KANTA SHARMA vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered on : 05.03.2015
CRL.A.124/2013
REKHA SHARMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.152/2013
RAKSHA JINDAL ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.159/2013
NIRMAL DEVI ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina
Dubey, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.165/2013
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 1 of 400


PUSHKAR MAL VERMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.170/2013
AJIT SINGH SANGWAN …… Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.171/2013
SHER SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates



CRL.A.172/2013
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 2 of 400


MAHAVIR SINGH LATHAR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma and Mr.
Ashok Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.173/2013
SASHI MALHOTRA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.174/2013
ANAR SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.175/2013
RAM KAUR ….. Appellant
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 3 of 400


Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates



CRL.A.186/2013
KRISHNA GUPTA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.187/2013
BRAHMA NAND ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.188/2013
PREM BAHL ….. Appellant
Versus
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 4 of 400


CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.189/2013
RAJENDER PAL SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.194/2013
DILBAG SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Devender Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Jangra, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.198/2013
SARWAN KUMAR CHAWLA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 5 of 400



Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina
Dubey, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.204/2013
JEET RAM KHOKHAR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.205/2013
KAILASH KAUSHIK ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.206/2013
KANTA SHARMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 6 of 400


For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.213/2013
OM PRAKASH CHAUTALA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate and Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Zorawar Singh,
Mr. Amit Sahni, Mr. Sunny Modgil, Mr. Pranav Diesh, Mr. Karan Kalia,
Ms. P.R. Mala, Mr. Rajinder Banku and Mr. Rajiv Sidhu, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.
Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Mohit Nagar and Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocates

CRL.A.231/2013
ABHILASH KAUR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. Badrinath and Mr. Sumit
Arora, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.237/2013
SUDHA SACHDEVA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. S.C. Chawla, Advocate
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 7 of 400


For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.238/2013
VINOD KUMARI ….. Appellant
Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Advocate with Mr. Shiv Pande, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.245/2013
RAM SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.246/2013
MADAN LAL KALRA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 8 of 400


Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.247/2013
YOGESH KUMAR SHARMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.248/2013
RAM KUMAR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.249/2013
TULSI RAM BIHAGRA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 9 of 400



CRL.A.250/2013
USHA RANI ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.251/2013
DALIP SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.252/2013
MAMAN CHAND ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 10 of 400


CRL.A.253/2013
PHOOL KHURANA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.255/2013
AMAR SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates



CRL.A.256/2013
NARAIN SINGH RUHIL ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 11 of 400


CRL.A.257/2013
SAWAN LAL ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.258/2013
RAJENDER SINGH DAHIYA ….. Appellant
Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.260/2013
SAROJ SHARMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Vijay S. Bisnoi, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates



CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 12 of 400


CRL.A.268/2013
DARSHAN DAYAL VERMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.269/2013
RAM SARAN KUKREJA ….. Appellant
Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates
CRL.A.270/2013
BIHARI LAL ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.271/2013
HARBANS LAL ….. Appellant
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 13 of 400


Versus

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.277/2013
SANJIV KUMAR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant :Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aditya Singh and Ms. Kamini
Jaiswal, Advocate1
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.
Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Mohit Nagar and Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocates

CRL.A.293/2013
KRISHAN LAL NARANG THR. ITS
PAROKAR DEEPALI NARANG ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Garg, Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Kapoor and Mr. Ashish
Garg, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.295/2013

DURGA DUTT PRADHAN ….. Appellant

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 14 of 400


Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. R.K. Kapoor, Advocate with Mr. Vikram Saini along with the
Appellant in person
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.301/2013

CHAND SINGH VERMA ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Naresh Yadav and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.303/2013

JOGINDER LAL ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CRL.A.313/2013
DAYA SAINI ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 15 of 400


Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Ms. Rebecca M. John, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Gosain and Mr.
Harsh Bora, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.334/2013
AJAY SINGH CHAUTALA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Naresh Sekhawat, Ms.
Tarannum Cheema, Mr. Amit Sahni, Mr. Sunny Modgil, Mr. Zorawar
Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Mr. Ashwani Bansal and Mr. Jalaj
Aggarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.
Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Mohit Nagar and Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocates
CRL.A.340/2013

SHER SINGH BADSHAMI ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Giriraj
Subramaniam, Mr. Amit Sahni, Mr. Zorawar Singh, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra,
Mr. Ashwani Bansal and Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.
Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Mohit Nagar and Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocates

