to the cases pending in the said Court
used to make inquiries from him. He did not know if the Investigating
Officer / police personnel who used to come for their respective cases used
to have discussion with the Ld. Prosecutor or not. He did not know whether
the Prosecutor used to have discussion with the police personnel / IO along
with Court file. He stated that at the time when Court file used to be
perused by Ld. Prosecutor or the Investigating Officer / police personnel,
they never used to take permission from him for inspecting the files.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 27 of 274
PW-6 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Gopal
Ansal. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the charge-sheet filed in
the Uphaar case was first put before the Ld. MM and then on the directions
of the Ld. MM, he received the charge-sheet and checked it. The chargesheet
was not sealed and was in loose form. The documents along with
charge-sheet were in plastic bags (bora). He could not tell as how many
bags containing documents were handed over to him. He did not open the
said plastic bag and boras and handed over the same as it is to the Ahlmad
of Ld. ASJ were the case was committed. The boras were not sealed and he
had seen it and same were containing maps etc. He used to come in the
Court room around 09.45 a.m or 10 a.m. He stated that when he used to
come to Court room, he used to find the same opened. He had checked the
charge-sheet on the same day when it was filed. When it was revealed that
some documents of Uphaar tragedy case was missing he was also called in
the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ for query. Police did not visit him
for inquiry in the Court. Police gave him a notice to join inquiry. He denied
the suggestion that he is deposing at the instance of the prosecution to avoid
his prosecution as accused in the said case. He stated that the bags were
also kept in the Court room in the open space and not in the almirah. He
could not tell as to how many leaves he availed during the period from
received the charge-sheet till handing over the same to the court of Ld. ASJ.
In his absence, it was the duty of the Assistant Ahlmad to look after his
work and he had all access to the files. He stated that whenever any
application for obtaining certified copies of any case was filed, the
concerned file was sent to concerned Copy Branch. He stated that after
files were received from Copying Agency, he used to check all pages of the
files. He could not tell as to whether Uphaar Tragedy case file was ever sent
to Copying Agency or not. He stated that files and documents were handed
over to the Ahlmad of Ld. Sessions Judge by him.
Ld. Special Prosecutor re-examined PW-6 after due
permission and in re-examination, PW-6 stated that he had checked the
entire records including the bags before handing over the same to Mr.
Gajraj Singh. He also stated that the bags contained documents like seizure
memo and maps and volunteered that when he handed over the documents
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 28 of 274
he had checked all the documents and had received the same.
PW-6 was again cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
accused Gopal Ansal and he stated that he cannot tell as how many bags
were there but more than one. He stated that bags were already opened
when the same were handed over to Mr. Gajraj Singh and seen by him. He
could not tell how many number of papers / documents were handed over to
Mr. Gajraj Singh. He remained in the room of Mr. Gajraj Singh around one
and half hour at the time of handing over the documents. He denied the
suggestion that documents along with charge-sheet were checked by
Ahlmad Mr. Gajraj Singh from handing over memo and same were checked
from the list of documents with the charge-sheet. He denied the suggestion
that each and every documents was not checked or he deposed falsely in reexamination.
He stated that he has experience of 20 years of working as
Ahlmad. He stated that when the case is listed files comes to the Court
room from Ahlmad room and thereafter, Ahlmad has no control over the
file until the files received back. What happens in the Court room with the
files, Ahlmad has no control. He stated that in the Court, the prosecution
files goes in the hands of the Ld. Judges, goes to the hands of prosecutor,
goes to the hands of witness and to the IO. He stated that when the files
come back from the court to the Ahlmad, he used to check only the order
sheet and it was not possible to check whether all pages of all the files have
come back intact. When inspection is allowed by Court, the files are handed
over to Court clerks and lawyers also by the Ahlmad and again it is not
possible to check whether the files are intact. He stated that there were
multiple files along with the charge-sheet and he could not tell the numbers
whether it was 10, 20, or 200. He stated that even if PP requires inspection,
he would also come to Ahlmad. He could not tell as how many times who
inspected the files despite various inspections were done. He could not tell
as how many times the files went to Copying Agency Branch. He stated
that when certified copies were asked, he used to pull out the required
pages and sent those pages to Copying Agency Branch. The files are also
sent to Ld. Sessions Court and they are checked pagewise when they are
received back, however, no report is prepared as same is done through
index and complete files are checked. Main Uphaar case file was not sent to
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 29 of 274
Ld. Sessions Court during his tenure as Ahlmad. In his absence, Assistant
Ahlmad has dealt with the file and he never checked the file after coming
back. Index was prepared at the time of sending over along with pages and
same would be available in Ld. Sessions Court. He took acknowledgment
of receipt from Mr. Gajraj Singh and said “woh receiving to pata nahi kaha
ki kaha hogi”. He did not remember whether he signed his statement given
to IO and IO did not ask him about the index of file. He stated that it was
the duty of Mr. Gajraj Singh to each and every page of file at the time of
receiving.
PW-6 was cross-examined on behalf of accused Sushil
Ansal wherein he denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief and re-examination.
Opportunity to cross-examination of PW-6 was granted to
accused Anoop Singh and P. P. Batra, however, no cross-examination was
conducted.
18. PW7 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Judicial Assistant
(Administrative Branch-II) (Personal File), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi was
examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that he had brought the
summoned record i.e. personal files of Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Gajraj
Singh and Sunil Nautiyal containing the original of appointment letter of
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, joining letter of Dinesh Chandra Sharma, charge
report prepared by Sunil Kumar Nautiyal for handing over the pending case
file of the documents to Dinesh Chandra Sharma containing 10 pages,
joining report of Dinesh Chandra Sharma dated 30.04.2001, handing over
charge / relinquish report by him to his successor Dinesh Chandra Sharma
on 22.05.2001 and handing over / relinquish report dated 01.05.2000 by
then Ahlmad Gajraj Singh in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld.
ASJ. He stated that the photocopies of the said documents are already on
record and the appointment letter of Dinesh Chandra Sharma is marked as
Ex. PW-7/A (OSR), joining letter of Dinesh Chandra Sharma as Ex. PW-
7/B (OSR), charge report prepared by Sunil Kumar Nautiyal for handing
over the pending case files of documents to Dinesh Chandra Sharma
containing 10 pages as Ex. PW-7/C (Colly.) (OSR), joining letter of
Dinesh Chandra Sharma dated 30.04.2001 as Ex. PW-7/D (OSR), handing
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 30 of 274
over charge / relinquish report by Sunil Kumar Nautiyal to Dinesh Chandra
Sharma dated 22.05.2001 as Ex.PW-7/E(OSR), handing over /
relinquishment report dated 01.05.2000 of Gajraj Singh as Ex.PW-
7/F(OSR). He stated that personal file of Dinesh Chandra Sharma also
contains the original dismissal order dated 25.06.2004 and same is already
exhibited as Ex.PW5/A.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he does not have any
personal knowledge of the charge report and of departmental inquiry
conducted upon accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
Accused Sushil Ansal had adopted the cross-examination
done on behalf of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that none of the documents brought by him
have not been prepared or signed in his presence.
Opportunity for cross-examination of PW7 was granted to
accused Anoop Singh and P.P. Batra but no cross-examination was
conducted by them.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-7 :-
1 APPOINTMENT LETTER OF DC
SHARMA, AHLMAD
Ex PW 7/A
2 JOINING LETTER OF DC SHARMA,
AHLMAD
Ex PW 7/B
3 CHARGE REPORT PREPARED BY
S.K. NAUTIYAL, AHLMAD
Ex PW 7/C
(COLLY)
4 JOINING REPORT 30.04.2001, OF
D.C. SHARMA AHLMAD
Ex PW 7/D
5 HANDING
OVER/RELINQUISHMENT REPORT
22.05.2001 BY S.K. NAUTIYAL TO
DINESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Ex PW 7/E
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 31 of 274
6 HANDING OVER /
RELINQUISHMENT REPORT
01.05.2000 BY GAJRAJ SINGH
AHLMAD
Ex PW 7/F
19. PW8 Sh. Sunil Kumar Nautiyal, Sr. Judicial Assistant /
Reader was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year
2000, he had worked as Ahlmad in the court of Sh. J. P. Narayan, the then
Ld. MM, Patiala House Court, and then he was transferred to the court of
Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Court, New Delhi and
on 27.04.2000, he took charge of files along with documents pertaining to
the cases pending in that Court from the concerned Ahlmad Gajraj Singh.
He joined the said Court on 27.04.2000. He stated that on 27.04.2001,
pursuant to the order of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, he was transferred to
the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM/PHC and thereafter, handed
over the complete charge of all the cases including documents to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma, his successor. He prepared the complete list of said
pending case files along with their documents and registers maintained at
that time and handed over the same to his successor Ahlmad Dinesh
Chandra Sharma alongwith files and documents and the said list is already
exhibited as Ex.PW7/C. The said files, documents and registers were duly
received by Dinesh Chandra Sharma who appended his signatures on list
Ex.PW7/C at point A. The files which were pending with Sh. R. S. Verma,
the then Reader of the Court was also received by him (Dinesh Chandra
Sharma) and he put his signatures on the said list Ex.PW7/C in his
presence. He handed over the said list and the case files, documents and
registers alongwith handing over charge / relinquishment report Ex.PW7/E.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma had checked all the files and matched the same
with the said list. He stated that the case file pertaining to Uphaar Tragedy
bearing RC no.3(S)/97 State Vs. Sushil Ansal etc. was also included in the
files as mentioned as Ex.PW7/C which were handed over by him to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. He had also checked the page numbers of the files and
documents and there were no shortcoming in the files and documents. He
volunteered that all the files and documents, each of the files with
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 32 of 274
documents were got checked by Dinesh Chandra Sharma and all the files
and documents were duly paginated and were intact and no document was
torn and the documents were in proper order and tidy condition and none of
them were smeared. He stated that the file containing order sheet of the said
case used to remain in the custody of Stenographer as the matter was tried
on day to day basis and orders were to be passed on daily basis. He stated
that he got this file (Main Uphaar case) checked by Dinesh Chandra
Sharma in the presence of the then Stenographer Sh. Jagan Nath and this
fact was also in the knowledge of the Reader of the Court. He stated that
after his relieving from the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ,
he along with Gajraj Singh were called by Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then
Ld. ASJ number of times during the period from December, 2002 to
January, 2003 on account of missing documents and whenever they went to
the Court Dinesh Chandra Sharma used to be present there but avoided
them and would go out of the Court on one and other pretext and never
returned in their presence. He stated that he visited number of times to the
Court and brought this fact into knowledge of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then
Ld. ASJ and complaint about the conduct of Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He
stated that he along with Gajraj Singh and Shyam Lal had joined the
departmental proceedings conducted against Dinesh Chandra Sharma by
Sh. S.C. Malik, the then Ld. ASJ, Patiala House Court. After registration of
this case, he joined investigation and IO recorded his statement. He stated
that he did not know what sort of documents were missing from file and
Dinesh Chandra Sharma never helped him to locate the missing documents.
Opportunity for cross-examination of PW8 was granted to
accused Anoop Singh but no cross-examination was conducted by him.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, he affirmed that while preparing the list Ex.PW7/C (Colly.),
he had not mentioned the number of pages that every file contained and he
denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in his examination-inchief.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P. P. Batra, he affirmed that once he had or once any Ahlmad hand over
charge of his office to his successor, he ceases to be the custodian of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 33 of 274
files. He stated that as per his recollection, he handed over the charge of the
case file in question to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma on 03.05.2001. He
affirmed that post that date i.e. 03.05.2001, he was not the custodian of the
files. He affirmed that some papers i.e. bail bonds of different cases as
mentioned in his list of charge were handed over by him on 22.05.2001. He
volunteered stated that he had brought the fact of handing over the charge
of this case to Ahlmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the notice to Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ and she in turn inquired from Dinesh Chandra
Sharma whether he received the complete charge and he confirmed the
same to Ld. Presiding Officer. He affirmed that as per Ex.PW7/D Mr.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma had joined his duty as Ahlmad in the court of Ms.
Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ on 30.04.2001 (afternoon). He affirmed
that he (Dinesh Chandra Sharma) had taken over the files/ documents on
03.05.2001. He denied the suggestion that between 03.05.2001 and
22.05.2001, he had ideally no right to be in control of any files/ documents.
He denied the suggestion that he had given false explanation on this point
during his volunteer part in the preceding part of the cross-examination. He
further denied that due to this reason, there is no documentary evidence to
support the portion deposed by him in the volunteer part. He further
denied the suggestion that he was in illegal custody of files/ documents
even after having parted with the charge as Ahlmad of the court of Ms.
Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He volunteered that on 03.05.2001, he
had handed over the charge to Dinesh Chandra Sharma and he could not
remember the dates when he had handed over the files apart from the file of
Uphaar case which were in the custody of the then Reader Sh. R.S. Verma
to Dinesh Chandra Sharma and a separate list was prepared in that regard.
He denied the suggestion that during the Court hours when the proceedings
of the case used to be conducted, the custody of the file used to be with the
Naib Court of the Central Bureau of Investigation. He denied the
suggestion that in case the inspection of the case file was allowed by the
Hon’ble Court, the Naib Court of CBI as well as the Ahlmad used to be
present during this time. He further stated that as and when inspection was
allowed, he used to get it conducted in the Court if the file used to be there
in the Court or in the Ahlmad room as the case may be. He further stated
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 34 of 274
that he would only allow a counsel to conduct the inspection of the case file
of the case only if the same was allowed by the Hon’ble Court and most of
the time he used to check the vakalatnama of the counsel and only then
allow inspection of the file. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely on this point. He further denied the suggestion that the record of the
case shows several instances in breach of the legal procedure governing
inspection of case files.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that it took him around 2/3
days to take charge from Sh. Gajraj Singh. He is unable to recollect the date
but it was in between 27.04.2000 to 01.05.2000. He affirmed that he had
sent a letter regarding the charge taken from Sh. Gajraj Singh to Ld. District
& Sessions Judge (HQs.). He stated that he did not check each and every
paper of all the files at the time of taking over the charge as there was no
paging, indexing made by Sh. Gajraj Singh, previous Ahlmad on judicial
files. He further stated that the documents pertaining to main Uphaar case
were duly checked as per pagination on the document files contained in
iron trunk. He denied the suggestion that it was his fault that he had taken
over the charge without paging and indexing. He could not remember how
many pages of documents were there in main Uphaar case file. He further
could not remember the dates and times when he joined the investigation
of the present case, however, he joined the investigation 4/5 times. He
stated that he used to be called in the morning and sometimes in the
evening. He could not remember whether he had provided any document to
IO during investigation. He stated that previous Ahlmad Sh. Gajraj Singh
had prepared hand written list of files. He could not remember if he had
appended his signature on that list and it must have taken 2/3 days to hand
over the charge of files to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He affirmed that there
was no pagination on main Uphaar case judicial file, however, the
documents annexed therewith were paginated. He stated that the file used to
be in the Court room. He stated that he had worked as Ahlmad in the court
of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ for about one year. He affirmed that
he did not paginate the judicial file of main Uphaar case but the documents
were paginated as it was already done by the CBI. He further stated that he
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 35 of 274
had taken over the charge of files from previous Ahlmad Gajraj Singh in the
Ahlmad room attached with the court Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ,
PHC, New Delhi. He affirmed that if Reader is on leave, Ahlmad or
Assistant Ahlmad as the case may be take care of the work of the Reader.
He stated that in the room where he used to sit as an Ahlmad, his Assistant
Ahlmad also used to sit with him. He further stated that one Ahlmad from
different Court was also used to sit in the said room and he used to use
separate table. He further stated that the files of the cases listed for the next
day, sometime used to be handed over to the Reader by the Peon and some
time he also used to hand over the same. He stated that they used to put
lock in the Ahlmad room after closing the office. He stated that there were
two keys of that room. One used to be kept by him and other key was used
to be with Ahlmad of another Court. He further stated that they used to have
separate keys of their almirahs for keeping the files. He further stated that
it was the same lock and keys which were being used by Sh. Gajraj Singh
and there was no missing document in the files which were handed over to
him by Sh. Gajraj Singh nor he told anything in this regard. He further
stated that during his tenure, the Ahlmad room was not shifted anywhere.
He further stated that it might be possible that before he arrived the office,
the other Ahlmad who reached the office before him, used to open the
room. He further stated that some time in December, 2003 to January, 2004,
it came to his notice that some documents were not traceable in main
Uphaar case. He further stated that he came to know from Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He stated that Sh. Gajraj Singh and probably Mr.
Shyam Lal also called by Ld. ASJ in this regard. He could not remember
whether before joining of Dinesh Chandra Sharma as Ahlmad, the copy of
charge-sheet were supplied to the accused persons or not. He stated that the
Ahlmad room was adjacent to the Court room and they used to keep the
files of CBI and State cases together in the same almirah. He stated that he
himself had taken charge of all the files including Uphaar case including
documents thereof from previous Ahlmad Gajraj Singh and he did not take
help of Assistant Ahlmad in this regard. He stated that he had checked
judicial files as per list and documents which were pertains to CBI case/
cases. The documents were properly checked by him while he had taken
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 36 of 274
over the charge from previous Ahlmad and he had also checked the said
files and documents before handing over the same to his successor Ahlmad
Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He could not remember if during his tenure as
Ahlmad some application was filed for deficiency of documents. He could
not remember whether during his tenure, application regarding inspection
of judicial file of Uphaar case was moved or not by counsel for accused
persons or any individual, however, he voluntarily stated that in case of
inspection, an entry used to be made in the inspection register. He affirmed
that during his tenure as Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then
Ld. ASJ, during the course of the day, Naib Courts, court staffs, IO of
related cases and other concerns used to visit the Ahlmad room. He could
not remember that whether IO of main Uphaar case and his assisting staff
had seen the file. He voluntarily stated that they were allowed to see the
reports on summons, etc. as per directions of the Hon’ble Court. He further
stated that he joined in the month of September, 1992 as LDC. He further
stated that till date, no inquiry has been conducted against him regarding
missing of any file/document. His statement was recorded in the department
inquiry by Sh. S.C. Malik, the then Ld. ASJ, PHC, New Delhi conducted
against Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He could not remember as to how many
times he was called to join inquiry. He could not remember whether IO of
the present case had taken charge report of the handing and taken over the
files of the present and other cases from him. He denied the suggestion that
he had not taken care of case files/ documents properly or that he had not
looked after those files and documents carefully being Ahlmad during his
tenure in the present case. He denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma has been falsely implicated in the present case. He denied
the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness could not remember the date when his statement
was recorded by the IO. He cannot even tell the month or year. He could
not remember how many times he joined the investigation but he can say
that it was many times, however, his statement was recorded once. He
voluntarily stated that on the other occasions, the IO confronted accused
with him. He further stated that on 03.05.2001, all the files and records
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 37 of 274
were handed over by him to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He affirmed that he
had prepared list of all the pending cases and had got checked all the
documents kept in the trunk pertaining to Uphaar Tragedy case. He further
stated that the said list dated 03.05.2001 was shown to him in the Court
during his examination-in-chief. He further stated that apart from this list
dated 03.05.2001, no other list was prepared by him. He voluntarily stated
that the receiving list pertaining cases showing endorsement of receiving by
the then Ahlmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma and by Sh. R.S. Verma, the then
Reader and the files of Uphaar Tragedy case which was in the custody of
the then Steno Sh. Jagan was prepared. He further stated that this list dated
03.05.2001 was submitted by him to Ld. District & Sessions Judge (HQ),
THC, Delhi and this list was sent by him through dak, duly forwarded by
the then Ld. Presiding Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ and this
list was handed over by him on 03.05.2001. He voluntarily stated that Ld.
Presiding Officer had called him and the then Ahlmad Sh. Dinesh Chandra
Sharma in the Chamber, wherein confirmation was sought from Dinesh
Chandra Sharma as to whether the files and documents had been received
properly and as to whether there was any discrepancies, however, the Ld.
Presiding Officer inquired from him as to whether he had consigned all the
decided files to which he said that the same were pending and would take
10 to 15 days on which the Ld. Presiding Officer directed him that he
would be relieved after the said task is over. He further stated that he had
experience of over 10 to 12 years working as Ahlmad during which he had
worked in different Courts. He affirmed that when the matter is listed
before the Court, the file of the listed matter is placed before the Court and
only after the matter is over that the file returns back. He voluntarily
submitted that sometimes the files is retained by the Court for various
purposes including passing of order and in such cases the file is received
by the Ahlmad as and when it returns. He did not say anything about the
period when the file is passing hands of Naib Court/ Public Prosecutor/
Witnesses, etc. He could not say about control of Ahlmad on the file at that
point of time. He voluntarily stated that it is not possible to check each and
every page of the file when the file is received back. He affirmed that file
of main Uphaar case was inspected. He could not tell who applied for the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 38 of 274
said inspection, however, he permitted inspection only after same was
allowed by the Court. He could not remember whether the said inspection
were done by the person concerned individually or with the assistance of
someone. He could not remember the fact that during his tenure as Ahlmad
in main Uphaar case, whether certified copies were sought for which the
files were sent to the Copying Branch. He stated that there is CA register
which contains the details of files sent for certified copies to CA Branch.
He further stated that when the file is received back from CA Branch most
of the time, same is checked but the same is not checked per page. He
further stated that there is an Assistant Ahlmad, who assists the main
Ahlmad and the files are also in the custody of Assistant Ahlmad. The
witness was shown his cross examination in chief dated 14.11.2018 and
asked whether this statement regarding Dinesh Chandra Sharma had
checked all the files and matched the same with list was made by him to IO
and recorded in his statement, to which the witness stated that he has told
this and it was so recorded in his statement. However, again said that he
cannot say whether this fact was recorded in his statement by IO. Upon
being confronted with statement dated 20.06.2006, the witness stated that
same is not so recorded and which is now exhibited as Ex. PW8/D1. The
Ld. Addl. PP objected to the mode of confronting the witness with previous
statement, however, the objection raised was not found sustainable in view
of the provisions contained in the explanation to the section 162 Cr.P.C that
an omission, if material may amount to contradiction. He stated that his
statement was recorded by the IO for approximately 35 to 40 minutes. He
could not remember the actual time but it was during the day. He further
stated that he had read his statement recorded by hand by the IO. He stated
that he did not take the copy of the statement but he also could not tell
whether he had signed the statement or not. He further stated that it was put
to him by Ld. Prosecutor during his examination in chief. He further stated
that during examination in chief the list was put to him and was shown to
him in the open Court. He could not recollect after seeing Ex.PW8/D1 that
it was the same which recorded by the IO, however, Ex.PW8/D1 bearing
almost the same content as hand written statement. On Court question he
replied that his statement recorded by the police by hand and Ex.PW8/D1
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 39 of 274
are the same. He explained that all the facts regarding handing over and
taking over including checking and matching with the list by Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was told to IO, however, same is missing in Ex.PW8/D1
which he cannot tell. He affirmed that he had stated all above mentioned
facts to the IO when his statement Ex. PW8/D1 was recorded. While
recording his statement by the IO of this case, he has very much recorded
that no short coming has been mentioned by Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the
then Ahlmad, who took over complete charge from him. The witness
affirmed that the statement has not been recorded with exact words in Ex.
PW8/D1 in reply of the question put to him regarding his examination-inchief
dated 14.11.2018. He affirmed that “iron trunk” is not mentioned in
his statement Ex.PW 8/D1 but it was so stated by him to the IO. He
affirmed that “bulky and voluminous” is not mentioned in his statement
Ex.PW 8/D1 but it was so stated by him to the IO but not so mentioned. He
could not remember that how many cases had iron trunks out of 324 cases
but there were iron trunks in one and two more cases. He was unable to
recall the said one or two more cases out of 324 cases. He could not
remember how many files were there in case mentioned at serial no. 1 in
list Ex.PW7/C (Colly.). He could not recall as to whether they were 1,2,5,
10,20, 50 or more, however, the same is the answer with respect to the
entire list of 324 cases. He stated that the list contains even those cases in
which the Lower Court record (LCR) was attached, however, he was not in
a position to remember the number of files of the same nor he can tell as
to whether they were 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 or more. He could not remember
the number of pages which were there in case mentioned at serial no. 1 in
list Ex. PW7/C (Colly.). He could not recall as to whether they were
100,200,500,1000,5000 or more and the same is his answer with respect to
the entire list of 324 cases. The list contains even those cases in which the
LCR (Lower Court Record) was attached, however, he was not in a position
to remember the number of pages of the same nor he can tell as to whether
they were 100,200,500,1000,5000 or more. He stated that all the 324 cases
mentioned in the list Ex. PW7/C (Colly.) were pending trial cases. He
further stated that it is quite possible that the 324 cases may also have
articles/ case property, however, he could not exactly recall. He could not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 40 of 274
say whether the articles/ case property are in the Court or with Police,
however, the knife or pistols are kept in the custody of Police/ Malkhana.
He stated that the list Ex. PW7/C was prepared one or two days prior to
03.05.2001. The witness stated that the statement recorded in his evidence
dated 04.01.2019 regarding confirmation from Dinesh Chandra Sharma
relating to files and documents by Ld. Presiding Officer and inquiry from
him qua consigned files has not been recorded in his statement Ex.PW8/D1.
He further stated that this list was handed over on 03.05.2001 itself to the
Ahlmad Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma and the same was forwarded by the
Presiding Officer on 22.05.2001 because the Ld. Presiding Officer had
asked him to first consigned the decided files in the record room, otherwise
he would not be relieved. He affirmed that the list was sent to the Ld.
District & Sessions Judge (HQ ) on 22.05.2001 and not on 03.05.2001. He
further stated that when he had made his statement on 04.01.2019, he did
not remember the exact date, however, after going through the document
Ex.PW7/E, he had recalled the correct date which was 22.05.2001. He
denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement before the Court
only to falsely implicate accused persons. He could not remember whether
out of the 324 files as per list Ex.PW7/C, any of the file was with the Steno,
however, the file mentioned at Serial No. 114 was in the custody of Steno
as day to day proceedings were going on and orders were being passed on
day to day basis by the Ld. Presiding Officer. He further stated that there is
no signature of the Steno on the list Ex. PW7/C. He affirmed that in the list
Ex. PW7/C, it has only been stated at point B to B1 that “ I have received
charge as per list 324 files”. He further stated that he had not been shown
any handing over memo with respect to his receiving the files from his
predecessor Ahlmad Sh. Gajraj Singh. He further stated that he had himself
checked the files and records of pending cases in the presence of Sh. Gajraj
Singh. However, he affirmed that there is no documentary evidence in this
regard. He further affirmed that Ex. PW7/C does not refer to any trunks.
However, Ex. PW7/E refers to records. He voluntarily stated that there is a
separate list of trunks at page no. 117 at list Ex. PW7/C which contained the
record of pending case including main Uphaar case. He further stated that
he took about one and half to two days in preparing of list. He took about
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 41 of 274
2-2 ½ days to hand over the files to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He
voluntarily stated that the charge of files were handed over to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma on day to day basis in accordance with the list prepared by
him. He could not tell as to when he had taken charge of the files from his
predecessor Ahlmad Sh. Gajraj Singh, how many files were paginated and
how many were not. He further voluntarily stated that he did not remember
the same. He could not even tell whether the same were 2,5,10,50, 100 etc.
He could not tell as to how many files were at the trial stage. He further
stated that he did not check each and every page of the files but he had
checked the records of 2 to 4 cases including main Uphaar case. He
affirmed that he taken the files from Sh. Gajraj Singh as per the procedure.
He further stated that he did not check each and every page of the files
because the same were not paginated by Sh. Gaj Raj Singh as they both got
transferred vice versa and Ld. Presiding Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld.
ASJ directed him to take charge as it is from Gaj Raj Singh because of vice
versa transfer with Gajraj Singh and if some problem arises, he would call
Sh. Gaj Raj Singh to sort out the same as they were posted in same Court
complex. He further stated that these directions were given by the Presiding
Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ jointly to him and Sh. Gaj Raj Singh
and these directions were not received in writing. He further stated that he
had checked the records of the files at the direction of the Ld. Presiding
Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ because he had already checked the
files and found that there was no page numbering in the same and the Ld.
Presiding Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ said that the Predecessor
Ahlmad Sh. Gaj Raj Singh was in the same Court complex and he can call
him. He further stated that the main Uphaar case used to remain with Steno
Sh. Jagan Singh as matter used to be listed on day to day basis and
documents of the case used to be referred on day to day basis. He further
stated that Ld. Presiding Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld.ASJ had
specifically directed him to only check the records of the files and not the
files. He further stated that when he had taken the charge of the file, the
same was already going on day to day basis. He did not remember whether
he had mentioned in writing on the handing over memo/ taking charge
memo that he had not checked the files and only checked the records. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 42 of 274
further stated that on his joining in the court of the Ld. ASJ in April, 2000,
he had given the joining report to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge,
wherein he had mentioned that he had taken over charge from Sh. Gaj Raj
Singh and further stated that he had not mentioned in the joining report that
he had not checked the files on the direction of Ld. ASJ. He also stated that
there is no record in which he had mentioned this fact. He further stated that
he had told to the IO during recording of his statement that he had only
checked the records and not the files. He denied the suggestion that when
he was cross-examined, he cooked up a false story for the first time. The
witness stated that he had stated the fact “All the files and documents, each
of the files with documents were got checked by Dinesh Chandra Sharma
and all the files and documents were duly paginated” to the IO. He further
confronted with statement Ex. PW8/D1 where it is not so recorded. He
further stated that he cannot explain the said fact has not been so recorded
in his statement by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed
falsely in the case. He denied the suggestion that there were lapses on his
part and in order to protect himself, he had falsely implicated the accused
persons. He denied the suggestion that all the voluntary portion of the
evidence during cross-examination have been cooked up by him in order to
protect himself.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-8 :
1 TRANSFER ORDER Ex PW 8/A
2 STATEMENT U/S 161 Ex PW 8/D1
20. PW9 Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Assistant, the then Reader
in the court of Ms. Rich Gusain Solanki was examined. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that in somewhere in the year 2006, he was posted as
LDC in Vigilance Branch, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and he had handed over
the photocopies of appointment letter and joining letter of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma, charge report prepared by Sunil Kumar Nautiyal for handing over
the pending case file documents of documents containing 10 pages, joining
report of Dinesh Chandra Sharma dated 30.04.2001, handing over charge
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 43 of 274
by Sunil Kumar Nautiyal to his successor Dinesh Chandra Sharma on
22.05.2001 and handing over / relinquishment report dated 01.05.2000 by
Gajraj Singh, the then Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld ASJ to
ACP. He further stated that ACP seized the said documents vide seizure
memo Ex. PW9/A bearing his signature at Point A and the said documents
are already Ex. PW7/A to Ex. PW7/F.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, PW9 stated that he had not joined the
investigation of the case except the handing over of photocopies of abovesaid
documents. He further stated that he had handed over said documents
in the office of ACP. He could not remember the date and time of handing
over said documents. He remained there around 30 to 60 minutes. He was
not inquired except the abovesaid documents. He could not remember the
date of joining the Vigilance Branch, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi but he worked
there 3-4 years. He had seen those documents before handing over to the
ACP. He stated that he did not have any knowledge about the departmental
inquiry conducted against accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He denied the
suggestion that he has no knowledge about the documents provided by him
to ACP.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, he stated that he was not served any notice by the police to
hand over above-said documents but he was sent by Incharge Vigilance
Branch to hand over the said documents. He could not remember if it was
oral or written instruction given by Incharge. He stated that no specific job
was assigned to him in the Vigilance Branch and he was doing the general
duty. He stated that he did not claim any TA/DA for visiting the office of
ACP. He further stated that he did not make any entry in any record before
leaving the office for ACP Office. He voluntarily stated that there is no such
provision. He denied the fact that he did not hand over any documents and
deposed falsely in his examination in chief.
Accused Sushil Ansal, Anoop Singh and P.P. Batra were
afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-9 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 44 of 274
1 SEIZURE MEMO Dt. 03.07.2006
1. Photocopy of appointment letter &
Joining letter of DC Sharma
2. Charge report by Sunil Nautiyal.
3. Joining report of DC Sharma in ASJ’s
Court
4. Handing over/relinquish report by
Nautiyal.
5. Handing over/relinquish report of Ex
Ahlmad Gaj Raj Singh.
Ex PW 9/A
21. PW10 Sh. Rai Singh Khatri, ACP (Retired) was examined.
He stated in his examination-in-chief that he got retired on 31.12.2014. He
stated that he had been on deputation in the CBI from 01.01.1988 to
31.03.2002. He stated that case FIR no. 432/1997, PS Hauz Khas pertaining
to the Uphaar Tragedy was taken over by CBI in the year 1997 and RC No.
3(S)/97/SIC-IV/New Delhi was registered by CBI on 26.07.1997 as per the
order of Government of India, investigation was marked to him. He stated
that during the course of investigation, all the original documents along
with record seized by Delhi Police was taken over by him. He stated that
he had seized various documents from various departments including Delhi
Police, Licensing Branch, CPWD, MCD, Delhi Fire Service, Uphaar
Cinema Management and Hospitals. He stated that after investigation, he
had filed the charge-sheet along with relevant original records in the court
of Sh. Brijesh Sethi, Ld. M.M. on 15.11.1997. He did not remember the
date when the case was committed to Sessions Court. He stated that matter
was heard at length by Ld. M.M. before its committal. He stated that before
filing the charge sheet, photocopies of charge-sheet and its documents were
prepared under his direct supervision for supplying the same to accused
persons as well as for keeping the same for the purpose of his record. He
stated that he himself had kept one set of charge sheet and documents
annexed with him. He stated that he came to know from Sh. Y. K. Saxena,
Ld. Special PP that some documents annexed with charge-sheet were found
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 45 of 274
missing and some of were torn and some documents were sprinkled with
ink. He stated that Mr. Y. K. Saxena told him the nature of the documents
and its number which were found in the above said condition during the
trial and total nine documents were found to be affected in the said manner.
He stated that on the instruction of Ld. Spl. P.P, he arranged the documents
which were relevant for the purpose of trial from his set of charge-sheet and
documents in CBI office and filed the same in the court of Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ along with affidavit sworn by him. He stated that
the copy of the same were also prepared for the accused persons and
supplied to them. He stated that he also annexed list of documents
alongwith the said affidavit and relevant pages which were submitted by
him in the Court therewith also describing their nature. Certified copies of
the affidavit and list of document attached therewith are Ex. PW10/A
(colly.) bearing his signature at Point A. Original of Ex. PW10/A (colly.)
was seen from the case file of main Uphaar Case and returned. Those
documents were D-20, D-84, D-89, D-91, D-92, D-24, D-25, D-26 and D-
28. He was shown original document Mark D-20 seized through memo
dated 26.07.1997 from the original record of main Uphaar case and he
correctly identified and stated that same was filed along with the chargesheet.
Court observation was recorded that second page of the said
document is torn from the left side from its bottom. He stated that he also
filed the photocopy of the original seizure memo along with his affidavit
and certified copies of the same running in three pages is Ex. PW10/B
(colly.). Original of the Ex. PW10/B (colly.) are seen from the case file of
main Uphaar case and returned. He was shown original document Mark D-
84 i.e. Annual inspection of Uphaar Cinema dated 28.11.1996 running in
two pages from the original record of main Uphaar case and he correctly
identified and stated that same was filed along with the charge-sheet. Court
observation was recorded that first page of the said document is half torn.
He stated that he had filed the photocopy of the original of the said
document with his affidavit and certified copy of the same running in two
pages is Ex. PW10/C (colly.). Original of the Ex. PW10/C (colly.) are seen
from the case file of main Uphaar case and returned. He was shown original
document Mark D-89 i.e. Original Occurrence Book of DFS, Headquarters
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 46 of 274
from the original record of main Uphaar case and he correctly identified
and stated that same was filed along with the charge-sheet. The said book
was containing 1 to 400 pages at the time of filing of the same with the
charge-sheet and later on page nos. 363 to 400 were found missing. Court
observation was recorded that the register Mark D-89 contains page nos.
1 to 362. He stated that on the instructions of Ld. SPP, he filed photocopies
of page no. 379 amongst the said pages along with his affidavit and certify
copy is Ex. PW10/D. The photocopy of the said register running into page
nos. 1 to 362 already on record and filed along with third charge-sheet of
this case and same are Ex. PW10/E (colly.). Original register containing
the said pages Mark D-89 is seen from the original record of main Uphaar
case and returned. He was shown original document Mark D-91 i.e.
Original Occurrence Book of DFS, Bhikaji Cama Place from the original
record of main Uphaar case and he correctly identified and stated that same
was filed along with the charge-sheet. The said book was containing 1 to
400 pages at the time of filing of the same with the charge-sheet and later
on page nos. 94 to 104 were found missing and on page nos. 109 to 116
were sprinkled with ink. Court observation was recorded that the register
Mark D-91 contains page nos. 1 to 400 out of them pages nos. 94 to 104
are missing and from page nos. 109 to 116 are found to be sprinkled with
ink. He stated that on the instructions of Ld. SPP, he had filed photocopies
of page nos. 96 to 113 amongst the said pages along with his affidavit and
certified copy of the same is running in 11 pages is marked as Ex. PW10/F
(colly.). The photocopies of the said register running into page 1 to 400
(page nos. 96 to 104 were missing and on page no. 109 to 116 ink were
sprinkled) are already on record and filed along with third charge-sheet of
this case and same are Ex. PW10/F (colly.). Photocopies of those
documents of the said pages Mark D-91 is seen from the original record of
main Uphaar case and returned. He was shown original document Mark D-
92 i.e. Original Casual Leave Register of DFS (Headquarters) from the
period from 1995 to 1996 from the original record of main Uphaar case and
he correctly identified and stated that same was filed alongwith the chargesheet.
The said book was containing 1 to 92 pages at the time of filing of
the same with the charge-sheet and later on page no. 45 to 50 were found
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 47 of 274
missing. Court observation was recorded that the register Mark D-92
contains page nos. 1 to 70 and out of them page nos. 45 to 50 were found
missing and from page nos. 71 to 892 were blank. He stated that on the
instructions of Ld. SPP, he had filed photocopies of seizure memo dated
05.08.1997 vide which the said register was seized and relevant page no. 50
from amongst the missing pages alongwith his affidavit and certified copy
of the seizure memo is Ex. PW10/G and photocopy of page no. 50 is Ex.
PW10/H. Photocopies of those documents of the said are seen from the
original record of main Uphaar case and returned. The photocopies of the
said register running into 1 to 70 pages (page nos. 71 to 92 are blank in
original register and pages nos. 45 to 50 are missing) are already on record
and filed alongwith third charge-sheet of this case and same is Ex. PW10/J
(colly.). Photocopies of those documents of the said pages Mark D-92 are
seen from the original record of main Uphaar case and returned. He further
stated that he filed photocopy of documents D-24, certified copy of the
same is already Ex. PW3/B i.e. seizure memo dated 27.08.1997 and
certified copy of the cheque dated 26.06.1995 issued in favour of Mr. Sushil
Ansal drawn on Punjab National Bank for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-
signed by Sushil Ansal already Ex PW3/A. He stated that later on the said
documents were found missing during trial and he had filed the photocopies
of the said documents along with affidavit on instruction of Ld Spl. PP.
Photocopies of the same are seen from original record of main Uphaar
tragedy case and returned. He further stated that he filed photocopy of
documents D-25 i.e. seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 and certified copy of
the same is Ex. PW10/K and certified copies of two cheques dated
30.11.1996 amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- issued in favour of Music Shop
signed by Gopal Ansal as authorized signatory is Ex.PW10/L and cheque
no. 12297 amounting to Rs. 2,96,550/- in favour of Chancellor Club signed
by Gopal Ansal as authorized signatory is Ex.PW10/M, both drawn on
Punjab National Bank. Photocopies of the same were seen from original
record of main Uphaar tragedy case and returned. He further stated that he
filed photocopy of documents D-26 i.e. seizure memo dated 27.08.1997 and
certified copy of the same is Ex. PW10/N and certified copies of cheque
dated 23.05.1996 amounting to Rs. 9,711/- issued in favour of Engineer
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 48 of 274
(Water) is Ex. PW10/O. Photocopy of the same are seen from original
record of main Uphaar tragedy case and returned. He further stated that he
filed photocopy of documents D-28 i.e. minutes of meeting of MDs
Conference held on 09.05.1997, 14.04.1997, 02.05.1997, 03.03.1997,
14.03.1994, copy of envelop whereon name of some law firms (Advocate)
are printed along with his affidavit on the instructions of Ld Spl. PP and
certified copies of the same which are Ex.PW10/P, Ex.PW10/Q,
Ex.PW10/R, Ex. PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T and Ex.PW10/U. Photocopies of
the same are seen from original record of main Uphaar tragedy case and
returned.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that the investigation of the
main Uphaar case was transferred from Local Police to CBI as per order of
Government of India. He further stated that investigation of the case was
entrusted to him on 26.07.1997 at the time of registration of RC. He stated
that he was the Chief Investigating Officer of the case and he was also
assisted by other officers of CBI including DSP N.S. Virk, DSP Kishore
Kumar, DSP Prithvi Singh, DSP T.P. Jha and some others as per directions
of senior officers. He could not remember the exact pages of the chargesheet
and he had got prepared total 17 sets of charge-sheet and documents
and out of them one he had kept with him. He further stated that he had
filed the charge-sheet before the Court concerned, however, he could not
remember the name of Ahlmad to whom he had handed over the original
charge-sheet but he had taken the acknowledgment in this regard. He stated
that he was present at the time when the copies of charge-sheet and
documents were supplied to the accused persons in the Court. He affirmed
that some application was filed on behalf of some accused persons for
supplying the deficient copies of the charge-sheet and documents and the
same was rectified by him. He could not remember the name of accused
who had filed the said application. He stated that he had seen accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the Court room. He further stated that judicial
file of the case and the documents filed separately were got duly checked
by the Ahlmad and he had acknowledged the same. He further stated that he
never carried out inspection of the judicial file in the Court. He further
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 49 of 274
stated that he had filed the photocopies of missing documents alongwith
affidavit in the Court. He further stated that he had filed the charge-sheet
and the documents of the case alongwith their copies for supplying to
accused persons in one iron trunk. He further stated that the original set of
charge-sheet and documents might be running into two or three thousand
pages. He further stated that he had received the said sets of charge-sheet
and documents received in the said trunk from Ahlmad. He further stated
that probably the name of Ahlmad was Shyam Lal. He further stated that he
had provided the lock and probably its two keys to the Ahlmad to keep the
documents in his safe custody. He further stated that he used to attend the
main Uphaar case on regular basis till he remained in CBI on deputation.
He further stated that the file used to be with the Ahlmad of the Court. He
further stated that he never inspected the file during the course of said trial.
He affirmed that other cases were used to be listed on the day when Uphaar
case was to be listed. He could not remember if the Court room was shifted
during the trial of main Uphaar case. He stated that trial used to be in open
Court and other litigants also used to be present. He stated that after filing
of charge-sheet of main Uphaar case he got prepared another copy and
supplied to the association AVUT on the directions of Sr. CBI officers on
the request of AVUT. He stated that he knows Constable Virender who was
in CBI at that time. He denied the suggestion that Ct. Virender attended all
the hearing of the case on behalf of CBI or that he used to apprise the CBI
regarding filing of any application/ documents and its reply etc. or he is
deliberately concealing this fact. He affirmed that Ct. Virender used to
assist him in the matter. He could recollect the names of two Ahlmad
namely Shyam Lal and accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma who had been
posted in the Court concerned. He stated that he had seen Dinesh Chandra
Sharma assisting the court as an Ahlmad of the Court during the said trial.
He could not remember if Ld. Special PP Sh. Y. K. Saxena appearing in
main Uphaar case had sought any instruction from anywhere for further
instructing him to file the affidavit. He further stated that on the basis of
documents provided by him from the set of the charge-sheet and documents
meant for CBI, the secondary evidence was led in that matter in short
duration. He further stated that he had mentioned the nature of documents
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 50 of 274
in his affidavit. He could not say anything regarding the question whether
the said documents relating to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma or not. He
did not remember if CBI had ever applied certified copy of any documents
pertaining to main Uphaar case. He denied the suggestion that he has
knowledge of the objection filed on behalf of accused for leading secondary
evidence. He further stated that the concerned Ahlmad to whom he had
filed the charge-sheet, had checked and verified each and every page in the
Court room as per list of documents. He stated that it had taken several
days, however, he could not tell the days exactly by the Ahlmad for the said
purpose. He also stated that he used to get the said document and chargesheet
checked. He denied the suggestion that the said document and chargesheet
were not checked by Ahlmad and for this reason he is unable to tell
the exact number of days or having any acknowledgment of the same. He
stated that the facts regarding the missing documents and his affidavit was
mentioned in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C in the present
case. He denied the suggestion that he had not filed the charge-sheet in
main Uphaar case in proper manner/ procedure or that he obtained the
signatures of Ahlmad in routine manner in good faith or that the file and
documents were not checked by the concerned Ahlmad at that time. He
denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma is falsely
implicated in this case or that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he had not personally handed over the
documents which he identified in his examination-in-chief to the IO of the
present case. He voluntarily stated that he had specifically referred in his
affidavit dated 06.02.2003 alongwith nine missing documents. He denied
the suggestion that his statement did not contain the detailed specifics of the
documents which are subject matter of dispute in present case. He denied
the suggestion that he is not competent to identify the documents that he
had exhibited in his examination-in-chief. He affirmed that he is neither the
scribe nor the author of the documents that he had identified and exhibited
in his examination-in- chief. He stated that he had not filed any complaint
as an IO of the Uphaar Fire Tragedy case regarding the missing documents.
He stated that he had not participated in any inquiry proceedings conducted
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 51 of 274
by Mr. S.C. Malik, the then Ld. ASJ or Mr. J. P. Singh, the then Ld. ASJ in
relation to the missing documents. He affirmed that prosecuting agency
maintains separate file which is similar to the charge-sheet filed in the case.
He denied the suggestion that it is well within his knowledge that certain
documents had been traced later on. He affirmed that he has not mentioned
in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C as to which of the documents was
pertaining to or authored by which of the accused. He affirmed that he
regularly used to attend Court proceedings during the pendency of Uphaar
case. He affirmed that the representatives of AVUT also used to generally
attend the proceedings during trial of the said case. He stated that he did
not know if the representatives of AVUT also used to inspect the Trial Court
record. He affirmed that the representatives of AVUT generally used to
meet him. He denied the suggestion that the representatives of the AVUT
used to come to him regularly during investigation and during trial (till the
time he was in CBI) and discussed the merits of the case against each
accused. He denied the suggestion that AVUT used to discuss about the
nature of documents seized by CBI during investigation with him. He
could not admit or deny if representatives of AVUT were in regular touch
with the Ahlmad of the concerned Trial Court or that they used to visit the
Ahlmad room also where the Trial Court record used to be kept. He stated
that as per his memory there was no permanent Naib Court from CBI
deputed in that Court for the said case or not. He denied the suggestion that
he tried to introduced a false explanation regarding the non presence of
Naib Court during the pendency of Uphaar Fire Trial Case. He affirmed
that the charge-sheet in every case is sent to Prosecution Branch for
scrutiny. He affirmed that Ex.PW10/B (D-20) contains the description of 10
documents which are mentioned from item no. 1 to 10 therewith. He could
not admit or deny whether the 10 documents mentioned in D-20 were filed
alongwith the charge-sheet in the Uphaar case or not. He voluntarily stated
that he can affirm regarding filing of the documents mentioned in
Ex.PW10/B after seeing the charge-sheet. The witness after going through
the charge-sheet (3rd supplementary charge-sheet) stated that only four
documents out of 10 mentioned therein as mentioned from serial nos. 16 to
19 in the list of documents of main Uphaar case charge-sheet were relied
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 52 of 274
upon in this case. He stated that he had mentioned in his affidavit that the
document no. D-24 of the main Uphaar case was missing from the Trial
Court record. He further stated that the said document was seizure memo
alongwith cheque amounting to Rs. 50 Lakhs signed by Sh. Sushil Ansal.
He could not say if the above mentioned document (cheque amounting to
Rs. 50 Lakhs) was traced later on in original and was filed before the Court.
He affirmed that the case of the prosecution in the main Uphaar case was
based on the documents appended to the charge-sheet which were other
than the ones that he had mentioned in his affidavit. He could not say
whether the said documents had impacted the Uphaar trial or not. He denied
the suggestion that his affidavit regarding missing document contains false
averment in order to frame the accused. He affirmed that document nos. 16
to 19 in the main Uphaar charge-sheet which were also mentioned in
document D-20 (seizure memo which was allegedly torn), were exhibited,
proved during trial of the main Uphaar case and their authenticity were
never challenged. He could not say whether the documents had been proved
independently and their exhibition was not hampered due to tampering of
D-20. He denied the suggestion that he is well aware of the fact that the
four documents mentioned in D-20, (listed as document nos. 16 to 19 in the
charge-sheet of main Uphaar case) were proved and exhibited uninterrupted
during the trial of the said case. He affirmed that whenever during
investigation he seizes a document, the seizure memo is prepared only
regarding the fact that the document had been taken into possession by the
investigating agency how and when and from whom during investigation.
He affirmed that contents of the document is never mentioned in the seizure
memo. He denied the suggestion that the documents mentioned in his
affidavit which were relied upon by the prosecution in the main Uphaar
case were never affected with regard to their exhibition and proof during
trial of the main Uphaar case due to the alleged torn seizure memo D-20.
He voluntarily stated that there was one cheque containing the signature of
Sushil Ansal. He stated that Mrs. Neelam Krishnamoorthy used to come to
attend the court proceedings of main Uphaar trial case and she also used to
meet him in the Court. He denied the suggestion that both Mr. R.
Krishnamoorthy and Mrs. Neelam Krishnamoorthy representatives of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 53 of 274
AVUT were in regular touch with him in person and over the phone during
the investigation of the present tampering matter. He stated that the letter
was signed by Sh. Vimal Kumar Nagpal on behalf of Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd. and submitted to Delhi Fire Service Department and during
trial some lower portion of this letter was found torn. He affirmed that he
had seized many documents from the Delhi Fire Service Department during
the investigation of the main Uphaar case. He further affirmed that they had
seized many other documents which showed ongoing communication
between the Delhi Fire Service Department and Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd. He stated that the documents seized pertaining to Delhi Fire
Service Department were found tampered with during trial are mentioned in
his affidavit. He denied the suggestion that many other documents
pertaining to Delhi Fire Service Department and Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd. were proved uninterruptedly during the trial of main Uphaar
case. He affirmed that documents mentioned in his affidavit at serial nos.
5,7 & 8 did not relate to accused Sushil Ansal. He further affirmed that in
his affidavit, he had not stated that document D-92 was containing page
nos. 1 to 92 and out of those pages, page nos. 45 to 50 were found missing.
He stated that Mr. H.S. Panwar was an accused and he was associated with
Delhi Fire Services. He could not remember whether many inspection
reports had come to his notice during investigation pertaining to the period
between December, 1996 to June, 1997. He stated that after filing chargesheet,
original documents were filed in the concerned Court and
photocopies of the complete set were supplied to all the accused persons
and no additional photocopy set was submitted in the Court alongwith
charge-sheet for the Court record. He further denied the suggestion that in
para 4 of his affidavit he had clearly stated that apart from the original
documents, a true photocopy set was also furnished and placed before the
Court where the trial was held and same was considered time to time. He
further affirmed that report mentioned in para 5 of his affidavit dated
14.06.1997 was related only to the officials of Delhi Vidyut Board in main
Uphaar Tragedy case. He stated that the said officials were never called or
interrogated in his presence in the present case. He affirmed that in his
affidavit, he has not specifically mentioned the pages/ documents pertaining
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 54 of 274
to D-89 and D-91 allegedly Missing/ Torn/ Inked. He voluntarily stated that
he had specified the same in his annexure attached with the affidavit. He
further stated that his affidavit was got drafted by Sh. Y. K. Saxena, the then
Special Public Prosecutor. He affirmed that in his annexure to the affidavit,
there is no mention of page bearing nos. 363-400 or pages 95-104 or 109 to
116. He affirmed that in his affidavit or the annexure appended to the
affidavit, there is no mention of page bearing nos. 96-113 pertaining to
document D-91. He denied the suggestion that in his deposition (at page
nos. 4 and 5) dt. 05.12.2018, he had made a false averment about the filing
of the aforesaid photocopies of documents alongwith his affidavit. He
denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in his examination-inchief
to falsely implicate the accused in the present case at the instance of
AVUT.
Accused Anoop Singh was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, he stated that he had not stated in his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C that before filing of the charge-sheet, the photocopies of the
charge-sheet and its documents were prepared under his direct supervision
for supplying the same to accused persons as well as for keeping the same
for the purpose of their record and that he himself had kept one set of
charge-sheet and documents annexed therewith him. He could not tell
exactly how many court staffs handled the judicial record of the case. He
affirmed that in his affidavit that he had not mentioned any fault on any
person regarding the concerned documents. He voluntarily stated that
document mean document of DESU.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P. P. Batra, he affirmed that all the documents including 9 documents
which are subject matter of present case, were intact when he filed the
charge-sheet of main Uphaar case. He affirmed that he had filed the list of
witnesses alongwith charge-sheet. He affirmed that Mr. M.C. Khullar, Mr.
M.L. Dhupar and Sh. Ishwar Bhatt and Mr. S.S.Gupta were not initially
cited as witnesses in the main Uphaar case charge-sheet. He affirmed that
document D-20 pertains to documents seized from Sh. Shyam Sunder
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 55 of 274
Gupta. He affirmed that D-24 alongwith cheque were seized from Sh.
M.C.Khullar. He affirmed that document D-25 i.e. seizure memo pertains to
seizure of original cheque related to accused Gopal Ansal were seized from
Sh. M.L. Dhupar. He affirmed that document D-26 i.e. seizure memo
pertains to seizure of original cheque related to accused Gopal Ansal were
seized from Sh. Ishwar Bhatt. He affirmed that document D-89 i.e. seizure
memo pertains to original register i.e. Occurrence Book of Delhi Fire
Services which was seized from Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar. He did not remember
if he had any conversation with the Court staff over telephone. He denied
the suggestion that he used to have conversation with the Court staff. He
did not remember whether he had made any call to any court staff from his
residential land line number. He affirmed that he was working in CBI, the
CBI Crime Manual 1991 was in operation. He stated that one relieving
officer was appointed after his repatriation from CBI. He had handed over
all the documents including photocopies of charge-sheet and supporting
documents of Uphaar case and other cases to the Relieving Officer. He
further stated that he had not retained any set of photocopies of chargesheet
and documents of Uphaar case with him. He stated that after his
repatriation, he used to attend the hearings of the Uphaar case as and when
summoned by the Court. He could not remember the dates. He further
stated that while drafting the affidavit Ex.PW10/A, he took instructions
from Public Prosecutor Sh. Y. K. Saxena. He had seen the photocopy of the
application Ex.PW2/A filed by Ld. Special PP before drafting his affidavit
Ex.PW10/A. He stated that he had filed those documents on the instructions
of Ld. Special PP. He stated that he had assisted Ld. Special PP in main
Uphaar case at the time of arguments on the point of charge till the period
he remained in CBI. He denied the suggestion that while drafting his
affidavit Ex. PW10/A he had purposely left out items 8 & 9 of Ex.PW2/A.