CRL.A.346/2013

VIDYADHAR ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 16 of 400



For the Appellant : Mr. D.C. Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.P. Singh, Mr. D.S. Kohli,
Mr. Rajkiran Vats, Ms. Sonam Gupta, Mr. Ravi Prakash Vyas and Mr.
Salil Bhattacharya, Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, ASG with Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Mr.
Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Mohit Nagar and Ms. Priyanka Sinha, Advocates

CRL.A.369/2013

URMIL SHARMA ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Hari Om Yaduvanshi, Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.374/2013

BANI SINGH ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bharat Sharma and Mr.
Ashok Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.379/2013

SHEESH PAL SINGH ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 17 of 400


For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.381/2013

VEER BHAN MEHTA ….. Appellant

Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Arora, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates


CRL.A.416/2013

OM PRAKASH TIWARI ….. Appellant
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ….. Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi
Sharma, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

J U D G M E N T

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

1. The present batch of appeals arise from the judgment and order of the
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), (CBI), Rohini dated
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 18 of 400


16.01.2013 convicting the appellants in the following terms by way of order
on sentence dated 22.01.2013.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 19 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 20 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 21 of 400

2. In as much as all the aforementioned appellants figured as accused in
the Court of the Special Judge and since common questions of fact and law
arise, the appeals are disposed of through common judgment.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The background of the prosecution as described by the trial judge is
that Sanjiv Kumar (A-3), an IAS Officer of Haryana Cadre, filed a Writ
Petition (Cri.) No. 93/2003 in the Supreme Court alleging that while he was
posted as Director Primary Education, Haryana, he was pressurized by Om
Prakash Chautala (A-4), the then Chief Minister of Haryana to replace the
original award lists prepared for the selection of JBT teachers with fake
award lists. The genuine lists were prepared by the Selection Committees of
various districts in Haryana after conducting interviews of the candidates.
Sanjiv Kumar produced before the Supreme Court a set of 15 award lists
duly signed by the members of the selection committees and submitted that
these fake lists were to be substituted in place of the original lists. He refused
to be a part of it and consequent to his refusal, one FIR and various
departmental enquiries were initiated against him. Sanjiv Kumar claimed
that despite such pressure, he implemented the original award lists and
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 22 of 400


declared the results, which antagonized Om Prakash Chautala and his
political and bureaucratic colleagues. Accordingly, he prayed CBI
investigation in this scam.
4. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 25.11.2003 directed the CBI
to investigate the matter.
5. During investigation, Sanjiv Kumar handed over one set of interview
list of District Kaithal and part list of District Kurukshetra to CBI. For sake
of convenience, the 15 award lists filed by Sanjiv Kumar in the Supreme
Court and the one interview list of District Kaithal and part list of District
Kurukshetra given by him to CBI during investigation would be hereinafter
referred to as Supreme Court Lists .
6. During investigations, CBI collected the award lists of 18 districts
from the office of Director Primary Education-Haryana. These lists would be
hereinafter referred to as Directorate Lists . It is not in dispute that the result
of JBT teachers was declared on the basis of these Directorate Lists.
7. Sanjiv Kumar claimed that these Directorate Lists are genuine
whereas Supreme Court lists are fake. The case of the prosecution is vice
versa.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 23 of 400


8. Till ‗1999 recruitment of JBT teachers was being conducted by
Haryana Staff Selection Commission-Chandigarh. Om Prakash Chautala, the
then Chief Minister of Haryana was also holding the portfolio of Education
Minister-Haryana in September, 1999. It is the case of the prosecution that a
malafide decision was taken in the Cabinet of Ministers on 08.09.1999, at
the instance of Om Prakash Chautala, vide which the JBT Teachers'
recruitment was taken out from the purview of Haryana Staff Selection
Commission and was entrusted to the Directorate of Primary
Education-Haryana with the ulterior motive to bring the recruitment under
his control on the pretext of acute shortage of teachers. In compliance of this
Cabinet decision, the Directorate of Primary Education advertised 3,206
district wise vacancies of JBT teachers in Indian Express and Dainik Tribune
on 15.11.1999. These selections were to be made through District Level
Selection Committees in 18 Districts of Haryana. As per the charge sheet,
the 18 District Level Selection Committees conducted the interviews for
these posts during December, 1999. The award lists were sent to Directorate,
Primary Education. At that time, one Mr. R.P. Chander- IAS was the
Director of Primary Education.
9. Mr. R.P. Chander was transferred on 27.04.2000 and Ms. Rajni Shekri
Sibal took over as Director Primary Education on that day. It is alleged that
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 24 of 400


Ms. Rajni Shekri Sibal was called along with Prem Prashant-IAS & P.K.
Mahapatra-IAS at Haryana Niwas-Chandigarh where Ajay Singh Chautala
(A¬5), Sher Singh Badshami (A¬2) were also present. It is alleged that she
was asked to change the award lists. Rajni Shekri Sibal along with Prem
Prashant and P.K. Mahapatra were called to another meeting which was held
at H.No. 78, Sector-7, Chandigarh which is the residence of Vidya Dhar (A-
1). This meeting was also attended by Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh
Badshami apart from Vidya Dhar. Here also, Sher Singh Badshami asked
Rajni Shekri Sibal to change the award lists so that their favoured candidates
may be accommodated. It is alleged that Rajni Shekri Sibal, Prem Prashant
and P.K. Mahapatra refused to agree to this proposal.
10. Prosecution has alleged that Om Prakash Chautala was Chief Minister
of Haryana from 1999 to 2005. Ajay Singh Chautala (A-5) is the son of Om
Prakash Chautala (A-4) and was Member of Parliament from Bhiwani
Constituency of Haryana at the relevant time. Vidya Dhar an HCS Officer
(later promoted to IAS) and was Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to the Chief
Minister and Sher Singh Badshami was the political advisor to the Chief
Minister during the period of conspiracy. Prem Prashant was Financial
Commissioner Education and Languages (FCEL) and P.K. Mahapatras was
Director, Secondary Education, Haryana.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 25 of 400


11. As per prosecution, Rajni Shekri Sibal received an anonymous phone
call at her residence and she was offered 5% share of the collected money to
agree to the aforesaid proposal. Subsequently, her house was also burgled. It
is alleged that with a view to ensure the safety of the award lists received
from 18 District Primary Education Officers, she wrapped the almirah
containing the said award lists with four metres of cloth and sealed it using
one rupee coin. Vide a note dated 20.06.2000, she proposed to form a
committee for compilation and preparation of the results of JBT teachers by
Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (HARTRON),
Chandigarh.
12. It is alleged that when Rajni Shekri Sibal refused to modify or replace
the interview award lists, she was transferred and was replaced by Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) on 11.07.2000 with the approval of Om Prakash Chautala. At
that time, Sanjiv Kumar was already holding the substantive charge of
Special Project Director, Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad
(HPSPP) and he was given additional charge of Directorate of Primary
Education with an understanding that he would prepare a second set of
award lists and replace it with the original award lists.
13. Prosecution claims that Sanjiv Kumar took out the original award lists
from the said almirah in the middle of August, 2000 and asked his P.A.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 26 of 400


Mohan Lal Gupta and Office Superintendent Sardar Singh to check as to
how many scheduled caste and backward class candidates are exceeding
their vacancies and are being selected in the General category. For this
purpose, Prerna Guest House-Panchkula was arranged by Sanjiv Kumar.
14. It is alleged that Mohan Lal, Sardar Singh and Balram
Yadav-Assistant in Directorate Primary Education made use of Prerna Guest
House for two or three days and checked the original award lists, but, could
not reach any conclusion and accordingly those lists were returned to Sanjiv
Kumar. Prosecution claims that this shows that actually the original award
lists had been taken out of the almirah prior to 16.09.2000, when a drama of
de-sealing the said almirah and taking out the award lists in presence of six
members of result compilation committee was enacted. As per investigation,
the new set of award lists had already been placed in the almirah before
16.09.2000 and these new lists were sent to HARTRON which compiled the
result of JBT teachers candidates. The result was ready on 03.10.2000 and
thereafter it was published in the newspapers and the appointments were
given to the selected candidates on the basis of new and fake award lists.
15. As per prosecution, at the behest of Om Prakash Chautala with the
active support of Vidya Dhar and Sher Singh Badshami, some Chairpersons
and the members of District Level Selection Committees were called by
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 27 of 400


Sanjiv Kumar at the Rest House of Water Supply & Sanitation Department
of Punjab located at 1257, Sector-18B, Chandigarh in last week of
August-2000, some were called in Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi on
01.09.2000 and some were called in the office of Director Primary
Education-Chandigarh. These Chairpersons and members (who have been
impleaded as A-6 to A-62) were instructed to prepare the second set of
award lists of their respective districts. On their request, even photocopies of
original award lists were given to them for this purpose. Prosecution alleges
that after collecting the second set of award lists, Sanjiv Kumar placed the
fake award lists in the almirah in his office. Thereafter, on 16.09.2000, he
conducted bogus proceedings of de-sealing the almirah and taking out the
award lists from it and sent the same to HARTRON for compilation of
results.
16. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined in all 68 witnesses.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
17. The names and particulars of Chairpersons and members of the
District Level Selection Committees are as under:

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 28 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 29 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 30 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 31 of 400

18. It has to be mentioned that except Bani Singh (A-39) and