He denied the suggestion that he did so as these documents i.e. item 8 & 9
of Ex. PW2/A were documents favourable to the defence. He denied the
suggestion that because of this reason he had left out these documents in his
affidavit Ex. PW10/A. He further denied the suggestion that it was not
possible for him to place any document on record with his affidavit Ex.
PW10/A owing to his admission made that day during cross-examination.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 56 of 274
He stated that the hearing of the Uphaar case used to be attended by
representative of Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT). He
could not remember having shared any documents/ copies with members of
AVUT while he was with the CBI. He affirmed that he was using landline
no. 7193021 from his residence while he was serving in CBI. He could not
remember whether he was using landline nos. 6887052, 6858508,
4677285, 4677755, 688953 & 6888041 from his office while he was
serving in CBI. He could not remember their names. He stated that his
statement was recorded in the present case by the IO/ ACP Amit Roy at his
office at EOW. He further stated that he had not provided the name of
Junior Officers who assisted him during investigation and trial of main
Uphaar case while recording his statement in the present case. He denied
the suggestion that he is feigning ignorance about the said aspect in order to
avoid giving explanation of the same. He denied the suggestion that he had
tendered in evidence documents in his examination-in-chief in complete
violation of rule of proving documents. He denied the suggestion that he
has deposed falsely.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-10 :
1 AFFIDAVIT OF R. S. KHATRI w.r.t.
LIST OF MISSING DOCUMENTS
Ex PW 10/A
(COLLY)
2 D-20 SEIZURE MEMO DATED
18.07.1997
Ex PW 10/B
(COLLY)
3 D-84, LETTER FROM API TO DFS
DATED 28.11.1996
Ex PW 10/C
( COLLY)
4 D-89, OCCURRENCE BOOK, DFS
(RELEVANT PAGE -379)
Ex PW 10/D
5 D-89, OCCURRENCE BOOK, DFS
TOTAL PAGES 400. PAGES MISSING
363-400 ( Pgs 64-426 IN THE 3RD
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET )
Ex PW 10/E
(COLLY.)
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 57 of 274
6 D-91, OCCURRENCE BOOK DFS DTD
13.12.1996 TO 18.01.1997, MISSING
PAGES 95-104
Ex PW 10/F
(COLLY)
7 D-91, PHOTOCOPY OF THE
OCCURRENCE BOOK, DFS. TOTAL
PAGES 1-400. PAGE 109-116 INK WAS
FOUND TO BE SPRINKLED ON THEM
( Pgs 427-826 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET
Ex PW 10/FF
(COLLY)
8 D-92, SEIZURE MEMO DATED
05.08.1997 OF THE CASUAL LEAVE
REGISTER ( DFS)
Ex PW 10/G
9 D-92, CASUAL LEAVE
REGISTER.MISSING PAGES 45-50.
RELEVANT PAGE 50
EX PW 10/H
10 D-92, PHOTOCOPY OF THE CASUAL
LEAVE REGISTER FROM PAGE 1-70
( 71 -92 ARE BLANK AND 45-50 ARE
MISSING
( Pg 1036-1097 IN 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET)
Ex PW 10/J
( COLLY)
11 D-25, CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
SEIZURE MEMO 18.08.1997 w.r.t. 2
CHEQUES DRAWN ON PNB SIGNED BY
GOPAL ANSAL
Ex PW 10/K
12 D-25 CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
CHEQUE FOR Rs 1,50,000/- DATED
30.11.1996, IN FAVOUR OF MUSIC SHOP
Ex PW 10/L
13 D-25 CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
CHEQUE FOR Rs 2,96,550/- DATED
12.02.1997, IN FAVOUR OF
CHANCELLOR CLUB
Ex PW 10/M
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 58 of 274
14 D-26 CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
SEIZURE MEMO DATED 27.08.1997
W.R.T. TO CHEQUE SEIZED FROM
SYNDICATE BANK
Ex PW 10/N
15 D-26 CERTIFIED PHOTO COPY OF THE
CHEQUE FOR Rs. 9,711/- DATED
23.05.1996 IN FAVOR OF ENGINEER
(WATER)
Ex PW 10/O
16 D-28,CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MD’s CONFERENCE
HELD ON 09.05.1997
Ex PW 10/P
17 D-28,CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MD’s CONFERENCE
HELD ON 14.04.1997
Ex PW 10/Q
18 D-28, CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MD’s CONFERENCE
HELD ON 02.05.1997
Ex PW 10/R
19 D-28, CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
MINUTES OF THE MD’s CONFERENCE
HELD ON 03.03.1997
Ex PW 10/S
20 D-28 CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
LETTER FROM LAW FIRM ADVOCATE
Ex PW 10/T
21 D-28 CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPY OF THE
ENVELOPE WHEREIN THE NAME OF
SOME LAW FIRM IS PRINTED
Ex PW 10/U
22 COPY OF THE CBI MANUAL 1991 Ex PW 10/DA
22. PW-11 Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar (Retired) from Delhi Fire
Services was examined. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was
working in Delhi Fire Services and retired in January-2009. He stated that
he had handed over the Occurrence Book already Ex. PW-10/E containing
1 to 400 pages maintained at Delhi Fire Services Control Room (HQ) to
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 59 of 274
CBI office in Samrat Hotel. During examination, he stated that he was
informed by the Court that some pages from occurrence book were missing
and he could not remember how many pages were missing. He testified that
he can tell the page number if occurrence book is shown to him. The
photocopy of Ex.PW10/E is shown to the witness and he stated that page
no. 363 onwards are missing from the occurrence book. He was not shown
the missing pages during his testimony in the main Uphaar case. Witness
was shown Ex. PW10/D and he stated that he cannot answer on the basis of
photocopy and then Ld. Addl. PP seeks permission to cross-examine him on
the point of document Ex. PW10/D and same was allowed. He affirmed
that each and every page of occurrence book was printed page numbering
and has same pattern and design. He affirmed that he was shown Ex.
PW10/D during his deposition in main Uphaar case and he stated that it was
one of the page amongst the missing pages of the Occurrence book. He
affirmed that the occurrence book and seizure memo were seized by Insp.
Tribhuvan and one copy each was provided to him against receipt and
certified copy of seizure memo is Ex. PW11/A bearing signatures at Point
A and B.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness could not remember whether his statement was
recorded by the CBI officials in main Uphaar case. He stated that he came
twice to Patiala House Court in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal with his
Chief Fire Officer. He could not remember as to whether his statement was
recorded before the Court in main Uphaar case and therefore, he stated to
defence counsel that any document relating to the said case may be shown
to him then only he can recollect the same. He affirmed that without being
shown the record, he cannot remember whether his evidence was recorded
before the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal or not as the matter has become 23
years old. He further stated that some pages have been missing from the
occurrence book containing pages 1 to 400 which was shown to him. He
could not remember any document in particular but he remember only
about the occurrence book. He stated that out of 400 pages some last pages
were missing, however, he could not remember the page number and the
exhibit number. He stated that he was given the occurrence book to be
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 60 of 274
handed over to CBI by Headquarter, Delhi Fire Services. He could not
remember the name of the official or his designation who gave it to him. He
further stated that no acknowledgment was taken from him while handing
him over the occurrence book. He further stated that he gave it in Samrat
Hotel, Fourth Floor to some South Indian CBI Officer whose name he
could not recall but the same is written in the seizure memo. He further
stated that he gave him acknowledgment receipt for having received the
occurrence book containing page nos. 1 to 400. He could not produce the
same receipt but that day it was shown to him by the Ld. Prosecutor at the
time of examination-in-chief by way of cross-examination. He also signed
the seizure memo. He further stated that he did not initial/ sign on every
page while handing over the occurrence book to CBI, however, on
occurrence book on pages, date and timings have been mentioned.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Prem Pratap Batra, the witness could not remember whether any officer
of Delhi Police ever took his statement. He further stated that he alongwith
his team members had been summoned to Police Headquarters but no
statement was recorded. He could not remember when he was summoned to
the Police Headquarters and the name of any officer of Delhi Police to
whom he may have interacted with. He voluntarily stated that he had never
in the past made any statement to any agency, there is no question of him
having been shown any previous statement. He further stated that he is
talking only about statement given to Delhi Police. He further stated that no
summons was issued to them for appearing before Delhi Police
Headquarters. He further stated that he only went to Delhi Police
Headquarter once. He denied the suggestion he had never given any
testimony before the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal in the main Uphaar case.
He denied the suggestion that his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C was
doctored by the IO of present case. He further denied that this was done in
order to fill up a gap the prosecution’s case. He affirmed that statement
dated 10.06.2006 Mark Ex.PW11/DA was given by him to Mr. Amit Roy.
He further affirmed that he had told Mr. Amit Roy that “during the trial of
the case I was summoned in the court of ASJ Ms. Mamta Sehgal, where the
page no. 379 of occurrence book was missing and I was confronted with a
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 61 of 274
photocopy of page no. 379 which I proved to be the same copy of original
page no. 379 of occurrence book. The Court exhibited this photocopy as
PW-99/A”. He denied the suggestion that the portion Ex. PW11/DA is false
and a lie. He further denied the suggestion that he gave this false statement
at the instance of the investigating officer.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, he stated that he had joined Delhi Fire Services
on 03.06.1966 as a Telephone Operator and he retired as Divisional Officer
in January 2009. He further stated that he was on the post of Assistant
Divisional Officer in the year 1997. He could not remember in the present
case if he had joined the investigation or not. He affirmed that none of the
entry made in occurrence book was made by him. He stated that he has no
knowledge about the contents of missing page from occurrence book.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness affirmed that he is neither the scribe nor author of
the document Ex.PW10/E (photocopy of occurrence book) that has been
identified by him in his examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that
he is neither the author nor scribe of the document therefore he has no
authority to depose before the Court.
Accused Anoop Singh was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross-examination was done.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-11 :
1 D-89 ,SEIZURE MEMO DATED
30.07.1997 OF OCCURRENCE BOOK OF
DFS
Ex PW 11/A
2 STATEMENT OF PW 11 U/S 161 Ex PW 11/DA
23. PW-12 Sh. Ashok Gupta, was examined. In his examinationin-
chief, he stated that he was working as Inspector in CBI in the year 1997
and posted at CBI, SIC, IV Branch. He stated that he was the Assistant
Investigating Officer to Sh. R. S. Khattri (PW-10) Chief Investigating
Officer. He stated that during investigation, he had taken over the two
cheques from a bank officer through seizure memo and certified copy of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 62 of 274
photocopy of seizure memo is already exhibited as Ex.PW-10/K. After
seeing the seizure memo Ex.PW10/A, he affirmed that two cheques were
seized from Sh. M.L. Dhupar, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank on
18.08.1997 and it bears his signatures at point A. He stated that he had
taken another cheque through seizure memo certified copy of photocopy of
seizure memo is already Ex. PW-10/N bearing his signatures at point A and
the said cheque he stated to be seized from Sh. Ishwar Bhat, Assistant
Manager, Syndicate Bank. He stated that during his deposition, the original
seizure memos already Ex. PW-10/K and Ex. PW-10/N and three cheques
already Ex. PW-10/L, Ex. PW-10/M and Ex. PW-10/O were found missing.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he had been on
deputation in the CBI from the year 1994 to 2001. He further stated that the
said cheques had not been issued by accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He
further stated that he had joined the investigation of the present case only
once but he could not remember the exact date and time. He could not
remember whether he had also visited the Court on the day when the
charge-sheet of main Uphaar case was filed.
Accused Sushil Ansal, P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh & Gopal
Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
24. PW-13 Sh. R.C. Sharma was examined. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that he was posted as Deputy Chief Fire Officer at
Delhi Fire Service Headquarter, Cannaught Place, New Delhi in the year
1997. He further stated that he has been associated with the investigation of
Uphaar case. He further stated that the first inquiry was conducted by Sh.
Naresh Kumar, DC South regarding the incident of fire. He further stated
that some Inspector from CBI had seized main file of Uphaar Cinema
maintained at Delhi Fire Services about an year after the said incident. He
further stated that total files were containing some 30 pages on the note
sides and more than 100 pages of the correspondence side. He further stated
that he was also examined as a witness in the main Uphaar case. He further
stated that he was shown some torn document from the main Uphaar case
file alongwith the photocopy of the same which was full page/ complete
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 63 of 274
document during the course of his deposition in the Court. He further
stated that he can identify the torn documents, if shown to him. He
identified the certified copy of a torn document i.e. letter written to Delhi
Fire Services from Sh. Vimal Kumar Nagpal, Vice President (Services),
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. dated 28.11.1996 was shown to him
and he stated that this is one of the documents which was handed over to
the said Inspector. He further stated that a Certified copy of the said
document is already on record which is already Ex. PW10/C (colly.).
Original of the said document has already been produced for the inspection
of the Court during the deposition of PW10 Sh. R. S. Khatri. The witness
has also been shown the certified copy of the photocopy of the complete
documents already on record and Marked as Ex. PW10/C (colly.). The
witness stated that it is the photocopy of original which is complete in all
respect. The document Ex. PW10/C bears the signatures of Sh. H. S.
Panwar at point A, who was the Divisional Fire Officer, posted at Delhi Fire
Services, Bhikaji Cama Place at relevant time.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, he submitted the documents as required by the DC, South
during inquiry and gave the documents i.e. the file of Uphaar Cinema to the
investigating agency i.e. CBI after receipt of the same. He stated that he
was already examined as a witness in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the
then Ld. ASJ. He denied the suggestion that he is avoiding the questions
and is given the answers are not the answers in respect to the questions
being asked. He further affirmed that in his examination-in-chief, he has
been associated with the investigation of Uphaar case by CBI. He affirmed
that Inspector from CBI who came to his office and collected the records
relevant to Uphaar case file and he further stated that he thinks it was some
Insp. Satpal but he could not remember exactly as the matter is very old. He
affirmed that he was asked to compare the provision of Cinematograph Act
and Fire safety provisions. He further stated that CBI officer recorded his
statement in this regard as far as he could remember. He further affirmed
that his statement was recorded by number of officers from number of
different investigation agencies. He could not remember to have signed any
statements recorded by investigating agencies. He stated that he had handed
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 64 of 274
over one file of Uphaar Cinema. He could not remember, if any other
record other than the file was given by him directly to CBI officer Satpal
Singh. He further stated that it was about 30 pages of note sides and over
about 120 pages on the correspondence sides. He affirmed that he has not
been shown the file and only one page has been shown in the Court during
his examination-in-chief. He could not specify page wise as to what were
those pages on correspondence sides. He denied the suggestion that he is
shifting his stand now. He could not remember as to whether he initialed /
signed each page of the file when he handed over the same to CBI. He
counted the pages because they were to be handed over and receipt were to
be taken. He said that probably numbering was there as is therein all files.
He could not tell the exact count but it was recorded in the receipt. That
receipt has not been shown to him in the Court. He denied the suggestion
that he is deposing falsely regarding the one page despite he has not
remembered the exact count and the exact text of those pages. He further
stated that the noting on Ex. PW10/C signatures of H. S. Panwar point A is
put up on file. He could not tell whether the file went to H.S. Panwar in
upward movement or downward movement. Witness further identified his
initials at point B on the documents Ex. PW10/C (colly). He affirmed that
there are initials of other officials also on this page. He could not make out
names of those officials. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed
falsely on oath while identifying the signatures/initials of H. S. Panwar
while he could not identify signatures /initials of any other official. He
could not remember what was the pages number written on the page on
which he has identified his signatures. He affirmed that from the torn page
shown to him signatures of other officials were also there on the portion
which have been torn. He could not remember whether his statement was
recorded by Sh. Amit Roy, ACP, EOW, Crime Branch. He is shown his
purported statement under section 161 Cr.P.C Marked as PW13/D1, it could
have been his statement. He could not remember exactly as to whether
documents were given by him to officer from CBI or officer from Delhi
Police. Since, the inquiries were initiated one after the other i.e. DC, South,
Crime Branch, Delhi Police and then CBI, he might be not remembering
the name of Department and designations of officers exactly. He denied the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 65 of 274
suggestion that at behest of prosecution and association of Uphaar Victims,
he has deposed the details about a page from a file but all other relevant
details he could not remember which showed that details of a page had been
tutored to him for deposition.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he had not handed over any document
to the IO of the present case during investigation. He affirmed that he is
neither the scribe or the author of the documents that he had identified in
his examination-in-chief. He stated that he did not have any personal
knowledge regarding the facts of the present case. He further stated that he
did not have any knowledge regarding any application which may or may
not have been filed as regards the documents mentioned by him in his
examination-in-chief. He had stated to the IO of the present case in his
statement under section 161 Cr. P.C Mark PW13/D1 that he had been
associated with the investigation of the Uphaar case (confronted with
statement mark PW13/D1 where the said fact is not so recorded). He
has stated to the IO of the present case that the first inquiry was conducted
by Sh. Naresh Kumar, DC South regarding the incident of fire (confronted
with statement mark PW13/D1 where the said fact is not so recorded).
He had not done any pagination of the documents mentioned by him in his
examination-in-chief. He affirmed that there was only one page which he
had referred to in his deposition in the main Uphaar case and the same was
exhibit. He stated that he had not participated in any inquiry conducted by
any judicial officer in relation to the documents pertaining to the main
Uphaar case. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief to suit the case of the prosecution. He denied the
suggestion that he is not competent to identify or testify regarding the
documents mentioned by him in his examination-in- chief. He denied the
suggestion that he had become a witness in the present case on the asking
of the AVUT representative in order to frame and falsely implicate the
accused in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed
falsely in his examination chief.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that his statement was
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 66 of 274
recorded in the present case at the office of Crime Branch, PHQ, ITO, New
Delhi. He stated that on the first day he remained seated at the said office
and his statement was recorded on next day. He could not remember the
date and time. He could not remember if any other police officer other than
IO was present when his statement was recorded. He could not remember if
statement of any other witness was recorded on that day. He did not have
personal knowledge about the contents of the documents containing 30
pages on the notes side and more than 100 pages on the correspondence
side. He could not say if the document in question is related to accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma or not. He denied the suggestion that the IO did
not explain the relevancy of the documents relied upon by him in his
examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma has been falsely implicated in this case. He denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Accused P.P Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross examination was
done.
Ld. Addl. PP with the permission of the Court re-examined
the witness and the witness stated on oath that copy of his statement
recorded in main Uphaar case running into 20 pages is exhibited as
Ex.PW13/A (already on record in supplementary charge-sheet).
Accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma and P.P.
Batra were afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he did not remember what were the
facts and details given in the statement in the main Uphaar Fire Tragedy
case. He stated that he had responded to the IO of present case only in
relation to the questions asked during investigation. He denied the
suggestion that his statement exhibited has been done to falsely implicate
the accused in the present case. He stated that he had not handed over copy
of his statement recorded in the main Uphaar case to the IO of the present
case during investigation in the present case. He denied the suggestion that
he had exhibited the document in his examination-in-chief at the instance
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 67 of 274
of prosecution to frame the accused.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that at the time of his deposition during the
main Uphaar case, everything was fresh in his mind, however, he could not
recollect the same on that day. He could not remember if investigating
officer ever asked him regarding the facts of the main Uphaar case during
the investigation of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he had
deposed falsely at the instance of prosecution. He did not volunteer to get
his statement exhibited which is Ex.PW13/A in the present case. He
denied the suggestion that he did not volunteer to bring on record his
statement during his examination-in-chief or during his cross-examination
in the present case.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-13 :
1 DEPOSITION OF PW 13 IN THE MAIN
UPHAAR CASE
Ex PW 13/A
2 STATEMENT OF PW 13 U/S 161 Mark PW 13/D1
25. PW-14 SI Bal Kishore (now retired) s/o Late Sh. Ram
Singh Tyagi R/o Village Kishola, PS-Syana, District– Bulandsher,UP was
examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1997 he
was posted as ASI, SIT Section, Crime Branch, New Delhi. He has been
associated with the investigation of main Uphaar Tragedy on 18.07.1997.
He stated that he had joined the investigation of that case alongwith
Inspector R.S Jhakar from Crime Branch. He stated that on that day, they
both went to Ansal Bhawan, Kasturba Gandhi Marg and Inspector R.S
Jhakar had seized ten documents from S.S. Gupta working at the office of
Ansal. Inspector Jhakar had seized aforesaid documents through seizure
memo in his presence and he also obtained his signatures thereon. He can
identify the said memo if shown to him. He affirmed that the original
seizure memo dated 18.07.97 is the same seizure memo vide which the
aforesaid document was seized by Inspector R.S. Jhakar. Photocopy of the
said torn seizure memo is already on record and same is now marked as
Ex.PW14/A (original torn seizure memo is seen from the record of original
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 68 of 274
Uphaar case and returned). Court observation is recorded that left side
lower portion of the second page of the seizure memo is torn. He further
stated that certified copy of the photocopy of the complete seizure memo
got exhibited during the course of main trial by way of secondary evidence
is also on record and the same is already marked as Ex.PW10/B (colly.). It
bears the signature of witness at point A. It also bears signature of Shyam
Sunder Gupta at point B on the said seizure memo who had signed the
same in his presence. He further stated that when the said seizure memo
Ex.PW14/A was prepared it was intact and was complete in all respect.
Accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma and P.P.
Batra were afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, he affirmed that there were nine registers and some pages
containing minutes of meeting. He could not tell all about those registers
and he stated that he had not gone through those registers. He could not
provide the individual details of each and every register separately. He
affirmed that he was associated in order to assist R.S Jhakar and he had
associated R.S Jhakar for many days. He stated that his statement was
recorded in this case only once. He stated that he did not give any other
statement in the present case.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness has accepted the correctness of the statement
Marked as Ex.PW14/DA in the open Court. He affirmed that the statement
given under section 161 Cr.P.C. by him provides the complete description
of documents which Insp. R.S. Jhakhar has seized along with him. He
affirmed that he cannot tell the complete description of documents which
Insp. R.S. Jhakhar had seized. He affirmed that he had only identified his
signature on the seizure memo dt. 18.07.1997 but he did not know the
contents of the said seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. He affirmed that he cannot
tell the contents of said seizure memo without going through the same. He
could not remember as to whether he verified the fact that the documents
seized by Insp. R.S. Jhakhar were mentioned in the abovesaid seizure
memo. He stated that he signed the said seizure memo as a witness. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 69 of 274
stated that he can tell the date of signing the seizure memo which was
18.07.1997.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he had not given any written complaint
during the pendency of main Uphaar Tragedy case either to Court or to
Investigating Officer regarding the tampering of the seizure memo that he
had identified in the present case. He stated that he was not summoned and
neither did he give any statement before any inquiry committee regarding
the subject matter of the present trial (tampering case). He stated that he
was never summoned as a witness in main Uphaar trial before the Ld. ASJ
to prove his signatures on the seizure memo that he is identifying now. He
denied the suggestion that he is lying in the statement recorded before this
Court. He denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge with regard to
the seizure memo which he has identified in the present case. He denied the
suggestion that he was neither the scribe nor the author of seizure memo
which he has identified in the present case and it was because of this
reason that he was never summoned as a witness in the main Uphaar
Tragedy case.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-14 :
1 SEIZURE MEMO DATED 18.07.1997
( In 3rd Supplementary Charge Sheet @
979-980)
Ex PW 14/A
2 STATEMENT OF PW 14 U/S 161 Ex PW 14/DA
26. PW-15 Inspector Ishwar Singh, No. D-1/928, Special Cell
SR, Sector 7, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi was examined. In his examinationin-
chief, he stated that on 17.05.2006, he was posted as SI at CBT Section,
EOW Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He stated that on that day,
Sh. Vijay Malik, ACP, CBT Section, EOW Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi had handed over him rukka Mark X with the instruction to take
the same to PS Tilak Marg for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he took
the rukka to said PS and got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he
came back to the said office and handed over the copy of FIR alongwith
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 70 of 274
original rukka to ACP Vijay Malik.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he is not aware about the contents of
rukka and the FIR.
Accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, P.P. Batra, Sushil
Ansal & Anoop Singh were afforded opportunity to cross examine this
witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-15 :
1 RUKKA
(Part of Ex PW29/A)
PW 15 Mark X
27. PW-16 Retired DSP Prithvi Singh S/o. Sh. Nathu Ram,
aged about 72 years, R/o. Village Govind Puri, Police Station and District
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana was examined. In his examination-in-chief, he
stated that in the year 1997, he was serving as a DSP in the CBI, SIC-IV,
Chankya Puri, New Delhi. He was on deputation in the CBI at that time. He
stated that on 26.07.1997, Insp. Satpal Singh, Inspector SIT, Crime Branch
had handed over him certain documents alongwith their common seizure
memo. The seizure memo was dt. 18.07.1997. He stated that it was
prepared by Insp. R.S. Jhakar. He stated that when he received the aforesaid
documents and seizure memo from Insp. Satpal Singh, they were intact in
all respect. He stated that later, he had handed over the aforesaid documents
and seizure memo to Sh. R.S. Khattri, DSP, CBI, SIC-IV, Chankya Puri,
New Delhi, who was the main Chief Investigation Officer and he was
assisting him. He could not remember the date when he had handed over
the aforesaid documents and seizure memo to Sh. R.S. Khattri. He stated
that when he appeared as a witness in main Uphaar case, he was shown the
aforesaid seizure memo but at that time, it was in torn condition. He stated
that he was also confronted with the photocopy of untorn seizure memo and
he approved the same to be photocopy of the original seizure memo dt.
18.07.1997. He further stated that original seizure memo is shown to the
witness from the record of main Uphaar case who identified it to be the
same seizure memo which was handed over to him by Insp. Satpal Singh
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 71 of 274
and at that time it was intact. He stated that on the overleaf of the second
page of the seizure memo bears the endorsement of the witness regarding
receipt of the documents alongwith the seizure memo. The Court
observation is recorded that the lower left side portion of the second
page of the said seizure memo is torn off. Photocopy copy of the torn
seizure memo is already on record and marked as Exhibit PW14/A. He was
shown the certified copy of the photocopy of untorn seizure memo which is
on record and he identified to be photocopy of untorn seizure memo and
same is Ex.PW1/B (Colly.). He stated that the same bear signatures and
endorsement made by witness regarding receipt of documents and seizure
memo from Inspector Satpal Singh at point A and signatures of Inspector
Satpal Singh at point B. His deposition recorded in the main Uphaar case,
the copy of which is already on record, running into 9 pages is Ex.PW16/A
bearing his signatures at point A on each page. Original deposition is seen
from the record of main Uphaar Trial Case.
Accused P.P. Batra & Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that his statement was recorded in the
present case only once when he was called to join the investigation. He
stated that he had not handed over any document to the IO in the present
case. He affirmed that the document that he had identified in his
examination-in-chief that day were neither seized from him nor was seized
in his presence in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he is not
competent to testify regarding the documents mentioned by him in his
examination-in-chief. He could not remember if he had stated to the police
in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the present case that “Later, I
had handed over the aforesaid documents and seizure memo to Sh. R.S.
Khattri, DSP, CBI, SIC-IV, Chankya Puri, New Delhi, who was the main
Chief Investigation Officer and I was assisting him. I do not remember the
date when I had handed over the aforesaid documents and seizure memo to
Sh. R.S. Khattri”. The statement of the witness is recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C is now Marked as Ex.PW16/DA. Confronted with statement
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 72 of 274
Ex.PW16/DA where the said fact is not so recorded. He denied the
suggestion that he has deposed falsely regarding the handing over of the
documents as mentioned in his examination-in-chief. He affirmed that he
has neither prepared nor authored any document or even the seizure memo
as referred in his examination-in-chief. He affirmed that he did not have
any knowledge regarding relevancy and the nature of documents as
mentioned by him in his examination-in-chief. He stated that he had not
joined any inquiry nor he was called in relation to any inquiry regarding the
missing/ torn documents. He could not remember the facts and events
pertaining to main Uphaar trial case. He denied the suggestion that he has
given his testimony in the present case at the instance of the IO and the
complainant in order to frame and implicate the accused persons. He denied
the suggestion that he has mentioned and referred the documents in his
examination-in-chief at the instance of the IO. He denied the suggestion
that he has deposed falsely in his examination-in-chief.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness affirmed that post handing over the seizure memo
to Sh. R.S. Khattri, he saw the said seizure memo Ex.PW14/A for the first
time during his deposition in the main Uphaar case. He further affirmed that
he cannot say as to what happened to the said seizure memo in between the
said period.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he cannot say whether
the documents mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW14/A were related to
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma or not. He stated that he was not present
nor been associated in the filing of the charge-sheet of the main Uphaar
case. He stated that no accused of the present case or the main Uphaar case
was present at the time when his statement was recorded in the present
case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the behest of
the IO. He denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma has
been falsely implicated in the present case.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-16 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 73 of 274
1 DEPOSITION OF PW 16 IN THE
MAIN UPHAAR TRIAL
Ex PW 16/A
2 STATEMENT OF PW 16 U/S 161 Ex PW 16/DA
28. PW-17 : Sh. Satyapal Singh (Retired ACP), R/o. A-110,
Delhi Police Co-operative Group Housing Society, Sector 32/33, Greater
Noida, U.P. was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the
year 1997, he was posted as Inspector Crime Branch and member of a
Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted for conducting investigation in
the main Uphaar case. He had been associated with the investigation of
main Uphaar case being part IO. Chief Investigating Officer was Sh. Rajbir
Singh, who was heading the SIT, Crime Branch, Delhi Police. He stated
that on 12.07.1997, he had taken into possession the file of Delhi Fire
Services pertaining to Uphaar Cinema, Green Park, New Delhi. This file
was consisted of 30 pages of notesheets and 128 pages of correspondence
file which was numbered as C-1 to C-128. He stated that he had also taken
into possession Emergency Occurrence Book of Delhi Fire Services for the
period from 30.05.1997 to 15.06.1997. They were 400 pages in that book.
Out of them page numbers 1 to 292 were written and the remaining pages
were blank. He stated that when he seized the aforesaid documents from
Sh. R.C. Sharma, Deputy Fire Chief Officer, Delhi Fire Services,
Headquarter, Connaught Place, New Delhi, all the aforesaid documents
were intact in all the respect. None of the documents were torn at that time.
He stated that he had also put his initial on each pages of aforesaid written
documents. He stated that he can identify any of the pages from amongst
the said documents if shown to him as he had also put his initial thereon.
The witness after seeing the document i.e. original page no. C-123 of the
correspondence file i.e. a letter written by Vimal K Nagpal, Vice President
(Services), Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. addressed to the Divisional
Officer, Delhi Fire Service, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi, stated that the said
page is in torn condition while it was seized by him it was intact in all
respect and also had his initial. The witness has shown certified copy of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 74 of 274
photocopy of the untorn document Ex.PW10/C (Colly.) and after seeing the
same, he stated that it is true copy of its original untorn document and bears
his initial and page no. C/123 written by him at point A. Certified copy of
the torn page, C-123 is Ex.PW10/C (Colly.) alongwith certified copy of
photocopy of untorn document bearing his initials on page no. C/123 at
point A. The witness stated that since the case was transferred to the CBI,
he had handed over the aforesaid documents to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP, CBI
on 26.07.1997. He further stated that on the same day, he had also handed
over one original seizure memo prepared by Insp. R.S. Jhakar regarding
seizure of 10 documents from Sh. S.S. Gupta alongwith the 10 documents
which were seized through that seizure memo to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP,
CBI. He further stated that the said seizure memo and the said documents
were intact in all respect when he handed over them to Sh. Prithvi Singh,
DSP, CBI on 26.07.1997. He had also obtained the receipt from Sh. Prithvi
Singh, DSP, CBI in this regard on the overleaf of aforesaid seizure memo.
After seeing the document i.e. original seizure memo dt. 18.07.1997 (D-20)
prepared by Insp. R.S. Jhakar running into 2 pages having endorsement
regarding the receipt of the 10 documents with their seizure memo, witness
stated that it was the same seizure memo which was handed over by him to
Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP, CBI alongwith the documents mentioned therein.
The seizure memo was intact at that time in all respect but on the day of
examination, the left half lower portion of the second page of the seizure
memo is in torn condition. Certified copy of the said torn seizure memo is
already on record in the present case and already marked as Ex.PW14/A.
He was shown certified copy of photocopy of untorn seizure memo which
was got exhibited by way of secondary evidence during the trial of main
Uphaar case and after seeing the same, he submitted that it is the true copy
of original seizure memo Ex.PW10/B bearing his signatures at point B and
signatures of Sh. Prithvi Singh at point A at the overleaf of second page of
seizure memo. He was also examined as witness in main Uphaar case.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, he affirmed that after he handed over the documents to Sh.
Prithvi Singh, DSP, he saw those documents only during his deposition in
the main Uphaar case. He stated that he cannot say as to who had the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 75 of 274
custody of the said documents or dealt with said documents during the said
period.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness has stated that he had joined the investigation
once in the present case. His statement was recorded at that time. He was
confronted with his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding his
statement “When I seized the aforesaid documents from Sh. R.C. Sharma,
Deputy Fire Chief Officer, Delhi Fire Services, Headquarter, Connaught
Place, New Delhi, all the aforesaid documents were intact in all the
respect. None of the documents were torn at that time” where it was not so
recorded and only reference is made to page no. 123 of the file in this
regard. He could not remember if in the main Uphaar case, he had
identified or seen each and every page of the document mentioned by him
in the examination-in-chief that day. He had not joined any inquiry or
departmental proceedings in relation to the alleged Torn/ Mutilated
documents. The trial judge of the main Uphaar case Hon’ble Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, ASJ had never examined him or inquired from him during any
inquiry regarding the documents mentioned by him in his examination-inchief.
He denied stating in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in the
present case that “on the same day, I had also handed over one original
seizure memo prepared by Insp. R.S. Jhakar regarding seizure of 10
documents from Sh. S.S. Gupta alongwith the 10 documents which were
seized through that seizure memo to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP and that the
said seizure memo and the said documents were intact in all respect when I
handed over them to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP, CBI on 26.07.1997 and that I
had also obtained the receipt from Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP, CBI in this
regard on the overleaf of aforesaid seizure memo and that After seeing the
documents, witness stated that it was the same seizure memo which was
handed over by him to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP, CBI alongwith the
documents mentioned therein and that the seizure memo was intact at that
time in all respect but today, the left half lower portion of the second page
of the seizure memo is in torn condition”. He further stated that he had not
seen the seizure memo dt. 18.07.1997 (D-20) during the investigation of the
present case. He voluntarily stated that if he had seen it during
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 76 of 274
investigation, he would have mentioned it in his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that the identification of the aforesaid
documents done by him in his examination-in-chief is defective and has
been done to suit the case of the prosecution. He denied the suggestion that
he has identified the aforesaid documents without having any knowledge
about the same or that he is incompetent to identify the same. He further
stated that he had not stated in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. in
the present case anything related to leading of secondary evidence in the
main Uphaar case. He affirmed that he did not have any knowledge as to
what documents were or were not exhibited through secondary evidence in
the main Uphaar case. He further stated that he had not examined or
recorded any statement of the author or scribe of the document Ex.PW10/C
(colly.) or the correspondence file as mentioned by him in his examinationin-
chief. The seizure memo was not prepared by him. He affirmed that
generally whenever the seizure memo is prepared, the signature of the
author appears or taken on the right hand side at the bottom of the seizure
memo and the signatures of the attesting witness appear on the left side of
the end of the seizure memo. He affirmed that his signatures identified by
him on Ex.PW14/A are not at the end of the seizure memo but are on the
overleaf of the page. He voluntarily stated that he was not the witness to the
seizure memo but it is only an acknowledgement of the receipt regarding
handing over the documents. He denied the suggestion that his signatures
were manipulated and were introduced and inserted to suit the case of the
prosecution. He denied the suggestion that the overleaf portion of the
abovesaid document was fabricated to suit the story of the prosecution. He
affirmed that the documents mentioned by him in his examination-in-chief
as regards C-123 Ex.PW10/C (colly.) are not related to the management of
the Uphaar Cinema. He voluntarily stated that they were of Delhi Fire
Service Department and C-123 has been written by one Sh. Vimal Kumar
Nagpal, an Official of M/s. Ansals Properties and Industries Ltd. to the
Divisional Fire Officers, Bhikaji Cama Place. He had not examined Mr.
Vimal Kumar Nagpal during investigation of main Uphaar case. He did not
know as to what was the designation, status or role of the said Sh. Vimal
Kumar Nagpal in relation to Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. or Uphaar
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 77 of 274
Cinema. He voluntarily stated that may be he was Operational Manager. He
further stated that the said Sh. Vimal Kumar Nagpal was neither examined
by him in the main Uphaar case nor was he examined by the IO of the
present case (tampering matter) in his presence. He denied the suggestion
that he has introduced Mr. Vimal Kumar Nagpal’s name to create prejudice
against the accused persons in order to falsely implicate them in the present
case. He further stated that he did not have any knowledge about the total
number of documents which are subject matter of present case. He denied
the suggestion that he has become a witness in the present case at the
instance of complainant and the investigating officer to falsely implicate the
accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that the documents which he
seized and handed over to Sh. Prithvi Singh, DSP were of Delhi Fire
Services related to Uphaar Cinema. He affirmed that the said documents
were not related to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. When his statement
under section 161 Cr. P.C was recorded in the present case, none else was
present.
Accused P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross examination was
done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-17 :
1 STATEMENT OF PW 17 U/S 161
Cr.P.C IN THE PRESENT CASE
Ex PW 17/DA
29. PW-18 Insp. Harish Chander, No. D-I/111, Rashtriyapati
Bhawan, New Delhi was examined. He has stated in his examination-inchief
that on 22.11.2006, he was posted as Inspector at Economic Offence
Wings, Crime Branch, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi. He had been
associated with the investigation of the present case. He further stated that
on 22.11.2006, he alongwith Insp. Tika Ram, SI Sushil Yadav, SI Harkesh,
HC Satbir, Ct. Harpal and the IO ACP Amit Roy joined the investigation of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 78 of 274
this case. He further stated that on that day, accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma was arrested from his house bearing house no. 1/1609, Mansarovar
Park, Shahdara, Delhi. The arrest memo and personal search memo were
prepared in this regard and also appended his signatures thereon. He further
stated that on that day at about 3 pm, they left their office Economic
Offence Wings, Crime Branch, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi to
effect the arrest of said accused. He further stated that apart from police
officials, two public persons had also witnessed to the proceedings of the
arrest and personal search of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. One of them
either Jitender Kumar Sharma and Shyam Sunder. He further stated that on
25.11.2006, he again joined investigation of this case alongwith Insp. Tika
Ram and the IO. He further stated that on that day, IO had interrogated
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in his office and also recorded his
disclosure statement. He himself and Insp. Tika Ram had appended their
signatures on the said disclosure statement. He further stated that accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma had disclosed inter alia other things that after
being dismissed from service, he had secured job in A Plus Security and
Training Centre, A-96, Saidullajab, New Delhi and pursuant thereof the
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma took us the office of A Plus Security and
Training Centre, A-96, Saidullajab, New Delhi and the search of the said
premises was conducted. He further stated that one Anoop Singh was
present at the said office who produced two registers i.e. one Register of
Employment and Remuneration of Employees for the period from
August,2003 to February, 2005 containing 97 pages and the second register
was also of Employment and Remuneration of Employees for the period
from March, 2005 to April, 2006 containing 98 pages. He further stated that
in the first register, on page nos. 77, 82, 87 and 93 at a particular entry a
white fluid was applied and over it the name Ram Karan was written. In the
same register, the revenue stamp against the said entry at page nos. 83, 88
and 94 were found missing. He further stated that in the second register, on
page nos. 2, 8, 14 and 21 at a particular entry a white fluid was applied and
over it the name Ram Karan was written. He further stated that in the same
register, the revenue stamp against the said entry at page no. 15 was found
missing and on page no. 22 white fluid was applied on the revenue stamp.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 79 of 274
He further stated that both the aforesaid registers were taken into possession
by the IO through a seizure memo on which he himself, Insp. Tika Ram and
one public witness namely Arvind Kumar had appended their signatures.
He further stated that the said Anoop Singh who had produced the registers
had also appended his signature on the seizure memo. Witness correctly
identified accused Anoop Singh and accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He
stated that the disclosure statement given by the accused is Ex.PW18/A
bearing his signature at point A and the portion containing the facts
pursuant thereto the aforesaid recovery is effected is at point B to B1. He
further stated that the seizure memo regarding seizure of aforesaid two
registers is Ex.PW18/B bearing his signatures at point A and the signature
of Anoop Singh is at point B who had appended his signature in his
presence. The witness identified the first Register of Employment and
Remuneration of Employees for the period from August, 2003 to February,
2005 containing 97 pages vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. The register is
marked as Ex.PW18/C. The witness also pointed out the entries where the
fluid had been applied at page nos. 77, 82, 87 and 93 of the said register
where name Ram Karan has been written over the white fluid. Witness also
pointed out the places at page nos. 83, 88 and 94 where the revenue stamp
was found missing. The witness identified the second Register of
Employment and Remuneration of Employees for the period from March,
2005 to April, 2006 containing 98 pages which was seized vide seizure
memo Ex.PW18/B. The register is now marked as Ex.PW18/D. The
witness also pointed out the entries where the fluid had been applied at page
nos. 2, 8, 14 and 21 of the said register where name Ram Karan has been
written over the white fluid. Witness also pointed out the place at page no.
15 where the revenue stamp was found missing and at the place at page no.
22 white fluid has been applied over the revenue stamp.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that on 22.11.2006, he
alongwith other police officials had assembled in the office of IO in the
basement of the office of EOW. They left the office at about 3 pm. They
had gone to house of the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in two vehicles
including one official vehicles. He did not remember the make, model and
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 80 of 274
registration number of the said vehicles. They took around one hour to
reach at the house of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He could not
remember the number of floors of the house of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma nor he can tell the width of road leading to house of accused.
Family members of the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma including his
brother-in-law and father were present at the house. He further stated that
arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared by the IO in the
house of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The information regarding arrest
of the accused was given to his father but he could not remember if his
signatures were taken on the memo or not. Public persons had collected
outside the house of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma but he did not
remember if any such person joined investigation. He voluntarily stated that
accused was arrested inside his house. It took about one and half hours to
complete all the necessary proceedings following the arrest of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma. They left the house of accused at about 5-
5:30p.m. No search of the house of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was
made at the time of arrest regarding any missing documents. He further
stated that accused was brought to the office of EOW after his arrest and
thereafter his medical examination was got done. They reached office of
EOW at about 6-6:30 pm. They stayed at EOW for about an hour. He did
not know what further proceedings were conducted by the IO at EOW
during that period. They left the office of EOW at about 7:30 pm for
medical examination of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He alongwith SI
Harkesh Gaba, HC Satbir and Ct. Harpal took the accused for his medical
examination. They reached AIIMS within half an hour. He did not
remember how long they stayed there nor he can tell the time when they
left AIIMS. From AIIMS, they returned to the office of IO and handed over
the accused to him. Thereafter, he did not join the investigation on that day.
He did not participate in investigation on 23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006. He
further stated that on 25.11.2006, IO interrogated the accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma in his presence at about 10 am. Insp. Tikka Ram was also
present at that time. Only disclosure statement was recorded by the IO.
Disclosure statement was typed. He did not remember the number of pages
of disclosure statement without seeing the same. He remained present at the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 81 of 274
office of EOW for about two or two and half hour. He alongwith IO, Insp.
Tiika Ram and other staff proceeded to the office of A Plus Security by
official vehicle. He did not remember the make, model and number of
vehicle. He did not know if IO had made any departure entry before leaving
his office. They reached A Plus Security at about 1 pm. The distance
between the office of IO and A Plus Security must be 8-10 kilometers. The
office of A Plus Security was in residential premises. He could not tell the
dimension of the said office. He did not remember how many persons were
present in the said office. They stayed said office for about three hours and
left the same after 4 p.m. for EOW. He did not know the period of remand
of the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma obtained by the IO as he was not
present at that time. No missing document related to main Uphaar case
recovered in his presence from accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He further
stated that he did not participate in the investigation apart from the
investigation conducted on 22.11.2006 and 25.11.2006. IO had recorded the
statement of public witness Arvind Kumar as well as his statement on
25.11.2006. Statement of accused Anoop Singh was also recorded as he was
not made accused at that time. He denied the suggestion that he did not join
investigation the investigation on 22.11.2006 and 25.11.2006 or that
accused was not arrested in his presence. He denied the suggestion that
accused did not make any disclosure statement rather his signatures were
obtained on blank papers. He further denied the suggestion that all the
proceedings were done at the office of EOW and his signatures were
obtained on blank papers. He further denied the suggestion that accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma has nothing to do with the registers recovered from
the office of A Plus Security. He further denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely in the present case.
Accused P.P. Batra was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that the statements of public witnesses who
had joined the proceedings regarding arrest of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma were recorded by the IO/ ACP Amit Roy. As he is not the IO of the
case, he cannot tell how the witnesses were asked to join the said
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 82 of 274
proceedings by the IO. He did not know whether the statements of the
above said witnesses have been placed on record in the present case. He
affirmed that the name of the officials i.e. Sh. Amit Roy, Inspector Tika
Ram and himself are typed written on Ex.PW18/A. He further affirmed that
signature appearing at point B is not containing any typed written name
beneath the signatures. He further affirmed that while preparation of
Ex.PW18/A, no independent witnesses were made to join the proceedings.
He denied the suggestion that as Ex.PW18/A has been fabricated, therefore,
no independent witness was made to join the proceedings. He denied the
suggestion that from the document itself, it is clear that signatures at point
B were obtained on a blank sheet as same has no typed written name
beneath the signatures, though the other three names are typed written. No
written requisition was given to him for joining investigation of this case.
He voluntarily stated that he was subordinate to the IO, as such no
permission was required. He further stated that he was not the part of the
investigation except the proceedings conducted on 22.11.2006 and
25.11.2006. He affirmed that the seizure memo Ex.PW18/B did not bear the
signature of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma nor his name has been
referred in its body. He could not tell why the name of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma is not mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW18/B, which
can only be explained by the IO of the case. He affirmed that the
signatures of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma were not obtained on the
documents produced pursuant to document Ex.PW18/B. No search memo
was prepared on 25.11.2006. He denied the suggestion that the evidence
given by him regarding disclosure and recovery are false.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Anoop Singh, the witness stated that he joined the investigation in the
present case at the behest of IO. The instructions to join the investigation
given to him by the IO verbally as he was his subordinate officer. His
statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the IO on 22.11.2006
and 25.11.2006 in the office of the IO. He denied the suggestion that he had
gone through the police file before his deposition in the Court. He denied
the suggestion that he did not join proceeding of this case or that he has
deposed falsely at the behest of IO being his subordinate. He could not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 83 of 274
remember if any white fluid was applied on any other entries in the
registers purportedly handed over by the accused Anoop Singh. He denied
the suggestion that accused Anoop Singh was not present at the time when
IO and his team visited the office of A Plus Security and Training Centre.
He voluntarily stated that he was a member of that team. He denied the
suggestion that the IO and his team had rampaged through the office of Sh.
Anoop Singh even before his arrival. He affirmed that the registers
purportedly handed over by the accused Anoop Singh were not sealed,
though seized by the IO. He had not participated in the investigation of the
present case except on 22.11.2006 and 25.11.2006, therefore, he cannot
comment on the culpability of the accused Anoop Singh in the present case.
He voluntarily stated that it is the job of IO. He affirmed that no
investigation was carried out in his presence to establish nexus between
accused Anoop Singh and P.P. Batra in the instant case apart from the facts
disclosed by accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in his disclosure statement.
He denied the suggestion that alleged disclosure statement of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma was not recorded in his presence. He further stated
that despite their best efforts, they could not locate the arrest memo and
personal search memo of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. However,
efforts are continued.
Accused Sushil Ansal was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-18 :
1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF DINESH
CHANDRA SHARMA
Ex PW 18/A
2 SEIZURE MEMO Dt 25.11.2006
(Remuneration Register of A Plus Security)
Ex PW 18/B
3 REMUNERATION REGISTER OF A PLUS
SECURITY ( Aug 2003- Feb 2005)
Relevant Pgs 77,78,82,83,87,8893 &94
Ex PW 18/C
4 REMUNERATION REGISTER OF A PLUS
SECURITY ( March 2005- April 2006)
Relevant Pgs 2,8,14,15,21&22
Ex PW 18/D
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 84 of 274
30. PW-19 Sh. M.S. Phartyal, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, No. 32496, CBI, Special Crimes-III, CBI Headquarters, New Delhi
was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1997,
he was posted as Sub-Inspector Police, CBI, SIC-IV, New Delhi. He stated
that he has been associated in the investigation of the main Uphaar case. He
further stated that he had been assisting the Chief Investigating Officer Sh.
R.S. Khatri. He further stated that during the course of investigation, on the
instruction of Sh. R.S. Khatri, he had seized attendance register of the
Managers of the Uphaar Cinema, probably for the month of May or June
1997. He further stated that he had also seized one file containing minutes
of the MDs meeting and other correspondence containing 40 sheets. He
further stated that he had seized the aforesaid documents from Sh.
Malhotra, who was Deputy Manager, Uphaar Cinema. The said documents
were seized in the presence of public witness Sh. Avtar Singh, an Officer
working in the Punjab and Sind Bank situated near Uphaar Cinema at
Green Park. He further stated that the said witness had appended his
signatures on the each pages of the aforesaid documents, seized by him. He
further stated that during the course of recording of his deposition in the
Uphaar case, the aforesaid documents were shown to him for identification.
He further stated that when he saw the file of the minutes of MDs meeting,
6 pages were found missing from the file. The page numbers perhaps were
1, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 19. He was shown the photocopies of abovesaid
missing pages and he had approved the same to be the copies of their
originals on the basis of signatures of witness namely Avtar Singh on the
said pages. Certified copies of the photocopies of the missing pages viz. 1,
9, 12, 14, 18 and 19 (Ld. Addl. PP submits that these pages were got
exhibited by way of leading secondary evidence in main Uphaar case) from
the chargesheet of the present case. He has identified the certified copies of
the said pages to be the same which were shown to him during the
deposition in the main Uphaar case stating that these are the photocopies of
their originals which were seized by him. Certified copies of the
photocopies of the missing pages viz. 1, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 19 are already
Marked as Ex.PW10/P, Ex.PW10/Q, Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 85 of 274
and Ex.PW10/U respectively. The witness has also identified the signatures
of Sh. Avtar Singh in whose presence the said documents were taken into
possession at point A on each page. He said that he can identify the
remaining original 34 pages, if shown to him. The original 34 pages (MDs
conference meeting) from the case file of main Uphaar case were produced
and shown to witness which are running in 34 pages and witness after
seeing them stated that originally there were 40 pages and 6 pages bearing
nos. 1,9,12,14,18 & 19 are missing. The photocopies of said 34 pages is on
record in 3rd supplementary charge-sheet which is Ex.PW21/1(Colly.). He
stated that his deposition was recorded in main Uphaar case which is
Ex.PW19/A.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma and Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross examine this
witness but no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that in respect of the seizure of the file
which he has deposed that day, a seizure memo was prepared by him on the
date of seizure. The seizure memo was exhibited by him in the main Uphaar
case at the time of his deposition in the Court as Ex.PW98/A. Vide the said
seizure memo, he had seized two documents i.e. attendance register and
minutes of the meeting file. The date of the seizure memo was 27.08.1997.
He further stated that his signature and signature of Mr. Avtar Singh,
witness and Mr. Malhotra were taken on the seizure memo. He stated that
the file that he seized had 40 pages. He further stated that the file was of
MD meetings of Uphaar Cinema. He further stated that he came to know
that file was of MD meetings as it was so told to him by Mr. Malhotra when
he produced the said file. He was not the main IO of the Uphaar case. He
was the assisting IO. Mr. R.S. Khatri directed him to collect the file from
Mr. Malhotra. He had not given any notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. to Mr.
Malhotra. He is not aware whether Mr. Khatri had already given any notice
under section 91 Cr.P.C. to Mr. Malhotra or not. He stated that Mr. Khatri
simply directed him orally to go and collect the documents from Mr.
Malhotra against the seizure memo. Mr. Khatri had specified prior to his
going the documents which he was required to seize i.e. attendance register
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 86 of 274
and MD conference meeting file. The 40 pages of above mentioned meeting
file were in a file and not loose. He could not remember as to what was
written on the cover of the file and also he could not remember as to
whether the contents of the file were specified on the cover. He could not
remember as to whether the aforesaid pages in the file were loose, tagged or
punched. He handed over the file to Mr. R.S. Khatri. He could not
remember he may have seen the file cover alongwith the pages inside to
Mr. Khatri till date. He further stated that on the date of seizure, Cinema
Hall was not functioning and was under seal. The Cinema Hall was under
control of HC Kalyan Singh and his team. The main gate lock was opened
by HC Kalyan Singh. When he reached the Cinema, Mr. Malhotra was
present but Mr. Avtar Singh was summoned by him to act as a witness. Mr.
Malhotra took him to a room, having a board ‘Managers Room’ and picked
aforesaid file and the attendance register and produced. He could not know
as to what was the name of the Manager. He did not record the statement of
Mr. Avtar Singh and Mr. Malhotra. Signature of Mr. Malhotra were not
obtained on the documents seized but were obtained only on the seizure
memo. Avtar Singh’s signature were obtained on each page. He further
stated that he did not think it necessary to take signatures of Mr. Malhotra
on each page as the same had been signed by the independent witness. He
testified that photocopy of Page no. 1 which was missing was shown to him
at the time of his deposition on 09.05.2019 which was already Marked
Ex.PW10/P. He saw page no. 1 written on the page when it was shown to
him in the Court on 09.05.2019. He voluntarily stated that he also saw
signatures of Mr. Avtar Singh on that page. Witness stated upon seeing
Ex.PW10/P about page no. 1 written on it to which he replied that there is
some confusion but it is the same document which was shown to him and
he had exhibited which he had seized from Mr. Malhotra. He denied the
suggestion that he is being evasive in order to mask the truth. He further
denied the suggestion that he is refusing to answer the questions
specifically so that his lie about it being the same page which he seized
from Mr. Malhotra has been exposed. He denied the suggestion that as he
could not remember the contents of the said page, he could not have
deposed that it was the same page which he seized from Mr. Malhotra. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 87 of 274
did not remember the specific contents of page 9, 12, 14, 18 & 19. Before
putting this question, he had already been shown page number ‘1’. He
further stated that he is aware of the contents of the page ‘1’. He did not
remember as to who is the signatory of this letter. He further stated that this
document was circulated to office bearers of Uphaar Cinema. He did not
remember whether this letter was addressed to various office bearers of
Uphaar Cinema or to a specific office bearer on the top after ‘To’. He did
not remember the date of the letter. He did not remember as to whether
complete date was written on the letter. He affirmed that the copies were
marked. He denied the suggestion that as he did not know the contents of
the letter which is wrong on his part to say that it was the same document as
seized from Mr. Malhotra. He did not remember contents of all other 34
pages in respect of date, subject, signature and other details in the file. He
denied the suggestion that it is not humanly possible to remember the
contents of the all 40 pages seized in 1997, hence, his deposition that he
could identify the pages which were seized or his identification from the
photocopies of some of the pages is at the instance of the prosecution. He
further stated that when some documents are seized in CBI, then Malkhana
record number is put on the seizure memo and subsequent Malkhana record
number (MR number) are put on the documents. He denied the suggestion
that he is not able to tell about the MR number on Ex.PW10/P page 1 and
seal of the Oath Commissioner at point Y on Ex.PW10/P to Ex.PW10/U as
his statement regarding their seizure by him is incorrect. He further stated
that he has not examined any witness in the present case as he never been
IO of this case. The same is his answer with respect to main Uphaar case.
He affirmed that he had seen some of the copy of documents and some of
their originals, which he had seized, in the main Uphaar case, during his
deposition in the Court. He could not tell as to who had handed those
documents during the said intervening period. He denied the suggestion that
his evidence is hearsay and he has no personal knowledge regarding the
contents of the documents seized by him. He denied the suggestion that he
is deposing falsely.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-19 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 88 of 274
1 DEPOSITION PW 19 IN THE MAIN
UPHAAR TRIAL
Ex PW 19/A
31. PW-20 Sh. N.S. Virk, DSP, CBI, SIC-IV, now retired, R/o.
F-30C, First Floor, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi was examined. He
testified that on 27.08.1997, he had taken into possession a original cheque
bearing no. 955725 dt. 26.06.1995 issued by Sh. Sushil Ansal, authorized
signatory of M/s. Green Park Theaters Associated Pvt. Ltd. in the favour of
Sushil Ansal for an amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs from Sh. M.C. Khullar,
Assistant Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shankar Road, Rajender Nagar,
Delhi. He further stated that he seized the said cheque through a seizure
memo. He further stated that he was also examined as a witness in the main
Uphaar case. He further stated that during that course, he came to know that
the original of the said seizure memo and the cheque were either misplaced
or either lost. He was shown the photocopies of the seizure memo and the
cheques and he approved the same to be the copies of their originals. He
identified the certified copies of seizure memo and the cheque to be the true
copies of their originals seized by him and the said certified copy of the
seizure memo is already Marked as Ex.PW3/B bears the signature of
witness and signature of Sh. M.C. Khullar at point B who had appended his
signature in his presence.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he was associated with the
investigation of main Uphaar case for a couple of initial months of
investigation. Again said, he is not sure about the period. Mr. R.S. Khatri
had taken over the investigation from him at that point of time. He was not
associated with the investigating team at the time of filing of the chargesheet
in main Uphaar case. He was examined as a witness in that case.
Many other witnesses may have seen the documents referred to by him in
his examination-in-chief that day, prior to his deposition before the Court in
the main Uphaar trial case. He affirmed that the original cheque related to
Mr. Sushil Ansal was found and shown to the Court during the course of his
deposition. Again, he affirmed that he was not shown the original of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 89 of 274
said cheque. He denied the suggestion that the original cheque bearing no.
955725 dt. 26.06.1995 for amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs was found later on and
produced before the Court during the main Uphaar case. He denied the
suggestion that he is deliberately making an incorrect and false statement
knowingfully well that the original cheque as mentioned here-in-above was
found and produced before the Ld. Trial Court in the main Uphaar case. He
denied the suggestion that he has become a witness in the present case to
suit the case of the prosecution and also to falsely implicate the accused
persons. His statement was recorded during the course of investigation of
the present case. He had not handed over any document to the police nor
was any seizure of document made in his presence in the present case
during the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he has been in
contact with the representatives of the AVUT during investigation and even
prior to recording of his deposition in the present case to falsely implicate
the accused. He further denied the suggestion that he has been tutored to
give a statement to support a false story propped up by the prosecution. He
further stated that he had not joined any inquiry proceedings conducted by
any Judicial Officers in relation to the missing documents. He was not
summoned or inquired by the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ in
relation to the missing documents of the main Uphaar case. He stated that
his job is to liaison with the Court with regard to the case file etc. and to coordinate
with the IO, pairvi officers, witnesses etc. besides the Court. He
could not say if the Naib Court remains in contact with the Record Keeper
of the Court. He denied the suggestion that the misplacement of documents
can happen occasionally in cases where the records is voluminous.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he himself had not inspected the
Court file of main Uphaar case. He denied the suggestion that he has
deposed that day on the basis of hearsay evidence.
Accused P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness affirmed that the cheque in
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 90 of 274
question, seized by him was not concerned with the accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. No other witness was present when IO recorded his
statement in the present case. He stated that he did not know that the cheque
in question was later on found or not.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-20 :
1 STATEMENT OF PW 20 U/S 161 Ex PW 20/DA
32. PW-21 Sh. Avtar Singh, S/o. Lt. Sh. Prem Singh, aged
about 67 years, R/o. R-182, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi was
examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1997, he
was serving as Officer in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Green Park, New Delhi.
He could not remember the date but it happened in the year 1997 when he
on the request of Police Officer from CBI joined the investigation in the
main Uphaar case. He further stated that he accompanied him to an office
situated in the Uphaar Cinema Complex from his bank. He further stated
that in the said office, two documents were taken into possession by the
said CBI officer through a seizure memo whereon he also appended his
signature. The said documents were official paper. He further stated that he
had appended his initial on each paper which were seized by the said
officer. He further stated that he was examined as a witness in main Uphaar
case and during his deposition in the Court, the said documents were shown
to him but out of those documents 5-7 documents were photocopies of their
originals and he proved the same to be the true copy of their originals. He
was shown original documents (MDs conference minutes) the same are
running into 34 pages bearing his signatures and he after seeing it, stated
that page nos. 1, 9, 12, 14, 18 and 19 are missing. The copies of the said 34
pages are already on record in the third supplementary charge-sheet in the
present case and same are now Marked as Ex.PW21/A (colly.) bearing his
initial at point A on each page. The certified copies of the photocopies of
missing pages bearing nos. 1, 9, 12, 14, 18 & 19 from amongst the 40 pages
of the documents have been shown to the witness, who identified it to be
their originals. These six pages are already Marked as Ex.PW10/P
Ex.PW10/Q, Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T and Ex.PW10/U
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 91 of 274
bearing his initials at point A.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he is not aware about the contents of
the documents in question that he had identified that day. He stated that he
has only initialed on the said documents and have no knowledge of the
contents of the said documents. He denied the suggestion that his statement
in examination-in-chief cannot be relied upon as he is not the scribe nor the
author of the said documents. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely in his examination-in-chief.
Accused P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross-examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he did not know to
whom the said documents in question were related to. He did not know if
the statement of any other witness was recorded in his presence by the IO.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that the documents in question were seized
from the office of Uphaar Cinema Complex in his presence. He could not
remember the name of officer, who had seized the documents. He could not
remember how many times he gave his statement before the police. He has
given his statement more than once. He stated that he might have stated in
his statement before the police that the documents in question or subject
documents were seized from the office of Uphaar Cinema Complex in his
presence. He stated that these documents were not seized in his presence.
He remembered that in any of the statements given by him before the police
concerned the documents were seized in his presence. The witness testified
upon being shown his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the
production of document by Sh. K.L. Malhotra and his statement that he
accompanied him to an office situated in Uphaar Cinema, and clarified that
it was in his presence the documents were seized. He did not know which
documents were seized and he only made his initials on those seized
documents and he did not even paginate or page mark those documents. He
voluntarily stated that they have paginated itself. He affirmed that he has
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 92 of 274
initialed all the pages in the documents/ register reflected here-in-above. He
denied the suggestion that he has been shown that register in the Court. He
further stated that he has put his initials on all the documents which were
seized. He affirmed that Yes, “mere initial hue the” on the documents
which were produced in his presence.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-21 :
1 MD’s CONFERENCE – MINUTES OF
THE MEETING
( Pgs 996-1008 IN THE 3RD
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGESHEET
Ex PW 21/A
( Colly)
2 STATEMENT OF PW 21 U/S 161 Ex PW 21 /DA
33. PW-22 Sh. M.L. Dhuper, S/o. Sh. Hari Ram Dhuper, aged
about 65 years, R/o. B-4/4A, Model Town – I, Delhi 110009 was examined.
He stated in his examination-in-chief that in the year 1997, he was serving
as Officiating Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Road, New
Delhi. He had been associated with the investigation of the main Uphaar
case. He could not remember the exact date but probably it was 18.08.1997
when he had handed over two cheques to an officer from CBI. He could not
remember his name. A seizure memo was prepared in this regard and he
appended his signature thereon. He was also examined as a witness in main
Uphaar case in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He further
stated that during the course of recording of his deposition in that Court, he
was not shown the originals of the said seizure memo and both the said
cheques, however, he was shown their photocopies and he had approved the
same to be the photocopies of their originals. He was carrying the cheque
numbers in question with him which he had noted down from his bank
record. He affirmed that certified copy of the photocopy of the seizure
memo is also true copy of the original seizure memo and the same is
already marked as Ex.PW10/K bearing his signature at point B. As per
seizure memo, one of the said cheque was having no. 805578 dt.
30.11.1996 issued by Gopal Ansal, Authorized Signatory for Ansal Theater
& Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd. in the favour of M/s. Music Shop for an amount of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 93 of 274
Rs. 1,50,000/-. He further stated that the second cheque was having no.
805590 dt. 12.02.1997 issued by Gopal Ansal, Authorized Signatory for
Ansal Theater & Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd. in the favour of M/s. Chancellor Club
for an amount of Rs. 2,96,550/-. He further stated that both the said cheques
were issued from the account of Ansal Theater & Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd. A/c.
no. 4442. Certified copies of the photocopies of both the said cheques are
already marked as Ex.PW10/L and Ex.PW10/M. The copy of his deposition
recorded in the main Uphaar case running into two pages is Ex.PW22/A
(original deposition is seen from main Uphaar case file)
Accused P.P. Batra, Sushil Ansal, Anoop Singh were
afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that the said cheques were
not related to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he cannot tell as to what happened to
those cheques, or who handled those cheques after being handed over to the
officer of CBI. He had not written down the seizure memo but he merely
signed the seizure memo after verifying the cheque numbers with original
cheques. The handing over or the taking over of those cheques was not
done in presence of any independent witness. He further stated that the CBI
officers came, they searched the vouchers of certain dates over a period of
time and ultimately asked them to hand over the aforesaid two cheques to
them. After that, they prepared the seizure memo and he had appended his
signature thereon.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-22 :
1 COPY OF DEPOSITION PW 22 IN THE
MAIN UPHAAR CASE.
Ex PW 22/A
34. PW-23 Sh. C.H. Gandhi, Government Examiner (now
retired), R/o. Flat no. 101, Shree Edifice, Street no. 6, Haebsiguda,
Hyderabad 500007 was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 94 of 274
that in the year 2007, he was working as Deputy Government Examiner,
Questioned Documents, Directorate of Forensic Science, MHA,
Government of India, CFI Complex, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. He is post
graduate in Chemistry from Andhra University. He received specialized
training in the field of Forensic Document Examination and allied subject
as in service training. He worked at different levels in the organization of
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents under Government of
India. During 33 years of his service, he has examined a multi number of
documents and expressed opinions thereon. He has given evidence in
various courts of law throughout the country as well as in the departmental
inquiry and also in court martial and in the Hon’ble High Court of
Singapore. He has been on the guest faculty at National Judicial Academy
Bhopal, National Police Academy Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh Police
Academy and Karnataka Police Academy. On a requisition from the
Additional DCP, EOW Crime Branch of Delhi Police to his office vide
letter no. 1/R/ACP/SIT/EOW dt. 02.01.2007 in the present case, he has
examined certain questioned documents and standard documents and
expressed his opinion thereon. This opinion was numbered CH-3/2007 dt.
19.04.2007 in three sheets duly signed by him alongwith Sh. S.C. Gupta,
the then Government Examiner who has also independently examined these
documents and arrived at the same opinion. The opinion alongwith all the
documents were duly returned to Delhi Police vide forwarding letter dt.
30.04.2007. The said opinion running into three pages is now Marked as
Ex.PW23/A bearing his signature at point A as well as signature of Sh. S.C.
Gupta at point B on each page. The forwarding letter dt. 30.04.2007 vide
which the said opinion and documents were sent to Addl. DCP, EOW
Crime Branch, Delhi is Ex.PW23/B bearing the signature of Sh. S.C. Gupta
at point A. He identified the signature of Sh. S.C. Gupta on the aforesaid
documents as he signed the same in his presence. The colored printouts of
Video Spectral Comparator, (VSC) 5000 i.e. Q1 to Q8, QA to QH running
into 16 pages is now Ex.PW23/C (colly). The questioned documents mark
Q1 to Q5, QA to QH, Q1A, Q2B, Q3C, Q4D, Q5E, Q6F, Q7G, Q8H, QAI,
QBII, QCIII, QDIV, QEV, QFVI, QFVI, QGVII, GHVIII from the two
registers already Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D were shown him and he
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 95 of 274
identified them to the same marked questioned documents which were
examined by him as well as Sh. S.C. Gupta, Government Examiner where
their office stamp and case number were put. The stamp and the case
number on page nos. 77, 78, 82, 87, 93, 83, 88 and 94 in the register already
Ex.PW18/C and page nos. 2, 8, 14, 21 and 22 in the register already
Ex.PW18/D are appearing at point A respectively. He stated that the
observations made in his opinion in the report Ex.PW23/A are self
explanatory and do not need any further separate reasons. He further stated
that on taking up further examination of questioned documents in this case,
it was observed that a number of writing in the form of entries on the
documents mark Q1 to Q8 and QA to QH in the two registers provided to
them for examination and were to be examined vis a vis the specimen
writing provided to them as marked as E1 to E12, they were found
insufficient for an effective comparison. Accordingly, he sent a letter dt. 28-
29.06.2007 Ex.PW23/D bearing his signature at point A to the Addl. DCP,
EOW Crime Branch, Delhi requesting him for procuring specimen writing
of entire contents of the question documents repeatedly on several sheets
and send the same to their office for effective examination. All the
documents were returned to the investigation agency alongwith the said
letter for necessary action. He further stated that again vide letter dt.
30.07.2007 the material were supplied to their office for further
examination. He further stated that he further examined the questioned
documents vis a vis the specimen writing Marked as E1 to E12, S1 to S6
and S16 to S47 on 50 sheets, Ex.PW23/E(colly) and gave his
supplementary opinion dt. 13.08.2007 in this regard. The supplementary
opinion is Ex.PW23/F bearing his signature at point A. Mr. P. Vijaya
Shankar, Assistant Government Examiner had also conducted said
examination of said documents and concurred with his opinion. He also
appended his signature at point B on report Ex.PW23/F. The said report
alongwith all the original questioned documents and specimen writing were
sent to the investigating agency through forwarding letter dt. 16.08.2007,
Ex.PW23/G bearing his signature at point A. He stated that he has not
mentioned the said reasons in his said report Ex.PW23/F. However, he has
brought the reasons for supplementary opinion and intend to place it on
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 96 of 274
record. The reasons for opinion in two sheets are taken on record subject to
the said objection and marked as Ex.PW23/H bearing signature of witness
at point A on both the pages. He volunteered that the reasons for opinion are
intended to be submitted on record during recording of his deposition as
this is the prevailed practice in the office of GEQD to submit the reasons at
the time of giving evidence.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that the instrument VSC 5000 is not
connected to a computer as the instrument itself has monitor screen to study
the observations. The instrument has a device to provide a printouts without
using a separate printer. The 16 printouts enclosed with the report were
obtained from the device itself. He further stated that the said printouts
were taken in his presence by technician/ photographer. He further stated
that the images which he has examined are not stored either in the VSC
5000 or any other device. He further stated that in this case, no negative
will arise and they are the direct printouts of the observations made on
device from the relevant documents. He further stated that once the
printouts were taken from the VSC 5000, there is no need of storing
elsewhere or in the device and hence, the cross-checking did not arise. He
denied the suggestion that he is aware that these images could be retrieved
from the system / computer to cross-check his work, hence, they were not
saved. He further stated that as an expert, he is not concerned with the legal
modalities for supplying the printouts except that he has submitted with his
report qua 65B Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that his
report is inadmissible in the eyes of law as it is not accompanied by a
certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act despite it being
generated from a computer / system. He further stated that when it is a
practice or convention then no office order is required or issued for giving
reasons at the time of giving evidence. He denied the suggestion that there
is no such practice and his reasons Ex.PW23/H are an after thought
produced at the instance of prosecution. He affirmed that the reasons
Ex.PW23/H are undated. He denied the suggestion that his main opinion
and supplementary opinion as well as the reasons submitted by him are
false and given only to suit the prosecution.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 97 of 274
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that it is neither mandatory nor the rule to
refer the reports to the Director, Forensic Science, Delhi as the Directorate
of Forensic Science is the Administrative body of the Forensic Institutes
including GEQD. He stated that the reasons Ex.PW23/H placed by him
before this Hon’ble Court was never provided the prosecution agency at any
point of time at the time of investigation of this case. He affirmed that
Ex.PW23/H is undated. He denied the suggestion that the reports
Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/F have been prepared at the instance of
prosecution agency to suit its case. He denied the suggestion that he is an
incompetent witness to prove the opinions exhibited on that day. He further
denied the suggestion that the opinions exhibited by him is defective in
nature. He further denied that the reasons Ex.PW23/H placed by him that
day are fabricated and unreliable document. He further denied the
suggestion that the reasons Ex.PW23/H have been drafted and produced by
him that day at the instance of the prosecution agency and the Ld. Addl. PP
in the present matter.
Accused P.P. Batra and Dinesh Chandra Sharma were
afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Anoop Singh, the witness affirmed that he has not received any formal
education in forensic examination. He joined as Assistant Central
Intelligence Officer in the office of Government Examiner of Questioned
Documents in the year 1971. He affirmed that the requisition dt. 02.01.2007
received from Addl. DCP is not on record of this case. He voluntarily stated
that the same is with them in their official record and he has brought that
day and the same is with him. He could not recall without perusing his
official record as to what all documents accompanied the aforesaid
requisition letter dt. 02.01.2007. He denied the suggestion that both the
registers Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D were received by his office in
unsealed condition. He did not remember the impression of seal borne on
them. He affirmed that the aforesaid registers shown to him in Court that
day were in an unsealed condition. He further affirmed that if anything
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 98 of 274
(requisition, questioned documents etc.) is received by their office in a
sealed condition, same is supposed to be returned in a sealed cover bearing
the seal of their office. He voluntarily stated that not just supposedly but
invariably. He further denied the suggestion that aforesaid practice was not
observed in the instant case. He could not precisely remember the dates on
which the aforesaid registers were examined. He affirmed that he has not
mentioned the date of examination of aforesaid registers even in his
opinions. He voluntarily stated that there was no need to mention such
particulars in the opinions. He affirmed that he was never instructed as a
part of his training to mention the date of examination in the opinion. He
did not recall the date on which the requisition dt. 02.01.2007 was received
in his office. He voluntarily stated that he can precisely say day on which
the requisition was received in his office after looking his office file. The
witness after re-freshing his memory by adverting to the forwarding letter
dt. 30.04.2007 Ex.PW23/B and stated that the requisition dt. 02.01.2007
was received in their office on 12.02.2007. He further stated that Mr. S.C.
Gupta was his senior in the year 2007. He could not tell the dates on which
Sh. S.C. Gupta or he had examined the aforesaid registers. He affirmed that
they did not examine the aforesaid registers at the same time and on same
day. He further affirmed that both Mr. S.C. Gupta and he rendered separate
independent opinions and both of them are not on judicial record. He
voluntarily stated that the report filed on the record is a common and
concurrent report and that in case, if two examiners concurrent any opinion,
they prepare common report and submit to the investigating agency. He
could not tell the date on which they returned the concurrent opinion
Ex.PW23/A. He affirmed that he has not examined the aforesaid registers
using any tool other than the VSC-5000. He volunteered that no other tool
was required for examination of questioned documents. He stated that the
error rate of VSC – 5000 is zero to his knowledge based on his experience.
He did not remember the date on which VSC 5000 was inducted and was
installed in their office. He affirmed that the instrument is manufactured by
Foster and Freeman Company. He stated that VSC–5000 was not
discontinued by its manufacturer and the company has brought out the
improvised model. He denied the suggestion that error rate in VSC – 5000
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 99 of 274
was higher while examining inks of black, blue and yellow colors. He
denied the suggestion that he ought to have used Raman Spectroscopy
Technology instead of VSC 5000 to examine the questioned documents or
that owing to his negligence or lack of awareness, the results vis a vis the
questioned documents were skewed. He did not personally calibrate the
VSC 5000 as it was already calibrated. He denied the suggestion that due to
failure / omission to calibrate, the results vis a vis the questioned documents
are skewed. He affirmed that VSC–5000 could not ascertain the age of ink
under examination. He further affirmed that he cannot say the time when
obliterations / interpolations was made on the questioned documents. He
could not tell without looking at the registers if any other entries in the said
two registers bear obliterations / interpolations other than the one’s
examined by him. He could not tell the number of layers of interpolations
in the questioned documents as he has not examined the documents for
interpolation rather examined them for ascertaining obliteration. He
affirmed that he has unequivocally opined at para no. 22 of his report
Ex.PW23/A that no opinion can be expressed regarding the authorship of
writings stamped and marked on Q1 to Q8 and QA to QH on the basis of
material supplied for comparison. He stated that he did not know who
paginated the registers. He affirmed that it is not the responsibility of his
office to do the follow up thereby requisitioning the deficient documents.
He stated that they carry out the examination of questioned documents
unless and until a request is received in this regard from the agency. He
denied the suggestion that he was not solely authorized to exchange
correspondence pertaining to the present case. He had not observed any
change in the material which was previously supplied to him except the
supply additional material alongwith previous material. He affirmed that
during the intervening period between 30.04.2007 (first opinion
Ex.PW23/A) and supplementary opinion dt. 13.08.2007 Ex.PW23/F, he
was promoted from Deputy GEQD to GEQD. He had used magnifying
lenses and microscope to examine the documents and rendering his opinion.
He denied the suggestion that it was not a scientific examination and he had
neglected his duty to scrutinized the additional document scientifically
while rendering his supplementary opinion. He could not tell the dates on
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 100 of 274
which Sh. P. Vijaya Shankar or he had examined the aforesaid registers. He
affirmed that they did not examine the aforesaid registers at the same time
and on same day. He further affirmed that both P. Vijaya Shankar and he
rendered separate independent opinions and both of them are not on judicial
record. He voluntarily stated that the report filed on the record is a common
and concurrent report and that in case, if two examiners concurrent any
opinion, they prepare common report and submit to the investigating
agency. He could not tell the date on which they returned the concurrent
opinion Ex.PW23/F. He further stated that Mr. P. Vijaya Shankar examined
the questioned documents by using same methodology. He further stated
that he had received the specimen handwriting of only one person. He
denied the suggestion that his supplementary opinion is vitiated in as much
as only one person’s handwriting was sent to him for examination /
comparison as opposed to sending handwriting of multiple persons. He
further denied the suggestion that he has neglected and / or intentionally
omitted to apply his mind at the time of examination, including
requisitioning specimen handwritings of other persons as well, only to curry
favor with the higher officials involved with the investigation of the present
case. He further denied the suggestion that he is neither qualified nor
deposing accurately.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-23 :
1 OPINION OF GEQD DT. 19.04.2007 Ex PW 23 /A
2 FORWARDING LETTER TO Addl . DCP
DT 30.04.2007 FROM GEQD
Ex PW 23/B
3 COLOUR PRINT OUTS OF VIDEO
SPECTRAL COMPARATOR (VSC)
5000
Q-1 TO Q8
QA TO QH
Ex PW 23/C
( Colly)
4 LETTER DT 28/29 JUNE 2007 TO Addl.
DCP ,EOW FROM GEQD
Ex PW 23/D
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 101 of 274
REQUEST FOR PROCURING
SPECIMEN WRITING OF ENTIRE
CONTENTS OF QUESTIONED
DOCUMENTS
5 QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS FROM
E1 TO E12 , S1 TO S6 AND S16 – S47
EX PW 23/E
(Colly)
6 SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF
GEQD DT 13TH AUGUST 2007
Ex PW 23/F
7 FORWARDING LETTER DT 16.08.2007
FROM GEQD TO ACP EOW.
Ex PW 23/G
8 SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION FOR
REASONING
Ex PW 23/H
35. PW-24 Sh Vivek Gandhi S/o. Sh. T.C. Gandhi, aged about
48 years, R/o. 105, Mahalakshmi Apartment, Sector – 43, Gurgaon,
Haryana was examined. He stated in the examination-in-chief that he was
working as Vice President, HR and Administration, Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd in the year 2007. He further stated that one P.P. Batra was
an employee in the company at the said time and he correctly identified him
in Court. He further stated that he might have issued some certificate
regarding employment of P.P. Batra, employee of Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd. He after seeing letter dated 17.09.2007 addressed to Mr.
Amit Roy, ACP (EOW) Crime Branch denied having signed or issued the
same. He further stated that the certificate Ex.PW24/A has been issued by
him regarding employment of P.P. Batra with Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd. The certificate bears his signature at point A. He further
stated that he had not handed over the copy of the Appointment letter dt.
14.11.1995 Mark X to the Police officer associated with the present case.
Upon being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that he might have
handed over the copy of appointment letter dt. 14.11.1995 Mark X to the
IO, Amit Roy, ACP. After going through the letter Mark Y, he stated that
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 102 of 274
he might have signed the said letter at point A.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that he had worked at Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd from July 2006 till February 2017. He further stated that
during those days, he had also been looking after the administration of said
company. He affirmed that annually Ansal Properties and Infrastructure
Ltd used to publish a diary that contained the details of various addresses of
the company as also the senior officers and their contact details. A diary
Mark DA was shown to him and he was asked to explain whether on the
same pattern during his tenure also used to be published by Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and witness after going the details of the
diary at point A to A stated that diary not used to be published with the said
details. He affirmed that the diary contained names, designation and phone
numbers of the senior officers of the company Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd. He stated that as far as he recollects, only name and
designation of the senior officer bearers used to be published in the diary.
He denied the suggestion knowledge about ownership or user of mobile
number 9811313863. He denied the suggestion that he has given evasive
reply about the contents / details of diary Mark DA. He further denied the
suggestion that diary mark DA is an accurate representation of how details
were engrafted before he had joined and even after he had left the services
from the company. He further denied the suggestion that he has
intentionally feigned ignorance about the telephone numbers detailed in
diary mark DA. He further denied the suggestion that the certificate issued
by him Ex.PW24/A and letter mark Y were prepared by him at the instance
of the investigating officer. He further denied the suggestion that contents
of these two documents are false.
Accused Gopal Ansal and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross-examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that since P.P. Batra had
joined the company many years ago before he joined the company,
therefore, he could not tell as he had joined Stenographer in the legal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 103 of 274
division. He stated that he did not know who was the directors of Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd in the year 2007. He could not tell if P.P.
Batra was appointed in the said company by any Director of Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. All the employees were having the same
office time so was the case with P.P. Batra. He did not remember if
company had provided any landline number/ mobile number to P.P. Batra.
He further stated that since P.P. Batra had joined the company many years
ago before he joined the company, therefore, he could not tell if P.P. Batra
was appointed pursuant to some advertisement. He could not tell what
specific duty was assigned to P.P. Batra apart from being Stenographer in
Legal Division. No log book used to be maintained in the company. He
could not say if there used to some reimbursement with regard to expenses
incurred by the employee in visiting different places as it pertains to
account division. He could not tell if P.P. Batra was working in the
company when he left it. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely just in order to save Ansal brothers.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he has come for the first time in the
Court in connection with the present case. Police had never recorded any
statement of him at any given point of time in present case. He did not have
any personal knowledge about the present case. He voluntarily stated that
he has no idea what this case is all about. No employee or any official of
M/s. Ansal Properties was ever examined by the police in his presence. He
did not remember anything about the contents of letter Mark Y.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-24 :
1 CERTIFICATE REGARDING
EMPLOYMENT OF PP BATRA DATED
15.09.2007, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S
91 Cr.PC OF IO.
Ex PW 24 /A
2 APPOINTMENT LETTER OF PP BATRA
DATED 14.11.1995, IN RESPONSE TO
NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF IO.
Mark X
3 LETTER DT.17.09.2007 FROM API TO ACP, Mark Y
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 104 of 274
EOW IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91
Cr.PC OF IO.
4 DIARY OF API Mark DA
36. PW-25 Ms. Kanak Gaur, Junior Technical Assistant,
Government of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Office of Registrar of
Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana, 4th Floor, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru
Place, New Delhi 110091 was examined. He stated in his examination-inchief
that pursuant to the summon received from this Hon’ble Court, he has
been authorized by Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT
Delhi & Haryana to produce the relevant record duly certified by him
pertaining to company, namely Star Estate Management Limited. Authority
letter of witness is taken on record and same is now Ex.PW25/A. He
further stated that he has brought the certified copy of the certificate of
Incorporation, Details of Director, Annual Return of the period 2004-2005
with Annexure-1, Annexure-2, Form 32 regarding appointment of Rajeev
Chopra as Additional Director and Cessation of Aditya Wadhera as
Director, consent of Mr. Rajeev Chopra and resignation of Mr. Aditya
Wadhera. The said certified copy of documents are running into 26 pages
are taken on record and now Marked as Ex.PW25/B (colly). He has also
brought the certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by
Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Registrar of Companies, NCT Delhi & Haryana
qua the said documents which is now Marked as Ex.PW26/C.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that all the documents which he has
exhibited are computer output except his authorization letter and 65-B
certificate. He deposed that he and Mr. A. K. Singh are posted in the same
office. The documents submitted in the Court have been downloaded by
him from his official key DSC (Digital Signature Certificate) provided by
Office. The DSC is operated by Unique User ID and Password. The ID and
password was his and not of Mr. A.K. Singh. Mr. A.K. Singh has his own
Unique ID and Password. Again said, he did not have as he has just been
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 105 of 274
transferred to this office. As Mr. A.K. Singh is old employee he would be
having his Unique ID but he will not be having the DSC, as the staff who is
transferred to this office has to go through the process of creation of DSC
which has not been done so far of Sh. A.K. Singh. As his DSC has not been
created, hence, he cannot log in and access/ print any data. The certificate
under section 65-B has been given to him by Sh. A.K. Singh and he has
simply brought it to the Court. He affirmed that the certificate did not bear
any date. He further stated that authenticity of the information contained in
this certificate can be deposed only by Sh. A.K. Singh and not by him as he
has only signed and prepared the certificate. The Court ordered deexhibiting
the document Ex.PW26/C.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no
cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he was never examined during the
course of investigation in the present case nor did he submit any document
during investigation. He affirmed that neither he has scribed or authored the
documents that he has mentioned in his examination-in-chief nor did he
feed any information regarding the same in his office. He denied the
suggestion that he is not competent to testify regarding the documents
mentioned by him in his examination-in-chief.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-25 :
1 AUTHORITY LETTER FROM AK SINGH
ASSISTANT ROC TO PRODUCE
RELEVANT RECORDS
Ex PW 25/A
2 CERTIFIED COPIES OF:
1. CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION
2. DETAILS OF DIRECTORS
3. ANNUAL RETURNS OF PERIOD
2004-2005 (WITH Annexures 1 & 2 )
Ex PW 25/B
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 106 of 274
1 FORM 32 REGARDING
APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS.
1. CERTIFICATE U/S 65B
37. PW-26 Inspector Sh. Tribhuvan, (now Additional ACP),
CBI, ACB, Madurai, Tamilnadu was examined. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 30.07.1997, he was posted as Inspector CBI
SCI IV, New Delhi. He further stated that on that day, he had seized one
original register titled as OB (occurrence book) of the Control Room, Delhi
Fire Services, Headquarter containing 1 to 400 pages from Sh. A.K.
Bhatnagar through seizure memo, certified copy of the same is already
Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point B. The copy of the seizure memo
was also handed over to Sh. A.K. Bhatnagar vide endorsement at point C on
the said seizure memo. The first page and last page was also signed by Sh.
A.K. Bhatnagar. He further stated that during his deposition in the main
Uphaar case, some of the pages of the occurrence book were found missing.
He had approved the photocopy of page no. 379 from amongst the missing
pages to be the true copy of its original. The original occurrence book D-89
was shown from the record where page no. 363 to 400 were missing and the
first page of the occurrence book was signed by Sh. A.K. Bhatnagar. He
stated that first page of Ex.PW10/E (colly.) bears the signature of Sh. A.K.
Bhatnagar at point A. Certified copy of the photocopy of page no. 379
already Ex.PW10/D was identified by him to be the true copy of its
original. He further stated that on 05.08.1997, he had also taken into
possession one casual leave register maintained at the Headquarter of Delhi
Fire Services for the period 1995 to 1996 pertaining to availed casual leaves
by the officer with a rank of Station Officer to Deputy Chief Fire Officer.
The said register was containing page nos. 1 to 92. He seized the said
register from Sh. Surender Kumar, Deputy Chief Fire Officer through
seizure memo, certified copy of the same is already Ex.PW10/G bearing his
signature at point A. He stated that during his deposition in the main
Uphaar case, some of the pages of the casual leave register were found
missing. He was shown the photocopy of page no. 50 from amongst the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 107 of 274
missing pages which he had approved to be the true copy of its original.
The original casual leave register D-92 was shown from the record of main
Uphaar case. Page no. 1 and 77 to 92 were blank. Page nos. 45 to 50 were
missing from the said casual leave register. He stated that the first and last
page was also signed by Sh. Surender Kumar, the officer who had handed
over the said register to him. Certified copy of the photocopy of page no. 50
Ex.PW10/H was identified by him to be the true copy of its original. Copy
of his deposition running into 7 pages recorded in the main Uphaar case
filed with third supplementary charge-sheet which is Ex.PW26/A bearing
his signature at point A on each page.
Accused P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross-examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he had been associated
with Chief Investigating Officer Sh. R.S. Khatri. He was present with him
at the time when he filed the charge-sheet in the Court. He affirmed that the
said documents do not pertain to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He did
not remember if any other witness was also present when his statement
under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded in the present case.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that his statement was recorded by the IO
in the present case and he had given all the information. He affirmed that he
had not stated that fact deposed by him in main Uphaar case in his aforesaid
statement. He was told by the Ld. Prosecutor of the main Uphaar case that
documents in question are missing from the main Uphaar case file. He did
not himself verify from the record of the main Uphaar case regarding the
documents allegedly missing. He affirmed that he could not tell the contents
without going through the same. He denied the suggestion that facts
deposed by him regarding missing documents are hearsay. He denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he had not filed any complaint during
the pendency of main Uphaar trial in connection with the documents
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 108 of 274
referred by him in his examination-in-chief. He was not called by any Court
or Judicial Officer regarding any inquiry whatsoever in relation to the
documents referred by him. He was associated with the investigation of the
Uphaar case throughout. He had himself not filed any application or
affidavit in the Court regarding the missing documents. The persons /
officials from whom the documents as referred by him in his examinationin-
chief were seized during the main Uphaar case were never examined in
his presence in the present case. The documents as referred by him in his
examination-in-chief were not pertaining to accused Sushil Ansal. During
the trial of the Uphaar case, the photocopies of the documents were in fact
exhibited. He further affirmed that an additional set of the above-mentioned
documents is always kept separately prepared for the convenience of the
Court. Again said, an additional set is prepared for office record as well as
for convenience of the Court. This also contains the steps undertaken
during investigation i.e. seizure of documents, recording of statements of
witnesses etc. and the accused can neither access those case diaries nor can
he inspect them. He further stated that the documents mentioned by him in
his examination-in-chief were neither seized at his instance nor were they
seized in his presence during investigation of present case. His statement
was recorded during the investigation of present case. He had stated to the
IO that page nos. 45 to 50 was missing from the casual leave register i.e. D-
92. (confronted with statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C.
Ex.PW26/DA where it is not so recorded). The deposition recorded in the
main Uphaar case was never shown or discussed with him during
investigation of the present case. He denied the suggestion that he has
exhibited his deposition in the main Uphaar case in his examination-inchief
wrongly. He further denied the suggestion that he has done so at the
instance of prosecution to falsely implicate the accused persons in the
present case. He further stated that he was neither in touch nor in
communication with the complainant AVUT or its officials in the main
Uphaar case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding
the above facts. He further denied the suggestion that he was in constant
touch with complainant AVUT through its officials in the main Uphaar case
as well as in the present case to frame the accused persons. He did not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 109 of 274
attend the proceedings in the main Uphaar case on each and every date.
Again said, he used to attend proceedings once in a while in case of
clarifications sought by the Court. He affirmed that he had not stated in his
statement to the police in the present case regarding any clarifications
having been sought from him regarding the documents mentioned by him in
his examination-in-chief. He further denied the suggestion that he has
become a witness in the present case at the instance of IO and the
complainant AVUT to falsely implicate the accused persons. He further
denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in his examination-inchief.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-26 :
1 COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW
26 IN THE MAIN UPHAAR
CASE
Ex PW 26/A
2 STATEMENT U/S 161 Ex PW 26/DA
38. PW-27 Sh. Ajay Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
224, Okhla Phase-III, New Delhi was examined. He stated in his
examination in chief that he is working as Nodal Officer in the Bharti Airtel
Ltd. since the year 2007. He further stated that when he joined the company
as Nodal Officer, Sh. R.K Singh, the then Nodal Officer was already
working in the company. He has worked with him till 2015. He further
stated that Sh. R.K. Singh had left the company in year 2015 and his
present whereabout is not available in the record of the company. He stated
that he has seen the seizure memo dt. 12.07.2006 as well as the letter
written by Sh. R.K. Singh and addressed to Sh. Amit Roy. Both the said
documents bear the signature of Sh. R.K. Singh. The said seizure memo is
now marked as Ex.PW27/A and letter Ex.PW27/B bearing the signature of
Sh. R.K. Singh at point A respectively.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness affirmed that no information has ever been sought
by any agency from him pertaining to the present case. No document has
ever been seized from him pertaining to the present case. He affirmed that
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 110 of 274
whenever a SIM card whether pre-paid or post-paid is issued by Airtel,
details/ proof of his identity, residence etc. are obtained from the concerned
person with his signature on the photocopy of the said documents. He also
affirmed that a Customer Application Form is also filled up by the
applicant.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness affirmed that the aforesaid
documents Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B were not prepared in his presence.
He did not have any personal knowledge about the present case. He
affirmed that he has not joined the investigation of this case at any point of
time.
Accused Anoop Singh was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
Ld. counsel for accused Gopal Ansal has adopted the crossexamination
done on behalf of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he had never joined the investigation
of the present case. He never handed over any document to the
Investigating Officer nor was any document was seized in his presence. IO
never asked him to come and testify as witness in the present case. He has
not brought on record any document to show as to when and where he was
posted with the Airtel Bharti Ltd. He denied the suggestion that he has
deliberately identified the signature of Sh. R.K. Singh in his examinationin-
chief on the asking of the Investigating Officer and the complainant to
suit the case of the prosecution. He affirmed that the documents which are
shown to him in his examination-in-chief neither prepared in his presence
nor he had any personal knowledge about the same. He further denied the
suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-27 :
1 SEIZURE MEMO Dt. 12.07.2006 OF
MOBILE NUMBERS OF L N SONI, VIJAY
KATYAL & P P BATRA
Ex PW 27/A
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 111 of 274
2 LETTER FROM BHARTI AIRTEL TO ACP
Dt 10.07.2006 GIVING THE DETAILS OF
THE SUBSCRIBERS, IN RESPONSE TO
NOTICE U/S 91 CrPC OF IO.
Ex PW 27/B
39. PW-28 Sh. Deepak Gaur, DSP, CBI, Port Blair, Andman
and Nicobar Island was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief
that in the year 1997, he was posted as Sub-Inspector, CBI, SIC-IV, New
Delhi. He remained associated with the investigation of main Uphaar case
conducted by Chief Investigating Officer Sh. R.S. Khatri. He further stated
that on 02.08.1997 on the instruction of Chief Investigating Officer Sh. R.S.
Khatri, he had taken into possession the documents described in the seizure
memo, certified copy of the same is already Ex.PW1/A, from Sh. Sanjay
Kumar Tomar, SO, Delhi Fire Services, Headquarters. It bears his signature
at point B and the signature of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Tomar at point A. He had
also appeared as witness in the trial of the main Uphaar case. During
recording of his deposition on 29.03.2003 in the court of Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ, he was shown the OB register of Bhikaji Cama
Place, Fire Station, New Delhi pertaining to the period from 13.12.1996 to
18.01.1997 as described at serial no. 3 in the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A.
Originally the said register contained 400 pages when he seized the same,
however, when he was shown the said register during his deposition, from
page nos. 95 to 104 of the register were found missing and on page
numbers from page nos. 109 to 116, blue ink were sprinkled making them
illegible, however, when he seized the said register containing the said
pages, they were intact in all respect. The original register (marked as D-91)
was shown him and he submitted that page no. 95 to 104 were missing and
the remnant of the pages still in the register showed that they have been
removed by tearing the same. He further stated that on page no. 109 to 116,
blue ink has been smeared thereby making the contents of the pages
illegible. Witness has also been shown the certified copies of the
photocopies of the page number from page nos. 96 to 113 (running into 11
sheets) already Ex.PW10/F(colly). After going through the said pages, he
stated that these are photocopies of the intact / proper pages of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 112 of 274
abovesaid register. Certified copies of the photocopies of the page number
from page nos. 109 to 116 (eight sheets) on which blue ink was smeared are
already on record are now marked as Ex.PW28/A(colly). The photocopy of
OB register is Ex.PW10/FF (colly.). He stated that the photocopy of his
deposition recorded in the main Uphaar case on 29.03.2003 running into
three pages is Ex.PW28/B(OSR from main Uphaar case file) bearing his
signature at point A on each page.
Accused P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were afforded
opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross examination was
done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he joined the
investigation in the present case only once at the office of ACP/EOW,
however, he did not remember the place where he was called to join the
investigation in the present case. He remained present in the said office for
3-4 hours. Statements of other witnesses were not recorded in his presence
related to the present case. The said register had contained the record of
Delhi Fire Services, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi pertaining to aforesaid
period. He could not tell the contents of all the pages without going through
the same. He denied the suggestion that he did not have any personal
knowledge about the said register nor he had seized the same. He further
denied the suggestion that he had never joined the investigation of the
present case or that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that he did not know as to which of the
accused the documents seized by him during the investigation of main
Uphaar case, were related to. He voluntarily stated that he had seized the
documents on the direction of Chief Investigating Officer. He did not
remember as to how long he was associated with the investigation of the
said case. Upon confronted with his statement Ex.PW28/DA, he stated that
he had not made in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that “the
remnant of the pages still in the register shows that these pages have been
removed by tearing the same”. He had stated in his statement under section
161 Cr.P.C. that “blue ink has been smeared thereby making the contents of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 113 of 274
the pages illegible”. He further stated that he had not attended any inquiry
proceedings conducted by any judicial officer pertaining to the present case.
He had not filed any complaint in relation to the missing or the smeared
documents. He was not aware if the prosecution branch or the prosecution
had a parallel set of the charge-sheet/ documents pertaining to the main
Uphaar trial at the time of recording of his deposition in the main Uphaar
case. He further denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in his
examination-in-chief.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he was shown the documents for the
first time after their seizure, in the Court during his deposition in the main
Uphaar case. He could not say as to what happened to the documents seized
by him in between the said period. He was told during his deposition in
main Uphaar case that the documents were tampered with. He saw the said
documents during his deposition recorded in the main Uphaar case and
satisfied himself that the documents were tampered with. He denied the
suggestion that he had not seen the documents nor satisfied himself that the
documents were tampered with. He voluntarily stated that he deposed
before the Court only after personally seeing the documents and satisfying
himself that they were tampered with. He further denied the suggestion that
he is deposing so for the first time. He denied the suggestion that he has
deposed falsely.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-28 :
1 CERTIFIED COPIES OF PHOTOCOPY OF
Pg. Nos. 109-116 ON WHICH INK WAS
SMEARED (D-81)
Ex PW 28 A
( Colly)
2 COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW 28 IN
THE MAIN UPHAAR CASE
Ex PW 28/B
3 STATEMENT U/S 161 Ex PW 28 /DA
40. PW- 29 Sh. Vijay Malik, Retired as ACP from EOW, R/o.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 114 of 274
529/3, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai Extension, New Delhi 110068 was
examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 17.05.2006, he was
posted as ACP, CBT Section, EOW Crime Branch, New Delhi. He further
stated that the complaint forming basis of the present FIR, Marked as
Ex.PW29/A, was marked to him for necessary action. Accordingly, he
made endorsement thereon at point A to A bearing his signature at point B
and gave the rukka to SI Ishwar Singh for getting the FIR registered.
Accordingly, SI Ishwar Singh took the rukka to PS Tilak Marg and got the
present FIR registered. After registration of FIR, SI Ishwar Singh handed
over carbon copy of FIR and original Rukka to him for investigation.
However, on the same day, pursuant to an order of the then DCP, EOW the
investigation of the present case was transferred to Sh. Amit Roy, the then
ACP.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, he stated that he did not conduct even any preliminary
investigation in the present case. He was never associated with the
investigation of the case.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma
and Gopal Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness
but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-29 :
1 COMPLAINT BY R. KRISHNAMOORTHY
TO COMMISSIONER, DELHI POLICE Dt
13. 05. 2006
Ex PW 29/A
41. PW-30 Sh. R. Krishanmoorthy S/o. Lt. Sh. V.
Ramachandran, aged about 63 years, R/o. E-335, East of Kailash, New
Delhi 110065 was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that he
is the General Secretary of the Association of the Victims of the Uphaar
Tragedy (AVUT). This Association was formed after devastating fire
occurred in Uphaar Cinema Hall situated at Green Park Extension, New
Delhi in which 59 persons had lost their lives. He had also lost his two
teenage children. Following the said incident, a case was registered by the
CBI who after investigation filed the charge-sheet in the matter. The trial of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 115 of 274
that case was conducted in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld.
ASJ, PHC, New Delhi. Being victim of the crime and General Secretary of
the Association of the Victims of the Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT), he had been
regularly attending the Court hearing and had been keenly watching the
progress of the trial. He further stated that during the course of the trial, he
came to know that certain crucial documents were either mutilated, defaced
by smearing ink on them or some of the documents were torn. Being victim
and General Secretary of the said Association, they filed a petition before
the Ld. ASJ seeking cancellation of the bail of accused Gopal Ansal, Sushil
Ansal and H.S. Panwar, accused persons in the main Uphaar case.
However, their said petition was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Thereafter, they approached to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and filed
another petition seeking the cancellation of bail of above said accused
persons. During the course of hearing of said petition, the fact finding
report and inquiry report was summoned by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
It was thereafter they came to know that Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the then
Ahlmad and accused herein was dismissed from the service. Thereafter,
they filed another petition seeking directions from Hon’ble Delhi High
Court for registration of the criminal case qua the incident of tampering of
documents. The petition was allowed and the direction was issued for
registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he filed the complaint dt. 13.05.2006
already Ex.PW29/A bearing his signature at point C with the Commissioner
of Police for registration of the FIR. He had reproduced all the relevant
paragraphs of the order forming basis of the directions for the registration
of FIR, in his said complaint. It was thereafter present FIR was registered.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he was called by IO once
or twice to make inquiry related to his complainant. He did not remember
the dates. No other witness was summoned in his presence nor he was
confronted with any of the accused persons or witness. He affirmed that
they had been keenly watching the progress of the trial of the main Uphaar
case. He came to know about the tampering of documents in question from
the Ld. Prosecutor and that he had also moved an application in the Court in
this regard. The said documents were crucial and relevant to establish the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 116 of 274
involvement of accused Gopal Ansal, H.S. Panwar and Sushil Ansal for the
trial of main Uphaar case. The description of those documents are already
mentioned in the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the same has been
reproduced in his complaint. He denied the suggestion that he was not
aware about the contents of tampered documents. He affirmed that the said
documents were not related to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma as he was
not an accused in main Uphaar case. He affirmed that he is aware that two
departmental inquiries were conducted against the accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma and pursuant thereof he was dismissed from the services. He was
not aware about the observations made by the Inquiry Officers in their
reports in both departmental inquiries. He further affirmed that during the
course of trial of main Uphaar case, sometimes the concerned Court rooms
were shifted. He further affirmed that during the course of trial of main
Uphaar case, many litigants used to come to the Court to attend the hearing.
He did not know if the counsel engaged by them in the main Uphaar trial
case had inspected the judicial file of that case. He never inspected the said
file. He has no knowledge if any official of the Court other than accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma used to share the Ahlmad Room of the Court. He
did not know if accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma had located any of the
documents which had gone missing. However, he is aware that Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ had directed the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
to locate those documents. He was not present in the Court when the
charge-sheet in the main Uphaar case was filed. He denied the suggestion
that he had made a false complaint or that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
has been falsely implicated in the present case or that accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma did not tamper with any documents.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he was called by the IO to join
investigation of this case once or twice. His statement was not recorded by
the IO in this case. The document dt. 18.07.1997, as mentioned in para 4(i)
of his complaint Ex.PW29/A was not seized in his presence in the main
Uphaar case. Similarly, the other documents mentioned from para no. 4(ii)
to (ix) were not seized in his presence in the main Uphaar case. He further
stated that he does not know the date, month or year when the chargesheet
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 117 of 274
in the main Uphaar case was filed by the Investigating Officer. He came to
know that the charge-sheet was filed when the trial started in the Court of
Ld. MM. He could not tell even by his approximation when he came to
know about the same by telling the date, month or year. He also could not
remember the name of the Ld. Judicial Officer. He never inspected the
Court file when the matter was pending before the Ld. MM. He further
stated that he has no idea whether the copy of the charge-sheet or the
documents filed alongwith with the same, was ever supplied to him. Again
said, the copy of charge-sheet and documents was given to them during the
course of trial pending in the Court of Ld. ASJ, PHC, New Delhi. The same
was provided to them by the Court. He did not remember the process by
which he received the said charge-sheet and the documents. He could not
remember if he had obtained certified copy of the said charge-sheet and
documents. He could not remember the name of the official of the Court of
Ld. ASJ who provided him the copy of charge-sheet and the documents. He
also could not remember whether the charge-sheet and documents bore any
official stamp of the Court. The Investigating Agency of the main Uphaar
case never discussed as to what final report they shall be filing before the
Court. The Investigating Agency of the main Uphaar case never provided
the draft charge-sheet or the final charge-sheet of the matter to him. He
further stated that he was not involved in the process of handing over of
documents from one Court to another. He voluntarily stated that he is the
victim of the case who lost both the children and he had never been
involved in such process. He further stated that when he used to attend the
Court proceedings of the main Uphaar case, some members of Association
of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) also used to attend the hearings
with him. None of the member of the said association ever inspected the
Court record. He could not remember whether all the hearings were
attended by the members of AVUT as there were various families and he
could not remember if somebody attended the Court hearing without his
knowledge. He used to be present in all the Court hearings. He further
stated that neither him nor any of the members of AVUT ever spoke over
telephone with any of the Court staff members and Naib Courts in the main
Uphaar case. However, he could not remember whether he or any of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 118 of 274
members of AVUT used to speak over telephone with the Ld. Special P.P in
the main Uphaar case. He further stated that he came to know from the Ld.
Spl. P.P that certain documents were either mutilated or defaced etc. He
could not remember whether in the order dt. 05.05.2006 passed by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M. (M) 2380 of 2003 titled as Association
of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) Vs. Sushil Ansal & Ors., Hon’ble
Delhi High Court recorded the submissions of the counsel that the
mutilation etc. could be the handiwork of anyone or even AVUT. The copy
of the said order is taken on record and marked as Mark PW30/DA. He
affirmed that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed in para no. 17 that it
could be anybody who mutilated etc. the documents. He denied that as per
his knowledge, during the investigation of present case IO investigated the
role of AVUT members in the alleged mutilation etc. of the documents. He
further stated that his call records were not asked by the IO during the
investigation of the present case. Similarly, the call records of other
members of AVUT were not asked by the IO in the present case. He further
stated that he could not tell whether the certified copy of the main Uphaar
case and its documents were obtained by any other person or not. The day
to day trial of main Uphaar case was started in the year 2007 on the
directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the Court of Ld. ASJ. However,
prior to this it used to be listed twice or thrice a week. He further stated that
he has never seen the original of any of the documents mentioned in his
complaint Ex.PW29/A in para no. 4. He voluntarily stated that the
proceedings were conducted by Ld. Special PP, specially appointed for the
main Uphaar case. He further stated that he never assisted any Court
official in locating the documents stated to be missing. He denied the
suggestion that the members of the AVUT had the intention to create
circumstances for cancellation of bail of accused persons. He further denied
the suggestion that the members of AVUT were inspecting the Court record,
including during the hearing of the matter. He further denied the suggestion
that under pressure of AVUT, the role of AVUT members were not
investigated by the IO despite observations by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court. He further denied the suggestion that a false case was filed by him.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 119 of 274
P.P. Batra, the witness affirmed that he had been regularly attending the
hearings of the main Uphaar case with his wife. He stated that they had no
access to the records of main Uphaar case. He never inspected the Trial
Court record of main Uphaar case. He affirmed that Sh. Y. K. Saxena was
the Special Public Prosecutor in the main Uphaar case. He could not
remember the name of the officer of CBI who used to assist the Ld. Spl. P.P
during the trial. Mr. R.S. Khatri, IO was assisting the Ld. Special P.P. He
knew the fact that the Ld. Spl. PP had moved application on 20.01.2003
already Ex.PW2/A highlighting the detailing certain documents which were
stated to be either mutilated, torn or not readily available. He never applied
for certified copies of the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet in the
main Uphaar case. He affirmed that they too had engaged lawyers to
represent the AVUT during the trial of main Uphaar case. He could not
recollect if any of those lawyers had ever applied for certified copies of the
said documents. He affirmed that total nine documents have been referred
in the application Ex.PW2/A moved by Ld. Spl. PP. He could not remember
if any separate list was also filed alongwith the said application. He
affirmed that in para no. 13 and 14 of his application Ex.PW30/DC, he had
given the details of missing documents. He further stated that he came to
know the details of missing documents from the application of Ld. Spl. P.P
Ex.PW2/A. He affirmed that application Ex.PW2/A was the basis of
preparation of draft of Ex.PW30/DC. He has seen para no. 13 & 14 of his
petition Ex.PW30/DC and application Ex.PW2/A and he said that there is
no disparity between the two qua the details of documents. He affirmed that
the documents referred at serial nos. 8 & 9 of application Ex.PW2/A have
not been included in Ex.PW30/DC. He voluntarily stated that when the said
application was filed by the Ld. Spl. P.P, the Ld. ASJ directed Ahlmad to
take assistance of other Court staff to locate the missing documents and that
it might be possible that aforesaid two documents mentioned at serial no. 8
& 9 may have been located. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely on this point. He denied the suggestion that he had purposely and
deliberately not included documents mentioned at serial no. 8 & 9 in his
petition Ex.PW30/DC because these two documents were favorable to
establishing the defence of accused persons in main Uphaar case. He had
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 120 of 274
filed the petition Ex.PW30/DC before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the month of May, 2003. He could not recollect that before the said petition
in the High Court, if the documents referred at serial nos. 8 & 9 were
located. He voluntarily stated that the IO of the case had filed an Affidavit
for leading secondary evidence wherein the documents mentioned in his
petition was highlighted. He further stated that he had gone through the
order of Ld. Trial Court whereby their application for cancellation of bail of
said three accused persons was dismissed and that they had also annexed
that order dt. 29.04.2003 with their said petition before Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi. He could not remember that in the said order the issue of
documents favorable to the defence of the accused having gone missing
was raised on behalf of accused Sushil Ansal. He denied the suggestion that
he is giving a false answer on this point. He affirmed that he had a landline
connection number 6451474 which was installed at his residence. He
further stated that he had not participated in the preparation of affidavit
filed by the IO Mr. R.S. Khatri in the main Uphaar case related to leading
secondary evidence of certain documents. He could not know if on one
occasion dt. 24.09.2002 when PW-29 Sh. B.S. Randhawa was being
examined, the presence of his wife has been taken note of on the deposition
of the witness. He denied the suggestion that the said conduct shows that
prosecution of the said case was not being conducted in a fair and impartial
manner and members of AVUT were trying to influence leading of evidence
on material. He denied the suggestion that in the list Ex.PW30/DB also
document D-28 has been shown as missing. He denied the suggestion that
he had full knowledge of the contents of this list i.e. Ex.PW30/DB while
preparing draft Ex.PW30/DC. He denied the suggestion that he has
deposed falsely.
Ld. counsel for accused Sushil Ansal has adopted the crossexamination
done on behalf of accused P.P. Batra.
Accused Anoop Singh was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-30 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 121 of 274
1 DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER Dt
5.05.2006 IN CRL M (M) 2380 /2003
AVUT Vs SUSHIL ANSAL & Ors
Mark PW 30/DA
2 LIST OF MISSING DOCUMENTS Ex PW 30/DB
3 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY
AVUT BEFORE DELHI HIGH
COURT FOR CANCELLATION OF
BAIL OF SUSHIL ANSAL, GOPAL
ANSAL & HS PANWAR
Ex PW 30/DC
42. PW-31 Sh. A.K. Singh, Assistant Registrar of Company,
NCT Delhi and Haryana, New Delhi was examined. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that pursuant to the summon received from this
Hon’ble Court, he has been authorized by Sh. A.K. Shahu, Deputy
Registrar of Companies, NCT Delhi & Haryana to produce the relevant
record duly certified by him pertaining to company, namely Star Estate
Management Limited. Office order in this regard dt. 17.07.2019 pertaining
to witness is taken on record and same is Ex.PW31/A bearing the signature
of Sh. A.K. Shahu, Deputy Registrar of Companies at point A. He has
brought the certified copies of relevant record consisting page no. 1 to 26.
He has brought the certified copy of master data of the company M/s Star
Estate Management Limited containing date of incorporation, CIN number
of the company, registered office address of the company and the
documents filed by the company with the Registrar of the companies. Same
is Ex.PW31/B bearing seal of office of Registrar of Companies and his
signature at point A on each page. He has also brought the certified copies
of the details of the Director appointed by the company as well as details of
their resignation. The same is running into two pages and is Ex.PW31/C
bearing seal of office of Registrar of Companies and his signature at point A
on each page. He has also brought the certified copies of Annual Return for
the date of AGM 24.09.2005 filed by the company Star Estate Management
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 122 of 274
Limited on 02.11.2005 in the office of Registrar of Companies with
Annexures running into 12 pages (internal page no. 4 to 15). The same is
Ex.PW31/D(colly) bearing seal of office of Registrar of Companies and his
signature at point A on each page. He has also brought the certified copies
of Form 32 of Star Estate Management Ltd. with its two Annexures i.e.
written consent of Rajeev Chopra dt. 31.01.2006 whereby he consented to
act as a Director of the company and resignation letter dt. 13.01.2006 of Sh.
Aditya Wadhera as a Director of said company. The same are running into
11 pages (internal page nos. 16 to 26. The same is Ex.PW31/E(colly.)
bearing seal of office of Registrar of Companies and his signature at point
A. He further stated that he has also brought the certified copy of certificate
of Incorporation of Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd. dt. 09.05.1980.
Initially the company was incorporated in the name of “Star Estate
Management Pvt. Ltd.” Later vide intimation dt. 11.02.1995, the name of
the company was changed to “Star Estate Management Ltd.” and the word
“Private” was removed. He further stated that the certified copy of the
Certificate of Incorporation of Star Estate Management Pvt. Ltd. dt.
09.05.1980 is taken on record and marked as Ex.PW31/F bearing seal of
the Registrar of Company and his signature at point A. He further stated
that the documents produced by him have been downloaded by him from
the System / Computer maintained at the office of Registrar of the
Company using by Unique User ID and Password. All the records
pertaining to companies registered with the Registrar of Company are
maintained on the official website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
www.mca.gov.in, for official purposes. The system / computer from which
he had taken printouts of the said documents remained functional
throughout the relevant period. He further stated that he has also brought
the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act dt. 23.07.2019 qua
the aforesaid documents. The same is taken on record and marked as
Ex.PW31/G bearing his signature at point A. He affirmed that he has
certified the aforesaid documents to be the true copies under the Provision
of 399(3) of Companies Act 2013.
Accused P.P. Batra, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Anoop
Singh were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 123 of 274
cross-examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that the documents which he had brought
to the Court and got them exhibited were downloaded by him personally
during his official work. The printer is installed in his office in his cabin.
He joined on 14.05.2019 in the office of Registrar of Companies under
working of Ministry of Corporate Affairs as an Assistant Registrar of
Companies Delhi & Haryana. For taking printout from the database,
Unique ID and Password is required. This Unique ID and Password has
been issued to him in June, 2019. However, he could not remember the
exact date. He was aware that Ms. Kanak Gaur had appeared for giving a
deposition. He was aware that she also brought the same documents to the
Court. When she brought the documents to the Court, he had taken the
printouts personally during the course of his official duty and had certified
the same and had given to her. He took the printouts and gave the
documents to her before she came to depose in the Court. After she returned
having deposed in the Court, she reported to him that he is supposed to go
to the Court as he had certified the documents. The witness explained that
when summons were issued to the Registrar of Companies, he is
empowered to issue necessary directions / office order for taking of the
computer prints by authorized persons and produce the same in the Court.
As such pursuant to the said directions, Ms. Kanak Guar was authorized to
produce the documents in the Court. He denied the suggestion that he is
avoiding to give direct answer to simple question and he denied the
suggestion that he is being evasive as his lies about having taken the
printouts personally has been exposed. He denied the suggestion that he is
being evasive to save himself from prosecution of deposing falsely in Court
on oath. He further denied the suggestion that in view of the above his
certificate under section 65B is incorrect. He further stated that he is M.
Com, LLB, P.G. Diploma in Labour Law and Industrial Relation. He is
aware of the provision of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The format
in which he has given the certificate is being used in the office and he has
used the same. He compared the format with the provision of 65B of Indian
Evidence Act before the signing the same. The server is installed at office in
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 124 of 274
adjoining cabin to his cabin. Maintenance of the same is looked after by
TCS. He affirmed that the particulars of the devices from which the output
regarding which he has deposed was generated including the server, the
computer, the printer have not been specified in his certificate under section
65B. He voluntarily stated that it is so because as per the provisions of
section 399(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 “a copy of, or extract from, any
document kept and registered at any of the offices for the registration of
companies under this Act, certified to be a true copy by the Registrar
(whose official position it shall not be necessary to prove), shall, in all
legal proceedings, be admissible in evidence as of equal validity with the
original document.” As per said provision, there is no requirement of
certificate under section 65B but since it was mentioned in the summon he
has brought the same. He denied the suggestion that he is trying to fill the
lacuna in the certificate under section 65B tendered by him in the Court.
The documents brought by him are from the record of ROC and he could
not depose regarding the authenticity. Again said, they are 100% authentic
documents. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that the details of the Directors of the
company was provided at the time of Incorporation of the company
09.05.1980. He has not brought the record pertaining to Directors at the
time of incorporation of the companies as the same has not been
summoned. However, as per the file pertaining to Star Estate Management
Ltd. that he is carrying in the Court, the name of the Directors of the
company appointed from 2004 to till date. He further stated that he did not
have the knowledge as to who were the directors of Star Estate
Management Ltd. at the time of incorporation and thereafter but he could
not tell their names. He has not brought any document containing the
details of the Directors from the date of its incorporation till date. As per his
knowledge, the IO of the case did not record the statement of any official
from the ROC who was maintaining the record regarding State Estate
Management Ltd. prior to June, 2019 and May, 2019. He voluntarily stated
that he has joined the office of ROC on 14.05.2019. He did not know
whether any official maintaining the records of Star Estate Management
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 125 of 274
Ltd. prior to May,2019 is a signatory to certificate under section 65B. He
affirmed that he has never personally maintained the electronic data
pertaining to Star Estate Management Ltd. from the date of its
incorporation till the date of his joining. He voluntarily stated that the
documents produced by him are not electronic record and more so it is
officially maintained by Registrar of Companies Delhi & Haryana and all
information related to company already available on the MCA Portal as
WWW.MCA.GOV.IN. He affirmed that the data referred by him in his
examination-in-chief is all electronic data. He volunteered that part of it
which pertains to the period at the time of incorporation of the company has
been subsequently converted into electronic data. He affirmed that he is not
the scribe or author of any of the documents which have been referred to by
him in his examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that the
certificate issued by him under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is
defective as it does not fulfill the requirements under the law. He denied the
suggestion that he is incompetent to testify regarding the documents
mentioned in his examination-in-chief. No electronic instrument containing
the electronic data referred by him in his examination-in-chief was seized
during the course of investigation of the present case. He had verified the
documents from the document file of the company uploaded on the website.
He has not verified or examined any official who would have uploaded or
maintained the information pertaining to the company. He denied the
suggestion that his deposition regarding the documents mentioned in
examination-in-chief is defective. He denied the suggestion that he has not
personally verified any information regarding the incorporation,
directorship or any other issue pertaining to the company Star Estate
Management Ltd. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely in
his examination-in-chief.
PW-31 was again permitted to be examined on the
application of prosecution.
He was recalled for further examination on 12.03.2021 and
he stated that he has brought the summoned record described in the index of
the documents accompanying the said record pertaining to A Plus Security
Service and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd. having registered office at Lado
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 126 of 274
Sarai, New Delhi. The said company was registered on 19.11.1998 vide
registration no. 55-97147. After the functioning of Ministry of Corporate
Affairs converted into electronic mode, the CIN of the company was
changed vide CIN number from registration no. 55-97147 to
U74899DL1998 PTC097147. The said documents have been certified by
him in the capacity of Assistant Registrar of Companies, Office of ROC,
NCT of Delhi & Haryana as per provisions of 399 (3) of the Companies
Act, 2013. He further stated that the documents produced by him have been
downloaded by him from the systems/ computer maintained at his office,
by using his unique ID and password. The said documents are also
available on MCA portal, www.mca.gov.in and are in public domain. He
further stated that some of the said documents namely Annual Return, Date
of AGMs held on 30.09.2004 and 30.09.2005 and Balance Sheet with
Directors and Auditors reports for the financial year ending on 31.03.2004
and 31.03.2005. The certificate of incorporation of company was also
physically handed over to the Director/ Officers of the company. He further
stated that the documents namely Form 32 was e-filed on 03.11.2010 under
the digital signatures of Shivraj Singh Karayat, Director of the company
and Chartered Accountant, Sh. Alok Kumar Bansal. The said form 32 was
filed for resignation of Mr. Anokhey Lal Pal, one of the Directors of the A
Plus Security Service and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd with resignation letter
of Mr. Anokhey Lal Pal dated 14.10.2010. He further stated that he has also
brought master data of said company, the details of Directors. He has also
brought the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act qua the
said record. The documents which were filed off-line were scanned and
uploaded on the www.mca.gov.in. The system from which he has got print
out and downloaded the electronic documents remained functional through
out the period the said documents were stored in system. He further stated
that it is also remained under his control and was only accessible through
his unique ID and password. The documents having total number of pages
44.
The documents are taken on record and marked as exhibit as under :
(1) Certified true copy of company master data of M/s A Plus Security
Service and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd is Ex.PW31/H;
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 127 of 274
(2) Certified true copy of certificate of incorporation is Ex.PW31/I;
(3) Certified true copy of details of Directors of the company is
Ex.PW31/J;
(4) Certified true copy of Form 32 having e-filed date 03.11.2010 is
Ex.PW31/K with the resignation letter dated 14.10.2010 of Sh. Anokhey
Lal Pal, one of the Director of said company is Ex.PW31/L;
(5) Certified true copies of Annual Return for the F.Y. ending on 31st March,
2005 for AGM held on 30.09.2005 is Ex.PW31/M and the Balance Sheet
for the financial year ending on 31.03.2005 alongwith notice to shareholder
and Director and Auditor’s report (running into 10 pages having internal
page no. from 17 to 26) are exhibited as Ex.PW31/N(Colly.);
(6) Certified true copies of Annual Return for the F.Y. ending on 31st March,
2004 for AGM held on 30.09.2004 is Ex.PW31/O and the Balance Sheet
for the financial year ending on 31.03.2004 alongwith notice to shareholder
and Director and Auditor’s report (running into 10 pages having internal
page nos. from 35 to 44) are exhibited as Ex.PW31/P(Colly.);
All the pages of the said documents bear his signatures and
seal of his office at point A. Certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872
qua the said documents is Ex.PW31/Q bearing his signatures and seal of
his office at point A.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness affirmed that certified true copies
of Annual Return for the financial year ending on 31st March, 2005 for
AGM held on 30.09.2005 is Ex.PW31/M and the Balance Sheet for the
financial year ending on 31.03.2005 alongwith notice to shareholder and
Director and Auditor’s report (running into 10 pages having internal page
no. from 17 to 26) Ex.PW31/N(Colly.) do not bear the name of Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. He further affirmed that no transaction has been shown in
the said documents with regard to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Gopal Ansal and Sushil
Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross-examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-31 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 128 of 274
1 OFFICE ORDER Dt 17.07.2019
FROM ROC
Ex PW 31/A
2 MASTER DATA OF SEML
CONTAINING DATA OF
INCORPORATION, CIN NUMBER
OF AND REGISTERED OFIICE
ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY.
Ex PW31/B
3 CERTIFIED COPIES OF DETAILS
OF DIRECTORS APPOINMENT &
THEIR RESIGNATION
Ex PW 31/C
4 CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNUAL
RETURNS FOR THE DATE AGM
24.09.2005 OF SEML ON 02.11.2005
Ex PW 31/D
(Colly)
5 CERTIFIED COPIES OF FORM 32
OF SEML WITH 2 Annexures Dt.
31.01.2006
Ex PW 31/E
( Colly)
6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION OF SEML Dt
09.05.1980
Ex PW 31/F
7 CERTIFICATE U/S 65B OF INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT Dt 23.07.2019
Ex PW 31/G
8 TRUE COPY OF COMPANY
MASTER DATA OF M/S A PLUS
SECURITY SERVICE & TRAINING
INSTITUTE (P) Ltd.,
Ex PW 31/H
9 CERTIFICATE OF
INCORPORATION OF A PLUS
SECURITY
Ex PW 31/I
10 DETAILS OF DIRECTORS OF THE
COMPANY
Ex PW 31/J
11 FORM 32 Dt 03.11.2010 Ex PW 31/K
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 129 of 274
12 RESIGNATION LETTER OF
ANOKHE LAL PAL Dt 14.10.2010
Ex PW 31/L
13 ANNUAL RETURN Dt 31.03.2005 Ex PW 31/M
14 BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR
ENDING 31.03.2005
Ex PW 31/N
15 ANNUAL RETURN Dt 31.03.2004 Ex PW 31/O
16 BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR
ENDING 31.03.2004
Ex PW 31/P
17 CERTIFICATE U/S 65 B Ex PW 31/Q
43. PW-32 : Sh. Satish Chand Verma, SDE (FRS), KBN,
Janpath, New Delhi was examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief
that he has brought the summoned record i.e. original history register
containing relevant entries pertaining to landline telephone no. 23352269,
23352270 and 23352518. All the said telephone numbers had been allotted
in the name of Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. He stated that telephone
no. 23352269 was opened on 15.12.1994 in the name of Ansal Properties
and Industries Ltd., 118, UF, Prakash Deep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New
Delhi. On 12.08.1995 this number was shifted to the premises bearing
no.1110, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi. Later on 15.04.2005
the name of the subscriber was got changed vide ‘F’ OB no.
4022331003614 dated 21.03.2005 from Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd.
to M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. This number was
disconnected w.e.f. 23.04.2007 for non-payment of telephone bill. The copy
of the history register pertaining to this number is taken on record and
marked as Ex. PW 32/A (OSR). He further stated that telephone no.
23352270 was opened on 15.12.1994 in the name of Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd., 118, UF, Prakash Deep Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New
Delhi. On 12.08.1995 this number was shifted to the premises bearing no.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 130 of 274
1110, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi. Later on 07.04.2005 the
name of the subscriber was got changed vide ‘F’OB no. 4022331003606
dated 21.03.2005 from Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. to M/s Ansal
Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. The copy of the history register pertaining
to this number is taken on record and marked as Ex. PW 32/B (OSR). He
further stated that telephone no. 23352518 was opened on 01.12.1994 in the
name of Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., 118, UF, Prakash Deep
Building, 7 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. On 18.11.1995 this number was
shifted to the premises bearing no.1110, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi. Later on 07.04.2005 the name of the subscriber was got
changed vide ‘F’OB no. 4022331003604 dated 21.03.2005 from Ansal
Properties and Industries Ltd. to M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure
Ltd. This number was disconnected w.e.f. 26.06.2014. The copy of the
history register pertaining to this number is taken on record and marked as
Ex. PW 32/C (OSR). He further stated that the stamped number at the top
of the Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW32/B and Ex.PW 32/C are the landline telephone
numbers. Later, the digit ‘2’ was prefixed in all the landline numbers in
Delhi and for that reason digit ‘2’ is not shown in the said stamped numbers.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he has joined the MTNL in the year
1983. However, he is posted in the present unit for the last one month. He
affirmed that there are authorized persons in his unit to access the record of
the Record Room. He affirmed that record is only provided by the
authorized person. He is authorized to produce the record. He has not
brought any authorization to show that he can access the Record Room. He
voluntarily stated that he is not required to take any authorization to
produce such record. He denied the suggestion that he is not authorized to
produce such record, hence, he has not produced the same. He further stated
that he did not have any authorization authorizing him to depose before this
Court. He voluntarily stated that he has produced the record pursuant to the
summons issued by this Court. He further stated that landline numbers are
issued on the basis of registration form followed by an order issued by
Commercial Officer of MTNL. He could not say as to whether KYC
documents were taken before allotting the landline numbers. He could not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 131 of 274
say if the registration form and orders issued thereof qua these numbers are
available. Only the official from Commercial Department can tell about the
same. Before coming to the Court, he did not contact the Commercial
Officer. He voluntarily stated that he was only summoned to produce the
history register pertaining to the said numbers and that he cannot have
accessed of any file belonging to Commercial Department. He has never
seen KYC form pertaining to these numbers. He denied the suggestion that
he has deliberately not produced the KYC form and the registration forms.
He affirmed that the entries in Ex.PW 32/A, Ex.PW 32/B and Ex.PW 32/C
were made by different persons at different dates. He voluntarily stated that
the said entries have been made on different dates on receipt of the said
orders received for particular purpose. He affirmed that the said entries do
not bear the signature of the person who have made the entries. He affirmed
that none of the entries in the aforesaid exhibits were made by him. He
affirmed that he is not competent to depose regarding Ex. PW 32/A to Ex.
PW 32/C. He has not brought any call detail records pertaining to the said
numbers maintained in the office of the account officer. He affirmed that
neither the word ‘History register’ is mentioned on the cover of the register
nor it bears the logo of MTNL. The register does not bear any indication so
as to indicate that the stamped number on the top of the register is the
telephone number. He voluntarily stated that no such indication is required
and that the said register is maintained by them as a contemporaneous
record in the course of official duty. He denied the suggestion that the
register produced by him does not pertain to the history of the telephone
numbers. He affirmed that at entry at point X in the aforesaid exhibits are
mentioned in pencil for maintenance purposes. He voluntarily stated that
being the number of Distribution point which is changed time to time and
primary pair to match the same and for that reason it is mentioned with
pencil. He denied the suggestion that he has not produced the relevant
documents before the Court. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing
falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that telephone nos. 6887052, 4677285,
6451474, 6888953, 7193021, 6888041, 4677755, 3738104, 3715119,
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 132 of 274
3353316 and 3311451 may be belonging to MTNL. He did not know
whether any requisition was received in the MTNL office regarding the
investigation of this case. Before coming to depose before this Court, he did
not try to verify the said facts from his office. He did not know if there was
any exchange of information between EOW and MTNL, during
investigation of this case. He denied the suggestion that he has tendered in
evidence irrelevant documents during his examination-in-chief. He denied
the suggestion that he has done so at the instance of the investigating
officer.
Ld. counsel for accused Sushil Ansal & Dinesh Chandra
Sharma have adopted the cross examination done on behalf of accused P.P.
Batra.
Accused Anoop Singh was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-32 :
1 COPY OF HISTORY REGISTER OF
TELEPHONE NUMBER
23352269 IN THE NAME OF API
Ex PW 32/ A
2 COPY OF THE HISTORY REGISTER
PERTAINING TO TELEPHONE No
233 52270 IN THE NAME OF API
Ex PW 32/B
3 COPY OF THE HISTORY REGISTER
PERTAINING TO TELEPHONE No
23352518 IN THE NAME OF API
Ex PW 32/C
44. PW-33 : Sh. G.S. Bakshi, Chief Section Supervisor,
Representative of AGM (C), KBN/JP, Eastern Court, Janpath, New Delhi
was examined. He stated in his examination in chief that he has brought the
summoned record pertaining to telephone number 23352269, 23352270
and 23352518. Initially these numbers were alloted to Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd. at 115, Ansal Bhawan, 16 K.G. Marg, New Delhi 110001.
Later, the name of the said company was got changed to Ansal Properties
and Infrastructure Ltd having same address. The application for transfer of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 133 of 274
the said telephone number 23352269 and 23352270 filed through
Authorized Signatory Sh. Amitav Gangoli, the then VP and Company
Secretary. Same is taken on record and marked as Ex.PW33/A (OSR) and
Ex.PW33/B (OSR). Certified true copy of fresh certificate of Incorporation
was also filed alongwith the said application. Photocopy of the same is
taken on record and marked as Mark 33/C. Alongwith the aforesaid
application for transfer of the concerned telephone numbers, an Affidavit
with regard to the change of the name of company as well as an Affidavit of
Indemnity having all the landline numbers were also filed. Copy of the
same are taken on record. The affidavit regarding change of name of
company is marked as Ex.PW33/D(OSR). The Affidavit of indemnity is
marked as Ex.PW33/E(OSR). At the time of filing of aforesaid application,
the copies of last month paid bills of landline numbers 23352269 and
23352270 were also filed as bonafide address proof. The copy of the bill
pertaining to number 23352269 is taken on record and marked as Mark
33/F. The copy of the bill pertaining to number 23352270 is taken on
record and marked as Mark 33/G.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma were afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no
cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that the applications which he exhibited in
the Court were filed in commercial section only. He did not receive the
document when they got filed in MTNL Office. He retrieved the record
from record section for the purpose of bringing the same to the court on the
instructions of AGM-C. He was given instructions in writing to attend the
court. The same is mentioned on the summons at point A (OSR) exhibited
as Ex.PW33/D1(OSR). He denied the suggestion that he is unauthorized to
bring any record to the court and he has brought the same at the behest of
the prosecution. He affirmed that he has brought the records as he found in
his office and he could not depose about authenticity / genuinity of the
signatures or any content of these documents. His statement was not
recorded during investigation and he never joined investigation in this case.
He has not seen personally and cannot depose as to where the aforesaid
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 134 of 274
numbers were installed from his personal knowledge. However, whatever
he has stated in the court is borne out from the record which he has brought
from his office.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Sushil Ansal, the witness stated that the records mentioned by him in his
examination-in-chief pertain to the company only and not to an individual.
He was never examined as a witness by the IO during investigation of the
present case. The records that he has referred to in his examination-in-chief
are being maintained by some other officials of some other section. No such
official was ever examined in his presence in the present case during his
tenure with MTNL in this section. The document mentioned by him in his
examination-in-chief is only pertaining to indemnity bond. He did not have
any knowledge regarding the details of the calls made from the numbers
that he has referred to in his examination-in-chief since it is being looked
after by some other section of MTNL. He did not have any knowledge as to
which of the official was maintaining the record referred by him in his
testimony prior to his posting in this section of MTNL. He did not have any
knowledge as to who was in-charge of the affairs in the companies which
have been referred in respect of the documents mentioned in his
examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that he is not competent to
testify the documents mentioned in his examination-in-chief. He denied the
suggestion that his statement is defective and incomplete and he has
produced the records and identified them under pressure from the IO to suit
the case of the prosecution.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-33 :
1 APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF
TELEPHONE NUMBERS 23352269
Ex PW 33/A
2 APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER OF
TELEPHONE NUMBERS 23352270
Ex PW 33/B
3 PHOTO COPY COPY OF THE
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY OF FRESH
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF API
Mark 33/C
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 135 of 274
4 AFFIDAVIT OF A K GANGULY w.r.t.
CHANGE OF NAME OF COMPANY
Ex PW 33/D
5 AFFIDAVIT OF INDEMNITY FILED
HAVING ALL THE LAND LINE
NUMBERS
Ex PW 33/E
6 COPY OF SUMMONS Ex PW 33/D1
7 COPY OF THE LAST TELEPHONE
BILL OF 23352270
Mark 33/G
8 COPY OF THE LAST TELEPHONE
BILL OF 23352269
Mark 33/F
45. PW-34 : Sh. Ishwar Bhat S. S/o. Sh. S. Shama Bhat, aged
about 64 years, R/o. 29, 4th Main Road, Syndicate Bank Layout, Herolalli,
Bangalore 560091 was examined. He stated in his examination in chief that
in the year 1997, he was posted as Assistant Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Green Park Extension, New Delhi. He further stated that on 27.08.1997
while he was posted as above, he handed over a cheque bearing cheque no.
183618 dated 23.05.1996 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi in the favour of Chief Engineer (Water) for an amount of Rs.
9,711/- duly signed by Gopal Ansal, Authorized Signatory, M/s. Green Park
Theaters and Associated Pvt. Ltd. He had handed over the said cheque in
the office of Sh. A.K. Gupta, Inspector CBI on the instructions of their
Chief Manager. A seizure memo with regard to the seizure of said cheque
was prepared by Sh. A.K. Gupta who had signed the same in his presence
and that he had also appended his signature thereon. He was also provided
the copy of the seizure memo. He further stated that during the trial of main
Uphaar Tragedy case, he also appeared as an witness with regard to the said
fact. During recording of his deposition in the main Uphaar case, he was
shown only the photocopy of the seizure memo as well as the photocopy of
said cheque and he had approved them to be the photocopies of their
originals. The certified copies of the photocopy of the cheque and the
seizure memo already on record and marked as Ex.PW10/O and
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 136 of 274
Ex.PW10/N respectively, were shown to the witness and he identified it to
be the photocopies of their originals bearing his signatures at point B & C.
The copy of his deposition recorded in main Uphaar case is Ex.PW34/A
(OSR from main Uphaar case file) bearing his signature at point A.
Accused Sushil Ansal, P.P. Batra, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma, Gopal Ansal and Anoop Singh were afforded opportunity to
cross examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-34 :
1 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION
RECORDED IN THE MAIN UPHAAR
CASE
(3rd Supplementary charge sheet Pg
1145-1147)
Ex /PW 34/A
46. PW-35 : Sh. R.K. Singh, the then Nodal Officer, Bharti
Airtel Ltd., R/o. 224, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III, New Delhi was
examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief that on 10.07.2006, he was
working as a Nodal Officer at Bharti Airtel Ltd. 224, Okhla Industrial
Area, Phase-III, New Delhi. In pursuance to the request made by the IO, he
wrote a letter giving the requisite information vide his letter already
Ex.PW27/B bearing his signature at point A. He had provided the requisite
information vide his said letter after verifying the same from their computer
system. The said letter was taken into possession by the IO vide seizure
memo already Ex.PW27/A bearing his signature at point A.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that he could not tell the number of the
customers of Bharti Airtel Ltd in the year 2006. He voluntarily stated that
this information was maintained by Customer Care Department of
company. He did not remember if any record was also taken into possession
from him by the IO in the present case nor he knew if any such record was
taken into possession from the Customer Care Department. His computer
system containing the relevant data was not taken into possession by the IO.
He affirmed that he could not remember the details of customers/
subscribers. He voluntarily stated that in year 2006, there were more than
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 137 of 274
10 lakhs subscribers in Delhi and that such information can only be
provided after verifying from the computer system containing said data. He
affirmed that in letter Ex.PW27/B, there is reference of letter no.
158/ACP/SIT/EOW, Crime Branch, Delhi dt. 07.07.2006 written by the IO
seeking the said information. He affirmed that he had not provided the copy
of said letter while providing the said information vide letter Ex.PW27/B.
He denied the suggestion that he had written letter Ex.PW27/B at the
instance of IO. He denied the suggestion that there is no evidential basis for
contents of letter Ex.PW27/B. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed
falsely about having verified details from his computer system. He denied
the suggestion that no such details qua Customers / Subscribers were
available with him. He denied the suggestion that for this reason he had not
provided any detail in aid to support the contents of Ex.PW27/B. He denied
the suggestion that no such letter dt. 07.07.2006 was received by him and
for this reason, he did not provide its copy to IO alongwith his letter
Ex.PW27/B. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness affirmed that the authorized person can have
access to such information. He was authorized to have access to that
information. He had not produced any authorization letter to the IO. He has
not been given any authority letter by the Bharti Airtel Ltd to appear in the
court as a witness. He voluntarily stated that he has come to court pursuant
to the summons issued by the court in his name. He stated that he is not
aware regarding the KYC of mobile numbers mentioned in his letter
Ex.PW27/B. He denied the suggestion that he had written letter Ex.PW27/B
without verifying the record including KYC. He denied the suggestion that
he is deposing falsely.
Accused Sushil Ansal, P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh were
afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
Ld. counsel for accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma has
adopted the cross examination done on behalf of accused Gopal Ansal.
47. PW-36 : Sh. Anu Anand, Assistant Manager, Bharti Airtel
Ltd., presently posted at Bharti Airtel Ltd. Bhushidu Towers, Avinashi
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 138 of 274
Road, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu was examined. He stated in his examination
in chief that in the month of September 2006, he was working as Executive
– Legal & Regulatory, erstwhile Hutchinson Essar Mobile Services Ltd., C-
45, Okhla Phase-II, New Delhi. While he was posted as above pursuant to
written request vide letter dt. 11.08.2006 received from Sh. Amit Roy, ACP,
Crime Branch, New Delhi, he had provided a certified copy of CDR of
mobile numbers 9811675434, 9811027522, 9811026904 and 9811313863
for the period May 2002, June 2002, August 2002, September 2002 and
November 2002 vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW36/A bearing his
signature at point A. The certified copy of CDR of the mobile number
9811675434 for the month of August, September, November of year 2002
are on record and now marked as Ex.PW36/B (page no. 187 to 189
August), Ex.PW36/C (page no. 180 to 181 September) and Ex.PW36/D
(page no. 177 to 179 November) respectively bearing his signatures and
seal of the company at point A on each page. The certified copy of CDR of
the mobile number 9811026904 for the month of May and November of
year 2002 are on record and now marked as Ex.PW36/E (page no. 191 to
194 May) and Ex.PW36/F (page no. 168 to 172 November) respectively
bearing his signatures and seal of the company at point A on each page. The
certified copy of CDR of the mobile number 9811313863 for the month of
May 2002 are on record and now marked as Ex.PW36/G (page no. 199)
bearing his signatures and seal of the company at point A on each page. The
certified copy of CDR of the mobile number 9811027522 for the month of
May, June, August, September and November of year 2002 are on record
and now marked as Ex.PW36/H (page no. 195 to 198 May), Ex.PW36/I
(page no. 190 June), Ex.PW36/J (page no. 184 to 186 August),
Ex.PW36/K (page no. 182 to 183 September) and Ex.PW36/L (page no.
173 to 176 November) respectively bearing his signatures and seal of the
company at point A on each page. He further stated that on 04.10.2006
pursuant to a written request vide letter No. 226/ACP/SIT/EOW received
from Sh. Amit Roy, ACP, Crime Branch, New Delhi, he had also provided
the certified copy of CDR of mobile number 9811027522 for the period
May 2002, August 2002, September 2002, October 2002 and November
2002 vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW36/M bearing his signature at point
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 139 of 274
A. The certified copy of said CDR of mobile number 9811027522 for the
said period running into three sheets (from page no. 164 to 166) are already
on record and now marked as Ex.PW36/N bearing his signatures and seal
of the company at point A on each sheet. He further stated that he has
brought the certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act qua the
aforesaid output of printouts of the aforesaid CDRs. The said certificate is
taken on record and marked as Ex.PW36/O bearing his signature at point
A. The address mentioned in his certificate is the address of the Head
Office of his company. The printout of the aforesaid records / CDRs of the
aforesaid mobile numbers were taken by him from the computer device
being protected by Unique ID and Password used by him. The computer
device remained functional during the period pertaining to the aforesaid
records / CDRs. He did not remember the description of the computer
device in question as he has left the company in year 2008. The information
contained in the CDRs were regularly filled in the system in the ordinary
course of activities and same has been droved from there.
Accused Sushil Ansal, Dinesh Chandra Sharma and
Anoop Singh were afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but
no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that he had left company Hutchinson Mobile
Services Ltd in the year 2008. He have had no contact with the said
company and its officials after that. He has prepared certificate under
section 65-B Ex.PW36/O partly in his office and partly at his house one
week ago. He has had no details regarding this case after leaving
Hutchinson Mobile Services Ltd. While he was employed in Hutchinson
Mobile Services Ltd as Nodal Officer, he was employed in Delhi. He
further stated that the master server pertaining to CDRs of mobile numbers
was located in Delhi with IT Department. Maintenance of the server was
being taken care of by IT Department. He affirmed that CDRs are
maintained in the master server in chronological order in time and date. IT
Department comprises of people who are technically qualified i.e. Software
Engineers and Technicians and these officers with such qualifications
possess the requisite knowledge to maintain the master server. The
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 140 of 274
reference which came through letter no. 226/ACP/SIT/EOW Crime Branch
as mentioned in Ex.PW36/M which had come to their company was
responded to by supplying the requisite information and data. He
voluntarily stated that if he had provided the CDR of all the months
mentioned in letter Ex.PW36/M. He did not remember if post his sending
letter Ex.PW36/M, any further query came from the office of EOW Crime
Branch Delhi. He affirmed that there is no call record of first 25 days of
August 2002 on Ex.PW36/N (page no. 164). So is his answer with regard to
first 12 days of May 2002 (page no. 164). He affirmed that in Ex.PW36/N
there are gaps of several days in the month of September, October and
November 2002 (page no. 164 to 166). He affirmed that page no. 178 of
Ex.PW36/D, page no. 168 of Ex.PW36/F and page no. 173 and 174 of
Ex.PW36/L wherein the calls are not in chronological orders. The witness
voluntarily stated that the present CDR pertain to year 2002 and he had
extracted these details in the year 2006. When the memory of online server
get filled, they randomly transfer some datas to DAT file and when there is
request to provide the datas/ records, they retrieved it from DAT and during
that process of decoding as per required format sought by the investigating
agency, they extracted the data from DAT file. Court observation is
recorded that the witness has earlier stated that the data was copied
and pasted but later he further explained the same as above. He
affirmed that the format in which the data was stored in main server
remains but its format undergoes changes to suit the requirement of the
investigation agency and that requires manual intervention. The
requirement of investigating agency must be reflected in their letters
through which the information was sought i.e. letter no.
226/ACP/SIT/EOW Crime Branch reflected in Ex.PW36/M and letter dt.
11.08.2006 reflected in Ex.PW36/A. He did not remember if he had
explained the aforesaid procedure of extracting the data to the IO of this
case. He did not remember if the IO had sought the said information in a
particular format through his aforesaid two letters. He denied the suggestion
that explanation given by him regarding lack of chronological order and
gaps of several dates in calls is false and developed on the day to cover up
the manipulation carried out by EOW with his assistance. He denied the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 141 of 274
suggestion that he tendered in evidence false and manipulated documents to
bolster the case of prosecution. He denied the suggestion that data of
several months is missing from the alleged CDRs tendered by him in
evidence. He denied the suggestion that this has been done to present an
incomplete and manipulated picture of the case and to distort the facts. He
denied the suggestion that his explanation on the chronological order is
false in view of his answers in the preceding portion of the cross
examination. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely and he
has tendered the false explanation to cover up the issues raise in the crossexamination
and for this reason the same is not reflected in any documents
tendered by him in his examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that
certificate Ex.PW36/O tendered by him has been prepared by the EOW and
got signed by him on that day.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he is an M.B.A. in Marketing &
Finance. He qualified in 2001. He joined Hutchinson Mobile Services Ltd
in the year 2005. The call details provided by him are for the year 2002 and
he affirmed that at that time he was not working in Hutchinson Mobile
Services Ltd and he was working at TATA Tele Services Ltd for work of
Tower Maintenance. He joined in 2005 on rolls of Hutchinson Mobile
Services Ltd and he was issued an appointment letter. His duties and
responsibilities were assigned to him later. His designation was Executive-
Legal & Regulatory. The duty was also assigned to him to give the details
to securities agencies like EOW, Crime Branch, CBI etc. as required by
them in respect of Call Details, Addresses, CAF. The witness stated that
there was a separate Information Technology (I.T.) Department in
Hutchinson Mobile Services Ltd where he was working. He affirmed that
DATA is stored in the servers. He affirmed that the maintenance of these
servers is looked after by the persons working in the I.T. Department. He
affirmed that if there is any issue or problem with his PC (desktop) he
would contact the I.T. Department for fixing the same. He did not
remember the storage capacity of his desktop. He affirmed that the whole
data of the company is not stored in his desktop. He affirmed that his
desktop was connected with the main server. He affirmed that data stored in
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 142 of 274
the main server was not in his control. He voluntarily stated that he can
extract the data stored in the main server through his desktop by using his
User name and Password. By control, he means to say that the maintenance
of the server was to be done by the I.T. Department. He denied the
suggestion that his certificate Ex.PW36/O is false as he did not know the
provisions of Information Technology Act 2002 and Indian Evidence Act
1872. He affirmed that after he gave letters Ex.PW36/A and Ex.PW36/M,
he was contacted by Police Officer of EOW after receiving summons
regarding his appearance in the court and when he asked him about nature
of his evidence, he informed him about the mobile numbers and details as
mentioned in his letter. He has not told him anything about certificate under
section 65-B Indian Evidence Act. He denied the suggestion that he has
given the certificate Ex.PW36/O at the instance of the Investigation Agency
as he was not aware of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. He
affirmed that the data stored in the server in DAT format. He did not
remember if the printouts of the CDRs is from the DAT file. When the data
get filled in the main server it is transferred to back end server. He could
not remember as to whether the printouts of the CDRs were taken from
DAT file. He affirmed that the printouts of the CDR can be taken in any
other file format like Word or Excel Format. He denied the suggestion that
he had not taken printout direction in the DAT file and he has changed the
format of CDRs. He denied the suggestion that the CDRs in question are
copies of the data in the main server which is printed in a different format.
He could not tell as to whether the data in the server which is stored in DAT
file was in chronological order. He denied the suggestion that being evasive
regarding the data in DAT format as the CDRs submitted by him are not in
chronological order. He further stated that every customer who is issued a
SIM card from Hutchinson mobile services Ltd he is supposed to submit a
KYC form. He voluntarily stated that he did not remember if the said
requirement was there in the year 2002. He affirmed that a KYC Form or A
Customer Application Form (CAF) are almost same. He did not remember
if he had seen a KYC or the Customer Application form regarding the
numbers mentioned in his letters in Ex.PW36/A and Ex.PW36/M. He
denied the suggestion that he is giving evasive reply regarding his
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 143 of 274
knowledge of the KYC or CAF. He stated that no such Authority Letter for
accessing the DATA in the main server was required. He denied the
suggestion that an Authority Letter is required as he was not working in the
I.T. Department. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the
instance of EOW.
The following exhibits have been marked in the examination of PW-36 :
1 LETTER DATED 29.09.2006 FROM HUTCH
TO MR AMIT ROY ACP EOW, IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/A
2 COPY OF CDR ( 9811675434) FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 2002 ( Pg 187-189) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/B
3 COPY OF CDR( 9811675434) FOR THE
PERIOD SEPTEMBER 2002 ( Pg 180-181) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/C
4 COPY OF CDR ( 9811675434) FOR THE
PERIOD NOVEMBER 2002 (Pg 177-179) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/D
5 COPY OF CDR (9811026904) FOR THE
PERIOD MAY 2002 ( Pg 191-194 ) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/E
6 COPY OF CDR ( 9811026904) FOR THE
PERIOD NOVEMBER 2002 ( Pg 168-172) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/F
7 COPY OF CDR ( 9811313863) FOR THE
PERIOD MAY 2002 ( Pg 199)
Ex PW 36/G
8 COPY OF CDR ( 9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD MAY 2002 ( Pg 195-198) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
Ex PW 36/H
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 144 of 274
IO.
9 COPY OF CDR ( 9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD JUNE 2002 ( Pg 190 )
IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC
OF IO.
Ex PW 36/I
10 COPY OF CDR ( 9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD AUGUST 2002 ( Pg 184-186) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/J
11 COPY OF CDR ( 9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD SEPTEMBER 2002 ( Pg 182-183) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 . OF IO.
Ex PW 36/K
12 COPY OF CDR (9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD NOVEMBER 2002 ( Pg 173-176) IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 CrPC OF
IO.
Ex PW 36/L
13 LETTER Dt 04.10.2006 FROM HUTCH TO
ACP , E O W GIVING DETAILS OF
ATTESTED CDR w.r.t MOBILE No
9811027522 FOR THE PERIOD MAY,
AUGUST ,SEPTEMBER ,OCTOBER &
NOVEMBER 2002. IN RESPONSE TO
NOTICE U/S 91 Cr.PC OF IO.
Ex PW 36/M
14 COPY OF CDR (9811027522) FOR THE
PERIOD MAY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER,
OCTOBER, & NOVEMBER 2002 ( Pg 164-
166) IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91
Cr.PC OF IO.
Ex PW 36/N
15 CERTIFICATE U/S 65B OF INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT
Ex PW 36/O
48. PW-37 : Insp. Rajesh Sah, No. D-I/212, Anti Corruption
Branch, New Delhi was examined. He stated in his examination in chief
that in the month of January 2014, he was posted as SI at EOW Mandir
Marg, New Delhi. Sometime in the month of January, he was asked by the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 145 of 274
DCP EOW that some more documents from the trial court record of main
Uphaar case are required to be filed. A rough list of the documents was also
provided to him by the DCP EOW. At that time, the arguments on the
charge was going on in that matter. He further stated that since, the original
record of main Uphaar case was summoned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in an appeal filed against the conviction of accused persons in that case, he
approached the Central Agency Section in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
met the Section Officer and apprised him about the said aspect of the
matter. The said Section Officer had got applied for certified copies of the
said documents through Advocate Sh. D.S. Mehra, the then AOR of Central
Government in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further stated that the
Central Agency had also provided him the copy of the application through
which the certified copies of the said documents were applied for in the
Hon’ble Supreme court. He further stated that on 03.02.2014, he collected
the aforesaid documents from the Copying Agency of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and total pages of said documents were 1776 pages. When he
received the documents from the Copying Agency of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, he inquired from the In-Charge of the Copying Agency that the
documents provided pursuant to the said application were not the certified
copies. He informed him that as per the practice in the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, only the photocopy of the original record is provided. The said In-
Charge of the Copying Agency had also made an endorsement to the said
effect on the copy of the application through which the certified copies of
the documents were applied for. The copy of the said application having
original endorsement of the In-Charge of Copying Agency of Hon’ble
Supreme Court is Ex.PW37/A bearing the endorsement and signature the
said In-charge of Copying Agency of Hon’ble Supreme Court at point A. He
made the said endorsement and appended his signature in his presence. He
further stated that after collecting the aforesaid documents consisting of
1776 pages, he prepared the supplementary charge-sheet on the directions
of Senior Officers and filed the aforesaid documents alongwith the chargesheet
in the court. The copy of the charge-sheet of the main Uphaar case
running into 63 pages (from page no. 1 to 63 of this chargesheet) is now
marked as Ex.PW37/B (Original seen from the original record of the main
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 146 of 274
Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session,
PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of one register i.e. Occurrence Book of Control
Room HQ (from page no. 64-426) is already marked as Ex.PW10/F
(Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar case produced
by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy
of the D.O.B. Register of B.C.P., Fire Station, New Delhi dt. 13.12.1996 to
18.01.1997 containing paged 1-400. Page no. 95 to 104 are missing and on
page no. 109-116 ink has been spread (from page no. 427-816) running into
390 pages is already marked as Ex.PW10/FF (Original seen from the
original record of the main Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge,
Record Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of the framing of charge
dt. 27.02.2001 of the Ld. ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal (from page no. 817-927)
running into 111 pages is now marked as Ex.PW37/C (Original seen from
the original record of the main Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-
Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of the order on
sentence of Ld. ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal dt. 23.11.2007 passed in the main
Uphaar case running into 51 pages (from page no. 928-978) is now marked
as Ex.PW37/D (Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar
case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N.
Delhi). The copy of the seizure memo dt. 18.07.1997 for seizure of
documents mentioned therein in which second page of the memo is half
torn running in 2 pages (from page no. 979-980) is already marked as
Ex.PW14/A (Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar
case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N.
Delhi). The copy of the file containing Minutes of M.D.’s Meeting and
correspondence (total 40 pages). It’s page no. 1,9,12,14,18,&19 are missing
alongwith seizure memo running into 13 pages (from page no. 996-1008) is
already marked as Ex.PW21/A (colly) (Original seen from the original
record of the main Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record
Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of the ordersheet dt. 31.01.2003
of Ld. ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal running in 2 pages (from page no. 1009-
1010) is now marked as Ex.PW37/E (Original seen from the original
record of the main Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record
Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of the order dt. 31.03.2003 of Ld.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 147 of 274
ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal running into 2 pages (from page no. 1011-1012) is
now marked as Ex.PW37/F. (Original seen from the original record of the
main Uphaar case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room
Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy of the order dt. 23.12.2004 of the Ld.
ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal allowing the earlier marked documents to be
exhibited running into 16 pages (from page no. 1020-1035) is now marked
as Ex.PW37/G (Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar
case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N.
Delhi). The copy of the Casual Leave Register maintained in HQ Delhi Fire
Service for the period 1995-1996 pertaining to Casual Leave of the officers
to the rank of Station Officers upto Dy. Chief Fire Officers along with
seizure memo. The page no. 45 to 50 are missing, running into 63 pages
(from page no. 1036-1097) is already marked as Ex.PW10/J(colly)
(Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar case produced
by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N. Delhi). The copy
of the Trial Court Judgment of Ld. ASJ Smt. Mamta Sehgal dt. 20.11.2007
running into 576 pages (from page no. 1201-1776) is now marked as
Ex.PW37/H (Original seen from the original record of the main Uphaar
case produced by Ms. Veena, In-Charge, Record Room Session, PHC, N.
Delhi).
Accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Sushil
Ansal and Gopal Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross examine this
witness but no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that he had not retained the rough list of the
documents provided by the DCP (EOW). He did not remember the name of
the DCP (EOW). He had simply applied for certified copies of the
documents as pointed by his senior officers. He denied the suggestion that
only copies of selected documents were applied for by him at the instance
of senior officers. He had no role in deciding which copies of the
documents to be applied for.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-37 :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 148 of 274
1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION HAVING
ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT OF THE
INCHARGE OF COPYING AGENCY OF
SUPREME COURT
COPY OF THE 3rd SUPPLIMENTARY
CHARGE SHEET
Ex PW 37/A
2 COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET OF
THE MAIN UPHAAR CASE
Pg Nos 1 TO 63 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE
SHEET .
Ex PW 37/B
3 COPY OF THE FRAMING OF CHARGE
Dt 27.02.2001 IN THE MAIN UPHAAR
CASE
(Pgs 917-927 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLIMENTARY CHARGESHEET
Ex PW 37/C
4 COPY OF THE ORDER ON SENTENCE
Dt 23.11.2007 IN THE MAIN UPHAAR
CASE
( Pgs 928-978 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET
Ex PW 37/D
5 COPY OF ORDER SHEET Dt 31.01.2003
ALLOWING SECONDARY EVIDENCE
( Pgs 1009-1010Ex IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET
Ex PW 37/E
6 COPY OF ORDER SHEET Dt 31.03.2003
( Pgs 1011-1012 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLIMENTARY CHARGESHEET
Ex PW 37/F
7 COPY OF ORDER SHEET Dt 23.12.2004
EXHIBITING MARKED DOCUMENTS
( Pgs 1020-1035 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET)
Ex PW 37/G
8 TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT IN THE Ex PW 37/H
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 149 of 274
MAIN UPHAAR CASE Dt 20.11.2007
( Pgs 1201- 1776 IN THE 3rd
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET)
49. PW-38 : Sh. Amit Roy, DCP, Anti Corruption, Delhi was
examined. He stated in his examination in chief that on 02.06.2006, he was
posted as ACP, EOW, New Delhi and he further stated that on that day, the
investigation of the case was entrusted to him. He further stated that on
05.06.2006, he alongwith SI Abhinender Jain went to the court of Ms.
Mamta Sehgal , the then Ld. ASJ, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi and after
taken due permission, inspected the judicial file of the main Uphaar Trial
case so as to find out the relevant documents which was found missing,
torn, obliterated and defaced. He further stated that he with the help of said
SI prepared the list of said documents for applying their certified copies.
The copy of the said list is Mark 38/A. He further stated that he had also
prepared another list of document including dismissal order and preliminary
enquiry conducted against the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma by different
Hon’ble Judges. Copy of the said list is Mark 38/B. He further stated that
on 06.06.2006, he had applied for certified copy of the said documents
through requisite forms. Copies of the said requisite form are Mark 38/C
and 38/D. He further stated that he had attached the original of the said list
with the said requisite form for applying the certified copies of the said
documents. He further stated that on 08.06.2006, the certified copy of the
said documents are provided to them. He placed the relevant certified
copies of the documents on record out of the documents obtained by him
through the said applications. The documents placed on record by him are
already Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW8/A, Ex. PW10/B,
Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW10/C, Ex. PW10/K, Ex. PW10/L, Ex. PW10/M, Ex.
PW10/N, Ex. PW10/O, Ex. PW10/P to Ex. PW10/U, Ex. PW10/C, Ex.
PW11/A, Ex. PW10/D, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW10/F, Ex. PW28/A, Ex.
PW10/G, Ex. PW10/H. The description of the said documents are
mentioned in his aforesaid true list. He further stated that he had also
obtained the certified copy of application filed by Sh. Saxena, Ld. Spl. PP
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 150 of 274
in the main Uphaar Trial case wherein he described the relevant documents.
He had also obtained the certified copies of affidavit with its Annexures
filed by Insp. R.S. Khatri with regard to the aforesaid documents in the
main Uphaar Trial case. The affidavit is already Ex.PW10/A and list of
documents annexed with said affidavit is already annexure is Ex.PW30/DB.
He further stated that on 03.07.2006, he had seized the photocopy of
appointment letter of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma already Ex.PW7/A.
Photocopy of his joining letter already Ex.PW7/B, photocopy of charge
report already Ex.PW7/C, photocopy of joining report already Ex.PW7/D,
photocopy of handing over charge/ relinquished report already Ex.PW7/D
and photocopy of his handing over/ relinquished report already Ex.PW7/F.
He further stated that he had taken possession of the aforesaid documents
from Sh. Sudhir Kumar, LDC Vigilance Branch, Tis Hazari Courts, vide
seizure memo already Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point B. He
further stated that on 07.07.2006, he served a notice under section 91
Cr.P.C to MTNL to produce the details history of MTNL numbers from the
office of accused persons. Probably after a month or so, the said details
were provided to him vide forwarding letter Ex.PW38/A (objected to). The
history of the three telephone numbers 23352269, 23352270 and 23352518
is Ex.PW38/B (Colly.) (objected to) with another forwarding letter
addressed to AVO Central, written by Dharampal Singh, Div. Engineer
Ex.PW38/C (objected to). He further stated that he had also served a notice
under section 91 Cr.P.C to Hutch company to provide the CDR of relevant
mobile numbers and pursuant thereof the CDR of relevant mobile number
for relevant period were provided to him vide forwarding letter
Ex.PW36/M and Ex.PW36/A. The certified copies of CDR are already
Ex.PW36/B, already Ex.PW36/C, already Ex.PW36/D, already Ex.PW36/F,
already Ex.PW36/G, already Ex.PW36/H, already Ex.PW36/I,already
Ex.PW36/J, already Ex.PW36/K and already Ex.PW36/L. He further stated
that on 25.11.2006, he alongwith Insp. Harish Chander reached at the office
of A Plus Security, Saidulajab, M.B. Road, New Delhi and from there he
had taken into possession two registers of employment and remuneration.
He further stated that on 22.11.2006, he alongwith Inspector Harish Chand
and Inspector Tika Ram and other police officials went to Mansarovar Park,
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 151 of 274
Shahdra, Delhi to arrest the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. After
reaching Mansarovar Park, they found the address of the accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma from a public person, however, he could not remember
the name of that public person. He further stated that at the house of the
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, besides him, his father, his brother in law
and other family members were present in the house. Accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was pointed out by the said public person. They
introduced themselves to the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and his
family members and arrested him from his house. He prepared arrest memo
qua the arrest of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and also conducted his
personal search and prepared personal search memo in this regard. He
further stated that both the arrest memo and personal search memo had
gone misplaced and the same are not on record. He further stated that on
23.11.2006, he produced the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma before the
court of Ld. ACMM and obtained 5 days police custody remand. He further
stated that during the course of police custody remand, on 25.11.2006, he
extensively interrogated the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and recorded
his disclosure statement already Ex.PW18/A bearing his signature at point
C. He further stated that inter alia other thing, accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma had disclosed that he had secured job at A Plus Security,
Saidulajab, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. He further stated that on
25.11.2006, pursuant to his disclosure statement, accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma led the police party comprising himself, Insp. Tika Ram and
Inspector Harish Chand and other police officials to the office of A Plus
Security. When they reached there, accused Anoop Singh was present and
they conducted the search of the office and recovered two registers of
employment and remuneration pertaining to the different period. The said
registers were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW18/B
bearing his signatures at point C. Accused Anoop Singh had also appended
his signature on the said seizure memo at point B. Both registers on record
were shown to him and he identified them as the same registers which were
seized by him. The registers already marked as Ex.PW18/C and
Ex.PW18/D (objected to). After perusal of the register, it was found that
white fluid was applied on some entries on different pages and the name
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 152 of 274
Ram Karan Singh was written over the fluid. Revenue stamps qua receipt of
salary were also found missing against some entries and some white fluid
was also applied on one revenue stamp and 7000 was written thereon. He
further stated that he produces the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma on
28.11.2006 after expiry of 5 days police custody remand and obtained three
more days police custody remand. He further stated that he produces the
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma before the concerned Court on 01.12.2006
after expiry of 3 days police custody remand and got him sent to JC. He
further stated that probably in the first week of December, accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was granted bail by Ld. CMM. The State moved an
application for cancellation of bail of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and
it was canceled vide order dated 23.12.2006. Certified copy of the said
order is now Ex.PW38/D (objected to). Accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
had challenged that order before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi but the order
of Ld. ASJ was confirmed vide order dated 04.01.2007. The certified copy
of the said order is now Ex.PW-38/E (objected to). He further stated that
judicial remand of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was also extended on
19.02.2007 vide his application cum order Ex.PW38/F. He further stated
that during the course of investigation, after the seizure of the aforesaid two
registers, he obtained the specimen signatures of Anoop Singh (at that time
he was not made an accused) Chairman, Shiv Raj Singh and Anokhe Lal
Pal (both the Directors of A Plus Security). He further stated that on
02.01.2007, he had got sent the said two employment and remuneration
registers and the specimen signatures of the aforesaid persons to GEQD,
Hyderabad for their examination. He further stated that he got collected
GEQD report qua the said examination through one of his staff, whose
name he could not remember from GEQD, Hyderabad. The GEQD report
dated 19.04.2007 is already Ex.PW23/A and its Annexures are already
Ex.PW23/C and the forwarding letter in this regard is already Ex.PW23/B.
He further stated that since the said report was not conclusive with regard to
the authorship of writing, stamp and marked Q1 to Q8 and QA and some
more material was sought to be provided to ascertain the same.
Accordingly, he got sent more specimens of the aforesaid persons. He
further stated that during the pendency of the said supplementary report,
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 153 of 274
pursuant to his letter dated 23.05.2007, he received a letter dated
28.06.2007 from GEQD, Hyderabad already Ex.PW23/D whereby further
specimen writings by dictating the entire contents of the questioned
documents repeatedly on several sheets were sought to be provided. He
further stated that it had surfaced during the course of investigation through
examination of different witnesses that it was Anoop Singh, Chairman of A
Plus Security who had applied the white fluid on the entries and written the
name Ram Karan Sing and 7000 over the white fluid. Accordingly, he
obtained the specimen writings of Anoop Singh as desired by GEQD,
Hyderabad and got them sent to GEQD, Hyderabad. The said specimen
writings of Anoop Singh is Ex.PW23/E (colly) and the supplementary
report dated 13.08.2007 in this regard is already Ex.PW23/F. The
forwarding letter sent to them by GEQD, Hyderabad alongwith the said
report is already Ex.PW23/G. He further stated that pursuant to his notice
under section 91 Cr.P.C served upon Airtel to provide subscriber ship
details of the mobile numbers Mr. Soni and Mr. Katiyal and accused P.P.
Batra, the letter already Ex.PW27/B providing the said details was received
on 12.07.2006. He took into possession the said letter vide seizure memo
already Ex.PW27/A (objected to). He had also obtained the relevant CDRs
pertaining to the mobile number 9811027522 of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma from Hutch Company and the same was provided by Sh. Anu
Anand of Hutch Company. He further stated that he served a notice under
section 91 Cr.P.C dated 15.09.2007 Ex.PW38/G bearing his signature at
point A, upon API for providing documents related to employment of P.P.
Batra. The reply Mark Y to his said notice alongwith certificate regarding
employment of accused P.P. Batra, already Ex.PW24/A and copy of his
appointment letter Mark X was received on 17.09.2007. He further stated
that on 15.09.2007, he wrote a letter Ex.PW38/H bearing his signature at
point A to the Director Star Estates Management Ltd., seeking information
regarding administrative control of company, list of board of Directors, date
of appointment of accused D.V. Malhotra (since died) with his appointment
letter and status of accused D.V. Malhotra in the said company with proof
of payment of salary for the period from 2004 to 2005. He further stated
that pursuant to the said letter, he received reply dated 17.09.2007
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 154 of 274
Ex.PW38/I from authorized signatory of Star Estates Management Ltd.,
with relevant Annexures. The Annexures i.e. copies of appointment letter
of accused D.V. Malhotra and a letter with regard to the extension of his
employment dated 02.04.2004 are Mark Z and Z-1 respectively. He further
stated that during the course of investigation, the documents regarding
contracts executed between A-Plus Securities at different locations of the
said company were also collected. The photocopies of the same running
into 25 pages (bearing internal page no. 53 to 99 of the charge-sheet) is
Mark Z-2 (Colly.). He further stated that during the course of investigation,
relevant documents from the ROC pertaining to Star Estates Management
Ltd., were also collected by his successor IO, Inspector R.S.Chauhan. He
further stated that during the course of investigation, he also recorded the
statement of the witnesses who had been associated with him in the
investigation. He further stated that the investigation conducted by him
transpired that there were number of calls exchanged between accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma and accused P.P. Batra through their mobile
phones. Calls were also exchanged between accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma through his mobile number and MTNL land line numbers
belonging to API. He further stated that it also surfaced in the investigation
that subsequent to dismissal of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, he was
provided a job at A-Plus Securities on the recommendation of accused D.V.
Malhotra, General Manager in Star Estates Management Ltd. Accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma was employed by accused Anoop Singh. A-Plus
Securities used to provide security personals to SEML at their different
locations pursuant to their contracts executed between them, already
Marked Z2 (Colly.). He further stated that the API was having about 98%
shares in Star Estates Management Ltd. Where accused D.V. Malhotra was
working as General Manager and it was he who had recommended accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma to A-Plus Securities for job. Accused Anoop Singh
was the Chairman of said A-Plus Securities. He further stated that he
prepared the charge-sheet against the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and
filed the same in the Court. He identified the accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma in the Court.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 155 of 274
P.P. Batra, the witness affirmed that the application dated 13.01.2003
referred to by him in his charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007 at internal page 2 is
not on record. He had seized the said application during the investigation.
He affirmed that application 13.01.2003 was the basis on which the whole
thing started. As far as he remember it should have been there on record. He
has been shown page 16 of his charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007 wherein it is
mentioned that he had obtained call data record for a period of 2002 to
2005 it must be there on the record. He denied the suggestion that the said
call data record is not on record. He has been shown page no. 9 of his
charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007 wherein he had reproduced the contents of
application dated 20.01.2003 moved by Sh. Y.K.Saxena, Ld. Prosecutor in
the main Uphaar case. He had correctly depicted and reproduced the
contents of the said application. He affirmed that in application Ex.
PW2/A, item 8 and 9 have not been mentioned by him at page 9 and 10 of
his charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007. There is no particular reason for him
not having included item 8 and 9 of Ex.PW2/A while setting out the same at
page no. 9 of the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007. He had examined the
documents mentioned in applications moved by Ld. Prosecutor in the main
Uphaar case with respect to their relevancy in that case. With respect to
item 8 in Ex.PW2/A he could not say the relevancy in the main Uphaar
case but as far as item 9 is concerned in the said application, that was a file
relating to DCP, licensing office. He affirmed that in the main Uphaar case,
association of victim of Uphaar tragedy (AVUT) through its representatives
used to pursue that case. He further stated that during his investigation, he
did not come across any documents which showed access to trial court
record by representative of AVUT. He affirmed that AVUT had filed an
application for cancellation of bail of certain accused persons in the Uphaar
case. He affirmed that Sh. R.S. Khatri was one of the investigating officer
of the main Uphaar case. He did not investigate or interrogate Sh. R.S.
Khatri with regard to omission in his affidavit Ex.PW10/A of item 8 and 9
in Ex.PW2/A. He denied the suggestion that he did not do so as item 8 and
9 favoured the defence of accused in main Uphaar case. He did not come
across any evidence showing item 8 and 9 of Ex.PW2/A having been found
between 20.01.2003 and 06.02.2003. He denied the suggestion that he has
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 156 of 274
deliberately suppressed the missing of item 8 and 9 having disappeared
from the main Uphaar case as the same favoured the defence of the accused
in that main Uphaar case. He has been shown a list of documents annexed
in his charge-sheet which is placed next to application Ex.PW2/A. He
stated that he did not know who had authored this list. He further stated
that he did not seize the complete ordersheets of the main Uphaar case. He
did not try to discover the source of AVUT having come into possession the
documents which were part of the trial court record. He denied the
suggestion that he has deliberately ignored this crucial aspect of this case.
He denied the suggestion that he has not conducted the investigation in a
fair and unbiased manner. He has been shown document marked as D20
( in the main Uphaar case) already exhibited as Ex.PW10/B and he stated
that he has no knowledge of the author of this document. He voluntarily
stated that it has been prepared by an officer of SIT, Crime Branch, Delhi
Police. He did not remember having examined the author of this document
during his investigation. He affirmed that Sh. R.S. Jakhar is one of the
members of SIT, Crime Branch that had investigated the main Uphaar case.
He did not remember if he had examined him in the present case. He has
been shown the evidence tendered by Sh. R.S. Jakhar as a witness in the
main Uphaar case where he testified as PW78 which is at page 1124
volume 7 of the additional document filed in the present case by way of
third supplementary charge-sheet which was not filed by him. He could not
admit or deny whether Sh. R.S. Jakhar found the document i.e. seizure
memo dated 18.07.1997 to be in perfect condition, when he testified as
PW78 before the Ld. ASJ in the main Uphaar case. He was investigating
this case till the year 2007-2008 also but he is not sure. He affirmed that SI
Abhinendra Jain was attached with him in the investigation of the present
case. He affirmed that whatever SI Abhinendra Jain seized during
investigation of this case was shared with him. He has been shown an
application for certified copies dated 06.06.2006 filed by SI Abhinendra
Jain running into 7 pages the same is now exhibited as Ex.PW38/DA. He
affirmed that the said application, copies of deposition of various witnesses
including PW78 R.S. Jakhar have been sought.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 157 of 274
P.P. Batra, the witness stated that he has been shown the document (D20 of
the main Uphaar case) already exhibited as Ex.PW10/B (Colly.) He denied
the suggestion that the documents mentioned in this seizure memo were in
perfect condition. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely on
this score. He denied the suggestion that he did not make Mr. R. S. Jakhar
as witness as same would have adversely impacted the prosecution case. He
can not say whether he had summoned Mr. P.P. Batra, accused while he was
investigating the present case. He further stated that he has been shown
notices dated 23.06.2006, 28.06.2006, 29.11.2006, 22.09.2007, and
02.02.2007 through which he had summoned Mr. P.P.Batra during his
investigation. The same are now exhibited as Ex.PW38/DB, Ex.PW38/DC,
Ex.PW38/DD, Ex.PW38/DE, and Ex.PW38/DF respectively. It is a
matter of record that he had filed the first two charge-sheet in this case on
22.02.2007 and 23.05.2007. He affirmed that Mr. P. P. Batra was not made
an accused in the said two charge-sheets. He affirmed that in the two
charge-sheets filed by him dated 22.02.2007 and 23.05.2007, there was no
prosecutable evidence against Mr. P. P. Batra. He further stated that
according to his investigation, the conspiracy period in this case was
somewhere in 2001 and 2002. He affirmed that he only obtained call data
records (CDRs) of the period of 2001 and 2002. He voluntarily stated that
he cannot say with certainty though. He did not remember if during his
investigation he had investigated whether and when and by whom or if at
all certified copies had been applied for by various parties during the time
when the main Uphaar case trial was underway. He did not know anything
about this aspect. He denied the suggestion that he did not do so because
that would have adversely impacted the case that he has pleaded in the two
charge-sheets filed by him. He cannot say whether he had obtained the
entire ordersheet of the main Uphaar case. He did not remember if he had
seized the order framing charges in the main Uphaar case. He has been
shown order framing charges dated 27.02.2001 in the main Uphaar case at
page 60 already exhibited as Ex.PW37/C and asked that accused Sushil
Ansal never disputed the signing of cheque dated 26.06.1995 and as such
had no motivation to mutilate / destroy/ cause to disappear to which he
testified that he cannot say about that. He affirmed that he has stated in
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 158 of 274
his charge-sheet that a cheque dated 26.06.1995 had gone missing during
the main Uphaar case trial. He affirmed that the said cheque had been
found / located during the main Uphaar case trial. The said cheque was
recovered after the application dated 20.01.2003 was moved by Sh. Y.
K.Saxena, Special Public Prosecutor in that case. He affirmed that FIR in
the present case had been registered on the basis of a complaint of AVUT
through Sh. R. Krishnamurthy. He voluntarily stated that it was registered
pursuant to the direction of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He denied the
suggestion that the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court was simply
to investigate the issue of tampering of documents and not on whose
complaint FIR was registered. He affirmed that the said complaint dated
13.05.2006 already exhibited Ex.PW29/A there is no mention of cheque
dated 26.06.1995 having been found during the trial. He never sought any
explanation from Sh. R. Krishnamurthy about the said omission on his part
in Ex.PW29/A. He denied the suggestion that he did not do so as he had
made up his mind to act in a biased manner. He could not say whether the
discovery of cheque dated 26.06.1995 is recorded in the order sheet dated
10.06.2003 of the main Uphaar case. The same is his reply with respect to
enquiry report dated 25.06.2004 prepared by Sh. J. P. Singh, the then Ld.
District & Sessions Judge, Delhi. He has been shown application dated
06.06.2006 moved by SI Abhinendra Jain for obtaining certified copies of
some documents mentioned therein, is already exhibited Ex. PW38/DA and
he stated that he did not remember if he examined all witnesses cited in
para 26 of the application. He has been shown item 43 and 44 of
Ex.PW38/DA, he did not remember if he had seen or examined. He denied
the suggestion that certain documents that favoured the defence of the
accused persons in the main Uphaar case had also gone missing. He denied
the suggestion that he purposely suppressed that aspect of the case. He
denied the suggestion that the document identified as (D34 in the main
Uphaar case) and which figured as item 8 in application dated 20.01.2003
already exhibited as Ex.PW2/A in the present case was one such document
that favoured the defence of the accused. He further stated that during his
investigation, he had not read or examined an application for cancellation
of bail of certain accused persons moved by AVUT in the main Uphaar
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 159 of 274
case. He affirmed that the said application was in his possession and the
same features as item 39 in Ex.PW38/DA. He further stated that in the two
charge-sheets filed by him, he had not attributed the ownership/usage of
any phone number by Sh. P.P. Batra. He further stated that after the two
charge-sheets filed by him, he did not take any steps in the investigation of
the present case. He voluntarily stated that he may have done some
investigation though, till the time it was handed to his successor Sh. R.S.
Chauhan (since deceased). He could not recall the date on which
investigation was handed over by him to his successor. He has been shown
a letter dated 10.07.2006 issued by Airtel acting through its nodal officer
Sh. R. K. Singh already exhibited as Ex.PW27/B. He further stated that
after receipt of this letter, he may have raised further queries to Airtel
seeking CDRs. He could not show any document substantiating his
averment in the last answer i.e. his seeking further queries to the Airtel. He
affirmed that whenever a notice is issued to any service provider a copy of
the said notice is retained by the EOW. The same practice ideally ought to
be followed in all investigations. He did not remember if the letter no.
158/ACP/SIT/EOW, Crime Branch Delhi dated 07.07.2006 referred to in
Ex.PW27/B was handed over by him to his successor Sh. R.S. Chauhan. He
denied the suggestion that apart from a blank /inadmissible letter
Ex.PW27/B there is no evidence linking mobile no. 9818031897 with Sh.
P.P. Batra, accused. He denied the suggestion that without any evidence
substantiating the above fact Sh. P.P. Batra was made an accused in the
present case. He further stated that it may be correct that investigation of
the present case remained with him till September/ October, 2007. He
further stated that during his investigation, no evidence of any nature
emerged showing custody of record of a case lying with copying agency of
a concerned Court whenever certified copy of any document is applied for
by parties to a case. He has no idea and he did no investigation on the point
of parties applying for certified copies of main Uphaar case. He never
examined any officials of Copying Agency of Patiala House Court
Complex. He affirmed that during his investigation of the present case, he
had examined one Sh. Anu Anand, who was working with Hutch Telecom.
He did not remember when he had examined him for the first time. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 160 of 274
affirmed that after examining him during his investigation he has never met
Sh. Anu Anand thereafter. He has been shown a letter dated 04.10.2006
written by Sh. Anu Anand acting for Hutch Telecom already exhibited as
Ex.PW36/M. He affirmed that in the said letter there is reference letter no.
226/ ACP/ SIT/ EOW, Crime Branch. He did not know whether he had
annexed this reference letter with the charge-sheets filed by him in the
present case. He further stated that he has not participated in the paravi of
this case after investigation was handed over by him to Sh. R. S. Chauhan.
He has no knowledge about who is the officer from EOW who has been
doing the paravi in the present case for the last two years. He had analyzed
the CDRs sent / forwarded by Sh. Anu Anand Ex.PW36/M. He has been
shown a letter dated 29.09.2006 written by Sh. Anu Anand acting for
Hutch Telecom already exhibited as Ex.PW36/A and he stated that in the
said letter there is reference of letter dated 11.08.2006. He did not know
whether he had annexed this reference letter with the charge-sheets filed by
him in the present case. He had analyzed the CDR sent through that letter
Ex. PW36/A. He did not remember any discrepancy in the chronology in
the CDRs sent vide Ex.PW36/A. He denied the suggestion that he has
failed in his duty as an Investigating officer in properly analyzing the
CDRs. He denied the suggestion that CDRs not being in a chronological
order implies tampering / doctoring of record. He denied the suggestion that
the same renders the CDRs thoroughly untrustworthy. He did not remember
whether in the CDRs sent vide Ex.PW36/M and Ex.PW36/A certain period
were missing. He denied the suggestion that a reading of Ex.PW36/A shows
that he had purposely not asked for CDRs for the month of July, 2002 and
October, 2002. He denied the suggestion that to suppress this aspect he had
not placed on record his reference letter with the two charge-sheet that he
had filed in the present case. He did not remember having ever sought any
more CDRs other than those sent vide Ex. PW36/A and Ex.PW36/M. After
going through the CDRs, he did not remember if he noticed any contact
between accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and Sh. R.S. Khatri who was the
IO of the main Uphaar case. He affirmed that while he was investigating
the present case he had filed the status reports before the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court in criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 2380 of 2006. He did not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 161 of 274
remember on how many occasions, he had filed such status reports. He has
been shown a status report dated 04.08.2006 filed by him in the said case.
He has been shown para 5 of the said status report wherein he had apprised
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi of his investigation with Revenue Sub-
Registrar in Gurgaon, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad, Registrar of
Societies Delhi, MCD, Transport Department, Income Tax Department, etc.
no material emerging out of this line of investigation was filed by him in
the two charge-sheets filed by him. The witness affirmed that he had
summoned CDR of only that period which he considered to be the alleged
period of conspiracy. He did not remember if he, during his investigation
became aware of the phone number of Sh. R. Krishanamurthy. He further
stated that during his investigation, he did not come across any kind of
contact between accused Sh. D.C. Sharma and Sh. R. Krishanamurthy. He
denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely on this score. He denied
the suggestion that he is deposing falsely against his own record placed by
him in the form of charge-sheet filed by him. He has been shown letter
dated 04.10.2006 issued by Nodal Officer, Hutch already exhibited as
Ex.PW36/M. He affirmed that the same was received by him during his
investigation. He affirmed that a perusal of this letter shows that he had not
summoned the CDR for the month of June, 2002 and July, 2002 pertaining
to mobile number as reflected in letter Ex.PW36/M. He further stated that it
is a matter of record that the CDR between 01.08.2002 till 25.08.2002 are
also not reflected in the letter Ex. PW36/M and its annexure. He denied the
suggestion that he has purposely omitted annexing or calling for CDRs of
June and July, 2002 and 01.08.2002 to 25.08.2002 as that would have gone
against the prosecution case. It is a matter of record whether or not he ever
summoned call data record post November, 2002. After receiving these
CDRs which came through Ex. PW36/M he had examined them
thoroughly. He did not remember coming across any contact between Sh.
R. Krishanamurthy and Sh. D.C.Sharma even after examining the said
CDR. He further stated that same is his response with respect to contact
between Sh.R.S. Khatri (IO of the main Uphaar case) and accused Sh.
D.C.Sharma. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence on
this score. He affirmed that when he had arrested Sh. Dinesh Chandra
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 162 of 274
Sharma he had moved an application seeking his police custody. He
affirmed that vide the said application he had sought police custody
remand of accused Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma on three principal ground
i.e. to find out conspiracy, to find out if a bribe had been paid and lastly, if
the said accused had acquired movable/ immovable property. He affirmed
that he had filed the first charge-sheet on 22.02.2007 against accused Sh.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He denied the suggestion that there is no evidence
either of bribery or acquisition of movable / immovable property by
accused Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the first charge-sheet filed by him.
He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely and against the record
placed by him in the charge-sheet filed by him. He further stated that during
his investigation, he had gone through an order dated 25.06.2004 passed by
Sh. J.P. Singh, the then Ld. District & Sessions Judge already exhibited as
Ex.PW5/A. He did not remember if the said order earmarked any time
period when the documents in question may have been tampered with. The
same is reply with respect to letter dated 03.04.2003 written by Ms. Mamta
Sehgal, the then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge already exhibited as
Ex.PW5/C. He did not know the time line of when 98 prosecution
witnesses had been examined in the main Uphaar case. He did not read the
entire oral testimony tendered in the main Uphaar case. He affirmed that
FIR in the present case was registered on the directions of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court. His predecessor Mr. Vijay Malik, the then ACP had done
the same. He affirmed that he was conducting investigation of the present
case till September/ October, 2007. While the investigation is pending with
him, he did not obtain any certificate under section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act from any service provider in respect of the CDRs that had
been forwarded to him. When Anu Anand came to testify before this Court
he did not make any contact with him. Accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
was dismissed in the year 2004 though he did not remember the month. He
had gathered evidence to show that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was
in contact with other accused after his dismissal in the year 2004. He
affirmed that there is evidence in the form of cell phone contact that Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was in contact with other accused persons prior to his
dismissal in the year 2004. He volunteered that he had also contacted with
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 163 of 274
the other accused persons prior to his dismissal in the year 2004. He denied
the suggestion that he is deposing falsely on this score. He denied the
suggestion that his answer is evasive and contrary to the record placed by
him in his charge-sheet. The witness is shown 6th supplementary status
report dated 07.12.2007 filed by his successor Sh.R.S. Chauhan and the
same is exhibited as Ex. PW38/DG to which he stated that it is a matter of
record that as per the status report the issue of conspiracy was still being
probed. He was shown 5th supplementary status report dated 20.09.2007
filed by him which is Ex. PW38/DH and he stated that it is a matter of
record that as per this status report the issue of conspiracy was still being
probed at the time of filing of this status report. He is shown 1st
supplementary status report dated 06.10.2006 filed by him which is Ex.
PW38/DI and he stated that it is a matter of record that in para 1 of the said
status report certain issues were shown as pending investigation. He further
stated that he is not aware if any new evidence had surfaced after 7.12.2007
when status report Ex.PW38/DG was filed and before 17.01.2008 when 2nd
supplementary charge-sheet was filed. He voluntarily stated that he was not
associated with the investigation at that time.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
P.P. Batra, the witness is shown the remand application dated 23.11.2006 is
exhibited as Ex.PW38/DJ. Mr Anoop Singh S/o Late Durga Singh was
cited as a prosecution witness by him in the charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007.
He is not aware and he did not carry out any investigation to find out how
many witnesses were examined in the main Uphaar case trial between
19.07.2002 and 20.01.2003. He is not aware whether associations of
victims of Uphaar tragedy (AVUT) had pressed framing of charge under
section 304 of IPC against some of the accused persons. He stated that he
was not aware if AVUT had filed several applications before Hon’ble ASJ,
PHC, seeking summoning of Sh. Amodh Kant, IPS as an accused in the
main Uphaar case. The witness voluntarily stated that he did not obtain
any such specimen. He affirmed that letter dated 28.11.1996 (D84) already
exhibited as Ex.PW10/C only the bottom portion was found torn and the
top portion containing the letterhead was intact. He affirmed that cheque
dated 30.11.1996 for an amount of Rs. 1.50 Lacs and another dated
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 164 of 274
20.2.1997 for an amount of Rs. 2,96,550/- were relocated in the file later.
He denied the suggestion that in view of his above given answers, there was
no motive on the part of the accused to tamper with the record of main
Uphaar case. He further stated that during his investigation, no evidence
surfaced suggesting that the Court staff of the main Uphaar case comprised
of an Assistant Ahlmad also. He further stated that during his investigation,
no evidence surfaced suggesting the custody of the record of main Uphaar
case with the Steno and Reader of the Ld. Presiding Officer of the said case.
He had examined during his investigation Reader and Steno of the main
Uphaar case whose name was probably Jagan Nath and Mr. Verma. He
further stated that during his investigation, he did not come across any
Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ld.ASJ who was trying the main Uphaar
case. He denied the suggestion that he has made a false case of sole
custody of record of the main Uphaar case in the hands of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely on
this score. He denied the suggestion that the enquiry conducted by Ld. ASJ
against accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma had only found him guilty of
negligence. He volunteered that the negligence on the part of the accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma was so grave and for that he was dismissed from
service. He denied the suggestion that he had converted the case of
negligence into criminal culpability by manufacturing false evidence. He
denied the suggestion that the letter written by Bharti Airtel to him,
Ex.PW27/B was prepared at his instance to create false evidence against the
accused persons. He denied the suggestion that the said letter is an
inadmissible document in law. He denied the suggestion that Ex.PW36/O
i.e. a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act tendered by
PW36 is also a false and fabricated document to create false evidence
against the accused persons. He affirmed that whenever any document or
article is seized during investigation, it is mandatory to prepare a seizure
memo to that effect. He affirmed that all seizure memos prepared by him
during investigation of the present case were placed on record by him in the
two charge-sheets filed by him in the present case. He denied the
suggestion that document Mark Z–2 (Colly.) is a false and fabricated
document prepared to create false evidence against the accused persons.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 165 of 274
He further denied the suggestion that for this reason, there is no seizure
memo on record showing seizure of the said document. He has been shown
document Mark Z-2 (Colly.). He affirmed that there is no seizure memo
showing how and from whom this document came into the possession of
the police. He has been shown his examination in chief dated 04.02.2020
wherein he has deposed about having obtained specimen signatures of Shiv
Raj Singh and Anokhe Lal Pal. He further stated that he could not point out
the said specimen signatures in the two charge-sheets filed by him. He
further stated that he has been shown GEQD opinion dated 30.04.2007
already Ex.PW23/B. It is a matter of record that even in this opinion, there
is no opinion of specimen signatures of Shiv Raj Singh and Anokhe Lal
Pal. The above said opinion dated 30.04.2007 already Ex.PW23/B
mentions his letter no. 1/ACB/SIT/EOW dated 02/01/2007. He further
stated that the said letter is not available in the two charge-sheets filed by
him. He further stated that when he passed on the investigation record of
the present case in September 2007 to his successor, he did not prepare any
handing over memo. He further stated that once investigation had been
transferred in September, 2007, he did not participate in the investigation of
the present case. He denied the suggestion that false evidence in the form of
CDRs has been created in the present case to implicate the accused persons.
He further denied the suggestion that this was done since he could not find
any kind of evidence of any contact between the accused persons during his
investigation. He affirmed that during the time the investigation of the
present case was with him, he did not call for any data from any service
provider except Hutch Telecom. He denied the suggestion that he did not do
so because there was no evidence of any kind against Sh. P. P. Batra. He
further stated that he has been shown a status report dated 04.08.2006, now
marked as Ex.PW38/DK. He did not remember if during his investigation,
he had examined Sh. Virender Kumar, Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ms.
Mamta Sehgal, Ld. ASJ under section 161 Cr.P.C. He volunteered that it is
a matter of record. He has been shown first charge-sheet dated 12.02.2007.
He affirmed that the said Virender Kumar has been mentioned as a
prosecution witness at serial no. 28 in the list of witnesses. He denied the
suggestion that in view of the above answer, his evidence dated 01.03.2021
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 166 of 274
stands falsified. He affirmed that during the relevant time, a person named
Sh. R.S.Verma was serving as Reader in the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal,
Ld. ASJ who was conducting trial as Presiding Officer in the main Uphaar
case. He further stated that he had examined this R.S. Verma under section
161 Cr.P.C during the time the investigation was with him. He further
stated that he did not carry out any investigation about whether accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma had availed of any leave from work during the
relevant time. He denied the suggestion that he did not do so as that would
have gone against the line of investigation that he had already decided to
take in the present case. He further stated that he did not have any idea
whether the main Uphaar case trial was going on a day to day basis or not.
He further stated that during his investigation, he examined Sh. Sunil
Kumar Nautiyal under section 161 Cr.P.C. during his investigation, he did
not come across any evidence showing that Sunil Kumar Nautiyal had
illegal possession of some documents of the main Uphaar case even after
having handed over the record of the case to accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. He further stated that he did not know who has acted as pairvi
Officer of the present case. He further stated that he has been shown status
report dated 06.10.2006 already Ex.PW38/DI wherein at para 6, he had
informed the Hon’ble Delhi High Court about phone numbers of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, their usage and de-activation. He further stated
that he did not find any evidence in continuation of para 6 of Ex.PW38/DI.
He did not remember if during investigation, any reply/ written
representation had been filed by any of the accused persons. He denied the
suggestion that replies/ written statements were filed and he is deliberately
suppressing deposing about the same since he has not filed them with the
charge-sheets filed by him. He did not remember having obtained the
complete oral testimony of PW78 R.S. Jakhar and PW81 DSP Prithvi Singh
(the number indicates the serial number on which these two persons were
examined in the main Uphaar case ). He denied the suggestion that he has
only placed part testimony of the said witnesses in his charge-sheet. He
further stated that he had not taken specimen signatures of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma while he was in police custody. He denied the suggestion
that no CDRs or any phone number attributed to accused P.P. Batra was
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 167 of 274
ever taken from any telecom service provider. He denied the suggestion
that the answers given by him in his cross-examination dated 31.03.2021
against Sh. P.P. Batra are without any evidential basis. He denied the
suggestion that no call details of land line nos. 6887052, 4677285,
6888953, 6451474, 7193021, 6858508, 6888041 and 4677755 were ever
sought by him from any service provider. He denied the suggestion that he
did not do so purposely. He denied the suggestion that he has not fairly
investigated the case and created false evidence against the accused
persons. He denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Gopal Ansal, the witness stated that he had not done investigation with
regard to the police officials who had got the copies of the charge-sheet in
the main Uphaar case prepared nor he knew where the same was done or
under whose supervision. He did not carried out the investigation with
regard to the procedure prepared in the matter pertaining to the CBI and
that how many copies of the charge-sheet are prepared in such matter. He
further stated that all the documents in the main Uphaar case filed with the
charge-sheet were intact when they were filed with the charge-sheet. He
had not seen the said documents when they were filed with the chargesheet.
He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately made the false
statement that documents were intact. He did not record the statement of the
Ld. Presiding Officer who has framed the charge against the accused
persons in the main Uphaar case who knew the condition of the documents.
He further stated that he did not conduct investigation on the aspect of
inspection of judicial file in main Uphaar case done by whom and when. He
did not know how many times the prosecution had inspected the file in
main Uphaar case during its trial. He had not inspected the said file to know
the facts that how many times Ld. Spl. PP in the main Uphaar case has
inspected the judicial case file of that main Uphaar case. He further stated
that as far as his knowledge, inspection of the judicial file is conducted
with ball pen or pencil. He had not examined Sh. Y. K. Saxena, Ld. Spl. PP
in the main Uphaar case as to when he lastly inspected the judicial file of
the main Uphaar case and that how long he carried out the inspection. He
knew the fact that the Ahlmad of the concerned Court maintains a register
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 168 of 274
wherein he mentioned the name, time and duration with regard to the
inspection conducted by lawyer or respective parties. He did not seize the
said register in this case nor he investigated the same. He did not ask nor he
found out from Sh. Y. K. Saxena, Ld. Spl. PP, if he had prepared a rough
note of the any document inspected by him, if any. He also did not ask from
Sh. Y. K. Saxena, Ld. Spl. PP that if he had got the inspection of the said
file conducted through his associate or through some other person. He
could not say whether the documents in main Uphaar case were kept in
almirah in the Ahlmad room or in steel box. He is aware that if the
documents are kept in a steel box, the entire box is produced before the
Court. He has filed main charge-sheet and first supplementary charge-sheet
against the person against whom he found evidence and he charge-sheeted
him. He further stated that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was appointed
by an individual and not by the resolution passed by the Board of
Resolution. He again further stated that he was appointed by the company.
There were no minutes of meeting of the company with regard to the
appointment of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in that company nor there
was any minutes of meeting regarding payment of his salary. He could not
say the exact date when the purported white fluid was applied on the said
register. He volunteered that it was done some time in between 2004-2005.
He has got the said register examined by GEQD, Hyderabad). He has not
sought any opinion of the GEQD, Hyderabad regarding the life of white
fluid and the ink. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted the
investigation in a biased manner. He further stated that he had not collected
any documents showing transfer of money, if any form Star Estates
Management Ltd. to the account of A-Plus Security. He volunteered that
they had contract for providing security services by A-Plus Security to Star
Estates Management Ltd which he has filed on record. He has not seen any
minutes of meeting of Star Estates Management Ltd. showing transfer of
money in the account of A-Plus Security at any point of time. He denied the
suggestion that Star Estates Management Ltd. had no interference in the
internal and day to day affairs of A-Plus Security. He denied the suggestion
that he had filed the present charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet
on assumption and presumption knowing fully that no offence has been
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 169 of 274
committed. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that he did not know as to
how many accused persons in the main Uphaar case had raised objection
for leading secondary evidence. He had filed the documents regarding
handing over the judicial files with their documents from different Ahlmads
whose name. He did not remember except the name of Sh. Sunil Kumar
Nautiyal from whom the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma had taken over
the charge of judicial file and documents of the present case. He further
stated that he had examined the said Ahlmad but had not obtained the
handing over and taking over the charge memo from all of them. He denied
the suggestion that he did not obtain the said memo because the said
Ahlmads were not having the said memo. He further stated that he had not
visited the Ahlmad room of the concerned Court. He further stated that he
had not inquired as to how many Ahlmads of different courts were sitting
in the room belonging to the Ahlmad of the present case nor he inquired
how many persons were sitting in that room. He further stated that he is not
aware if the Ahlmad and two Assistant Ahlmad of the court of Sh. S. N.
Dhingra, the then Ld. ASJ were also sitting in that room. He did not know
if accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was assisted by two Assistant Ahlmad.
He further stated that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma had access to the
said file and only he used to key the trunk/ almirah of the said judicial file
and documents. He further stated that he had not inquired if the Ahlmad
used to carry the said key of the trunk/ almirah with him or not or used to
keep in the Court itself after his duty hours. The Reader used to keep the
files after taking over the same by the Ahlmad on the date of hearing. He
further stated that he had not inquired about the leaves availed by accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma during his tenure with the Court concerned. He
further stated that he could not say about 50 leaves being availed by
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma at the relevant time. He further stated that
he is not aware if the keys of the almirah/ trunk used to with Assistant
Ahlmad namely Virender Yadav and Ms. Galoria Kashchap in his absence.
He denied the suggestion that CBI Naib Courts had access to the judicial
files of main Uphaar case. He further stated that once he (Dinesh Chandra
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 170 of 274
Sharma) acknowledged the receiving of the case file and the documents, it
will clearly establish that he had taken sufficient time to count and verify
them and found them to be in intact condition. He further stated that at the
relevant time, only Dinesh Chandra Sharma was the accused and no other
accused person was arraigned at that time as the accused so the question of
confrontation did not arise. He further stated that during course of
investigation, he has filed an affidavit, the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
had disclosed that one of the relative of the Court, probably his name was
Jagan was got employed in a school owned by accused persons in the
Uphaar Tragedy case. He volunteered that no evidence was found in this
regard. He did not know if the said Jagan was Steno in the court of Ms.
Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He further stated that he had not
obtained the CDR of mobile numbers of all the court staff including Reader,
Steno, two assistant Ahlmads, Naib Court and Orderly. He volunteered that
he had obtained the CDR of mobile number bearing no. 9811027522 of
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma which is on record. He did not know the
name of said employee of the school and the name of the school. He further
stated that he chose to obtain CDR of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma only
as the custody of judicial file was with him. He denied the suggestion that
he had deliberately not obtained the CDR of the said staff including Jagan
whose relative was working in the school of the accused persons in Uphaar
tragedy case despite knowing this fact to give benefit to other accused
persons. He volunteered that the analysis of CDR of accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma had already established that he was in touch with the
employee of Ansal Brothers including P.P.Batra. He denied the suggestion
that he did not investigate the case properly. He further stated that he had
analyzed the CDR of accused P.P.Batra. He did not remember whether apart
from accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, other court staff were also in touch
with P.P.Batra through mobile phone. He could not tell with regard to other
court staff then accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma regarding their
conversation on phone with P.P.Batra. He did not remember if he had
obtained the mobile numbers of other court staffs nor he can tell the same
after going through the court file and police file. He further stated that he
had not investigated with watch man/ chowkidar who locks the court
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 171 of 274
rooms. Accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was not taken anywhere except APlus
Security office where he lead the police party during the PC remand
and recovery was affected. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was
affected at the instance of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He denied the
suggestion that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was not taken to office of
A-Plus Security during his PC. He further stated that to fairly investigate
the obliteration, destructions of evidence including its different angles the
scope of investigation had no boundary. He further stated that he
investigated the case without being prejudiced by the notion that being
custodian of the file, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was guilty. He did
not know whether trunk/ box was without any handle or lock. He did not
remember what inquiry he had made to ascertain the fact of employment of
relative of Jagan. He further stated that he has not done inquiry from A
Plus Security if they were giving facilities of PF/ESI and other services to
their employees. He denied the suggestion that accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma did not give any disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion
that destruction of evidence was not useful to the accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. He further stated that the documents were not related to accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma but same were in his custody and control. He
further stated that the documents in question were related to Delhi Fire
Services,minutes of meetings, different cheques issued by accused Sushil
Ansal and Gopal Ansal and so on and as such they were vital for main
Uphaar case. He further stated that during investigation, he could not find
appointment letter, ID, salary slip of accused issued by A-Plus Security. He
denied the suggestion that he could not find those documents as accused
never worked with A-Plus Security. He further stated that during
investigation, no money which could raise suspicion was recovered from
his home or from his accounts. He further stated that the documents in
question were beneficial to the accused Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal
facing trial in the main Uphaar case and through those documents they
attempted to save themselves from that case. He further stated that this fact
he came to know during investigation till handing over the case file to
subsequent IO but he could not tell the exact date. He further stated that he
did not interrogate accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in front of accused
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 172 of 274
Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal during the time he was IO. He further stated
that he interrogated accused Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal. He denied the
suggestion that he has not carried out investigation in a fair and proper
manner. He denied the suggestion that he started investigation with a pre –
conceived notion that accused is guilty. He denied the suggestion that as he
was prejudiced against accused he applied for cancellation of bail. He
denied the suggestion that he carried out investigation in such a way to
shield the real accused and to assuage the feelings of the complainant. He
denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Accused Sushil Ansal was afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Anoop Singh, the witness denied the suggestion that he has never visited
the office of the A Plus Securities with accused D.C. Sharma. He further
denied the suggestion that he did not recover the employment and
remuneration register rather the same was handed over to him by Anoop
Singh at Police Station. He further denied the suggestion that the register
given did not have any white fluid over entries or revenue stamps as stated
by him and the same were applied by him to create false and fabricated
evidence for ulterior motives. He further denied the suggestion that the
signatures of Anoop Singh were taken on many blank papers. He further
denied the suggestion that he made accused Anoop Singh to write again
over the white fluid applied by him in the employment and remuneration
registers to create false and fabricated evidence for ulterior motive. He
further denied the suggestion that the specimen handwriting and signatures
of the accused Anoop Singh were obtained forcibly and under coercion.
He further denied the suggestion that accused D.C.Sharma was not
employed by A Plus Securities at any point of time. He further denied the
suggestion that accused Anoop Singh is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present matter.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-38 :
1 LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR APPLYING
THE CERTIFIED COPIES
MARK 38/A
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 173 of 274
2 AN APPLICATION Dt 06.06.2006 FOR
GETTING CERTIFIED COPIES OF
PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY ,
DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY, DISMISSAL
ORDER, APPOINTMENT & TRANSFER
ORDER OF DC SHARMA
MARK 38/B
3 FORM C.A.I FOR CERTIFIED COPIES Dt
06.06.2006 APPLIED BY ABHINEDRA
JAIN
MARK 38/C
4 FORM C.A.I FOR CERTIFIED COPIES Dt
06.06.2006 APPLIED BY AMIT ROY
MARK 38/D
5 FORWARDING LETTER Dt 18.07.2006
FROM MTNL TO ACP EOW GIVING
DETAILS OF THE TELEPHONE
NUMBERS., IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE
U/S 91 CrPC OF IO.
Ex PW 38/A
6 HISTORY OF 3 TELEPHONE NUMBERS
23352269,23352270 & 23352518, IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 CrPC OF
IO.
Ex PW 38/B
7 FORWARDING LETTER FROM MTNL
ADDRESSED TO AVO CENTRAL, IN
RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 91 CrPC OF
IO.
Ex PW 38/C
8 BAIL CANCELLATION Dt 23.12.2006 OF
DC SHARMA
Ex PW 38/D
9 HIGH COURT ORDER 04.01.2007
UPHOLDING THE CANCELLATION OF
BAIL OF DC SHARMA
Ex PW 38/E
10 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF JUDICIAL
REMAND Dt 19.02.2007
Ex PW 38/F
11 NOTICE u/s 91 CRPC Dt 15.09.2007 TO Ex PW 38/G
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 174 of 274
PROVIDE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO
EMPLOYMENT OF PP BATRA
12 LETTER 15.09.2007 FROM ACP, EOW U/S
91 TO SEML SEEKING INFORMATION
w.r.t ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF
COMPANY, LIST OF BOARD OF
DIRECTORS , DATE OF APPOINTMENT
OF DV MALHOTRA & HIS STATUS IN
THE COMPANY WITH PROOF OF
PAYMENT OF SALARY.
Ex PW 38/H
13 LETTER Dt17.09.2007 FROM SEML TO
ACP , EOW, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE
U/S 91 Cr.PC OF IO.
Ex PW 38/I
14 NOTICE TO PP BATRA DATED 23.06 2006 Ex PW 38/DB
15 NOTICE TO PP BATRA DATED 28.06 2006 Ex PW38/DC
16 NOTICE TO PP BATRA DATED 29.11. 2006 Ex PW38/DD
17 NOTICE TO PP BATRA DATED 22.09. 2007 Ex PW 38/DE
18 NOTICE TO PP BATRA DATED 02.02. 2007 Ex PW 38/DF
19 6TH SUPPLEMENTARY STATUS REPORT
FILED IN HIGH COURT ON 07.12.2007
Ex PW38/DG
20 5TH SUPPLEMENTARY STATUS REPORT
FILED IN HIGH COURT ON 20.09.2007
Ex PW38/DH
21 1ST SUPPLEMENTARY STATUS REPORT
FILED IN HIGH COURT ON 06.10.2006
ExPW 38/DI
22 REMAND APPLICATION OF D C
SHARMA DATED 23.11.2006
Ex PW 38/DJ
23 COPY OF APPOINTMENT OF DV MARK ‘Z’
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 175 of 274
MALHOTRA Dt 20.02.1995
24 LETTER Dt 02.04.2004 w.r.t EXTENSION
OF DV MALHOTRA’S EMPLOYMENT
MARK ‘Z/1’
25 CONTRACTS EXECUTED BETWEEN A
PLUS SECURITY & SEML
Pg Nos. 53-99 OF THE CHARGE SHEET
MARK ‘Z/2’
( COLLY)
50. PW-39 Sh. Anokhe Lal Pal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Pal was
examined. In his examination in chief, he stated that in the year 2004, he
was Director in A-Plus Security and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd and its
office was probably being run from the premises bearing no. L-85,
Saidullajab, Delhi. He could not remember the correct address. He further
stated that at that time, Anoop Singh (now accused) was Chairman of the
said company and his son Shiv Raj Singh was also a Director of the said
company. He did not know if any person namely Dinesh Chandra Sharma
was working at that time. Since he was assigned the work of out station
operation i.e. the affairs of providing the security personnels to different
sugar mills in the State of UP and he used to remain out of Delhi. He could
not tell the names of the companies in Delhi where company A-Plus
Securities was providing security personnel. He had worked in the said
company for about 8 years. After looking at the document i.e. contract for
providing security services dated 30.06.2004, the witness stated that he did
not have any idea about the signature appended on the said document. After
obtaining permission from the Court, Ld. Addl.PP cross examined him. In
his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he affirmed that in the year 2004,
the office of A-Plus Securities was situated at premises no. A-96,
M.B.Road, Saidullajab, New Delhi. He further stated that he very rarely
used to come to the office of A-Plus Securities as he used to be stationed at
Meerut. He further stated that he used to visit the office of A-Plus Securities
once or twice in a month. He further stated that he did not have any idea
about the staff working in the office of A-Plus Securities at that time. He
further stated that he did not have any idea if their company i.e. A-Plus
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 176 of 274
Securities used to provide security services to a company i.e. Star Estates
Management Ltd. in Delhi.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma, Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to
cross examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
51. PW-39 Sh. Anokhe Lal Pal S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Pal was
recalled for re-examination on behalf of prosecution. In his examination
in chief, he stated that he had been Director at A-Plus Securities for about 8
or 10 years. He could not remember the date of his joining as a Director in
the said company nor he remembered when he resigned from the said
company. He voluntarily stated that it has been almost 8 to 10 years when
he resigned from the said company. He further stated that his resignation
letter Ex.PW 31/L is the copy of the resignation letter which he had
tendered for his resignation from the said company. The said resignation
letter is submitted with the ROC alongwith form 32 to update their record.
The annual return is Ex.PW31/M, Balance Sheet Ex.PW31/N, Annual
Return Ex.PW31/O and Balance Sheet Ex.PW31/P bear his signatures at
point A. The document already marked Z-2 (Colly.) is shown to the witness
to seek his answer whether these documents bear his signature at point A
and the witness stated that “Agar original mil jaaye to mai bata sakta hu ki
mere sign hain ya nahin”. He stated that in the documents Ex.PW31/L,
Ex.PW31/M, Ex.PW31/N, Ex.PW31/O, Ex.PW31/P, his signatures are
clear and for that reason, he has identified it. Again, Ld. Addl. PP sought
permission to cross examine witness on the ground that he is evasive and
giving contradictory reply and showing hostile animus and same was
allowed. In cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that the way he
appended his signatures on Ex.PW31/L, Ex.PW31/M, Ex.PW31/N,
Ex.PW31/O, Ex.PW31/P is the same on all his official documents be it
bank or other official dealings. He affirmed that his signatures on the
aforesaid documents is same which are in his passport and driving license.
While he was asked that one can easily make out his signatures from the
photocopy of any documents signed by him he replied that “uske baare me
mujhe koi idea nahin hain… kabhi kabhi aisa ho jaata he”. He was asked
that if clear copies of the contract for security services are shown to him,
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 177 of 274
can he identify his signatures to which he replied “ agar original mil jaaye
to pehchaan sakta huin”. He testified that the signatures at point A on Ex.
PW31/P (Colly. Internal page 39, 43) are clear signatures of mine. He
affirmed that in day to day affairs we file photocopies of documents and the
same are considered genuine for certain purposes. He affirmed that while
being a Director he had signed several documents as an authorized
signatory of his company. He further stated that he did not have any idea if
their company A-Plus Security was providing security and allied services at
different locations of Star Estates Management Ltd. Witness was asked
about his signatures on resignation letter Ex.PW31/L and the deposition
dated 24.03.2021 having identical signature, however, signature on
deposition dated 11.02.2020 is different to which he replied “aisa kuch
man me nahin thaa… naam se thoda ho jaayen”. He stated that he did not
have any idea as to number of companies where their company, A-Plus
Security used to provide security and allied services during his tenure as a
Director of the company. He denied the suggestion that he has tried to
mislead the Court by feigning ignorance and refused to identify his
signature on the various contracts between SEML and A-Plus Security
already Marked Z-2 (Colly.) taking advantage of the fact that his name was
not there. He denied the suggestion that instead of appending his actual
signature on his deposition recorded on 11.02.2020 he deliberately wrote
his full name just to avoid getting caught telling lie before this Hon’ble
Court. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused
person being a former Director of A-Plus Security belonging to accused
Anoop Singh and deposing falsely to cover up their misdeed and benefit
them in the present case.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Anoop Singh, the witness stated that since he has attended the Court for the
first time on 11.02.2020. He had written his full name on his deposition
recorded on that day.
Accused P.P. Batra, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal were
afforded opportunity to cross examine this witness but no cross
examination was done.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 178 of 274
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, the witness stated that there were two Directors,
himself and Shiv Raj Singh and one Chairman, accused Anoop Singh in A
Plus Security while he was serving as a Director in that company. He
further stated that the recruitment in the said company was used to be made
through HR department. He again stated that he did not have any idea. He
further stated that he did not know what documents were used to be
obtained from the candidate for recruitment. He again stated that ID of the
candidate, his photographs and his educational qualifications were used to
be obtained for the same purpose. He further stated that police verification
of the candidate was also to be conducted. He further stated that he has
never heard the name Dinesh Chandra Sharma or that if he was working in
the said company. He further stated that he has joined investigation in this
case and his signatures was also obtained by the IO. He further stated that
IO did not ask him to provide any document regarding any employee by
name Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He affirmed that no employee by the name
of Dinesh Chandra Sharma was working in the said company.
52. PW-40 Sh. Shiv Raj Singh was examined. In his
examination in chief, he stated that in the year 2004, he was one of the
Director in A-Plus Security and Training Institute being run from premises
no. A-96, MB Road, Saidullazab, Delhi. He further stated that Sh. Anokhe
Lal Pal was also a Director of the said company. His father, accused Anoop
Singh was Chairman of the said company. He did not know if any person
namely Dinesh Chandra Sharma was working in their company. He was
not sure if the company i.e. Star Estates Management Ltd. in Delhi was
their client and they used to provide security personnels at different
locations. He did not know any person by name D.V. Malhotra. After
looking at the document i.e. contract for providing security services dated
30.06.2004, the witness stated that he did not have any idea about the
signature appended on the said document. Ld. Addl.PP after seeking
permission of the Court cross examined him. In his cross examination by
Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that he cannot say if they had executed the service
contract with State Estates Management Ltd. to provide security personnels
at their different locations. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately
concealing this fact as his father is one of the accused in this case. He
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 179 of 274
affirmed that police had examined him in this case and recorded his
statement. He denied the statement dated 30.11.2006 Mark PW-40/A. He
denied the suggestion that in October, 2004, Brdg. D.V. Malhotra, Incharge
of Security, State Estate Management Ltd had referred accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma to him for providing him job in their company and that he
had employed him in their office to look after the banking and transport
works (field works) of the company for monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-. He
denied the suggestion that he had stated the said fact in his statement Mark
PW40/A recorded by IO. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately
identifying the signature of his father or the authorized signatories of their
company appended on the documents on record. He denied the suggestion
that he is also not deliberately admitting the execution of the service
contract for providing security to Star Estates Management Ltd. at their
different locations. He denied the suggestion that they used to maintain
wages and remuneration qua their employees working out their company
i.e. A-Plus Security Pvt. Ltd. and that he had mentioned the name of
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the said register. He denied the
suggestion that he was called in the office of CBI at Chanakyapuri and was
examined with regard to the employment of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma in their company. He denied the suggestion that he had stated the
said fact in his statement Mark PW40/A. He denied the suggestion that
they came to know the fact that the accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was a
suspended employee of the court and they removed him from job. He
denied the suggestion that he had stated the said fact in his said statement
Mark PW40/A wherein the said facts are mentioned. He denied the
suggestion that after having known the said fact, his father/ accused Anoop
Singh had applied white fluid over the name of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma mentioned in the wages and remuneration register and also wrote
the name of “Ram Karan Singh” over the white fluid. He denied the
suggestion that accused D.V. Malhotra (since deceased) in charge of
security namely Star Estates Management Pvt. Ltd used to deal with him
being Director of the company with regard to providing security personnel
to the said company. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately
concealing the true facts of the case as his father is one of the accused in
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 180 of 274
the present case. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma, Gopal Ansal & Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-40 :
1 STATEMENT OF SHIV RAJ SINGH Dt
30.11.2006 ( u/s 161)
MARK PW 40/A
53. PW-41 SI Alka Sharma, No. D-2020 was examined. She
stated in her examination in chief that on 17.05.2006, she was posted as
ASI and was serving as Duty Officer. Her duty hours were from 9 to 5 p.m.
She further stated that on that day, at 04.10pm, SI Ishwar Sngh had
produced rukka of this case already Ex.PW29/A sent by Sh. Vijay Malik,
ACP (CBT Section) EOW, Crime Branch for registration of FIR. She
recorded the present FIR in her own handwriting, carbon copy of the same
is marked as Ex.PW41/A (OSR). The FIR was recorded vide DD No. 13A.
She also made endorsement to the said effect at point C to C bearing her
signature at point D. She handed over the carbon copy of the FIR and the
said rukka already marked as Ex.PW29/A to SI Ishwar Singh for further
handing them over to Sh. Vijay Malik, ACP (CBT Section) EOW, Crime
Branch for investigation.
Accused P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra
Sharma, Gopal Ansal & Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross
examine this witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-41 :
1 CARBON COPY OF THE F.I.R Ex PW 41/A
54. PW-42 Sh. Amitav Ganguly S/o Late Sh. S. Ganguly was
examined. He stated in his examination in chief that some time in April,
2003, he joined M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd., as Additional Vice
President. He left the said company on 31.08.2015. He was working as
Group Companies Secretary. He further stated that the name of said
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 181 of 274
company was changed to M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. He
further stated that while he was working as VP and Company Secretary of
M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. some time in the month of March,
2005, he had applied for transfer of telephone numbers belonging to M/s
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd. in the name of new company as the
name of the company was changed from M/s Ansal Properties and
Industries Ltd to M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. The
applications filed by him in this regard already Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW33/B
bearing the seal of the company and his signature at point A on both the
applications. He had also annexed the fresh certificate of incorporation,
already Ex.PW33/C with regard to the change of name of the company,
certified by him point A. He further stated that he had also filed two
affidavits mentioning the telephone numbers belonging to M/s Ansal
Properties and Industries Ltd same are already Ex.PW33/D and Ex.PW33/E
bearing the seal of the company and his signature at point A. He had also
annexed the copy of the paid bill of telephone numbers i.e. 23352270 and
23352269 already marked as Ex.PW33/G and Ex.PW33/F. He further stated
that in the month of April, 2004, he had also given a letter with regard to
the extension of employment of accused D.V. Malhotra (since died) with
Star Estates Management Ltd from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005. Same is
already marked as Mark Z1 bearing his signature at point A. He had issued
a said letter as an authorized signatory of the said company. He further
stated that accused D.V. Malhotra was employed as Assistant General
Manager with Star Estates Management Ltd on 20.02.1995. His salary was
revised with effect from 01.04.2004. He further stated that he being an
authorized signatory of Star Estates Management Ltd at that time had
intimated the accused D.V. Malhotra regarding his said increment. The
copy of the letter is not traceable on record and is now mark as Ex.PW42/A
bearing his signature at point A (Ld. counsel for accused persons do not
have any objection in this regard)
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Prem Prakash Batra, he affirmed that his applications Ex. PW33/A and
Ex. PW33/B do not bear the date in the column meant for it. He further
stated that the company in question was situated at Ansal Bhawan, K.G.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 182 of 274
Marg, New Delhi. He affirmed that the address of the company in his said
applications are mentioned as 1110, Ansal Bhawan, K.G. Marg, New Delhi.
He volunteered that the said form had not been filed in his own
handwriting. He further stated that he did not know from which date the
transfer of telephone numbers of the said company became effective.
Accused Anoop Singh, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Gopal
Ansal and Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross examine this
witness but no cross examination was done.
The following exhibit has been marked in the examination of PW-42 :
1 LETTER FROM SEML Dt 24.06.2004
w.r.t REVISION OF SALARY OF D V
MALHOTRA
Ex PW 42/A
55. PW-43 Sh. Arvind Kumar S/o Late Sh. B.R. Dohare was
examined. He stated in his examination in chief that in the year 2003 he
was running a automobile workshop at A-96, Ground Floor, MB Road,
Saidullazab, New Delhi. He could not remember if on 25.11.2006 he was
called by police officials from his workshop to A-Plus Security and
Services Institute Pvt. Ltd, at A-96, Second Floor, MB Road, Saidullazab,
New Delhi to join some proceedings being conducted by police officials.
He could not remember who was the proprietor of the said company. The
seizure memo already Ex.PW18/B bears his signature at point D. He
further stated that after going through the said seizure memo, he distinctly
remembered that the office of A-Plus Security and Services Institute Pvt.
Ltd, at A-96, Second Floor, MB Road, Saidullazab, New Delhi. After
taking permission from the Court, ld. Addl. PP cross examined him and in
his cross examination, he affirmed that due to passage of time, he has
forgotten some of the accounts of the said proceedings. He voluntarily
stated that his memory is also weak. He further affirmed that he
remembered that he was called by the police officials to join the said
proceedings wherein they have seized two registers already marked
Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D through seizure memo Ex.PW18/B bearing
his signature at point D. He could not remember the name of the proprietor
of the said company but he can try to identify/ recognize him if produced
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 183 of 274
before him. The witness has identified the accused Anoop Singh to be the
said person who was running the said security office at relevant time and
had produced the said registers.
In his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused
Anoop Singh, the witness denied the suggestion that he has not joined any
such proceeding as stated by him in his examination in chief. He denied the
suggestion that his signature was obtained on blank papers and later same
was converted into seizure memo.
Accused P.P. Batra, Dinesh Chandra Sharma, Gopal
Ansal and Sushil Ansal were afforded opportunity to cross examine this
witness but no cross examination was done.
56. OBJECTIONS DURING EXAMINATION OF PROSECUTION
WITNESSES : –
56(A). PW1 : During the testimony of PW1 objection was raised on behalf
of defence that documents i.e. which is bunch containing 1 to 400 pages
cannot be marked as PW1/A (Colly.), the said objection is baseless as
original of the same is lying in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the
copies as per procedure being adopted in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
were obtained by IO. Similarly, another objection raised regarding
admissibility of seizure memo Ex.PW1/A of nine register is baseless as the
existence of this document has been proved through evidence.
56(B). PW3 : During the examination in chief of PW3 objection regarding
mode of proof were raised qua Ex.PW3/A ( certified copy of the cheque)
issued in favour of Sushil Ansal and its seizure memo Ex.PW3/B on behalf
of defence, the said objections are baseless as these documents have been
duly proved through proper procedure and evidence.
56(C). PW5 : During the testimony of PW5, objection was raised qua
certified copy of order dated 25.06.2004 passed by Sh. J. P. Singh, the then
Ld. District & Sessions Judge which is Ex.PW5/B regarding its mode of
proof, the said objection is baseless as the certified copy of the record are
admissible in evidence.
56(D). PW7 : During the testimony of PW7, objection was raised qua
document Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/F by the defence. The said objection is
baseless as these documents were exhibited after seeing the original from
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 184 of 274
the record (OSR).
56(E). PW8 : During the testimony of PW8, objection was raised qua
order dated 27.04.2001 of Ld. District & Sessions Judge Ex.PW8/A
whereby PW8 was transferred to the Court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld.
MM, regarding its mode of proof. The said objection is baseless as this
document was exhibited after seeing the original order and placing its
certified copy on record. Another objection was raised by Ld. Addl. PP
regarding the question asked in cross-examination of the witness, that
whether he had told the investigating officer during recording of his
statement that he had checked the records and not the file, the said
objection is sustainable as the fact which has been testified in crossexamination
for the first time cannot be confronted with his earlier
statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
56(F). PW10 : During the testimony of PW10, objection was raised qua
documents Ex.PW10/P, Ex.PW10/Q, Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T
& Ex.PW10/U by Ld. Defence counsel regarding mode of proof. The said
objection is baseless as these documents were exhibited after certified
copies of the same were filed on record and original of the certified copies
seen from the original record of main Uphaar tragedy case.
56(G). PW13 : During the testimony of PW13, objection was raised
regarding Ex.PW10/C (colly.) stating that same is a certified copy of a
photocopy, the said objection is baseless as the said document was
exhibited during the evidence of main Uphaar case by way of secondary
evidence as such the certified copy of the same is admissible in evidence.
56(H). PW14 : During the testimony of PW14 while exhibiting document
Ex.PW14/A objection was raised by defence on mode of proof and
admissibility stating that the witness is neither a scribe nor the author of the
document, the said objection is discarded as Ex.PW14/A is the photocopy
of the torn seizure memo and the portion where the signatures of the
witness was appended is torn off, however, same is there on the certified
copy of the photocopy of the seizure memo. Another objection was raised
regarding Ex.PW10/B (Colly.) which is certified copy of the photocopy of
complete seizure memo regarding its mode of proof and admissibility, the
said objection is baseless as the certified copy was obtained of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 185 of 274
photocopy of complete seizure memo which was exhibited during the
course of main trial by way of secondary evidence and which had
signatures of witness at point A.
56(I). PW16 : During the testimony of PW16, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW10/B(Colly.). The said objection is baseless as this document had
already been exhibited as per due procedure. Another objection was raised
regarding deposition of witness in main Uphaar case which is Ex.PW16/A.
The said objection is also baseless as the original was produced before the
Court for inspection.
56(J). PW17 : During the testimony of PW17, objection was raised
regarding certified copy of the torn page C-123 obtained from photocopy of
the untorn document Ex.PW10/C (Colly.) and which has been duly
admitted by the witness as such the objection is baseless.
56(K). PW19 : During the testimony of PW19, objection was raised
regarding mode of proof and admissibility qua certified copies of
photocopies of missing pages viz. 1,9,12,14,18,19 from the charge-sheet of
present case and their certified copies are already exhibited Ex.PW10/P,
Ex.PW10/Q, Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T & Ex.PW10/U as such
the objection is not sustainable.
56(L). PW22 : During the testimony of PW22, objection was raised on
behalf of accused Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal regarding Ex.PW10/L &
Ex.PW10/M, however, the said objection is baseless as the same are the
certified copies of the photocopies of both cheques which were proved by
way of secondary evidence in the main Uphaar case. Similarly, the
objection was raised regarding deposition of the witness recorded in main
Uphaar case Ex.PW22/A and same is also not sustainable as original
deposition was produced before the Court.
56(M). PW23 : During the testimony of PW23, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW23/B on the ground that Ex.PW23 is not the author of the said
forwarding letter. The said objection is baseless as a document can be
proved through some one else who can identify the signatures of his
colleague or with whom he had been working having knowledge of the
signatures of him. Another objection was raised regarding Ex.PW23/F for
which supplementary opinion was placed by the witness, the said objection
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 186 of 274
is baseless as expert can provide supplementary opinion regarding his
report for the purpose of clarity.
56(N). PW27 : During the testimony of PW27, objection was raised
regarding Ex.PW27/A (seizure memo and letter Ex.PW27/B) on the ground
that these documents are in nature of statement of facts as such hit by
section 162 Cr.P.C. The said objection is baseless as a document can be
proved through some one else who can identify the signatures of his
colleague or with whom he had been working having knowledge of the
signatures of him.
56(O). PW28 : During the testimony of PW28, objection was raised
regarding Ex.PW28/B which is the deposition of the witness recorded in
main Uphaar case the said objection is dismissed as original testimony was
produced before the Court while exhibiting this document.
56(P). PW31 : During the testimony of PW31, objection raised by Ld.
Addl. PP is sustainable as documents were already de-exhibited.
56(Q). PW32 : During the testimony of PW32, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW32/A submitting that same cannot be taken on record as Ex.PW32/A
is neither author nor scribe of the document. The said objection is dismissed
as the witness has produced the record maintained by the department in
normal course and procedure. Similar objection was raised qua
Ex.PW32/B, Ex.PW32/C and same is also dismissed.
56(R). PW34 : During the testimony of PW34, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW10/O and Ex.PW10/N, however, the said objection is unsustainable
as these documents got exhibited by way of secondary evidence as
Ex.PW93/A and Ex.PW93/B in the main Uphaar case. Also, objection qua
Ex.PW34/A is also dismissed as the deposition of the witness recorded in
the main Uphaar case was produced before the Court in original.
56(S). PW37 : During the testimony of PW37, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW37/B which is copy of charge-sheet of main Uphaar case running in
63 pages, the said objection is dismissed as original was produced before
the Court. Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW10/F which is
occurrence book of control Room HQ from page no. 64-426. the said
objection is dismissed as original was produced from the record of main
Uphaar case. Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW10/FF
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 187 of 274
which is copy of DOB register of B.C.P. Fire Station. the said objection is
dismissed as original was produced from the record of main Uphaar case.
Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW37/C which is copy of
framing of charge dated 27.02.2001 of Ld. ASJ from page 817 to 927
running in 111 pages, the said objection is dismissed as original was
produced from the record of main Uphaar case. Similarly, objection was
raised regarding Ex.PW37/D which is order on sentence dated 23.11.2007
passed in main Uphaar case running in 51 pages, the said objection is
dismissed as original was produced from the record of main Uphaar case.
Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW14/A which is copy of the
seizure memo dated 18.07.1997 from page no. 979-980, the said objection
is dismissed as original was produced from the record of main Uphaar case.
Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW21/A which is copy of the
file containing minutes of MD’s meeting and correspondence, the said
objection is dismissed as original was produced from the record of main
Uphaar case. Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW37/E which is
copy of the ordersheet dated 31.01.2003, the said objection is dismissed as
original was produced from the record of main Uphaar case. Similarly,
objection was raised regarding Ex.PW37/F which is copy of the order dated
31.03.2003, the said objection is dismissed as original was produced from
the record of main Uphaar case. Similarly, objection was raised regarding
Ex.PW37/G which is copy of the order dated 23.12.2004, the said objection
is dismissed as original was produced from the record of main Uphaar case.
Similarly, objection was raised regarding Ex.PW10/J (colly.) which is copy
of the casual leave register maintained in HQ, Delhi Fire Service for the
period 1995-1996, the said objection is dismissed as original was produced
from the record of main Uphaar case.
56(T). PW38 : During the testimony of PW38, objection was raised qua
Ex.PW38/B(Colly.) and Ex.PW38/C and the said objection is dismissed as
these documents are proved as per due procedure. Similarly, objection was
raised qua Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D, same are also dismissed as these
documents are proved as per due procedure. Similarly, objection was raised
qua Ex.PW 38/D and Ex.PW27/A, objection are dismissed being vague.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 188 of 274
57. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS UNDER SECTION 313
Cr.P.C
Statement of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was recorded
in Court wherein all the incriminating facts emerged during evidence were
put to him distinctly, separately and specifically. Accused gave his answers
which were duly recorded. However, qua other accused persons namely
Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, P.P. Batra and Anoop Singh, due to suspension
of physical hearing on account of Covid-19 second wave, all the
incriminating facts were also put to them distinctly, separately and
specifically by way of questions sent to them to their respective emails and
they after going through it furnished their replies in the format and send it
through pdf file which was received on official email ID of the Court and
its physical copy was obtained and filed with the record. During the course
of final arguments, physical signatures were obtained on the said statement.
It is pertinent to mention here that all the accused persons
gave evasive answers in their statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. No
explanation has been put forth by them except a bald and vague statement
that they are innocent.
58. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
In Defence Evidence, four witnesses were examined.
58(A). DW-1 Sh Surender Kumar, JJA (Civil Writ Branch), Hon’ble
Delhi High Court, Shershah Suri Marg, New Delhi was examined. He
produced the summoned record i.e. the original record pertaining to Writ
Petition (C) No. 4567/1997 titled as Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy Vs. Union of India & Ors., including its Annexures A, B and C.
Certified copies of the same are taken on record, same are running into 68
pages including its Annexures are marked as Ex. DW-1/A (colly). Original
record seen and returned. No cross-examination was conducted by Ld.
Addl. PP.
58(B). DW2 Sh. Rajender Prasad, Senior Court Assistant, Section 8,
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was examined and he produced the
original petition pertaining to appeal no. 600-602/2010, titled as
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy v. Sushil Ansal and anr.
However, as per order no. 56/SCR/2013, the Annexures filed with these
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 189 of 274
appeals have been weeded out. As per said rule, such Annexures are
weeded out after one year after disposal of the appeal / petition. No crossexamination
was conducted by Ld. Addl. PP.
58(C). DW3 Sh. Prakash Chandra, Supervisor, MTNL, Commercial
Branch, Chanakaya Puri, Delhi was examined. He was summoned by to
produce CDR and CAFs related to landline phone numbers i.e. 6887052,
4677285, 6888953, 4677755, 6888041, 6858508. However, he stated that
due to the governing policy relating to retention of record pertaining to
CDRs/ CAFs the same have been destroyed. As per the policy, the CDRs/
CAFs are supposed to be preserved for a period of one year. The date for
calculating the period of one year starts from the date of installation of the
landline number. On going through the record, I was able to obtain
subscriber post-connection details in respect of the above mentioned
numbers. He informed the Court that the digit “2” was prefixed before the
said landline numbers in the year 2002. On going through the record, I was
able to obtain subscriber post -connection details in respect of the above
mentioned numbers. Same running into 16 pages alongwith a covering
letter on behalf of Commercial Officer, MTNL, Chanakaya Puri, Delhi and
sample license agreement applicable 2007 onwards (4 pages) are taken on
record and marked as Ex. DW3/A (Colly.). No cross-examination was
conducted by Ld. Addl. PP.
58(D). DW4 Ms. Veena Satewal, Branch Incharge, Record Room
(Sessions), PHC, Delhi was examined and she produced the original file
of FIR bearing no.432/97 PS Hauz Khas later re-registered as RC No.
3(S)/97/SIC/IV, New Delhi U/s 304/337/338/285/287/436/427 IPC. The
certified copy is exact copy of each and every page of the examination in
chief and cross examination of PW-29 V.S. Randhawa. The certified copy is
now marked as exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. From the original record of FIR
bearing no.432/97 PS Hauz Khas later re-registered as RC No.
3(S)/97/SIC/IV, New Delhi U/s 304/337/338/285/287/436/427 IPC, she
produced the ordersheet as maintained in the original record from
08.01.2003 to 29.04.2003 and ordersheet 05.05.2003 (running into pages
58(E). The certified copy of the ordersheets as mentioned above is now
marked as Ex. DW4/B (Colly.). No cross-examination was conducted by
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 190 of 274
Ld. Addl. PP.
59. EVALUATION OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
59(A). COMPLAINT AND FIR
PW2 Sh. Y. K. Saxena while conducting the prosecution of
the main Uphaar case pointed out certain documents of the record torn off/
obliterated/ mutilated/ defaced/ removed and thereafter, after permission
from the Court filed an application providing list of such documents to the
Court. The certified copy of the petition moved by him Ex.PW2/A
containing details of such torn/ missing/tampered documents at serial no. 1
to 9. PW30 Sh. R. Krishnamurthy who happened to be the General
Secretary of AVUT and had been regularly attending the Court hearings and
was keenly watching the progress of the trial and during the same, when he
came to know that certain crucial document were either mutilated/ defaced
by smearing ink on them or some were torn, he apart from seeking
cancellation of bail of accused Gopal Ansal, Sushil Ansal and H.S. Panwar
and after dismissal of Dinesh Chandra Sharma through AVUT filed petition
before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for registration of criminal case
regarding the incident of tampering of documents and the same petition was
allowed. PW30 filed a formal complaint dated 13.05.2006 Ex.PW29/A.
During his cross-examination, PW30 stated that the said documents were
crucial and relevant to establish the involvement of Gopal Ansal, Sushil
Ansal and H.S. Panwar for the trial in main Uphaar case, however, stated
that same were not related to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. On the basis of said
complaint Ex.PW29/A dated 13.05.2006 which was handed over to PW29
and PW29 handed over PW15 (Inspector Ishwar Singh) a rukka Mark X
was prepared and on the basis of said complaint, the present FIR No.
207/2006 PS Tilak Marg was registered which is Ex.PW41/A. PW-41 SI
Alka Sharma was the Duty Officer on 17.05.2006 and upon production of
rukka Ex.PW29/A by SI Ishwar Singh the present FIR was registered in her
own hand-writing. Ex.PW41/A was recorded vide DD no. 13A and she
handed over copy of FIR and rukka Ex.PW29/A to SI Ishwar Singh to be
handed over to Sh. Vijay Malik ACP, EOW, Crime Branch. As such the
complaint Ex.PW29/A and the FIR Ex.PW41/A has been duly proved.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 191 of 274
59(B). THE MOVEMENT OF THE FILE REGARDING CHAIN OF
CUSTODY :
59(B)(i). The charge-sheet of the main Uphaar case was filed on 15.11.1997
in the Court of Sh. Brijesh Sethi, the then Ld. MM and the case was
committed to the court of Ld. ASJ Sh. L. D. Malik on 04.01.1999.
59(B)(ii). PW6 Sh. Shyam Lal was the Ahlmad of the court of Sh. Brijesh
Sethi, the then Ld.MM and as per his testimony he checked the list of
documents including charge-sheets, seizure memo etc. and found that all
the said documents were intact and no document was found missing, no ink
was found sprinkled on any document or no document was torn. He handed
over the case file complete in all respect after the order of committal to Sh.
Gajraj Singh, the then Ahlmad of the Court of Sh. L. D. Malik, the then Ld.
ASJ. He testified that he had not taken assistance from the Assistant
Ahlmad at that time and he spent whole day in scrutinizing the documents
of the said case. He prepared the index of documents and handed over the
same to Sh. Gajraj Singh in his Court and obtained a receipt of handing
over of the said case file. He himself paginated the case file before handing
over the same to Sh. Gajraj Singh. He denied the suggestion that he did not
count the pages of the charge-sheet or he had not checked the papers of the
charge-sheet. He stated that document alongwith charge-sheet were in
plastic bag and he without opening it handed over the same as it is to the
Ahlmad of committal Court. However, he clarified that he checked the
entire record including the bag. He took the acknowledgment of receipt of
the file from Sh. Gajraj Singh and pasted the same in the register but he did
not know where the register is. The testimony of PW6 is reflective of the
fact that during the time, the file of the main Uphaar case was with Ld.MM
before its committal no discrepancy in any document was noticed. It is
important to note that before Ld.MM, compliance of section 207 Cr.P. C is
made wherein the copies of charge-sheet alongwith Annexure / documents
were provided to the accused persons. Record demonstrates that accused
persons filed applications under section 207 Cr.P.C for providing deficient
copies and same were provided to them. It is noteworthy that the chargesheet
were filed on 15.11.1997 and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions on 04.01.1999 as such during the said period, the charge-sheet
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 192 of 274
remained under the custody of PW6 and no discrepancy regarding any
document was noticed. After due pagination and indexing, the charge-sheet
was handed over to Sh. Gajraj Singh and he after checking the documents,
accepted it through a receipt of handing over. It is pertinent to note that as
per routine procedure, such receipt of handing over/ taking over of the file
are not kept for long as any shortcoming / discrepancy ought to be pointed
out by the subsequent Ahlmad while counting the pages and verifying the
record. As per the testimony of PW6, the file of main Uphaar case was
containing voluminous documents and it used to be kept in a almirah in
the room. PW6 categorically denied the suggestion that he had not counted
the pages of the charge-sheet rather he asserted that he himself paginated
the charge-sheet. During cross-examination of PW6 stated that charge-sheet
was not sealed and was in loose form and documents filed alongwith it
were in plastic bags and he did not open the said plastic bags and boras and
handed over as it is to the Ahlmad of Ld. ASJ where the case was
committed, however, PW6 upon being re-examined by Ld. Special
Prosecutor clarified that he had checked the entire record including the bags
and further stated that bags contained documents like seizure memo and
maps. Nothing favourable to the defence could be elicited from the
testimony of PW6 which could suggest that at any point of time, while the
file was in his custody, there was any instance of any document being
missing/ torn/ obliterated/defaced. Rather it is evident that due compliance
of section 207 Cr.P.C has been made and each and every document was
provided to all the accused persons which were 16 in number and after due
compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C the Court ordered its committal to Ld.
Sessions Court. These facts taken in totality indicate that custody of the
documents was proper before the Ld. M.M. till its committal to the Court of
Sessions. The Ahlmad of the committal Court obtained the file with its
documents complete in all respect from PW6 by way of memo after due
verification and counting. Sh.Gajraj Singh did not raise any issue either
orally or in writing to the Ld. Presiding Officer of the Court regarding
missing/ obliterating/ tampering/ defacing of any document in the said file
and infact issued acknowledgment of receipt to PW6. Mere non-production
of said receipt do not in any way affect the testimony of PW6 and his
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 193 of 274
account that as these receipts are not supposed to be kept for years is
reasonable and as per procedure. Because if at all any discrepancy is
noticed by the subsequent Ahlmad he has to raise it before executing the
receipt. There is a sanctity attached towards execution of receipt while
handing over/ taking over files or charge and it is not empty formality. The
Executor very well knows the consequences of these receipts and in
common parlance the concerned official execute it only when he/she is
satisfied after verification of the record that it is complete in all respect.
59(C). Sh.Gajraj Singh was the Ahlmad of the court of Ld. ASJ who
received the case file from PW6 after due verification and he was
succeeded by Mr. Sunil Kumar Nautiyal and Sh. Gajraj Singh prepared a
handing over / relinquishment report dated 01.05.2000 which is Ex.PW7/F
and the said file came in custody of PW8. PW8 Sh. Sushil Kumar Nautiyal
testified that some time in the year 2000, he was transferred to the court of
Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ and taken charge of the files
alongwith their documents pertaining to the cases pending in that Court
from concerned Ahlmad Sh.Gajraj Singh. On 27.04.2001, he was
transferred to the court of Sh. Sanjay Garg, the then Ld. MM, PHC. Dinesh
Chandra Sharma joined in his place on 30.04.2001 through joining report
Ex.PW7/D. PW8 prepared a charge report for handing over the pending
case files to Dinesh Chandra Sharma running in 10 pages which is
Ex.PW7/C (colly.). PW8 handed over charge to Dinesh Chandra Sharma
on 22.05.2001 and handing over/ relinquishment report was prepared which
is Ex.PW7/E. He handed over the complete charge of all the pending cases
including their documents to his successor Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The
file of the Uphaar case, document & registers were duly received by Dinesh
Chandra Sharma who appended his signatures on list Ex.PW7/C at point A.
The files which were pending with Sh. R.S. Verma, the then Reader in that
Court were also received by him and he appended his signatures at point B
on Ex.PW7/C. The list and the case files, documents and registers
alongwith handing over charge / relinquishment report already Ex.PW7/E
bearing signatures of PW6 at point A. As per PW6, Dinesh Chandra Sharma
had checked all the files and matched the same with the list and the case file
of the main Uphaar case was also included in the said list and he did check
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 194 of 274
the files one by one in the presence of PW6. Dinesh Chandra Sharma had
also checked the page numbers of the files and documents and there was no
shortcoming in the files and documents. In his cross-examination, PW8
categorically stated that once he had handed over the charge of his office to
his successor he ceases to be the custodian of the files. He maintained that
regarding main Uphaar case documents they were duly checked as per
pagination on the document files contained in iron trunks. He categorically
denied that he was in illegal custody of files even after he parted with the
charge as Ahlmad of the court of Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ. He
denied the suggestion that during the Court hours when the proceedings of
the case used to be conducted the custody of the file used to be with the
Naib Court of CBI. He asserted that while inspection, Naib Court of the
CBI as well as Ahlmad used to be present and he used to get inspection
conducted in the Court or in the Ahlmad room as the case may be. He
denied the suggestion that he had taken over the charge without paging and
indexing. He admitted to have prepared a report while taking charge from
Sh.Gajraj Singh. He stated that the judicial file of the main Uphaar case had
no pagination but documents annexed therewith were paginated. He stated
that he used to put lock in the Ahlmad room after closing the office. He
stated that during his tenure, Ahlmad room was not shifted. He stated that it
took him one and a half and two days in preparing the list and 2-2 ½ days
to hand over the files to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The charge of the files
were handed over to Dinesh Chandra Sharma on day to day basis in
accordance with the list prepared by him. His testimony is indicative of the
fact that he received the files in due course as per handing over memo from
Sh. Gajraj Singh and during his tenure which is from 01.05.2000 to
22.05.2001, no shortcoming of any sort was noticed in the record of main
Uphaar case file and PW6 also handed over custody of files to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma through proper receipts as such the custody of the file
shifted in a proper manner leaving no scope of any confusion/ suspicion.
Dinesh Chandra Sharma joined duties on 30.04.2001 vide Ex.PW7/D and
PW6 relinquished the charge on 22.05.2001 and during this time, no
question regarding missing / obliterating/ tampering/ defacing was raised by
Dinesh Chandra Sharma to PW6 or to the Presiding Officer which suggests
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 195 of 274
that the custody of files moved smoothly and safely.
59(D). PW4 Jagan Nath who was posted as Stenographer in the court of
Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. ASJ testified that case files used to be in
the custody of Sh.Gajraj Singh and after his transfer and his successor Mr.
Sunil Nautiyal and after him, it remained in custody of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. PW4 deposed that whenever the case was fixed for hearing,
Reader of the Court used to receive the files from Ahlmad. The files were
handed over to the Reader in the evening of previous day to the Reader of
the Court. After completion of the proceedings, the files were sent back to
the Ahlmad probably in the evening or next date of hearing and during the
intervening period, files remain with the Reader. It is a matter of common
knowledge and procedure that Ahlmad who is custodian of the record
prepares peshi one day in advance and give files to the Reader on the same
day or one day in advance. After the files are taken up for hearing by the
Court, the ordersheets or the evidence recorded during the day alongwith
files are returned to the Ahlmad after the work is over. This is a routine
practice which is observed and while hearing of this case, after the advent
of Dinesh Chandra Sharma, this practice continued like in other cases,
however, in the main case, while day to day hearing was going on as such
the part of the file containing daily ordersheets used to be with the
Stenographer, however, the movement of file was as usual. PW4 testified
that during the intervening time, when the Reader received the files from
the Ahlmad and after the completion files sent back to the Ahlmad, the
custody of the files remains with Reader, the said statement has to be
understood in the proper context as the mere fact files are lying with
Reader during the course of proceedings during the day, the files still
remain in the constructive custody of the Ahlmad as once he receives the
files, he is required to check about it being complete in all respect.
Similarly, while the file remain with Stenographer for typing an order, also,
the similar principle apply as after receipt of files by the Ahlmad, he is duty
bound to check its completeness. The testimony of PW4, PW6 & PW8 seen
in the light of documents produced by PW7 demonstrate that the chain of
custody of the file shifted to Dinesh Chandra Sharma properly through
memos which are well documented. The file was in proper custody of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 196 of 274
Dinesh Chandra Sharma from the date of handing of files i.e. 03.05.2001 as
per Ex.PW7/C. The Naib Court, Peon, Lawyers, litigants are integral part of
open Court system and the mere fact that the file moves around them during
the proceedings same should not be misconstrued as temporary loss/ lack of
custody of the Ahlmad because eventually it reaches to the Ahlmad and
who has to see that same is intact in all respects. In this regard, the
following rules of Delhi High Court Rules are relevant :
CUSTODY OF JUDICIAL RECORDS
1. The following orders as to the assumption and relinquishment of charge
of judicial records shall apply to holders of the undermentioned posts :
(a) Courts of District and Sessions Judges, 1. Ahlmads.
Additional District and Sessions Judges 2. Record Keepers.
(b) Courts of Senior Subordinate Judges, 1. Ahlmads.
Administrative Subordinate Judges and 2. Execution Moharrirs.
other Subordinate Judges. 3. Guardian Moharrirs.
4. Readers to Administrative
Subordinate Judges.
(c) Small Cause Courts. 1. Ahlmads.
2. Naib Sheriffs-in-charge of
execution work.
3. Insolvency Clerks.
2. When any of the officials named in Rule 1, having custody of pending
judicial records is transferred to another office permanently, or proceeds on
leave for a period of two months or more, he shall make over full and
complete charge of the records in his custody to the official relieving him.
3. The relieving official shall, in the presence of the official to be relieved,
check all the records leaf by leaf with the indices attached thereto, see that
no document is missing, and then sign a certificate to the effect that he has
carefully checked all the records made over to him and has received the
documents mentioned in the indices attached to them. If any part of any
record or any document is found to be missing the matter shall immediately
be brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Court.
4. If any document or part of the record is subsequently found to be
missing, the Presiding Officer of the Court shall immediately take action
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 197 of 274
for its recovery or reconstruction. He shall also fix responsibility on the
custodian if the document was on the index or on the official whom the
custodian relieved, if it was not on the index.
5. When an official having charge of such records is granted leave for a
period of less than two months or is temporarily transferred to another post,
those records only which are required for cases which are likely to come up
for hearing in the ordinary course during his absence shall be taken over by
the relieving official and the procedure laid down in paragraphs 2 and 3
adopted. The remaining records shall be locked up the key of the lock
being kept by the Presiding Officer of the Court. If any further records are
needed during the absence of the permanent custodian, they shall be taken
out and properly checked under the supervision of the Presiding Officer
before being taken over by the temporary custodian.
6. So far as the record room is concerned, only the files not yet
acknowledged by the Record Keeper need be checked.
7. For the purpose of photographs 2 to 6, both the relieved and relieving
official will be regarded as on duty in the same post while charge is being
transferred. In cases covered by paragraph 2, the transfer of charge shall not
ordinarily take more than four days, but this period may be extended to 7
days under the written sanction of the Presiding Officer of the Court, and to
10 days under the written sanction of the District and Sessions Judge. In
cases under paragraph 5, not more than half a day should be allowed for the
transfer of charge.
In view of the aforesaid rules formulated by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi, no scope for doubt is left that Ahlmad is the exclusive
custodian of the file and at no point, it will be assumed that custody of files
was intermittent.
60. THE REMOVED / TAMPERED / OBLITERATED/ DEFACED
DOCUMENTS
PW2 Sh. Sh. Y. K. Saxena was the Special Prosecutor, CBI
in main Uphaar case RC-3/ 97/SIC- IV/New Delhi. During the trial of the
said case, certain documents were not traceable and upon checking, it was
noticed that some of the material documents were either removed, tampered
with by sprinkling blue ink on the pages of some documents and some were
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 198 of 274
found torn. PW2 filed a petition in his own hand-writing bearing his
signatures dated 20.01.2003 which is Ex.PW2/A containing details of such
documents at serial no. 1 to 9 which are as follows :
(i). Seizure Memo dt. 18.07.1997 for seizure of documents mentioned there
in the second page of this document (SM) is half torn (D-20);
(ii). File of DFS regarding Uphaar Cinema, Green Park, New Delhi
containing Note sheets page 1 to 30 and correspondence pages 1 to 128.
the correspondence page 123 is half torn which is a letter dt. 28.11.96 (D-
84);
(iii). One Register i.e. occurrence book of control room, HQ, DFS,
containing pages 1 to 400. The pages no. 363 to 400 are missing. The
relevant page 379 is also missing (D-89);
(iv). OB register of BCP Fire Station, ND 13.12.96 to 18.1.97 containing
pages 1 to 400. Its page nos. 95 to 104 are missing and pages 109 to 116,
ink has been spread. The relevant pages are 96 to 113 (D-91);
(v). Casual leave register maintained in Headquarter, DFS for the period
1995-96 pertaining to casual leave of the officers to the rank of station
officers upto Dy. Chief Fire Officer. The page no. 45 to 50 are missing.
The relevant page is no. 50 (D-92). Its seizure memo dated 5.8.97 is also
missing;
(vi). Four cheques (original) i.e.
(a) Cheque No. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 for Rs. 50,00,000/- drawn on
Punjab National Bank, Rajinder Nagar alongwith its SM dt. 27.8.97 (D-24),
(b) Cheque no. 805578 dated 30.11.1996,
(c) Cheque no. 805590 dated 20.02.1997, both alongwith SM dt. 18.8.97
(D-25),
(d) Cheque no.183618 dated 23.05.1996 alongwith SM dt. 27.8.97 (D-26).
(vii) File containing minutes of MD Meetings and correspondence (total 40
sheets). Its page no. 1,9,12,14,18 and 19 are missing. Its page no. 1 to 17
are relevant (D-28),
(viii) One set of loose sheets containing 62 pages regarding correspondence
about Uphaar Cinema. It pages 1 and 2 are missing (D-34),
(ix) One file of DCP (Lic) containing 132 documents. The document no.
2,33,41,42,111,119 and 127 are missing (D-93).
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 199 of 274
It is important to note that accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma later on produced cheque no. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 for Rs.
50,00,000/- on 10.06.2003 and cheque no. 805590 dated 20.02.1997 for
Rs. 2,96,550/- and cheque no. 805578 dated 30.11.1996 for Rs.
1,50,000/-.
61. The aforesaid documents were part of the record of main Uphaar
case and after it came to fore that these documents are missing/
obliterating/ tampering/ defacing the factum of existence of these
documents was required to be proved by prosecution and in order to do so
the prosecution produced witnesses who happened to be associated with
the seizure of these documents or associated with the proceedings while
seizing of said documents from custodian of that document.
61(A). After the petition of Ld. APP dated 20.01.2003 Ex.PW2/A was
allowed and the Court permitted the prosecution to lead secondary evidence
regarding the aforesaid documents, the copies of the documents were got
copied by the IO (from the separate set of documents kept by the IO while
filing the charge-sheet) and filed by him in the Court with his affidavit and
the documents which were missing/ tampered/ obliterated/ torn were proved
by the author / scribe / witness of the said documents in the main Uphaar
case and same were proved by the prosecution through PW1, PW11, PW13
(Fire Officials) and PW3, PW22, PW34 (Bank Officials) and PW10,
PW12, PW16, PW19, PW20, PW26, PW28, PW14, PW17 (CBI Officials)
to prove the said documents.
62. DOCUMENTS PROVED DURING TESTIMONY OF FIRE
OFFICIALS, BANK OFFICIALS AND CBI OFFICIALS
62(A). PW1 categorically stated that when Ex.PW1/A (colly.) was handed
over by him to CBI, the missing pages no. 95 to 104 in the bunch of 400
pages were existing and same were legible. He proved seizure memo
Ex.PW1/A of 9 registers. He categorically denied the suggestion that he
was not present when seizure memo Ex.PW1/A was drawn by CBI officer.
He also stated that he counted the pages while handing over the said
registers and paging existed on said registers and numbering was printed.
He gave the copy of the seizure memo to his senior ADO Sh. A.K.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 200 of 274
Bhatnagar. The testimony of this witness shows that the missing pages no.
95 to 104 in the bunch of pages from 1 to 100 page in Ex.PW1/A (colly.)
were existing in legible condition at the time of seizure. His testimony
corroborates his earlier testimony which was made in the main Uphaar
case as this document was duly proved by way of secondary evidence upon
the strength of his testimony. As such the prosecution has proved that while
OB register of Bhikaji Cama Place, Fire Station, New Delhi dated
13.12.1996 to 18.01.1997 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A it
contained pages from 1 to 400 which were intact and legible which form
part of record of main Uphaar case. PW28 taken into possession the
document described in seizure memo which is Ex.PW1/A from PW1. Both
PW28 and PW1 appended their signature on Ex.PW1/A. PW28
corroborates that while he seized the said register it contained 400 pages,
however, during his deposition in the main Uphaar case, page no. 95 to 104
were found missing and from page no. 109 to 116 blue ink was sprinkled,
however, the said register was intact in all respect while seized.
62(B). PW11 categorically stated before the Court during his examination
that he handed over the Occurrence Book maintained at Delhi Fire
Services, Control Room Headquarter to CBI office in Samrat Hotel
containing 1 to 400 pages and he was examined in main Uphaar case as
witness and where he saw the occurrence book and informed the Court that
some pages are missing. He upon seeing occurrence book Ex.PW10/E
stated that page no. 363 onwards are missing and he can identify the
missing pages if shown to him. He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW11/A
which is the certified copy of the seizure memo which he stated to have
handed over to Inspector Tribhuvan and also bears his signatures at point A
and B. He categorically denied the suggestion that the portion in
Ex.PW11/DA is false regarding page no. 379 which he proved to be the
same copy of original page no. 379 of occurrence book during his
testimony in the main Uphaar case. As such he corroborated his testimony
made earlier in the main Uphaar case and proved Ex.PW10/E containing
page no. 1 to 400. PW26 corroborates the same i.e. seizure of one original
register titled as occurrence book of the Control Room, Delhi Fire Service
(HQ) containing 1 to 400 pages from PW11 through Ex.PW11/A. PW11
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 201 of 274
also testified that during his deposition in main Uphaar case wherein he
identified page no. 379 amongst the missing pages and page no. 363 to 400
were missing from the occurrence book. PW26 testified that he seized one
original register titled as OB from the Control Room, Delhi Fire Service
from PW11 through seizure memo Ex.PW11/A bearing his signatures at
point B as such he corroborates the testimony of PW11 regarding
Ex.PW11/A.
62(C). PW13 Sh. R. C. Sharma identified the certified copy of torn
document i.e. letter written to Delhi Fire Services from Mr. Vimal Kumar
Nagpal, Vice President (Services), Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd
dated 28.11.1996 and further affirmed that the said document was handed
over to the Inspector from CBI. PW13 proved photocopy of original of said
document alongwith affidavit of PW10 which is Ex.PW10/C (colly.). The
witness stated that Ex.PW10/C bears the signatures of H.S. Panwar at point
A. He was examined in the main Uphaar case and his testimony in the
instant case corroborated the fact of proof of Ex.PW10/C (colly.). Further,
PW10 testified in his testimony that original document Mark D84 which is
annual inspection of Uphaar cinema dated 28.11.1996 proved the same by
identifying and furnishing on record photocopy of the original alongwith its
affidavit and certified copy of the same is Ex.PW10/C (colly.).
62(D). PW3 Sh. Mukesh Chander Khullar deposed that in the year 1997
on the instructions of Senior Manager of the Bank, he went to the office of
CBI and handed over a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- issued in the current
account of M/s Green Park Theaters Association Pvt. Ltd in favour of
Sushil Ansal. The certified copy of the cheque is Ex.PW3/A. The certified
copy of the seizure memo of the said cheque is Ex.PW3/B bearing his
signatures at point A. He also testified as a witness in the main Uphaar case
where he was shown photocopy of the said cheque as such the witness
proved Ex.PW3/A & Ex.PW3/B and which is also corroborated by his
earlier testimony in the main Uphaar case. PW20 corroborates the taking of
possession of the aforesaid cheque from PW3 through seizure memo and
proved the certified copy of the said seizure memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his
signatures and certified copy of the cheque is Ex.PW3/A.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 202 of 274
62(E). PW22 Sh. M. L. Dhupar deposed that probably on 18.8.1997 he
handed over two cheques to CBI officer. He testified that in the main
Uphaar case, he was shown photocopy of two cheques which he identified
after verifying from the record. He proved seizure memo Ex.PW10/K
bearing his signatures at point B which pertaining to cheque no. 805578
dated 30.11.1996 issued by Gopal Ansal, authorized signatory for Ansal
Theaters & Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd in favour of M/s Music Shop for an amount
of Rs. 1,50,000/- and another cheque no. 805590 dated 12.02.1997 issued
by Gopal Ansal, authorized signatory for Ansal Theaters & Clubhotels Pvt.
Ltd in favour of M/s Chancellor Club for Rs. 2,96,550/-. He identified
certified copies of the photocopies of both cheques Ex.PW10/L and
Ex.PW10/M. As such the witness proved Ex.PW10/K,Ex.PW10/L &
Ex.PW10/M and which is also corroborated by his earlier testimony in the
main Uphaar case. Further, the testimony of PW22 is corroborated from the
testimony of PW10 who testified that he filed the photocopy of document
D25 which is seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 which is Ex.PW10/K
(certified copy) and certified copies of aforesaid cheques Ex.PW10/L &
Ex.PW10/M (certified copy). Further, testimony of PW12 also corroborates
as he was Assistant IO to PW10. He proved Ex.PW10/K which is seizure
memo of the aforesaid two cheques and same bears his signatures at point
A.
62(F). PW34 Sh. Ishwar Bhatt deposed that on 27.08.1997, he handed
over a cheque bearing no. 183618 dated 23.05.1996 drawn on Syndicate
Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi in favour of Chief Engineer
(Water) for an amount of Rs.9,711/- duly signed by Gopal Ansal,
Authorized signatory for Ansal Theaters & Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd and he
handed over the said cheque to Mr. A. K. Gupta, Inspector CBI on the
instructions of Chief Manager. He signed on the seizure memo and during
his testimony in the main Uphaar case he approved the photocopy of the
seizure memo as well as of said cheques to be of their original. He proved
Ex.PW10/O and Ex.PW10/N being certified copies of photocopies of
cheque and seizure memo and identified his signatures at point B & C. He
testified that the photocopies of said documents got exhibited by way of
secondary evidence as Ex.PW93/A and Ex.PW93/B in the main Uphaar
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 203 of 274
case and his testimony is Ex.PW34/A (in the present case). As such the
witness proved Ex.PW10/O & Ex.PW10/N and his testimony in main
Uphaar case Ex.PW34/A which is also corroborated by his earlier testimony
in the main Uphaar case. Further, the testimony of PW34 is corroborated
from the testimony of PW10 who testified that he filed the photocopy of
document D26 which is seizure memo dated 27.08.1997 which is
Ex.PW10/N (certified copy) and certified copies of aforesaid cheques
Ex.PW10/O(certified copy). Further, testimony of PW12 also corroborates
as he was Assistant IO to PW10. He proved Ex.PW10/N which is seizure
memo of the aforesaid cheque and same bears his signatures at point A.
62(G). PW10 Sh. Rai Singh Khatri was IO of the case and his testimony
revealed that after the FIR no. 432/1997 of PS Hauz Khas was taken over
by CBI for investigation all the original documents alongwith record seized
by Delhi Police was taken over by him. Various other relevant documents
were seized by him and his assisting IOs from various departments vide
different seizure memo. He filed the charge-sheet alongwith all relevant
document in the court of Sh. Brijesh Sethi, Ld. MM, the then Ld. MM on
15.11.1997. Photocopies of the charge-sheet and the documents were
prepared under his direct supervision for supplying the same to the accused
persons as well as for keeping the same for the purpose of record and he
kept one set of charge-sheet with him. After it was informed to him that
total 9 documents were found to be torn/ obliterated/ tampered/ sprinkled
with ink he arranged the relevant documents for the purpose of trial from
his set of charge-sheet alongwith his sworn affidavit Ex.PW10/A (colly.).
During his testimony, the Court made observation regarding the said
documents of their having torn/ mutilation/ disappearance/ obliteration and
defacement. Document D-20 of original main Uphaar case is Ex.PW10/B
(colly.). Document D-84 from the original Uphaar case is Ex.PW10/C
(colly.). Document i.e. page no. 379 of D-89 from the original Uphaar case
is Ex.PW10/D. Photocopies of pages 1 to 362 of D-89 are Ex.PW10/E
(colly.). Document i.e. pages 96 to 113 of D-91 are Ex.PW10/F (colly.).
The document i.e. certified copy of seizure memo of D-92 is Ex.PW10/G
and photocopy of page no. 50 is Ex.PW10/H. Photocopies of the said
register running into 1 to 70 pages (page no. 71 to 92 are blank in original
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 204 of 274
register and page no. 45 to 50 are missing) are Ex.PW10/J (colly.). The
photocopy of document D-24 is Ex.PW3/B and certified copy of cheque
dated 26.06.1995 for Rs. 50 Lakh is Ex.PW3/A. Photocopy of document D-
25 i.e. seizure memo dated 18.08.1997 is Ex.PW10/K and certified copies
of two cheques of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 2,96,550/- are Ex.PW10/L and
Ex.PW10/M. Photocopy of document D-26 proved through certified copy
is Ex.PW10/N and certified copy of cheque dated 23.05.1996 of Rs.
9,711/- is Ex.PW10/O. Photocopy of document D-28 are proved through
certified copy is Ex.PW10/P, Ex.PW10/Q, Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S,
Ex.PW10/T & Ex.PW10/U. In his cross-examination, PW10 categorically
stated that he got prepared 17 sets of charge-sheet and documents and out
of which he kept one set for him. He took acknowledgment from the
Ahlmad to whom he handed over the original charge-sheet and Ahlmad
duly checked the said record. He had provided the lock and two keys to the
Ahlmad to keep the documents in safe custody as the documents were
supplied in one iron trunk. On behalf of the defence, some contradictions
were highlighted in the statement of the witness under section 161 Cr.P.C
and his testimony before Court but same were not material.
62(H). PW12 Ashok Gupta was CBI Inspector in the year 1997 and he
was Assistant IO to PW10. He proved Ex.PW10/K which is seizure memo
of two seized cheques which was taken into possession by him. He also
proved Ex.PW10/L which is certified copy of another cheque was taken
into possession by him from Sh. Ishwar Bhatt, Assistant Manager,
Syndicate Bank. The three cheques proved by him are Ex.PW10/L,
Ex.PW10/M & Ex.PW10/O.
62(I). PW16 Prithvi Singh was serving as DSP in CBI in the year 1997.
He was also assisting to PW10. He testified that on 26.07.1997, Inspector
Satpal Singh handed over him certain document alongwith their common
seizure memo which was prepared by Inspector R.S. Jakhar which he
handed over to PW10 and the said documents were in intact condition.
While he was testifying in main Uphaar case, the said seizure memo was in
torn condition and he proved the said seizure memo through photocopy of
untorn seizure memo of original seizure memo dated 18.07.1997. He
proved photocopy of torn seizure memo Ex.PW14/A and certified copy of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 205 of 274
photocopy of untorn seizure memo is Ex.PW10/B (colly.). His deposition
in main Uphaar case is Ex.PW16/A. Nothing favourable to the defence
could be elicited in his cross-examination by accused persons.
62(J). PW19 M.S. Partyal was the DSP of CBI in the year 1997 and he
was assisting PW10 in the investigation of the main Uphaar case. He seized
attendance register of Managers of Uphaar cinema for the month of May
and June, 1997 and a file containing minutes of MD’s meeting and other
correspondence containing 40 sheets from Sh. Malhotra, Deputy Manager,
Uphaar Cinema in the presence of Sh. Avtar Singh ( public witness PW21) .
He testified that during his deposition in main Uphaar case 6 pages were
found missing in the file of the minutes of meeting and also told the
numbers of pages 1, 9,12,14,18 & 19 and on the basis of photocopies of the
missing pages, he approved the same which were exhibited through
secondary evidence and the said exhibits are Ex.PW10/P,Ex.PW10/Q,
Ex.PW10/R, Ex.PW10/S, Ex.PW10/T & Ex.PW10/U. As such these
documents are proved by PW19. The witness in his cross-examination
testified that seizure memo of these documents was exhibited in main
Uphaar case as Ex.PW98/A. He categorically stated that seizure memo had
signature of Avtar Singh, the independent witness PW21. He also stated
that photocopy of page 1.
62(K). PW20 N.S. Virk was the DSP of CBI in the year 1997. He proved
the seizure memo of cheque no. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 for Rs. 50 Lakh
after seeing the certified copy of its photocopy which is Ex.PW3/B and
certified copy of the photocopy of said cheque Ex.PW3/A as he had taken
into possession of original cheque and seized it vide aforesaid seizure
memo. He categorically denied the suggestion that misplacement of
document can happen occasionally in cases where record is voluminous.
62(L). PW26 Tribhuvan was Inspector, CBI in the year 1997 and he
seized one original register titled as OB of the Control Room of DFS
Headquarter containing 1 to 400 pages from Sh. A. K. Bhatnagar through
seizure memo and proved the said seizure memo on the basis of certified
copy which is Ex.PW11/A having signature at point B. He also deposed that
during the deposition in main Uphaar case he was shown the photocopy of
page no. 379 from amongst the missing pages and he approved the same to
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 206 of 274
be true copy of its original which is Ex.PW10/D. The copy of occurrence
book from page no.1 to 362 is Ex.PW10/E (colly.). He also proved the
seizure memo of one casual leave register maintained at Headquarter of
Delhi Fire Service for the period of 1995 – 1996 pertaining to availed
casual leave by Officers with a rank of Station Officer to Deputy Chief Fire
Officer containing 1 to 92 pages as Ex.PW10/G. He also proved the
missing pages no.45 to 50 which is Ex.PW10/J (colly.) and page no. 50 as
Ex.PW10/H on the basis of certified copy of the photocopy. He proved his
deposition in main Uphaar case as Ex.PW26/A. He affirmed that an
additional set of the documents and charge-sheet is always kept separately
for the convenience of the Court and record.
62(M). PW28 Deepak Gaur was DSP, CBI in the year 1997 and associated
with the investigation conducted by PW10. He proved Ex.PW1/A which is
certified copy of seizure memo prepared by him while taking possession of
some documents. He deposed that during his testimony in the main Uphaar
case. He was shown occurrence book register of BCP, Fire Station which is
described at serial no. 3 in the seizure memo Ex.PW1/A which originally
contained 100 pages, however, when it was shown to him, page no. 95 to
104 were missing and on page no. 109 to 116 blue ink was sprinkled
making them illegible while the said register was intact in all respects when
it was seized. He proved the certified copies of photocopies of page no. 96
to 113 which is Ex.PW10/F (colly.) and certified copies of photocopies
from page no. 109 to 116 is Ex.PW28/A (colly.). The photocopy of
complete occurrence book register is Ex.PW10/FF (colly.). He proved his
deposition in main Uphaar case dated 29.03.2003 Ex.PW28/B. In crossexamination
some contradiction are pointed out however same are
insignificant. Witness categorically stated that he seized the said
documents on the direction of PW10.
62(N). PW14 Bal Kishore was posted as ASI, SIT Section, Crime Branch,
in the year 1997 and he was associated with the investigation of the main
Uphaar case and he testified that he and Inspector R.S. Jakhar seized 10
documents from Mr. S.S. Gupta working in the office of Mr. Ansal through
a seizure memo and witness identified the original seizure memo dated
18.07.1997. Photocopy of said torn seizure memo is Ex.PW14/A. Certified
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 207 of 274
copy of the photocopy of complete seizure memo exhibit during the course
of main trial is Ex.PW10/B (colly.) bears his signatures at point A. He
testified that seizure memo Ex.PW14/A was intact in all respects while it
was prepared.
62(O). PW17 Satya Pal Singh was posted as Inspector, Crime Branch in
the year 1997 and associated with SIT of the main Uphaar case and he
testified that on 12.07.1997, he taken into possession the file of Delhi Fire
Service pertaining to Uphaar cinema which consisted of 30 pages of note
sheets and 128 pages of correspondence and emergency occurrence book of
Delhi Fire Service for a period 30.5.1997 to 15.06.1997 and there were 400
pages were in the book out of them page no. 1 to 292 were returned and
remaining pages were blank. At the time of seizure, they were intact in all
respects. The witness proved certified copy of the photocopy of the untorn
document already exhibited as Ex.PW10/C (colly.). Witness upon seeing
original page no. C-123 of the correspondence file stated that the said page
in torn condition, however, while it was seized, it was intact in all respects
and also bears his signatures. He also proved certified copy of original torn
seizure memo which is already exhibited as Ex.PW14/A and also stated that
same was intact at the time, however, left half lower portion of the second
page is torn now. He also proved certified copy of photocopy of untorn
seizure memo which was exhibited during trial of main Uphaar case by
secondary evidence which is already exhibited as Ex.PW10/B (colly.).
62(P). All the documents as per Ex.PW2/A were proved during evidence of
this case by their author, witness, custodian. As such there remains no doubt
left regarding the fact that these document were infact intact at the time
when they were submitted before Ld. MM and till custody of the file was
with Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
62(Q). From the aforesaid witnesses, it was proved that following
documents were destroyed from the judicial file which are :
(i) Seizure Memo dated 18.07.1997;
(ii) Page no. 123 of the file of Delhi Fire Service having inspection report
dated 18.11.1996;
(iii) Seizure Memo dated 27.08.1997 alongwith cheque no. 995725 dated
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 208 of 274
26.06.1995 for Rs. 50 Lacs;
(iv) Seizure Memo dated 18.08.1997 alongwith cheque no. 805578 dated
30.11.1996 for Rs. 1.50 Lacs;
(v) Seizure Memo dated 27.08.1997 alongwith cheque no. 183618 dated
23.05.1996 for Rs. 9711/-;
(vi) File containing minutes of MD’s conference of Uphaar Grand
regarding covering letter for MD’s conference held on 07.05.1997,
02.04.1997 and 01.05.1997;
(vii) One register i.e. occurrence book of the Control Room (HQ), Delhi
Fire Service, wherein relevant page is 379 pertaining to departure entry of
H.S. Panwar, Fire Officer for inspection of Uphaar cinema on 12.05.1997;
(viii) Occurrence Book of Bhikaji Kama Place, Fire Station wherein page
no. 95 to 104 are missing and ink has been spread over page no. 109 to 116
and page no. 96 to 113 contain information of movement of fire officers to
attend fire calls and conduct inspection from 21.12.1996 to 23.12.1996;
(ix) Casual Leave register maintained in Delhi Fire Service (HQ) for the
period 1995 to 1996 and seizure memo of the same wherein page no. 45 to
50 were missing and page no. 50 showing that H.S. Panwar was on leave on
22.12.1996.
63. POLICE WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION OF THIS CASE
63 (A). PW18 Inspector Harish Chander was posted at EOW in 2006
and on 22.11.2006, he alongwith IO/ACP Amit Roy and other team
members arrested Dinesh Chandra Sharma from his house and his arrest
memo and personal search memo was prepared where he put his signatures
in the presence of two public witnesses Jitender Kumar Sharma and Shyam
Sunder and during investigation, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma took the
team to office of A Plus security where Anoop Singh was present who
produced two registers and same were taken into possession by IO through
seizure memo in the presence of public witness Arvind Kumar. PW18
correctly identified Anoop Singh and Dinesh Chandra Sharma in the Court.
He also proved disclosure statement of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma as
Ex.PW18/A, seizure memo of two register Ex.PW18/B, the first register is
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 209 of 274
Ex.PW18/C and second register is Ex.PW18/D.
63(B). PW37 Inspector Rajesh Sah was posted as SI at EOW in the year
2014 and in the month of January, he was asked by DCP, EOW that some
more documents from the trial court record from the main Uphaar case are
required and provided him a rough list and then he made an application
which is Ex.PW37/A before Central Agency Section, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India and collected the said documents on 03.02.2014. After
collecting the documents consisting of 1776 pages a supplementary chargesheet
was prepared which is Ex.PW37/B. The copy of trial court judgment
of Ld. ASJ dated 20.11.2007 is Ex.PW 37/H.
63(C). PW38 Amit Roy is the IO of this case and after investigation was
entrusted to him he prepared a list of documents for applying their certified
copies which were missing/torn/obliterated and defaced which is Mark
38/A. Another list seeking dismissal order and preliminary enquiry against
Dinesh Chandra Sharma is Mark 38/B. The form for applying certified
copy is Mark 38/C & Mark 38/D. He placed on record documents which
are already Ex. PW5/A, Ex. PW5/B, Ex. PW5/C, Ex. PW8/A, Ex.
PW10/B, Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW10/C, Ex. PW10/K, Ex. PW10/L, Ex.
PW10/M, Ex. PW10/N, Ex. PW10/O, Ex. PW10/P to Ex. PW10/U, Ex.
PW10/C, Ex. PW11/A, Ex. PW10/D, Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW10/F, Ex.
PW28/A, Ex. PW10/G, Ex. PW10/H. He obtained certified copies of
affidavit Ex.PW10/A and the list of documents annexed with it
Ex.PW30/DB. He seized photocopy of appointment letter of Dinesh
Chandra Sharma Ex.PW7/A, joining letter Ex.PW7/B, charge report
Ex.PW7/C, photocopy of his joining report Ex.PW7/D, photocopy of
handing over charge / relinquishment report already Ex.PW7/E and
photocopy of his handing over relinquishment report Ex.PW7/C vide
seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. He served notice under section 91 Cr.P.C to
MTNL which is Ex.PW38/A (forwarding letter), history of three telephone
numbers 23352269, 23352270 and 23352518 is Ex.PW38/B (Colly.) with
another forwarding letter addressed to AVO Central, written by Dharampal
Singh, Div. Engineer Ex.PW38/C. He served a notice under section 91
Cr.P.C to Hutch company to provide the CDR of relevant mobile numbers
and pursuant thereof the CDR of relevant mobile number for relevant
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 210 of 274
period were provided to him vide forwarding letter Ex.PW36/M and
Ex.PW36/A. The certified copies of CDR are already Ex.PW36/B, already
Ex.PW36/C, already Ex.PW36/D, already Ex.PW36/F, already Ex.PW36/G,
already Ex.PW36/H, already Ex.PW36/I, already Ex.PW36/J, already
Ex.PW36/K and already Ex.PW36/L. On 25.11.2006, he alongwith Insp.
Harish Chander reached at the office of A Plus Security, Saidulajab, M.B.
Road, New Delhi and from there he had taken into possession through
seizure memo Ex.PW18/B two registers of employment and remuneration.
He arrested Dinesh Chandra Sharma and also conducted his personal search
however, both these memos got misplaced and they are not on record. His
disclosure statement is Ex.PW18/A. The bail of Dinesh Chandra Sharma
was canceled vide order dated 23.12.2006 which is Ex.PW38/B and the
order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dated 04.01.2007 is Ex.PW38/E. JC
extension vide application cum order dated 19.02.2007 is Ex.PW38/E. The
GEQD report dated 19.04.2007 is Ex.PW23/A, its annexure Ex.PW23/C
and forwarding letter Ex.PW23/B, letter received from GEQD dated
28.06.2007 is Ex.PW23/D, specimen writing of Anoop Singh is Ex.PW23/E
(colly.), supplementary report dated 13.08.2007 is Ex.PW23/F and
forwarding letter by GEQD is Ex.PW23/G. The report pursuant to section
91 Cr.P.C notice by Airtel is Ex.PW27/B. The seizure memo of said letter is
Ex.PW27/A. Notice under section 91 Cr.P.C dated 15.09.2007 is
Ex.PW38/G. Letter dated 15.09.2007 to Director, SEML is Ex.PW38/H, the
reply is Ex.PW38/I.
64. RECORD PRODUCED BY ROC TO ESTABLISH
RELATIONSHIP OF ACCUSED WITH SEML
64(A). PW25 produced the certified copy of Certificate of Incorporation,
details of Director, Annual Return of the period of the period 2004-2005
with Annexure-I, Annexure-II, Form 32 regarding appointment of Rajiv
Chopra as Additional Director and Cessation of Aditya Wadhera as
Director, consent of Rajiv Chopra and resignation of Aditya Wadhera and
the certified copies of the same is Ex.PW25/B (colly.) and Certificate under
section 65B is Ex.PW26/C. However, the said record was de-exhibited.
64(B). PW31 proved the certified true copy of Annual Return of financial
year ending on 31st March, 2005 for AGM held on 30.09.2005 Ex.PW31/M
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 211 of 274
and Balance Sheet for the financial year ending on 31.03.2005 alongwith
notice to shareholder and Director and Auditors report running in 10 pages
having internal page no. from 17 to 26 is Ex.PW31/N (colly.).
64 ( C). PW39 Anokhe Lal Pal admitted his resignation letter Ex.PW31/L.
In his cross-examination by Ld. PP, he admitted that the way appended his
signatures on Ex.PW31/L, Ex.PW31/M, Ex.PW31/N, Ex.PW31/O,
Ex.PW31/P is the same as on his all official documents, however, he
avoided identifying his signatures through the photocopies on the contract
for security services. His testimony revealed that he was dithering in telling
the correct facts as his answers were vague except the documented facts
regarding the Chairmanship of Anoop Singh in the company A-Plus
Securities & Training Institute Pvt. Ltd. At this juncture, where the conduct
of witnesses is such where he attempts to mislead the Court by denying to
identify his signature then its always better for the Court to apply its own
wisdom especially if provided under the law. Thus, this Court has no
alternative than to exercise the powers conferred by section 73 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. A careful comparison of signatures of PW39 on
various contracts between Star Estates Management Ltd and A-Plus
Securities already marked Z-2 (colly.) with admitted signatures on
Ex.PW31/P, reveals that they do tally and are in the hand-writing of one and
the same person i.e. PW39. As such the contract between Star Estates
Management Ltd and A-Plus Securities stood proved. As such the contract
between Star Estates Management Ltd and A-Plus Securities stood proved.
65. RECORD FROM MTNL
65 (A). PW32 proved original history register containing relevant entries
pertaining to landline nos. 23352269, 23352270 & 23352518 all allotted to
Ansal Properties and Industries and their copy of history register is
Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW32/B & Ex.PW32/C respectively. In cross-examination,
witness stated that he had never seen KYC pertaining to these numbers as
he was asked to produce history register only.
65 (B). PW33 G.S. Bakshi proved record pertaining to landline nos.
23352269, 23352270 & 23352518 all allotted to Ansal Properties and
Industries regarding change of company to Ansal Properties &
Infrastructure Ltd and the said application is Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B,
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 212 of 274
the affidavit Ex.PW33/D and the affidavit of indemnity is Ex.PW33/E.
66. DOCUMENTS FROM API
66 (A). PW24 Vivek Gandhi proved Certificate regarding employment of
P.P. Batra of Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd which is Ex.PW24/A.
66(B). PW42 Sh. Amitabh Ganguly proved application Ex.PW33/A,
Ex.PW33/B which are filed for transfer of telephone numbers belonging to
M/s Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd to Ansal Properties and
Infrastructure Ltd. He also proved two affidavits filed in support of
application which is Ex.PW33/D & Ex.PW33/E. He proved the letter with
regard to extension of employment of D.V. Malhotra (since deceased) with
Star Estates Management Ltd from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 Ex.PW42/A.
67. CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
The sum and substance of the prosecution case is that some
of the accused persons namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, H.S. Panwar who
were facing trial in the main Uphaar case conspired with P.P. Batra an
employee in the M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd which is owned by
Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and Dinesh Chandra Sharma who was custodian
of said case file to tamper/obliterate/ mutilate/ deface some relevant/ crucial
documents sought to be relied by prosecution to scuttle the process of
evidence for securing their acquittal in the main Uphaar case by preventing
the Court from passing a judgment. Accused P.P. Batra who was employee
of the Ansals acted as a link between Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, H.S.
Panwar and Dinesh Chandra Sharma. Both P.P. Batra and Dinesh Chandra
Sharma were in direct contact through mobile phones and landline and in
furtherance of their conspiracy, documents from the file of the main Uphaar
case were Destroyed / Tampered/Obliterated/ Mutilated/ Defaced at a very
crucial time when the trial was at a very advance stage and Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi directed expeditious trial by atleast fixing a matter 10 times
in a month. The said fact came to the knowledge of the Court and a Fact
Finding enquiry was ordered followed by a Departmental Enquiry against
Ahlmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma and he was subsequently dismissed from
service. After his dismissal, Dinesh Chandra Sharma through P.P. Batra at
the behest of Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal was provided a job at A-Plus
Securities Agency belonging to Anoop Singh upon the recommendation of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 213 of 274
D.V. Malhotra, General Manager of M/s Star Estates Management Ltd, a
subsidiary company of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was paid salary higher than the usual rate at A-Plus
Securities as for a similar nature of work he was paid Rs. 15,000/- instead
of Rs. 7,500/- paid to other field officers. When Anoop Singh became
aware of police investigation, he applied fluid on the name of Dinesh
Chandra Sharma in the wages and remuneration register of his firm and
wrote a fictitious name to prevent the evidence being collected by the
police. He also removed the revenue stamps where Dinesh Chandra Sharma
used to append his signatures to avoid detection of his signatures by police.
It is submitted that the conspiracy amongst the accused persons was
subsisting while Dinesh Chandra Sharma was given job and even thereafter
as accused persons intending to prevent Dinesh Chandra Sharma from
working some where else so as to keep conspiracy a secret by paying
double the remuneration. It is also submitted that at every stage of the trial,
opposition was made by the accused persons from leading secondary
evidence to exhibiting documents which was part of their larger conspiracy
to stall the trial.
On behalf of prosecution, several judgments are filed and same are taken on
record.
It is important to note that in Government of Karnataka v.
Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC 482, it was held by Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India….
Para 17, Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or
different fact may make a world of difference between
conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly
placing reliance on a decision is not proper . Para 18, the
following worlds of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of
applying precedent have become locus classicus : (Abdul
Kayoom v. CIT AIR p. 688 para 19)
Para 19, each case depends on its own facts and a close
similarily between one case and another is not enough
because even a single significant detail may alter the
entire aspect. In deciding such cases, one should avoid the
temptations to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by
matching the colour of one case against the colour of
another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line, a
case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at
all decisive. “
Considering the aforesaid judgment, the precedent filed on
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 214 of 274
behalf of prosecution are grasped for the purpose of legal proposition
involved in it and same would be considered for rendering judgment in the
facts of the present case.
68. CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS :-
68 (A). CONTENTION OF ACCUSED DINESH CHANDRA
SHARMA
It was canvassed that investigation was conducted in a biased manner by
the police as initially charge-sheet was filed against him only. However,
other accused persons were charge-sheeted through supplementary chargesheet.
Further, the place of arrest and the manner is disputed as IO could not
produce the arrest memo before the Court. Further the witnesses of the
arrest were not examined which were shown to be participated at the time
arrest of the accused. No recovery of incriminating material was effected
from the accused during his police custody. Prosecution has failed to
connect accused no. 1 to the telephonic calls. The documents as mentioned
in application dated 20.01.2003 Ex.PW2/A were related to accused persons
involved in main Uphaar case and Dinesh Chandra Sharma was one of the
custodian of the record only. It is submitted that accused could not have
obtained any benefit from missing of document rather he tried his level best
for tracing the documents before initiation of preliminary enquiry against
him. It is submitted that accused infact traced some documents and other
accused persons filed their objections against leading secondary evidence.
It is submitted that departmental enquiry does not make out a case for
criminal prosecution as while dismissing the accused the then Ld. District
& Sessions Judge did not recommend initiation of any criminal proceedings
against him. It is also submitted that some other court officials were also in
touch with representatives of main Uphaar case however, their call detail
record were not obtained by the IO and call details filed by the IO is
fabricated and in pick and choose manner to save the skin of real culprits.
PW4 Jagan Nath who was the Stenographer was regularly in touch with the
accused persons, however, his call details record was not placed on record
by the IO. IO did not confirm whether the missing record as per Ex.PW2/A
was ever seen by any concerned person who dealt with the said missing
record which were received by accused. Receipt of handing over and
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 215 of 274
taking over charge was not filed by the IO. IO did not carry out any
investigation let alone fair investigation regarding as to who has brought /
provided the iron trunk and how many keys were prepared for keeping the
voluminous record of the Uphaar trial case in trunks and who used to open
the locks of the room and close the room after working hours. Also, no
investigation is conducted regarding Chowkidars who were entrusted to
open and close the Court room and Ahlmad room. It is submitted that
accused was not in exclusive possession of the file as in the absence of him,
Ahlmad and Reader used to perform his work. As the file ran into
thousands of pages and the entire file was kept in a trunk and same used to
be moved to the Court by Peons and remained in the court on various
occasions and the said record inspected by various persons as such accused
was not in exclusive possession of the file. It is submitted that no benefit in
whatsoever manner has been received by accused which is substantiated by
the investigation except the employment in A Plus Security which does not
call for invocation of 409 IPC as same was allegedly done after the
dismissal from the service. It is submitted that missing documents were
selected and may have favoured the other accused persons but same were
not at all favourable to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. It is submitted that no
wrongful gain was made to the accused and no wrongful loss was caused to
the prosecution case. It is submitted that mens rea is missing in the given
facts which is essential to sustain the charge under section 409 IPC. It is
submitted that conspiracy as alleged in the present case has not been
proved as two circumstances which are relied by the prosecution which is
the job of the accused with A-Plus Securities and the absence of CAF of
phone no. 9811027522 have not been proved. The landline numbers do not
belong to accused and accused has duly explained the said fact in question
no. 69 in his statement. Accused cannot be held guilty for abetment as he is
not accused of main offence. Accused also cannot be held guilty for the
offence under section 201 IPC as ingredient essential to it are missing.
On behalf of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma, several judgments have
been filed and same are taken on record, however, considering the
judgment titled as Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC
482(Supra), the precedents filed on behalf of accused are grasped for the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 216 of 274
purpose of legal proposition involved in it and same would be considered
for rendering judgment in the facts of the present case.
The contention raised on behalf of accused are dealt one by one.
68(A)(i). So far as the contention of biased police investigation is
concerned, the said contention seems to be untenable as no evidence has
been produced to substantiate the same. After registration of FIR, the IO
alongwith other police officials reached to the house of the accused as he
was the prime suspect being custodian of the file and after his arrest, took
police remand from the Court and upon his disclosure statement recovery of
two registers was effected where he was found working after dismissal
from the job. The mere fact that other accused persons were charge-sheeted
through supplementary charge-sheet is no ground to assume that
investigation is biased as IO filed supplementary charge-sheet against other
accused persons only after receiving evidence qua them.
68(A)(ii). So far as the plea of accused regarding non-production of arrest
memo and its witnesses before the Court is concerned, the said plea can be
discountenanced as the fact of arrest of the accused has been proved
through the testimony of police officials which is unrebutted on the said
score.
68(A)(iii). So far as the plea of the accused that no recovery was effected
from him during his police custody is concerned, the said plea is baseless as
during his police remand, he made a disclosure statement which is
Ex.PW18/A and pursuant to his disclosure he took police party to the office
of A-Plus Securities where two registers Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D were
seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B which were recovered at his
instance.
68(A)(iv). So far as the plea of the accused that prosecution has failed to
connect accused no. 1 to the telephonic calls, the said plea is unsustainable
on the premise that the Call Data Record of his mobile number 9811027522
reflects several calls made to accused P.P. Batra and vice versa which detail
has been duly proved through PW36 as the digital evidence produced by
PW36 remains unrebutted and therefore reliable and trustworthy. Further
Ex.PW27/A and Ex. PW27/B proved that the mobile number of P.P. Batra
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 217 of 274
was 9818031897 and on the same number calls vice a versa were recorded
and evidence to this effect has been produced which has been proved
thereby proving the circumstance that during the relevant period both of
them were conspiring for the purpose of destruction of evidence.
68(A)(v). So far as the plea of the accused that the documents so destructed
as per Ex.PW2/A were related to accused persons involved in main Uphaar
case and he could not have benefited from them, the said plea holds no
water as in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with other accused persons, he
destructed those documents by different modes while having lawful custody
of file and after his dismissal he was found working in the company for
double remuneration which job was provided through the accused persons
as such undeniably he got benefited from the said act of destruction of
documents.
68(A)(vi). It is correct that while dismissing the accused person, Ld.
District & Sessions Judge did not recommend initiation of any criminal
proceedings against him, however, same cannot be construed to be an
immunity against the criminal prosecution if the act complained of falls
within the domain of criminal act covered under IPC as well.
68(A)(vii). Merely because some other court officials were also in touch
with representatives of main Uphaar case and failure of the IO to obtain
their call records is no ground to disbelieve the evidence which has
surfaced against the accused indicating his active involvement as part of
larger conspiracy for quid pro quo. It is Dinesh Chandra Sharma and not
PW4 who was the custodian of file. The files which used to remain with
PW4 during the day for orders were received by Ahlmad after the
proceedings are over and never ever any shortcoming was pointed out
regarding any document by the Ahlmad. He was the custodian of the file
and was obligated to ensure its intactness every time the files received by
him during the Court hours after the routine work.
68(A)(viii). Regarding missing record as per Ex.PW2/A, the relevant
witnesses of proceedings, seizure, custodian were produced as witnesses
before the Court and their testimony remained unshakable and they proved
the documents as per Ex.PW2/A, therefore, IO was not required to confirm
personally as to whether these documents were seen by said witnesses.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 218 of 274
68(A)(ix). It is proved through evidence that Dinesh Chandra Sharma took
charge of the files from previous Ahlmad Mr. Sunil Kumar Nautiyal by
way of charge handing memo which is Ex.PW7/C, further, as per the
testimony of PW10, he provided an iron trunk with keys to the Ahlmad at
the time of filing charge-sheet and in which the record was kept by Ahlmad.
So far as the plea that investigation regarding the locking and opening of
room after working hour is concerned, it is observed that invsetigation on
this aspect was not required once it is clear that Ahlmad has the
wherewithal to keep the files in safe custody and who is under lawful
obligation to keep them in safe custody.
68(A)(x). The plea of the accused that he was not in exclusive possession of
the files is groundless as Ahlmad is the custodian of files and in the instant
case the transition of the custody of files from the previous Ahlmads has
been smooth and proper and the mere fact that when Ahlmad is on leave in
his place, Reader or Assistant Ahlmad works is no ground to assume that
custody of files passes on to them as once Ahlmad resumes duty he has to
ensure everything is in order or raise concern in case of anything missing or
any discrepancy in any record. Further, even if the file is bulky having
voluminous record and in parts, used to be moved by Peons, inspected by
various persons, the same is not sufficient to hold that custody of the files
shifted to them as it will still remain with the Ahlmad only as after the
proceedings he receives the files again.
68(A)(xi). So far as the plea of the accused that accused has received no
benefit except the employment after his dismissal as such section 409 IPC
is not made out is concerned, the said plea is untenable as Section 409 IPC
provides for breach of trust by government official who is entrusted with
some property and interalia provides that in case of breach of lawful
direction and disposal of the property so entrusted, the liability is attracted.
In the instant case, accused was entrusted with the file of main Uphaar case
and he pursuant to a conspiracy with the accused persons of main Uphaar
case destructed the crucial documents which had the tendency to show
complicity and collusion of those accused persons in the main Uphaar case
and during the continuation of the said conspiracy he was provided a job as
a reward / price as such he committed criminal breach of trust by
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 219 of 274
destructing the file for his illegal gain in the form of future job for higher
remuneration. The import of the section cannot be confined to
misappropriation in the form of money or usage and same can be widened
to include such misappropriation wherein something in the form of job for
higher remuneration was provided to the accused after the commission of
the desired work. As such the invocation of section 409 IPC is proper as
necessary ingredients are satisfied considering its scope and import. It is
noteworthy that wrongful loss was caused to the prosecution case by
destruction of documents as an attempt was made to subterfuge the trial
process with an objective to stall it and abort it as it is not possible for the
trial to proceed sans documents. Furthermore, these were not the formal
documents but those documents which had the potential to expose the
collusion and complicity of the accused persons involved in the conspiracy.
The mens rea is writ large as well as actus reas through a well thought
plan to execute to achieve the objective of destruction of documents by the
custodian of the file.
68(A)(xii). The two important circumstances i.e. the job of the accused
with A-Plus Securities and CDR of phone no. 9811027522 have been
proved by way of evidence. As the factum of job have been proved through
evidence and same has been authenticated through GEQD report
Ex.PW23/A. Further, the CDRs of phone no. 9811027522 have been
proved as such mere omission to prove CAF would not be enough to
discredit the CDRs because same was not mandated at the relevant time. It
is not disputed that accused was not the Ahlmad or he was not using the
said mobile number as in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C accused
has failed to render explanation to the question regarding his mobile
number. Further, from the testimonies of PW32, PW33, it is proved that
landline no. 23352269, 23352270 & 23352518 belong to M/s Ansal
Properties & Industries Ltd in 1994 and thereafter, changed to M/s Ansal
Properties & Infrastructure Ltd with effect from 21.03.2005.
68(A)(xiii). The CDR of mobile no. 9811027522 of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma show following calls made to Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal at landline
numbers of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd, P.P. Batra and Vijay
Katyal, API :
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 220 of 274
S.
No
DATE TIME CALL MADE
TO
MOBILE
/
LANDLI
NE
NUMBER
DU
RA
TI
ON
EXHIBIT
No./Pg No.
1. 13.05.2002 103920 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
( API)
3353062 34 Ex PW 36/N –
Pg 401, Vol-V
Ex PW 33/DPg
No. 359, Vol
-V
2. 13.05.2002 103920 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3353062 34 Ex PW 36/N –
Pg 401 ,Vol-V
Ex PW 33/DPg
No. 359,
Vol-V
3. 14.05.2002 95109 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 13 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 387 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
4. 15.05.2002 140225 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 18 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
5. 17.05.2002 162706 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 24 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
6. 21.05.2002 103729 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 70 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
7. 22.05.2002 102016 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 34 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA
@257G , Vol-
IV
8. 22.05.2002 103714 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 35 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
9. 24.05.2002 104635 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 52 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 221 of 274
10
.
24.05.2002 114230 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 21 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 388 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
11
.
28.05.2002 140950 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 18 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 389 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
12
.
29.05.2002 123041 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 10
8
Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
13
.
29.05.2002 104316 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3352268 18 Ex PW 36/N–
Pg 401 Vol-V
Ex PW 33/DPg
No. 359,
Vol-V
14
.
30.05.2002 103508 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 48 Ex PW 36/H
Pg 387 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
15
.
18.06.2002 130337 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 50 Ex PW 36/I Pg
390 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
16
.
03.08.2002 114039 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 53 Ex PW 36/J Pg
391 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
17
.
19.08.2002 121016 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 51 Ex PW 36/J Pg
392 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
18
.
19.08.2002 121134 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 48 Ex PW 36/J Pg
392 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
19
.
19.08.2002 162405 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 40 Ex PW 36/J Pg
392 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
20 26.08.2002 112710 Ansal
Properties &
3353062 50 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 222 of 274
Industries Ltd. Ex PW 33/D
359 Vol-V
21 29.08.2002 151739 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 26 Ex PW 36/J Pg
392 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
22 06.09.2002 102935 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 22 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
23 06.09.2002 102957 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 25 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
24 06.09.2002 113524 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 35 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
25 06.09.2002 120912 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 38 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
26 06.09.2002 124815 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 **
*
Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
27 06.09.2002 165524 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 24 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
28 06.09.2002 121938 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3352270
28 Ex PW 36/K
Pg 401 Vol-V
Ex PW 32/B Pg
352 Vol-V
29 06.09.2002 134355 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3352269 60 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Ex PW 32/A
351 Vol-V
30 07.09.2002 143603 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 32 Ex PW 36/K
Pg 394 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 223 of 274
31 13.09.2002 133948 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 27 Ex PW 36/K
Pg 394 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
32 21.09.2002 152925 Vijay Katial ,
API
98100644
46
40 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
33 28.09.2002 121253 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3353316 19 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Ex PW 33/D
Pg 359 Vol-V
34 28.9.2002 134729 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 95 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 401 Vol-V
Mark DA @
257G , Vol-IV
35 03.10.2002 165612 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3353316 5 Ex 36/N Pg 401
Vol-V
Ex PW 33/D
Pg 359 Vol-V
36 26.10.2002 152021 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97-.
6 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
37 26.10.2002 154755 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
16 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
38 26.10.2002 164529 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
4 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
39 01.11.2002 110734 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
43 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
40 02.11.2002 105102 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
11 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
41 02.11.2002 145009 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
79 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 224 of 274
42 07.11.2202 114128 Ansal
Properties &
Industries Ltd.
3738104 21 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Mark
DA @ 257G ,
Vol-IV
43 11.11.2002 132646 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
21 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
44 13.11.2002 80806 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
52 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 402 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
45 14.11.2002 90027 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
27 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 403 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
46 18.11.2002 113958 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
12 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 403 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
47 18.11.2002 123730 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
23 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 403 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
48 26.11.2002 121027 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
6 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 403 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
49 26.11.2002 121419 PP Batra
Steno, API
98180318
97
2 Ex PW 36/N
Pg 403 Vol-V
Ex PW 27/B Pg
295 Vol -IV
Total Number calls made by Dinesh Chandra Sharma to API landlines -34
Total Number calls made by Dinesh Chandra Sharma to PP Batra – 13
Total Number calls made by Dinesh Chandra Sharma to Vijay Katyal
(API) -1
These CDRs establish the link between accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma and P.P. Batra as several calls were made by Dinesh
Chandra Sharma to M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd landline and to
P.P. Batra.
68 (A) (xiv). With regard to the argument that CDR of only Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was obtained by the IO and not the other accused persons,
to this argument, it is observed that Dinesh Chandra Sharma was the pivotal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 225 of 274
person who was supposed to be contacted for destruction of document and
who had the custody of the document as such his CDR was of most
importance. The fact that CDRs of other accused persons is not obtained
by IO, was not necessary as the fulcrum of the conspiracy was around
Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
68 (B). CONTENTION OF ACCUSED P. P. BATRA
The following four circumstances have been alleged against accused P.P.
Batra :
C1 : He was doing Pairvi of the Uphaar Cinema trial as an employee of
Ansal Properties and Industries Ltd;
C2 : He was the link between the Ansals and accused no. 1 Dinesh
Chandra Sharma through phone contact;
C3 : He secured a job for accused no. 1 Dinesh Chandra Sharma in M/s
A-Plus Security and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd after he was terminated
25.06.2004;
C4 : Accused Anoop Singh altered the attendance register of M/s A-Plus
Security and Training Institute Pvt. Ltd., when accused Anoop Singh
became aware of police investigation.
It is submitted that accused P.P. Batra was doing Pairvi for
other accused persons and the same has been adversely inferred against him
despite the same role was also performed by four other employees of M/s
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. Accused herein was the junior most
employee of M/s Ansal Properties and was working as a Steno in the
company’s legal Cell as such it is unfathomable that he was privy to the
alleged conspiracy to the exclusion of other four employees. Prosecution
has failed to attribute any individual motive to the accused. No palpable
benefit accrued to the accused from the alleged commission of offence. The
CDRs and ownership of mobile no. 9818031897 to P.P. Batra cannot be
relied upon due to inexplicable flaws pointing out towards manipulation
as conspicuous date format, disturbance in chronology of time, haphazard
entries, disturbance in chronology of date, long gaps and missing data
existed in the CDRs. Further, the explanation rendered by PW36 is
fallacious on several counts which leads to inference that they are tempered
with. Further, a valid certificate under section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 226 of 274
Act has not been filed by PW36. Ownership of phone no. 9818031897 not
proved and same is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C. Further, prosecution has not
been able to produce the best evidence to prove the ownership of number
attributed to accused. The job of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma as
alleged by the prosecution with A-Plus Securities is completely irrelevant
qua accused for construing his complicity in the alleged conspiracy. No
nexus existed between Dinesh Chandra Sharma and P.P. Batra. The
attendance register and its alleged alteration cannot be an evidence to show
participation of accused in the alleged conspiracy. Mere association /
employment of accused with M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd and
contact with Dinesh Chandra Sharma cannot be taken as incriminating
circumstance for inferring his complicity in the alleged conspiracy. No
overt act has been established against him which could show his agreement
for and participation in the alleged conspiracy. No legally admissible
evidence exist against the accused which could prove that he was in contact
with Dinesh Chandra Sharma.
On behalf of accused P.P. Batra, several judgments have
been filed and same are taken on record, however, considering the
judgment titled as Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC
482(Supra), the precedents filed on behalf of accused are grasped for the
purpose of legal proposition involved in it and same would be considered
for rendering judgment in the facts of the present case.
The contention raised on behalf of accused are dealt one by one : –
68 (B)(i). So far as the contention raised on behalf of accused P.P. Batra that
he was just doing pairvi of other accused persons and same role was
performed by four other employees also and being the junior most
employee of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd where he was working
as a Stenographer as such he cannot be privy to the alleged conspiracy is
concerned, the said contention can be discountenanced for the reason that
you need not be occupying a very high or influential position in the
company of the accused for entering into a criminal conspiracy with other
accused persons. Admittedly, P.P. Batra was doing pairvi for the Ansal
Brothers and he was consistently keeping in touch with accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma on his mobile phone through his mobile or landlines
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 227 of 274
which has been established by evidence and being a pairvi officer, he had
the opportunity to enter into criminal conspiracy with Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. It is important to note that doing pairvi involves and interaction
may be through phone or personally for a while only to know the status of
the things but where numerous calls were exchanged during the relevant
time even at odd hours, for a continuous period of time the same is
indicative that something more was going on than pairvi. As per the
evidence, accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma approached P.P. Batra after his
dismissal and P.P. Batra got him a job through D.V. Malhotra at A-Plus
Securities. The said circumstance indicate that the relationship was not only
for the sake of pairvi but same was on account of continuing criminal
conspiracy and when the opportunity arose i.e. dismissal of the accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma the remaining part of the conspiracy was executed
by accused P.P. Batra. To say that he derived no palpable benefit from the
alleged commission of offence would be misleading as it is not necessary
that he must have derived something tangible thing or asset because at
times people in the organization are prompted by several other incentives
like promotion or otherwise for indulging in criminal conspiracy. Merely
because the prosecution could not adduce any evidence to prove any
tangible benefit obtained by accused P.P. Batra same is no ground to believe
that he was not benefited from the said conspiracy. It is not important for a
conspirator to have acquired any benefit in the form of money/ property as
he may do it for variety of reasons. Further, accused was working for the
Ansal Brothers same is sufficient motive for him for committing the act of
criminal conspiracy. So far as the objection raised qua admissibility of
CDRs owing to conspicuous date format, disturbance in chronology of
time, haphazard entries, disturbance in chronology of date, long gaps and
missing data is concerned the said discrepancy has been explained
plausibly by PW36 in his cross-examination wherein he stated that the
format in which data was stored in main server remains but its format
undergoes changes to suit the requirement of the investigation agency and
that requires manual intervention. PW36 also explained that the CDR
pertains to the year 2002 and he extracted these details in the year 2006,
when the memory of online server get filled, they randomly transfer some
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 228 of 274
data to DAT file and upon receiving request for providing data / record it is
retrieved from DAT and during the process of decoding as per required
format the data was extracted from DAT file. As such the judgment filed by
accused in support of the said contention titled as Ravi Kant Sharma v.
State 2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 4342 is respectfully distinguished as in the
said judgment deficiencies were related to IMEI, the
month/date/year/format, logical call sequence was not followed, and in
some places date/ month/ year used instead of month/date/year format and
no certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act was produced with the
CDR report.
68 (B)(ii). So far as the plea of accused P.P. Batra that certificate under
section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as filed by PW36 cannot be relied upon
, the said contention is baseless as the said certificate produced by PW36
conform to the ingredient of the section.
68 (B)(iii). So far as the plea of accused P.P. Batra that phone no.
9818031897 qua its ownership has not been proved and same is hit by
section 162 Cr.P.C is concerned, to this it is observed that the ownership of
this number has been proved through Ex.PW27/A & Ex.PW27/B which
provides the details of the subscriber of this number to the IO and the oral
testimony of PW27 before the Court for proving the said communication
proves the said documents. The plea that Ex.PW27/B is hit by section 162
Cr.P.C is not sustainable as the said document was produced by witness
before the IO pursuant to the notice under section 91 Cr.P.C and same is
admissible in evidence. Further, the oral testimony of the said witness
regarding the said document proves the said document. It is important to
note that the bar created under section 162 Cr.P.C is regarding any
statement made to police during investigation and same cannot be attracted
towards a document produced by a witness pursuant to notice under section
91 Cr.P.C by the IO during investigation.
68 (B)(iv). So far as the plea of accused that no nexus exist between P.P.
Batra and Dinesh Chandra Sharma is concerned the said plea is fallacious
on the face of it as P.P. Batra is the connecting link between accused
persons of main Uphaar case and Dinesh Chandra Sharma. Admittedly he
was doing pairvi of the case and while doing it, he entered into a criminal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 229 of 274
conspiracy with other accused persons for destruction of evidence and the
overt act in the form of regular calls to Dinesh Chandra Sharma and
arranging a job for Dinesh Chandra Sharma after his dismissal with A-Plus
Securities establishes the said fact.
68 (B)(v). The attendance register and the alleged alteration evidences the
fact of job of Dinesh Chandra Sharma with A-Plus Securities and as per the
evidence, it was at the behest of P.P. Batra as P.P. Batra got the job through
D.V. Malhotra who was not known to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The fact of
job of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma through P.P. Batra is an evidence of
active participation of accused P.P. Batra in the alleged conspiracy.
68 (B)(vi). The subsequent act of Dinesh Chandra Sharma of contacting P.P.
Batra after his dismissal for job tend to prove that P.P. Batra was party to
the conspiracy as a connecting link and to provide Dinesh Chandra Sharma
what was promised to him for the desired work. The reference by P.P. Batra
through D.V. Malhotra for providing job to Dinesh Chandra Sharma is a
deed which clearly establish his conspiratorial role in the alleged
conspiracy.
68 (B)(vii). CDR of mobile no. 9818031897 of accused P.P. Batra &
landline numbers of API from where calls were made to accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma as under :
S.No
.
DATE TIME CALLS MADE
FROM
CALLS
MADE TO
DURATION
1 01.11.2002 81214 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
79
2 01.11.2002 105544 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
981102752
2
( DC
SHARMA)
29
3 01.11.2002 113618 3738104
API
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
33
4 01.11.2002 151604 3738104
API
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
72
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 230 of 274
5 02.11.2002 111948 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
24
6 07.11.2002 183318 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
49
7 11.11.2002 142737 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
981102752
2
( DC
SHARMA)
20
8 14.11.2002 114256 3738104
(API)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
57
9 18.11.2002 174521 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
71
10 20.11.2002 81618 9818031897
(PP BATRA)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
30
11 25.11.2002 131339 3738104
(API)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
33
12 27.11.2002 122738 3352270
(API)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
20
13 28.11.2002 1142 25 3738104
(API)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
67
14 28.11.2002 132855 3738104
(API)
9811027522
(DC
SHARMA)
16
15 29.11.2002 122241 3738104 9811027522 19
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 231 of 274
(API) ( DC
SHARMA)
16 29.11.2002 122325 3738104
(API)
9811027522
( DC
SHARMA)
11
Total Number calls made by API Land Lines to D C Sharma -9
Total Number calls made by P P Batra to D C Sharma – 7
These CDRs go on to establish that P.P. Batra was in direct
contact with Dinesh Chandra Sharma and the frequency of the calls and
duration show a circumstance that they were in conspiracy.
68 (B) (viii). It is trite law that any denial by the accused should be specific
and categoric and evasive answer is akin to tacit admission. During the
statement under section 313, accused P.P. Batra gave evasive answers from
question no. 69 to 118 onwards. The accused never denied that he was not
using mobile numbers nor produced any evidence to rebut the said
contention of the prosecution as this fact being in his exclusive knowledge
is required to be proved by him in terms of Section 106 Indian Evidence
Act.
68 (B)(ix). Apart from the evidence produced through CDR, the contact of
accused P.P. Batra with Dinesh Chandra Sharma has been proved by way of
unchallenged testimony of the witnesses. Further, CAF of the mobile
numbers was not an requirement at the relevant time as instructions were
issued regarding it on 22.11.2006 which is duly substantiated from
judgment titled as “Cellular Operators Association of India v. Union of
India & Anr”. 2012 SCC Online TDSAT 724 evidently these mobiles were
in use much before this date as such the plea of non production of CDR by
prosecution stands discounted. Further, CAF was made mandatory pursuant
to judgment and order dated 27.04.2012 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in WP(C ) No. 285/10 following which Government of India
through notification File No. 800-09/20010-VAS dated 09th August, 2012
made it necessary.
68 (C). CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF SUSHIL ANSAL
On behalf of accused, it was submitted that on behalf of prosecution, huge
unexplained delay exist for initiating the prosecution in the present case as
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 232 of 274
on 20.07.2002, it was brought to the notice to all that one document D84 is
found torn from the bottom, however, the present FIR came to be registered
on 17.05.2006. It is further submitted that prosecution has imputed motive
on the accused by attributing three sets of documents to him and the said
allegation is baseless and illogical. It is submitted that there is no allegation
that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma received any financial perks/
incentive or other benefit from the accused persons for the said tampering
as such the allegation belies logic and common sense. It is submitted that
tampering can also be the handy work of complainant AVUT and its
members and investigation on the said aspect has not been done. It is
submitted that in the present case, in the absence of any investigation being
carried out to rule out the “alternate hypothesis” it is illegal to condemn the
acts of the accused not done by him. It is submitted that facts of the main
Uphaar case cannot be read into present case except to the extent which
have been proved in the present case in accordance with law. It is submitted
that the disclosure statement Ex.PW18/A of accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma is inadmissible in evidence in terms of section 25 of Indian
Evidence Act and no where points out towards involvement of Sushil Ansal
in the alleged tampering. It is submitted that statement of accused Anoop
Singh cannot be relied upon as he was subsequently made an accused from
a witness which is hit by section 162 Cr.P.C and 25 Indian Evidence Act.
Further, recovery of two registers Ex.PW18/C & Ex.PW18/D are
inadmissible in terms of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as accused
Anoop Singh was not in custody of the IO on 25.11.2006. It is submitted
that GEQD reports regarding the two registers could not be proved as
PW23 the expert did not produce the Certificate under section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act and his reasoning was based on an undated document
which cast serious doubt or its veracity. The manner of taking handwriting
samples of accused is hit by section 311A of Cr.P.C as no permission was
sought from the Court before taking samples of Anoop Singh. It is
submitted that vicarious liability cannot be invoked in the present case as
no Director / official / employee of the company can be made as an accused
in a criminal case unless the company is also made as an accused in the said
case. It is submitted that call detail record has not been duly proved. It is
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 233 of 274
submitted that no adverse inference can be drawn against Dinesh Chandra
Sharma just for the reason that he was found guilty in departmental enquiry.
It is submitted that unfair and prejudicial investigation has been carried out
by the IO. Exclusive dominion of files was not with the accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma.
On behalf of accused Sushil Ansal, several judgments have
been filed and same are taken on record, however, considering the
judgment titled as Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC
482(Supra), the precedents filed on behalf of accused are grasped for the
purpose of legal proposition involved in it and same would be considered
for rendering judgment in the facts of the present case.
The contention of accused are dealt one by one here in below : –
68(C) (i). With respect to contention raised on behalf of accused Sushil
Ansal that huge unexplained delay exist in the prosecution case if reckoned
from the date when the first document was noticed torn till the filing of the
FIR, to this is observed that the fact of missing documents came to the
notice gradually and in the month of January, 2003, the Ld. SPP noticing
the tampering of the documents filed application Ex.PW2/A and before that
also, Ld. Presiding Officer asked Ahlmad to report on the aspect of missing
documents and after the facts surfaced the leave was granted to the
prosecution to lead secondary evidence and progress of the trial started. In
the meantime, the departmental proceedings also initiated which took time
for culmination and thereafter, AVUT approached Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi and the present FIR was lodged. It is not the case that nothing
happened after the fact of tampering came to fore. Simultaneous
proceedings were going on and finally the FIR was registered on the
directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after it was held in the
departmental enquiry that Ahlmad was careless and negligent. The delay is
well explained as such the contention deserves to be dismissed.
68(C) (ii). So far as the contention raised on behalf of Sushil Ansal that
imputing motive upon the accused on the basis of three sets of documents is
unfair, the said argument is baseless as these documents had the material
and content to prove the complicity of the accused in the main Uphaar case.
68(C) (iii). So far as the argument that Dinesh Chandra Sharma did not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 234 of 274
receive any financial perk from the accused is concerned the said argument
is untenable as accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma after his dismissal was
found working with A-Plus Securities and the said job was arranged
through P.P. Batra from D.V. Malhotra (since deceased) who was the
General Manager of Star Estates Management Ltd which was a subsidiary
of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. It is worth noticeable that accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma despite having no knowledge of field officer was
given double the salary which belies the contention of the accused.
68(C) (iv). So far as the argument that tampering could be the handy work
of AVUT the said argument is preposterous as AVUT is a body representing
victims of the Uphaar tragedy and they had nothing to gain from such
nefarious act. AVUT is actively involved for the pursuit of justice and
casting aspersions without any evidence is akin to adding insult to injury.
68(C) (v). So far as the contention of the accused that in the absence of any
investigation being carried out to rule out the “alternate hypothesis” it is
illegal to put allegations against him is concerned, the said contention is
hollow as investigation appear to be done in a fair manner and charge-sheet,
supplementary charge-sheet was filed on the basis of evidence which has
been duly proved during evidence.
68(C) (vi). So far as the contention that relevant evidence or facts of main
Uphaar case cannot be read in this case is concerned, the said contention is
vague as this case emanated from the main Uphaar case following
destruction of evidence during the course of trial as such the facts are
intertwined and a careful look is germane to properly appreciate the
evidence.
68(C) (vii). The Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the action of
Investigation Officer in obtaining specimen writing and signatures of
accused person during investigation of the case amounts to violation of
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and Section 311 A Cr.P.C and
reliance has been placed upon a full bench judgment of our own Hon􏰂ble
High Court in Sapan Haldar and Another vs. State, 191 (2012) DLT 225
wherein it has been held that during investigation of a case, neither can the
Investigation Officer obtain a sample writing of the accused nor can even a
Magistrate so direct. In this regard, the judgment of the Larger Bench of
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 235 of 274
Eleven Hon’ble Judges of Hon􏰂ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs.
Kathikalu Oghad, (1962) 2 SCR 10 is relevant, wherein it was held that by
giving impressions or specimen handwriting, accused person does not
furnish evidence against himself and does not violate Article 20 (3) of the
Constitution. This judgment has been followed by Hon􏰂ble Supreme Court
again in State of U.P. vs. Boota Singh and others AIR 1978 SC 1770 and
relevant extract (Para 41) reads as under :-
“….Before closing this part of the case, we might advert to
an argument advanced before us by Mr. Mulla regarding
the specimen signature of the respondent Boota Singh
taken by the police during investigation. Mr. Mulla
submitted that the act of the investigating officer in taking
the specimen signature of the respondent Boota Singh was
hit by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and
also amounted to testimonial compulsion so as to violate
the guarantee contained in Article 20 (3) of the
Constitution. The matter is no longer res integra and is
concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of State
of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1962) 3 SCR 10 where
the court observed as follows (At P.1820 of AIR SC):-
“That is why it must be held that by giving these
impressions or specimen handwriting, the accused person
does not furnish evidence against himself. So when an
accused person is compelled to give a specimen
handwriting or impressions of his finger, palm or foot, it
may be said that he has been compelled to be a witness; it
cannot however be said that he had been compelled to be
a witness against himself.”
It was also held that merely taking a specimen
handwriting does not amount to be giving a statement so
as to be hit by Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. In
view of this decision of the Court, Mr. Mulla did not
pursue the point further.
Hon􏰂ble Supreme Court has also followed these
judgments, in its celebrated judgment titled as State
(N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru 2005
(11) SCC 600, the relevant observations found at Para
No. 18 of the judgement calls for attention as under: –
“This conclusion was reached by the High Court even
after excluding the evidence of PW-23, Principal Scientific
Officer who confirmed that the signatures on the delivery
receipt-Ext. PW-1/6 tallied with his specimen signatures.
In this context, a contention was raised before the High
Court that in view of Section 27 of POTA, specimen
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 236 of 274
signature should not have been obtained without the
permission of the Court. In reply to this contention urged
before the High Court, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the
learned senior counsel for the State clarified that on the
relevant date, when the specimen signatures of Afzal were
obtained, the investigation was not done under the POTA
provisions and de hors the provisions of POTA, there was
no legal bar against obtaining the handwriting samples.
The learned counsel relied upon by the 11 Judge Bench
decision of this Court of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu
Oghad 1962 (3) SCR 10 in support of his contention that
Article 20 (3) of the Constitution was not infringed by
taking the specimen handwriting or signature or thumb
impressions of a person in custody. Reference has also
drawn to the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v.
Boota Singh (1979) 1 SCC 31. We find considerable force
in this contention advanced by Mr. Gopal Subramanium..”
“The judgment of Hon􏰂ble Supreme Court on the point is
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v. Republic of India
2011 (2) SCC 490 and straight question before Hon􏰂ble
Supreme Court was as to whether in cases prior to
amendment in Cr. PC in 2005, the I.O. has power to
obtain specimen writing and Hon􏰂ble Supreme Court
answered it in the affirmative and relevant Para reads as
under:-
Another question which we have to consider is whether
the Police (CBI) had the power under the Criminal
Procedure Code to take specimen signature and writing of
A3 for examination by the expert. It was pointed out that
during investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the
accused to give his specimen signature on the asking of
the police and only in the amendment of the Criminal
Procedure Code in 2005, power has been given to the
Magistrate to direct any person including the accused to
give his specimen signature for the purpose of
investigation. Hence, it was pointed out that taking of his
signature/writings being per se illegal, the report of the
expert cannot be used as evidence against him. To meet
the above claim, learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily
relied on a 11-Judge Bench decision of this Court in The
State of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad and Ors., (1962) 3
SCR 10. This larger Bench was constituted in order to reexamine
some of the propositions of law laid down by this
Court in the case of M.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Satish
Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors., (1954) SCR
1077. After adverting to various factual aspects, the larger
Bench formulated the following questions for
consideration:
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 237 of 274
“2. … … On these facts, the only questions of
constitutional importance that this Bench has to determine
are; (1) whether by the production of the specimen
handwritings – Exs. 27, 28, and 29 – the accused could be
said to have been ‘a witness against himself’ within the
meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution; and (2)
whether the mere fact that when those specimen
handwritings had been given, the accused person was in
police custody could, by itself, amount to compulsion,
apart from any other circumstances which could be urged
as vitiating the consent of the accused in giving those
specimen handwritings. … …
4. … … The main question which arises for determination
in this appeal is whether a direction given by a Court to
an accused person present in Court to give his specimen
writing and signature for the purpose of comparison
under the provisions of section 73 of the Indian Evidence
Act infringes the fundamental right enshrined in Article
20(3) of the Constitution.
The following conclusion/answers are relevant:
10. … … Furnishing evidence” in the latter sense could not
have been within the contemplation of the Constitutionmakers
for the simple reason that – though they may have
intended to protect an accused person from the hazards of
self- incrimination, in the light of the English Law on the
subject – they could not have intended to put obstacles in
the way of efficient and effective investigation into crime
and of bringing criminals to justice. The taking of
impressions or parts of the body of an accused person
very often becomes necessary to help the investigation of a
crime. It is as much necessary to protect an accused
person against being compelled to incriminate himself, as
to arm the agents of law and the law courts with
legitimate powers to bring offenders to justice. …
11. … … When an accused person is called upon by the
Court or any other authority holding an investigation to
give his finger impression or signature or a specimen of
his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the
nature of a ‘personal testimony’. The giving of a ‘personal
testimony’ must depend upon his volition. He can make
any kind of statement or may refuse to make any
statement. But his finger impressions or his handwriting,
in spite of efforts at concealing the true nature of it by
dissimulation cannot change their intrinsic character.
Thus, the giving of finger impressions or of specimen
writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it
may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is
not included within the expression ‘to be a witness’.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 238 of 274
12. … … A specimen handwriting or signature or finger
impressions by themselves are no testimony at all, being
wholly innocuous because they are unchangeable except
in rare cases where the ridges of the fingers or the style of
writing have been tampered with. They are only materials
for comparison in order to lend assurance to the Court
that its inference based on other pieces of evidence is
reliable. They are neither oral nor documentary evidence
but belong to the third category of material evidence
which is outside the limit of ‘testimony’.
16. In view of these considerations, we have come to the
following conclusions :-
(1) An accused person cannot be said to have been
compelled to be a witness against himself simply because
he made a statement while in police custody, without
anything more. In other words, the mere fact of being in
police custody at the time when the statement in question
was made would not, by itself, as a proposition of law,
lend itself to the inference that the accused was compelled
to make the statement, though that fact, in conjunction
with other circumstances disclosed in evidence in a
particular case, would be a relevant consideration in an
enquiry whether or not the accused person had been
compelled to make the impugned statement.
(2) The mere questioning of an accused person by a police
officer, resulting in a voluntary statement, which may
ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not
‘compulsion’.
(3) ‘To be a witness’ is not equivalent to ‘furnishing
evidence’ in its widest significance; that is to say, as
including not merely making of oral or written statements
but also production of documents or giving materials
which may be relevant at a trial to determine the guilt
innocence of the accused.
(4) Giving thumb impressions or impressions of foot or
palm or fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of
the body by way of identification are not included in the
expression ‘to be a witness’.
(5) ‘To be a witness’ means imparting knowledge in
respect of relevant facts by an oral statement or a
statement in writing, made or given in Court or otherwise.
(6) ‘To be a witness’ in its ordinary grammatical sense
means giving oral testimony in Court. Case law has gone
beyond this strict literal interpretation of the expression
which may now bear a wider meaning, namely, bearing
testimony in Court or out of Court by a person accused of
an offence, orally or in writing.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 239 of 274
(7) To bring the statement in question within the
prohibition of Article 20(3), the person accused must have
stood in the character of an accused person at the time he
made the statement. It is not enough that he should
become an accused, any time after the statement has been
made.” In view of the above principles, the procedure
adopted by the investigating agency, analyzed and
approved by the trial Court and confirmed by the High
Court, cannot be faulted with. In view of oral report of
Rolia Soren, PW 4 which was reduced into writing, the
evidence of PW 23, two letters dated 01.02.2002 and
02.02.2002 addressed by Mahendra Hembram (A3) to the
trial Judge facing his guilt coupled with the other
materials, we are unable to accept the argument of Mr.
Ratnakar Dash, learned senior counsel for Mahendra
Hembram (A3) and we confirm the conclusion arrived by
the High Court.
In view of the consistent view of the Hon􏰂ble Supreme
Court in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru􏰂s case (supra),
Kathikalu Oghad Case (Supra) and Dara Singh􏰂s case
(supra), investigating officer has not committed any
illegality in obtaining the specimen writing and signatures
of the accused during investigation. Here it is relevant to
refer Article 141 of the Constitution of India which reads
as under:-
Article 141 : Law declared by Supreme Court to be
binding on all courts: the law declared by the Supreme
Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of
India. It is mandated upon every court of law, the
tribunals throughout the country to follow the rulings and
the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, in
the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the arguments advanced by the defence that the
accused was compelled to give the specimen writings
violating the law, cannot be borrowed to declare the acts
of investigation as opposed to law. “
In view of the aforesaid,the contention on behalf of accused
that IO made an illegality by obtaining signature of accused Anoop Singh is
discarded.
68(C) (viii). With respect to the contention that GEQD reports cannot be
admitted in evidence. To this contention, it is observed that the process
through which they are analysed and prepared is not a computer and same
does not fall within the ambit of electronic evidence and therefore,
requirement of section 65B is not attracted. Further, VSC 5000 was not a
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 240 of 274
computer who was used for storing data but a magnifier having a mirror
and the printer as such 65B certification was not necessary. The opinion of
the expert would not go in vain if he uses undated document in Court while
deposition if the said documents are relevant and provide justification for
the opinion. In Natasha Singh v. CBI CRL. M.C. 4406/2013 & CRL. M.A.
No. 15774/2013Delhi High Court
The real function of the expert is to put before the Court all
the materials together with reasons which induce him to
arrive at the conclusion. It is thereafter for the Court to form
its own judgment by its own observation of those materials.
11. In “Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors.’, AIR
2010 SC 1162, the Supreme Court held as under :
“43. A Court is not bound by the evidence of the experts
which is to a large extent advisory in nature. The Court
must derive its own conclusion upon considering he
opinion of the experts which may be adduced by both
sides, cautiously, and upon taking into consideration the
authorities on the point on which he deposes
44. Medical science is a difficult one. The Court for the
purpose of arriving at a decision on the basis of the
opinions of experts must take into consideration the
difference between an ‘expert witness’ and an ‘ordinary
witness’. The opinion must be based on a person having
special skill or knowledge in medical science. It could be
admitted or denied. Whether such an evidence could be
admitted or how much weight should be given thereto,
lies within the domain of the court. The evidence of an
expert should, however, be interpreted like any other
evidence.”(Emphasis given)
In ‘State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal & Ors.’, 1999 (7)
SCC 280, the Supreme Court held as under :
“17. Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion
of experts admissible lays down that when the court has to
form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science,
or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger
impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in
questions as to identity of hand-writing, or finger
impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring
the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be
shown that he has made a special study of the subject or
acquired a special experience therein or in other words
that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the
subject.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 241 of 274
An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of
an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to
furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for
testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the
Judge to form his independent judgment by the application
of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the
case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible,
convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an
important factor for consideration alongwith the other
evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness
depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions
and the data and material furnished which form the basis
of his conclusions. “
Therefore, the objection raised on behalf of accused are
dismissed.
68(C) (ix). With respect to contention raised on bahalf of Sushil Ansal that
CDRs of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma and P.P. Batra have not been
proved in accordance with law, the said contention lacks merit as the CDRs
have been duly proved by way of evidence.
68(C) (x). With respect to the contention raised on behalf of accused that in
the absence of company being arraigned as an accused he cannot be
prosecuted the said contention is baseless as the criminal conspiracy has
been hatched between persons and not the company. Accused entered into
criminal conspiracy with other co-conspirator for the destruction of
evidence to prevent punishment coming his way and same is not done by
the company so no question of its arraignment.
68(C) (xi). So far as the contention of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
should not be condemned on the basis of his departmental enquiry, to this
argument, it is observed that the present case is based on a conspiratorial
charge which is an offence under section IPC and for which independent
evidence has to be considered and the mere fact the accused was indicted in
the departmental enquiry is of no consequence in this case.
68(C) (xii). So far as the discrepancy in the Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW30/DB is
concerned, it is observed that as per Ex.PW2/A, there were 9 documents
where as on 21.01.2003, as per Ex.PW30/DB those 9 documents became 6
documents and as per Ex.PW10/A they again become 9 documents, to this
it is observed that Ex.PW30/DB is not a complete list of missing documents
dated 21.01.2003 as it is evidently clear from Ex.PW30/DB that the Ld.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 242 of 274
Presiding Officer Ms. Mamta Sehgal ordered Ahlmad to report regarding
the documents by 21.01.2003 which is indicative that same is prior to
21.01.2003 as for tracing document some time is given to the Ahlmad.
Further, in serial no. 6 in Ex.PW2/A, 3 documents i.e. D24, D25 (two
cheques) and D26 are mentioned, however, in Ex.PW30/DB, these cheques
have been shown as 3 separate documents at serial no. 6,7 & 8 and
therefore, the number of documents became 8 because document no. D28,
D93 & D34 are not mentioned in the list. Further, before ACP R.S. Khatri,
the IO of the main Uphaar case could file his affidavit containing the list of
the missing/ torn document, Dinesh Chandra Sharma found two documents
which are D93 and D34 and for this reason, in the affidavit of Sh. R.S.
Khatri, two documents mentioned at serial no. 8 & 9 in Ex.PW2/A are not
stated. The fact of document D93 resurfaced has been duly mentioned in
Ex.PW37/E. The fact of document D34 resurfaced has been duly mentioned
in Ex.PW5/A. Also, it is pertinent to note that no objection came from the
accused during secondary evidence regarding relocation of D28.
68(C) (xiii). With respect to the contention that disclosure statement of
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma is inadmissible Ex.PW18/A as same is hit
by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and the recovery of two employment
registers Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D is inadmissible, to this contention, it
is observed that first condition necessary for this section is the discovery of
facts, albeit a relevant fact in consequence of the information received
from a person accused of an offence and thereafter, it is to be seen that discovery
of such act must be deposed to and at that time accused should be
police custody. Also, it is important that only “so much of the information”
as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible. In the given
facts, the discovery of the registers were made at the instance of Dinesh
Chandra Sharma while he was in police custody as such the statement
Ex.PW18/A is not hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.
68(C) (xiv). So far as the contention of the accused that statement dated
25.11.2006 under section 161 Cr.P.C of the accused was in the capacity of
the witness and same cannot be relied upon as he was subsequently made
an accused, the said contention is baseless as such statement can be relied
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 243 of 274
upon and its veracity cannot be challenged on the mere fact that he was
transposed as accused.
68(C) (xv). So far as the contention of the accused that the agreement between
SEML and A Plus security could not be proved, the said contention is
misconceived as through PW39 Anokhe Lal Pal despite a confusion created
by him regarding his signatures but after careful comparison of the signatures
by the Court by invoking power under section 73 of Indian Evidence
Act, it is proved that in the agreement between these two concerns, he was
the signatory. Since DV Mahlotra has passed away, his testimony was important
to prove the said agreement. The record produced by ROC shows
that APIL has the majority share holding in SEML. As per company law, if
the holding company have more than 50% of the shares of the subsidiary
company then the management is governed by holding company. The arguments
raised on behalf of Sushil Ansal that APIL does not have more than
1% share of SEML was apparently misleading. 68(C) (xvi). So far as the
contention that the landline numbers of the M/s Ansal Properties & Industries
Ltd have not been proved by way of evidence, to this argument, it is
observed that same were proved to be owned by M/s Ansal Properties & Industries
Ltd and from these landline numbers calls were made to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma. This fact has not been denied by accused persons. Rather
they would have explained about these calls made through the landline
numbers to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. This indicate that the calls made
through landline number to Dinesh Chandra Sharma are not disputed and
accordingly proved.
68(C) (xvi). So far as the plea of the accused that documents D-84, D-24,
D-28 were found torn/defaced during day to day hearing when noticed, the
said contention is misleading as when this incident came to fore day to day
trial was not going on.
68(C) (xvii). So far as the contention on behalf of the accused person that
document Mark Z could not be exhibited. To this, it is observed that during
the testimony of PW33 T.S. Sharma in the main Uphaar case when the torn
document was discovered, the photocopy of the said document D24 was
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 244 of 274
produced and same was referred as Mark Z. The said document was proved
through testimony of PW49 R.C. Sharma which was exhibited as PW10/C.
The said document was intact while testimony of PW78 R.S. Jakhar was
recorded and thereafter, it was torn as such the contention is dismissed.
68 (D). CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED GOPAL ANSAL
On behalf of accused Gopal Ansal, it is contended that entire case of
prosecution is based on motive alone without any evidence as to the mens
rea or actus reas which are important to prove an offence. Accused gave a
no objection in the main Uphaar case for leading secondary evidence as
such derived no benefit whatsoever by the alleged missing/ obliterating/
tampering/ defacing of documents. The prosecution case is based upon
suspicion only and no circumstance exist against the accused which could
lead to any inference of his complicity. The prosecution case suffers from
misjoinder of charges and wrong and inaccurate framing of charge. The
prosecution has failed to establish the exclusive custody of judicial file with
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma as such no offence under section 409 of
IPC is made out qua him. The complainant had illegal access to judicial
record of main Uphaar case which creates doubt on the prosecution case.
The reports of enquiry conducted against Dinesh Chandra Sharma cannot
be treated as evidence against him. Mere negligence does not amount to
criminal breach of trust as such invocation of section 409 IPC is unjustified.
The ingredients of section 109 IPC are missing. The testimony of PW2
cannot be relied upon as said witness could not be cross examined due to
his demise. The non-production of CAF would make call detail record
inadmissible in evidence. The possibility of misuse of alleged mobile phone
number/ handsets of the accused persons cannot be ruled out. Prosecution
has failed to prove that P.P. Batra and Dinesh Chandra Sharma were in
touch with each other. The investigating agency conducted the investigation
in a pre-determined manner on several crucial aspects. The prosecution has
failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Dinesh Chandra
Sharma was provided with a job at A-Plus Securities and Training Institute
Pvt. Ltd at the behest of Gopal Ansal. The IO was not empowered to take
specimen signatures of Anoop Singh prior to coming into force of section
311 Cr.P.C rendering GEQD report inadmissible. Accused Gopal Ansal
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 245 of 274
was not controlling the affairs of Star Estates Management Ltd as such no
liability can be fastened on him. Accused gave plausible explanation to the
incriminating evidence put to him under section 313 Cr.P.C.
The judgments relied upon by accused Gopal Ansal have
been filed and same are taken on record, however, considering the
judgment titled as Government of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC
482(Supra), the precedents filed on behalf of accused are grasped for the
purpose of legal proposition involved in it and same would be considered
for rendering judgment in the facts of the present case.
The contentions raised on behalf of accused are discussed one by one :-
68 (D) (i). So far as the contention of the accused that essential ingredient
of a crime i.e. mens rea and actus reus are missing is concerned. The said
argument is untenable as mens rea as well as actus reus in the form of overt
act / series of acts are present in the present gamut of facts. Not only
conspiracy was entertained by the accused persons but same was executed
in a meticulous planning and it was subsisting through out till he got a job
or till the trial continued.
68 (D) (ii). So far as the contention of the accused that he gave no
objection for leading secondary evidence in the main Uphaar case is
concerned the said contention is farcical as his brother and co-accused
challenged the said application which must be a part of the conspiracy to
procrastinate the trial as apparently the missed documents were also
indicating his involvement in the main Uphaar case. Further, accused is
trying to take benefit of his own wrong by projecting himself to be in
favour of the trial through leading secondary evidence, however, he was the
one of the co-conspirator.
68 (D) (iii). So far as the contention of the accused that the prosecution
case is based on suspicion only the said contention is devoid of any merit as
clear circumstance have been proved by prosecution which can be inferred
from the evidence produced on record which point out towards the
complicity of the accused unerringly.
68 (D) (iv). So far as the contention of the accused that prosecution case
suffers from misjoinder of charges and in accurate framing of charges. The
said contention is contemptible as the order on charge has been upheld by
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 246 of 274
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 12.05.2017.
68 (D) (v). So far as the contention of the accused that prosecution has
failed to establish that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was having
exclusive custody of the file as such invocation of section 409 IPC is
improper, the said argument is devoid of substance as Dinesh Chandra
Sharma was in exclusive custody of the files and same has been established
upon the strength of the evidence and the Delhi High Court Rules.
68 (D) (vi). So far as the contention of the accused that complainant had
illegal access to the files is concerned the said argument is vague and
without any substance/evidence.
68 (D) (vii). So far as the contention of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma
should not be condemned on the basis of his departmental enquiry, to this
argument, it is observed that the present case is based on a conspiratorial
charge which is an offence under section IPC and for which independent
evidence has to be considered and the mere fact the accused was indicted in
the departmental enquiry is of no consequence in this case.
68 (D) (viii). So far as the contention of the accused that ingredient of
section 109 IPC are missing. The said contention is devoid of merit as
abetment can be done by conspiracy also.
68 (D) (ix). So far as the contention of the accused that testimony of PW2
cannot be considered while evaluation of evidence. The said contention is
without any reasonable basis as PW2 prepared Ex.PW2/A which remains an
undisputed document and to the extent the said testimony can be relied
upon.
68 (D) (x). So far as the contention of the accused that CAF of the mobile
number of accused was not produced, to this is observed that CAF was not
an requirement at the relevant time as instructions were issued regarding it
on 22.11.2006 which is duly substantiated from judgment titled as
“Cellular Operators Association of India v. Union of India & Anr”. 2012
SCC Online TDSAT 724 evidently these mobiles were in use much before
this date as such the plea of non production of CDR by prosecution stands
discounted. Further, CAF was made mandatory pursuant to judgment and
order dated 27.04.2012 rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
WP(C ) No. 285/10 following which Government of India through
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 247 of 274
notification File No. 800-09/20010-VAS dated 09th August, 2012 made it
necessary.
68 (D) (xi). So far as the contention of the accused that prosecution has
failed to establish that accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was provided job
with A-Plus Securities, the said contention can be discountenanced on the
ground that the agreement between Star Estates Management Ltd and APlus
Securities has been duly proved and accused was found working there
which is proved through GEQD reports.
68 (D) (xii). So far as the contention of the accused that Gopal Ansal was
not controlling the affairs of Star Estates Management Ltd is concerned, it
is not required that he must be controlling the affairs of the said company as
in conspiracy it is not required that some position is held by him as long as
he is a member of the conspiracy.
68 (D) (xiii). So far as the contention of the accused that accused gave
plausible explanation in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, to this it is
observed that the answers provided by the accused are evasive and
misleading.
68 (D) (xiv). So far as the contention of the accused that IO was not
empowered to collect signatures of the accused Anoop Singh as per section
311 Cr.P.C. the said contention has been already dealt in detail.
68 (E). CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED ANOOP SINGH
KARAYAT
On behalf of accused Anoop Singh, it is submitted that he is innocent and
he was not part of the conspiracy as conspiracy came to an end upon
destruction of documents and Dinesh Chandra Sharma was employed much
after the said conspiracy. Further, the allegation of disappearance of
evidence is baseless and also not supported by any forensic evidence.
Further, the employment of Dinesh Chandra Sharma has not been proved
with A-Plus Securities. Several judgments have been filed and same are
taken on record, however, considering the judgment titled as Government
of Karnataka v. Gowramma (2007) 13 SCC 482(Supra), the precedents
filed on behalf of accused are grasped for the purpose of legal proposition
involved in it and same would be considered for rendering judgment in the
facts of the present case.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 248 of 274
So far as the plea of accused that he is not involved in the
alleged conspiracy as his role is merely shown to the extent of providing
job to Dinesh Chandra Sharma at the instance of D.V. Malhotra the said
plea is fallacious as accused being Director of A-Plus Securities provided
him a job and when realized that police has come he tried to efface the
evidence by putting white fluid on the relevant entries and also on the
revenue stamp and the said fact has been duly corroborated from the report
of GEQD. Accused Anoop Singh was part of the conspiracy and when he
came to know that investigation of the matter is taken up, he tried to efface
evidence by putting whitener upon the name of the accused and also torn
the revenue stamps where Dinesh Chand Sharma appended his signature
and that is why the signature of DC Sharma could not be sent for forensic
examination. The agreement between Star Estates Management Ltd and APlus
Securities has been duly proved by way of evidence. It has also come
to the fore that Dinesh Chandra Sharma after dismissal contacted P.P. Batra
and P.P. Batra through D.V. Malhotra got him appointed with A-Plus
Securities at a salary double the usual remuneration. Dinesh Chandra
Sharma had no experience of field officer and despite this fact he was
provided double the salary. The fact of applying white fluid upon his name
on the seized registers and writing a fictitious name Ram Karan has been
proved through GEQD report. In defence, accused could not produce the
said Ram Karan to prove the said interpolation. Revenue stamps were torn
which prevented detection of specimen signatures of Dinesh Chandra
Sharma from analysis and same was the handy work of Anoop Singh while
he came to know that police investigation is going on and he may be
caught. But the evidence produced by prosecution belied his sham defence.
He joined the conspiracy may be at a later stage but his responsibility
remains the same as of the other conspirators as timing to join conspiracy is
hardly a reason to discount his involvement how so ever small it may be.
69. EVALUATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH SIDES IN
THE LIGHT OF LEGAL PROVISIONS AND PRECEDENTS
To understand the facts in a proper perspective, it is important to have a
look into the functioning of our judicial system. Our judicial system
comprises of four important stake holders i.e. Courts presided over by
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 249 of 274
Judges, the lawyers, the litigants and the Court staff consisting of the
Reader, Stenographer, Ahlmad (Record Keeper) & the Peon. The Court is
the quintessential part of this system where all the stake holders work with
their defined rights and duties. To have professionalism amongst the stake
holders they have to essentially observe the rules as provided by Delhi High
Court Rules for conducting day to day business. As per the rules, the Court
staff is not supposed to interact through mobiles and telephones with the
lawyers, litigants, pairokars and pairvi officers. The rules provide ample
rights to the litigants to seek redressal of their grievances through
inspection applications, CA applications, next date of hearing etc. The rules
prohibit personal interaction of the Court staff with the litigants or pairvi
officers through telephone, mobile during and after Court hours. If a litigant
or a pairvi officer has to seek some information he can either himself or
through his counsel file an appropriate application for the same and same is
invariably allowed subject to just exceptions.
It is important to understand the relationship of the accused
persons amongst each other in this case before adverting to the factual
matrix of the case. Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal & H.S. Panwar were
amongst the 16 accused persons of the main Uphaar case investigated by
CBI. P.P. Batra is admittedly a pairvi officer of Sushil Ansal and Gopal
Ansal as he was working as a stenographer in the legal department of their
company which is M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. Accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma is a government official working as a Ahlmad in the court
of Ld. ASJ where the trial of the main Uphaar case was pending. D.V.
Malhotra was General Manager of Star Estates Management Ltd which is
defacto owned by Ansal Brothers as they were the owner of majority stake
holder of the shares of said company. Anoop Singh Kariyat was the
Chairman of A-Plus Securities and Training Institute.
Since the Charge has been framed under Section 120-B of
Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, I would like to advert to the
law of conspiracy, its definition, essential features, ingredients to the
offence and case law.
Section 120-A IPC defines 􏰂Criminal􏰂 Conspiracy which
reads as under: – 120-A. Definition of Criminal Conspiracy- When two or
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 250 of 274
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an
agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object
of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.􏰂
It is clear from the above noted definition of “criminal
conspiracy” that the three essential elements of offence of conspiracy are: –
(a) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the
agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that
aim is to be accomplished;
(b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object;
(c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused
persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or
by any effectual means. Thus, the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy is
an agreement to break the law.
Under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code when two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an
act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a
criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of
combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in
part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is
committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to
be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the
conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or
by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an
agreement to break the law. Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such
direct evidence is seldom available. So, in case of criminal conspiracy, the
court has to infer certain facts and circumstances. In considering the
conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 251 of 274
date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the
formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before
themselves as the object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the
object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of
inference. Agreement of conspiracy can be proved either by direct evidence
or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there
should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of
the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
Proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not easy
to get and probably for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act
was enacted. It reads as under:-
“10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to
common design :-
Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or
more persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or
written by any one of such persons in reference to their
common intention, after the time when such intention was
first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as
against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as
well for the purpose of proving the existence of the
conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such
person was a party to it.”
It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court in
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hassan Maniyar Vs.
State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062, that for an
offence u/s. 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the perpetrator expressly agreed to
do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may
be proved by necessary implications. Further, it has been
held by the Honble Supreme court in Ram Narayan Poply
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748
that, 􏰂the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a
case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act
which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no
overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution
because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is
established by proving such an agreement. Where the
conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a
serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section
120-B read with the proviso to sub section (2) of Section
120-A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement
between the accused for commission of such a crime alone
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 252 of 274
is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120-B
and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any
one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in
such a situation, do not require that each and every
person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some
overt act towards the fulfillment of the object of
conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement
between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these
requirements and ingredients are established, the act
would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained
in Section 120-B. Privacy and secrecy are more
characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion
in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence
in proof of conspiracy is seldom available; offence of
conspiracy can be proved by either direct or substantial
evidence. It is not always possible to give affirmative
evidence about date of formation of criminal conspiracy,
about the persons who took part in formation of
conspiracy, about the object, which the objectors set
before themselves as the object of conspiracy and about
the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be
carried out; all this is necessarily a matter of inference.􏰂
It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Firozuddin Basheeruddin versus State of Kerala, 2001
(4) Recent Criminal Report 20, that the criminal
conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence and
even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the
conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will
not affect the culpability of those others when they are
associated with the object of the conspiracy. It is also held
that conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is
rarely possible to establish conspiracy by direct evidence
and usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its
object has to be inferred from the circumstances and
conduct of the accused. When two or more persons agree
to commit crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making
or considering any plans for its commission, and despite
the fact that no step is taken by such persons to carry out
their common purposes, a crime is committed by each and
every one who joins in the agreement. A criminal
conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that there is in
each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the
prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more
persons enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of
them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of
law, the act of each of them and they are jointly
responsible thereof. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in State of H.P. Vs. Krishan Lal Pradhan, AIR
1987 SC 773 that every one of the conspirators need not
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 253 of 274
take active part in the commission of each and every one
of the conspiratorial acts.
This section came for interpretation before Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shiva Narayana v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 449 wherein it
was held that under the principle contained in Section 10
of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an
illegal act is proved, act of one of the conspirator becomes
the act of the other.
The consolidated case law as on date has been succinctly
summarized by the Division Bench of our Honble High
Court of Delhi in a celebrated judgment by his lordship
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, while writing for
the Bench in Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Versus State, 2009
(163) DLT 658, as under: –
􏰂…….134. After survey of the case law on the point,
following legal principles pertaining to the law of
conspiracy can be conveniently culled out:-
A. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of
conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any
plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step
is taken by any such person to carry out their common
purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who
joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two
conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove
the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended
crime was committed or not. If committed it may further
help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. (See
the decision of Supreme Court reported as State v. Nalini,
(1999) 5 SCC 253).
B. The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient
of the offence. It is not necessary that all the conspirators
must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long
as they are co- participators in the main object of the
conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators should
agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may
join with other conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and all are
equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play
may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a
conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left. There
may be so many devices and techniques adopted to
achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may
be division of performances in the chain of actions with
one object to achieve the real end of which every
collaborator must be aware and in which each one of
them must be interested. There must be unity of object or
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 254 of 274
purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes
even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators.
In achieving the goal several offences may be committed
by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others.
The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and
illegal acts done must be and purported to be in
furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though
there may be sometimes misfire or overshooting by some
of the conspirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by
one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of
the others it will not affect the culpability of those others
when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy.
But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons
may be members of single conspiracy even though each is
ignorant of the identity of many others who may have
diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of
conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play
the same or an active role. (See the decisions of Supreme
Court reported as Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, AIR
1977 Supreme Court 2433 and State v. Nalini, (Supra)]
C. It is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime
of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete
even though there is no agreement as to the means by
which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful
agreement, which is the graham of the crime of
conspiracy.
D. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a
conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be
inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially
declarations, acts, and conduct of the conspirators. The
agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it
at the same time, but may be reached by successive
actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. Since a
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, it would quite
often happen that there is no evidence of any express
agreement between the conspirators to do or cause to be
done the illegal act. For an offence under Section 120-B,
the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the
perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done
the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication. The offence can be only proved largely from
the inference drawn from acts or illegal omission
committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common
design. The prosecution will also more often rely upon
circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove actual
meeting of conspirators. Nor it is necessary to prove the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 255 of 274
actual words of communication. The evidence as to
transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design is
sufficient. Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and
subsequent conduct of accused persons constitute relevant
material to prove charge of conspiracy. (See the decisions
of Supreme Court reported as Shivnarayan
Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980
Supreme Court 439; Mohammad Usman Mohammad
Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981
Supreme Court 1062; and Kehar Singh v. State AIR
1988 Supreme Court 1883)
E. A conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to
subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators
does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance
continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or
rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is
complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a
thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the
agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or
more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design.
Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it
was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that
jurisdiction can properly claim the power to do so. The
conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same
effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the
agreement are agreed to be finalized or done, attempted
or even frustrated and vice versa.
F. Section 10 of the Evidence Act introduces the doctrine
of agency and if the conditions laid down therein are
satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the
coconspirators. In short, the section can be analysed as
follows:-
(1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a
reasonable ground for a Court to believe that two or more
persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said
condition is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any
one of them in reference to their common intention will be
evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or
written by him should have been said, done or written by
him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4)
it would also be relevant for the said purpose against
another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said,
done or written before he Crl.A.19, 51, 121, 139, 144 &
65/2007 Page 81 of 183 entered the conspiracy or after he
left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 256 of 274
and not in his favour. (See the decision of Supreme Court
reported as Sardar Sardul Singh v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1957 Supreme Court 747.)􏰂
Here it is pertinent to refer to a classic judgment of three
Hon’ble Judge Bench of s the Honble Supreme Court in
Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC
682 (known as 2nd
Caveeshar case) in which his lordship
Honble Mr. Justice Subba Rao, had already spoken for the
bench analysed the ingredients of Section 10 as culled out
above in the judgment of our Honble High Court in
Rakesh Kumar (supra), which amounts to repetition, if
quoted again.
It would be profitable to draw reliance from yet another
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of the same
strength (Three Hon’ble Judges) in Nalini case (supra)
relied upon by the defence, which reads 􏰂It is not that
immediately the object of conspiracy is achieved, Section
10 becomes inapplicable. For example principle like that
of res gestae as contained in Section 6 of the Evidence Act
will continue to apply.􏰂 (Para 582). Therefore, the res
gestae i.e. the acts, circumstances and the statements that
are incidental to the principal fact of a litigated matter
and are admissible in evidence in view of their relevant
association with that fact, cannot be ignored since the
same become relevant in view of Section 6 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
70. ABETMENT AND CONSPIRACY
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY – INGREDIENTS AND
CHARACTERISTICS
a. TWO OR MORE PERSONS
The offence of Criminal Conspiracy cannot be committed
by one person because it is impossible to conspire with
oneself. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Topan Das v.
State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33, held that “it is an
established rule of the law that only one person cannot
conspire and that there should be at least two persons for
the same, and can never be held guilty of criminal
conspiracy since one cannot conspire with oneself.”
b. MERE AGREEMENT TO COMMIT A CONSPIRACY IS A
PUNISHABLE OFFENCE
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 257 of 274
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nazir Khan & Ors. vs.
State of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2003) held
that:
“As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of
criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an
offence. In a case where the agreement is for
accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an
offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be
proved by the prosecution because in such a situation,
criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an
agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard
to commission of a serious crime of the nature as
contemplated in Section 120B read with the proviso to
Sub-section (2) of Section 120A, then in that event mere
proof of an agreement between the accused for
commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring
about a conviction under Section 120B and the proof of
any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would
not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do
not require that each and every person who is a party to
the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the
fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential
ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators
to commit the crime and if these requirement sand
ingredients are established, the act would fall within the
trapping of the provisions contained in Section 120B”
In State of Andhra Pradesh vs Subbaiah 1961 (2) SCJ
69, the Apex Court held that “Conspiracy to commit an
offence is itself an offence and a person can be separately
charged with respect to such a conspiracy”
c. MEETING OF MINDS
Essential to constitute Criminal Conspiracy is meeting of
minds of the perpetrators, both or all the perpetrators
must be in consonance with each other to commit an
illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. Unless all the
perpetrators have a common intention and understanding,
offence of Criminal Conspiracy cannot be constituted. The
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LK Advani vs CBI (1997)
Cri.L.J. 2559, held that mere presence of a few assumed
entries and loose sheets cannot entertain the offence of
conspiracy, the court acquitted the accused for the offence
of criminal conspiracy and further explained that to
establish conspiracy there shall be evidence of acting on
a common intention to carry out an illegal act.
ABETMENT – INGREDIENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS
d. ABETMENT BY INSTIGATION
Instigation need not be in any specified manner, in law the
Courts consider any form of instigation as long as the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 258 of 274
offence has been committed and if the offender has same
knowledge and intention as the person abetting. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. State of
Himachal Pradesh AIR 2009 SC 1568 held that:
“Law does not require instigation to be in a particular
form or that it should only be in words. The instigation
may be by conduct. Whether there was instigation or not
is a question to be decided on the facts of each case. It is
not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that
the actual operative cause in the mind of the person
abetting was instigation and nothing else, so long as
there was instigation and the offence has been
committed or the offence would have been committed if
the person committing the act had the same knowledge
and intention as the abettor. The instigation must be
with reference to the thing that was done and not to the
thing that was likely to have been done by the person
who is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled
that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation.”
e. ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY
Unlike the offence of Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120A of
IPC, to constitute the offence of Abetment by Conspiracy,
it is necessary that an act or illegal omission is committed
by the Abettor in pursuance of the conspiracy.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY (S. 107
IPC) AND CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY (S. 120A IPC)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan
Sarkar AIR 1962 SC 876 held that:
“…The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is in the
agreement to do an illegal act or an act which is not
illegal by illegal means. When the agreement is to commit
an offence, the agreement itself becomes the offence of
criminal conspiracy. Where, however, the agreement is to
do an illegal act which is not an offence or an act which
is not illegal by illegal means, some act besides the
agreement is necessary. Therefore, the distinction
between the offence of abetment by conspiracy and the
offence of criminal conspiracy, so far as the agreement to
commit an offence is concerned, lies in this. For abetment
by conspiracy mere agreement is not enough. An act or
illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the
conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing
conspired for. But in the offence of criminal conspiracy
the very agreement or plot is an act in itself and is the gist
of the offence.”
“Put very briefly, the distinction between the offence of
abetment under the second Clause of Section 107 and
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 259 of 274
that of criminal conspiracy Under Section 120-A is this.
In the former offence a mere combination of persons or
agreement between them is not enough. An act or illegal
omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy
and in order to the doing of the thing conspired for; in the
latter offence the mere agreement is enough, if the
agreement is to commit an offence.”
In Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra (1970)
1 SCC 696, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
“So far as Section 34 Indian Penal Code is concerned, it
embodies the principle of joint liability in the doing of a
criminal act, the essence of that liability being the
existence of a common intention. Participation in the
commission of the offence in furtherance of the common
intention invites its application. Section 109 Indian Penal
Code on the other hand may be attracted even if the
abettor is not present when the offence abetted is
committed, provided that he has instigated the
commission of the offence or has engaged with one or
more other persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence
and pursuant to that conspiracy some act or illegal
omission takes place or has intentionally aided the
commission of an offence by an act or illegal omission.
Turning to the charge Under Section 120-B Indian Penal
Code criminal conspiracy was made a substantive offence
in 1913 by the introduction of Chapter V-A in the Penal
Code, 1860. Criminal conspiracy postulates an
agreement between two or more persons to do, or cause
to be done, an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by
illegal means. It differs from other offences in that mere
agreement is made an offence even if no step is taken to
carry out that agreement. Though there is close
association of conspiracy with incitement and abetment
the substantive offence of criminal conspiracy is
somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by
conspiracy as contemplated by Section 107 Indian Penal
Code……”
ABETMENT BY AIDING
To constitute the offence of Abetment, it is not necessary
that a person has to act in pursuance to abetting, an
omission of an act could also constitute abetment as held
in the case of Tuck v. Robson, [1970] 1 WLR 741. In the
foregoing case, a publican (the person who manages a pub
or a bar), by not making any effort to make his customers
leave the premises after the pub was closed, was said to
have aided the crime of abetment of consumption of liquor
after the hours in which it was permitted.
SECTION 109 OF IPC WHEN APPLICABLE?
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 260 of 274
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somasundaram vs State (2020) 7 SCC 722
held that:
“Explanation II to Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code
makes it clear that the offence of abetment would be
committed irrespective of whether the act abetted is
committed or not or whether the effect which would
constitute the offence is caused or not. Illustrations(a)
and (b) are clear that the person who abets, as declared
in law, cannot extricate himself from criminal liability for
the offence of abetment on the ground that the act which
was abetted was not done or that the offence which was
actually abetted was not committed. Section 109 of the
Indian Penal Code contemplates, on the other hand, the
situation that there is abetment and the act abetted is
committed, and what is furthermore, it is committed as a
result of the abetment. Should these ingredients be
present and if there is no express provision under the
Indian Penal Code for the punishment of the act of such
abetment, the person renders himself liable for being
punished with the punishment for that offence which
stands committed in consequence of the abetment by the
Accused.”
“In order to attract Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code,
the act abetted must be committed in consequence of the
abetment. Sections 115 and 116 of the Indian Penal Code
deal with punishments for abetment of offences when the
offence is not committed in consequence of the abetment
and where no express provision is made in the Indian
Penal Code for the punishment of such abetment.”
IN A CASE WHERE THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO ACCUSED
PERSONS, CAN THE OTHER CO-ACCUSED BE CONVICTED
UNDER SECTION 109, WHEREIN, CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
(SECTION 120A) BETWEEN AT LEAST TWO ACCUSED IS
PROVED AND THE ABETMENT BY OTHER ACCUSED PERSONS
IS ALSO PROVED?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somasundaram vs State (Supra) convicted
the other accused persons therein under section 109 of the IPC, when the
criminal conspiracy against the main accused was proved. The relevant
extract from the judgment is as follows:
“As far as A3, A5, A6 and A8 are concerned, they stand
convicted Under Section 365 read with Section 109.
Abetting is to be understood in the context of their acting
on the conspiracy which stood proved against A1 and A2.
No doubt, abetting also takes place when there is
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 261 of 274
instigation or intentional aiding. The role of A3 looms
large. It is clear that he organised the whole thing and it
commenced with the search for an appropriate house
where the victim could be confined after the abduction.
His role along with his men in carrying out the crime
culminating in the cremation under fictitious name of the
abducted person is clear.”
NECESSARY THAT ALL THE CONSPIRATORS MUST BE IN
LEAGUE/CONCERT WITH EACH OTHER TO INVOKE SECTION
107 AND 109 OF IPC?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Somasundaram vs State (Supra) held that:
“Also, as we have noticed, under Explanation V to
Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code for the offence of
abetment by conspiracy to be committed, the principal
player, meaning a person who commits the act which
results in the offence being committed (as in the case of
murder by poisoning) need not be in league with the
abettor. All that is required is that the abettor also
engages in the conspiracy which must be understood as
meaning participate in the concert between two or more
others even if he may not have seen or known, by face or
otherwise, one or more persons who are privy to the
conspiracy. Thus, based on their involvement constituting
abetment, a person or any number of persons without
even knowing the identity of all the principal participants
to the conspiracy, can be prosecuted with the aid of
Section 107 read with Section 108 of the Indian Penal
Code.”
From the given facts, it is apparent that accused Dinesh
Chandra Sharma was having the lawful custody of the file of main Uphaar
case and during his custody the fact of missing/ obliterating/ tampering/
defacing came to the notice of Ld. SPP. Although the said documents were
proved in the main Uphaar case through resorting to secondary evidence
but the fact remains that the trial process was fiddled with an objective to
obfuscate it to secure acquittal. It is pertinent to note that torn/ obliterated/
tampered/ defaced documents were important to fasten the criminal liability
on Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar in the main Uphaar case.
These documents had the material to establish the fact of management of
day to day affairs by holding key meetings and issuing cheques of the
Uphaar cinema by Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal. These documents would
have exposed the lies of the accused regarding their defence that they
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 262 of 274
relinquished from the management in the year 1988. Also, some documents
could have shown negligence/ recklessness/ fabrication by accused H.S.
Panwar during the course of his duties as he was responsible for the
inspection of the Uphaar cinema regarding fire safety measures. Further,
these documents had the material to unearth the nexus between Sushil
Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar. Except these persons, no other person
could have been directly affected by these documents. The precision with
which the selective documents which were in the nature of incriminating
evidence qua Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar were torn or
effaced from the record rules out the possibility of any other person as same
can only be the handy work of the person who had the custody of the file as
same was done with meticulously planning and after due deliberations. The
plea of joint entrustment is apparently erroneous as entrustment was
exclusive with the Ahlmad and same was never denied by Dinesh Chandra
Sharma. It is noteworthy that the documents were found missing in the year
2003 while the case was not being tried on day to day as day to day trial
was ordered from July, 2007. The missing of documents from the custody
of Dinesh Chandra Sharma is part of single conspiracy which ensued upon
taking his charge as Ahlmad of the Court. If the alleged missing/
obliterating/ tampering/ defacing of documents is handy work of some
other person as projected by the accused then how Dinesh Chandra Sharma
managed to relocate some documents later on, which fact remains
unexplained throughout. Further, why no document pertaining to other
accused persons who were facing trial in main Uphaar case was found
missing.
It is noteworthy that P.P. Batra who happened to be the
stenographer of the M/s Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd and admittedly
doing pairvi for the Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal used to meet Dinesh
Chandra Sharma on regular basis and used to talk him on mobile phone.
The traffic of the calls from the mobile numbers of both persons indicate
that their talk was not formal regarding the pairvi of the case only. The
exchange of calls at the relevant time gives the inference that they were in
constant touch for some serious discussion and not for routine information
regarding the case. Apparently, a conspiracy was hatched to destroy the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 263 of 274
evidence that too the crucial documents by selectively tearing/ tampering
and defacing from the record at the time when they were about to be
produced in evidence. It is evident that the said overt act was done after
Dinesh Chandra Sharma assumed the charge of Ahlmad and the file and the
documents came in his custody. It is noteworthy that PW8 Mr. Sunil Kumar
Nautiyal in his testimony specifically deposed that after the incident of
destruction of evidence came to the spot light the then Ld. ASJ called him
and Sh.Gajraj Singh, the previous Ahlmad for clarifications and during their
visit to Court, Dinesh Chandra Sharma used to avoid eye contact and left
the Court till such time they were there leaving the conduct of the accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma very suspect and conspicuous. The conspiracy is
hedged in secrecy and executed in darkness as such looking for any direct
evidence would be a futile exercise. The very fact that Sushil Ansal
opposed the plea of Ld. SPP for leading secondary evidence qua destructed
documents as per Ex. PW 2/A further make his conduct suspicious and is a
relevant circumstance in the chain of circumstances. If at all he had no role
to play in the alleged destruction of documents from the judicial file then he
should not have opposed the reception of secondary evidence to show his
bonafides. P.P. Batra acted as a connected link and continued to be in touch
with Dinesh Chandra Sharma through telephone, mobile and landline for
protecting his masters Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal. Since to protect his
masters, documents related to H.S. Panwar were also required to be
destructed as such documents indicting him were also destructed through
Dinesh Chandra Sharma. The quid pro quo to Dinesh Chandra Sharma for
the desired work remained shrouded in secrecy until the police detected him
doing job with A-Plus Securities. Although the police could not find any
tangible property / money, however, the job to the accused after his
dismissal explains everything that same was part of rehabilitation plan
pursuant to conspiracy or in other words, the price for the work which
Dinesh Chandra Sharma has done for accused persons. As such these facts
demonstrate that accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar were
directly benefited by the said act of destruction of the documents. The very
fact of providing job to accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma with A-Plus
Securities through use of influence of D.V. Malhotra of Star Estates
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 264 of 274
Management Ltd through P.P. Batra was done to prevent Dinesh Chandra
Sharma from disclosing anything about the conspiracy to anyone and to
keep the said conspiracy under the wraps. It was done to ensure the secrecy
of the conspiracy as other accused persons apprehended that if Dinesh
Chandra Sharma would work any where else he might spill the beans. Also,
double amount was paid to him as monthly salary for the said purpose.
Merely because the secondary evidence was allowed to be led / adduced by
the Court and trial ended in conviction is no ground to believe that accused
persons have not benefited from the said act of destruction of evidence.
Their criminal plot / conspiracy to destruct the evidence was achieved at a
crucial time knowing well its repercussions on the outcome of the ongoing
trial. Accused persons did their best to sabotage the trial knowing fully well
that in the court of law it is the evidence which is required for the legal
process and if they become successful in effacing the evidence that can help
them in securing their acquittal. As such accused Sushil Ansal, Gopal
Ansal, H.S. Panwar and P.P. Batra were participant in the conspiracy and
also, committed abetment through their involvement in the entire
conspiracy. The involvement has to be inferred from the conduct of the
accused persons. Unfortunately for them and fortunately for the judicial
system, our legal process is so robust and strong which is immune from
such nefarious attacks and which can respond to such situations with
resilience. Although time and the swift trial is the cost which is paid by the
system. To say that P.P. Batra had nothing to achieve / benefit from the said
act of destruction of evidence is without any substance as it is not necessary
that a co-conspirator must get some tangible and palpable benefits.
Certainly he received benefits in a form which did not get noticed by the
police but the said argument in his favour is fallacious. Infact, he is the
connecting bridge through which this entire destruction of evidence took
place. He organized the whole thing right from beginning till end i.e. from
destruction of documents till providing job to Dinesh Chandra Sharma. He
was successful in giving effect to the conspiracy through use of his tactics
including bribe/ rehabilitation in the form of future job for high salary etc.
to allure a government official to commit breach of trust in such a important
case which is being followed by people of the country considering its
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 265 of 274
seriousness and effect. The future employment which was detected after
the arrest of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma provide raison d’etre for his
involvement in this criminal act. Not only he was given job but salary
doubled the existing wages which gives the clear inference that it was not
mere rehabilitation but a reward for the work done by him to the Ansal
Brothers and H.S. Panwar. No defence whatsoever has been put forth by the
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma except making an unholy attempt to shift
the criminal liability on his predecessors and colleagues. But the documents
and the trustworthiness and credence of the testimony of PW4 and PW8
belies his defence. The departmental enquiry against him also indicts him
for “high carelessness and negligence”. However, this case is on
independent footing where evidence has been considered to expose the
hollowness of his defence and to impute culpability. So far as the role of
D.V. Malhotra and Anoop Singh Karayat is concerned they came into
picture after the act of destruction of evidence and dismissal of the accused
as after his dismissal through P.P. Batra on the instruction of D.V. Malhotra
who was General Manager, Star Estates Management Ltd got job with APlus
Securities where Anoop Singh with the Director. It is important to
note that no background check of accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma was
conducted by A-Plus Securities and no explanation was offered as to why
his candidature was accepted for the job for double the salary as per the
existing norms, obviously to give effect to the conspiracy. This indicate that
D.V. Malhotra and Anoop Singh Karayat acted on the later part of the
conspiracy which was to the extent of providing job to Dinesh Chandra
Sharma for the work he has done for the Ansal Brothers. A-Plus Securities
and Training Institute was providing security cover and allied services to
Star Estates Management Ltd Mark Z2 which is a sister concern of M/s
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd sharing the same registered office i.e.
115, Ansal Bhawan, 16, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and M/s Ansal Properties &
Industries Ltd holds 98% share in the Star Estates Management Ltd as per
annual return Ex.PW31/D dated 24.09.2005. By providing job to accused
Dinesh Chandra Sharma, these two persons became part of the conspiracy
as conspiracy was not extinguished upon the destruction of documents but
it continued till the time the destructor received his part of the
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 266 of 274
consideration. Here also, P.P. Batra acted as a connected link as earlier he
got the work done for his masters through Dinesh Chandra Sharma and now
he is getting the work of Dinesh Chandra Sharma done through D.V.
Malhotra and Anoop Singh Karayat. D.V. Malhotra is the General Manager
of Star Estates Management Ltd which is subsidiary of M/s Ansal
Properties & Industries Ltd as such Ansal’s have full control over him and
A-Plus Securities was providing man power to the Star Estates
Management Ltd as such employment there to Dinesh Chandra Sharma
would not have been any problem as evidence indicated that D.V. Malhotra
used to send salary of Dinesh Chandra Sharma to A-Plus Securities which
makes it amply clear that money was flowing from Ansal to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma on monthly basis in the garb of salary. These facts taken in
totality prove the unity of object and purpose of the conspirators by
adopting different roles and plurality of means. The entire gamut of
circumstances show existence of an implied agreement between the
conspirators and their combination persisted until the completion of its
performance which in the present case was providing a job to Dinesh
Chandra Sharma for double of remuneration.
Section 409 IPC :
“409 Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by
banker, merchant or agent.
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property or
with any dominion over property in his capacity of a
public servant or in the way of his business as a banker,
merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits
criminal breach of trust in respect of that property shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life] or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Section 120-A IPC defines 􏰂Criminal􏰂 Conspiracy which
reads as under: – 120-A. Definition of Criminal
Conspiracy- When two or more persons agree to do, or
cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided
that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some
act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 267 of 274
to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation:- It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.􏰂
Section 109 IPC :
“109, Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is
committed in consequence and where no express provision
is made for its punishment- Whoever abets any offence
shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the
abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code
for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence. Explanation -An act
or offence is said to be committed in consequence of
abetment, when it is committed in consequence of
abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the
instigation, or in the pursuance of the conspiracy or with
the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Section 201 IPC
“201, Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or
giving false information to screen offender.
Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an
offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear with the intention
of screening the offender from legal punishment or with
that intention gives any information respecting the offence
which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence
-shall if the offence which he knows or believes to have
been committed is punishable with death, be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life- and if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’
imprisonment -and if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years,
shall be punished with imprisonment of the description
provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to
one fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment
provided for the offence of with fine, or with both.
For proving the guilt under section 409 IPC, prosecution has
to establish that accused was entrusted with property or with any dominion
or power over it and with respect to property so entrusted there was
commission of criminal breach of trust which would consist of any positive
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 268 of 274
act like misappropriation, conversion, use or even the disposal of the
property in violation of mandate of law prescribing the mode in which the
entrustment is to be discharged.
In Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay
it was held as follows : (AIR p. 891, para 4)
“[T]o establish a charge of criminal breach of trust, the
prosecution is not obliged to prove the precise mode of
conversion, misappropriation or misapplication by the
accused of the property entrusted to him or over which he
has dominion. The principal ingredient of the offence
being dishonest misappropriation or conversion which
may not ordinarily be a matter of direct proof, entrustment
of property and failure in breach of an obligation to
account for the property entrusted, if proved, may in the
light of other circumstances, justifiably lead to an
inference of dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
Conviction of a person for the offence of criminal breach
of trust may not, in all cases, be founded merely on his
failure to account for the property entrusted to him or
over which he has dominion, even when a duty to account
is imposed upon him, but where he is unable to account or
renders an explanation for his failure to account which is
untrue, an inference of misappropriation with dishonest
intent may readily be made. “
However, for proving section 109 IPC, following has to be proved :-
(a) abetment of an offence, either by instigation, conspiracy or aiding;
(b) the commission of the act abetted, in consequence of abetment;
(c) there must not be any express provision in the IPC for the punishment of
such abetment;
A cumulative reading of the evidence on record indicate
circumstances which are inferential to suggest a conspiracy prior in time of
the actual commission of offence. The conspiracy was succeeded by actual
commission of offence in the form of destruction of documents. The
conspiracy was a continuing one and it did not extinguished immediately
upon destruction of documents but subsisted till the employment of the
accused Dinesh Chandra Sharma with A-Plus Securities. During the
subsistence of conspiracy, each conspirator committed act or series of acts
to give effect to the desired objective. The evidence on record is largely
inferential in the form of circumstances as it is impossible to obtain direct
evidence to establish criminal conspiracy. The circumstances can be
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 269 of 274
inferred from the role, act and conduct of the accused persons involved in
the alleged conspiracy. The quintessence of the criminal conspiracy is the
agreement which has to be proved through inferences drawn from the
circumstantial evidence in the light of testimony of the witnesses and the
evidence on record.
It is important to note that the documents which are
tampered with by the accused persons formed the basis of their conviction
in the main Uphaar case as such they were most critical documents for the
trial of main Uphaar case to establish the role, position of the accused
persons namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar. The accused
persons were conveniently taking advantage of the missing documents
during the trial of main Uphaar case as they challenged the motion of
secondary evidence by the prosecution and in their statement under section
313 Cr.P.C refused to admit those documents on the premise that they were
marked documents. So much so when the said documents were exhibited
by the Court following the due procedure they challenged the said order.
These facts taken in totality show that how important was these documents
which were effaced from the record to secure their acquittal and put a
stumbling block in the trial by preventing the Court in rendering judgment.
This is a very important circumstance against accused persons namely
Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal.
The trigger to this conspiracy was the order passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 04.04.2002 wherein directions were passed
to take up the matter of main Uphaar case ten times in a month and
conclude the trial by 15.12.2002. the tampering was detected in July which
makes it plain that when the accused persons got convinced that trial would
proceed in a speedy way they hatched a conspiracy to remove the most
crucial documents to escape punishment.
The following circumstances are proved :-
(i) Motive;
(ii) Entrustment;
(iii) Nexus;
(iv) Tampering;
(v) Employment of Dinesh Chandra Sharma after dismissal from the job
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 270 of 274
with A-Plus Securities;
It is noteworthy that conspiracy of the accused persons was
subsisting till the matter attained finality by the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India as accused persons were hoping to assail the trial
Court verdict on technical reasons whereby secondary evidence was
allowed to be led for recording conviction. To say that, conspiracy ended
immediately after destruction of documents from the judicial file is
fallacious and during the subsistence of conspiracy Dinesh Chandra Sharma
was given employment with A-Plus Securities by Ansal Brothers at the
instance of P.P. Batra through D.V. Malhotra to keep conspiracy a secret.
All accused persons agreed to break the law by destruction
of evidence through Dinesh Chandra Sharma so as to prevent legal
consequences coming in the way of Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S.
Panwar in the main Uphaar case on the basis of said evidence. Sushil
Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar through P.P. Batra abetted Dinesh
Chandra Sharma to commit destruction of evidence and thereby committed
offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120B. Although D.V. Malhotra
and Anoop Singh joined the conspiracy at the later part while the
conspiracy was still subsisting for providing job to Dinesh Chandra Sharma
after his dismissal, they also became member of this conspiracy having
equal responsibilities. Therefore, they committed criminal conspiracy with
other accused persons under section 120B on the principle agency as a rule
of liability and joined responsibility.
The evidence so adduced by the prosecution proves the fact that documents
which were found Torn/Obliterated/Defaced/ Mutilated :-
(A) Sushil Ansal was the Chairman of M/s Ansal Properties & Industries
Ltd. And controlled the day to day functioning of Uphaar Cinema, Green
Park, New Delhi through cheque no. 955725 dated 26.06.1995 of Rs. 50
Lakhs signed by him in the capacity of one of the authorized signatory of
Green Park Theaters & Association Pvt. Ltd and Ansal Theaters &
Clubhotels Pvt. Ltd;
(B) Gopal Ansal was the authorized signatory of Greeen Park Theaters and
Association Pvt. Ltd actively involved in day to day functioning of Uphaar
Cinema through documents i.e.
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 271 of 274
Cheque no. 805578 dated 30.11.2006 of Rs. 1,50,000/-;
Cheque no. 805590 dated 20.02.1997 of Rs. 2,96,550/-;
Cheque no.183618 dated 23.05.1996 of Rs. 9,711/- as an authorized
signatory of Green Park Theaters & Association Pvt. Ltd and Ansal
Theaters & Club Hotels Pvt. Ltd ;
( C) Gopal Ansal attended several meetings under the capacity of Managing
Director of Uphaar Cinema;
(D) Correspondence page no. 123 (half torn) of letter dated 28.11.1996
D84;
(E) The relevant page no. 379 of register i.e. occurrence book D-89;
(F) The page no. 95 to 104 (missing) and page no. 109 to 116 (ink
sprinkled) of occurrence book register D-91;
(G) Casual Leave Register for missing page no. 50 D-92;
(H) Seizure Memo dated 18.07.1997 (half torn) D-20.
The prosecution case conclusively proved the destruction of
aforesaid documents by accused persons by way of conspiracy. Accused
persons committed offence under section 409 IPC read with section 120B
IPC as they under a conspiracy got destructed the documents through Court
Ahlmad Dinesh Chandra Sharma. Accused persons committed offence
under section 201 IPC read with section 120B IPC as they under a
conspiracy committed disappearance of evidence. So far as the import of
section 109 IPC is concerned, since the conspiracy is proved which is
having close association with the abetment, the said offence stood covered
in the offence of conspiracy.
CONCLUSION
A devastating fire took place in Uphaar cinema on June 13,
1997 where several human lives were the victim and the accused persons of
said crime namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal and H.S. Panwar (since
deceased) in conspiracy with other accused persons while facing trial in
said case destructed critical documents which were capable of proving their
complicity in the said crime, making this time the justice dispensation
system as victim. They tampered/obliterated/torn/defaced some hand picked
documents of the said case through a meticulous planning in order to
escape punishment by scuttling trial process and as such fiddled with our
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 272 of 274
judicial system with great impunity. The manner in which process of law
was subjected to desecration by accused persons is no less than defiling the
justice administration system. The high handedness of the accused persons
for securing benefit in the trial sans documents by any means demonstrate
the scant regard which they have for the justice delivery system which is
the bedrock of our democracy. The brazen attitude of the accused persons is
reflective from their conduct as after destruction of evidence they
vehemently opposed the prosecution plea for adducing secondary evidence.
They left no stone unturned to prevent advent of secondary evidence.
Accused Gopal Ansal, Sushil Ansal, H.S. Panwar (since deceased) with P.P.
Batra, Dinesh Chandra Sharma attacked on the very purity and sanctity of
the justice system. Their misconception that they will get away with their
nefarious design from punishment has been exposed to the world at large.
From the foregoing discussion and after detailed anatomy of
evidence presented during trial and for the reasoning cited above, I am of
the considered opinion that guilt of the accused persons namely Sushil
Ansal, Gopal Ansal, P.P. Batra, Anoop Singh and Dinesh Chandra Sharma
has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt for the offence under section
120B IPC and section 409/120B and section 201/120B IPC.
All accused persons namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, P.P.
Batra, Anoop Singh and Dinesh Chandra Sharma are convicted for the
offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC.
All accused persons namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, P.P.
Batra, Anoop Singh and Dinesh Chandra Sharma are further convicted for
the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust by a
government official of the entrusted property for offence under section
409/120B IPC.
All accused persons namely Sushil Ansal, Gopal Ansal, P.P.
Batra, Anoop Singh and Dinesh Chandra Sharma are further convicted for
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 273 of 274
criminal conspiracy for causing disappearance of evidence under section
201/120B IPC.
But for the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi for
expeditious trial, this case would not be concluded today as accused
persons made every attempt to procrastinate the trial.
Announced in the open court
on 08.10.2021
(Dr. Pankaj Sharma)
CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/08.10.2021
Cr Case No. 39858/2016 State v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Page 274 of 274

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *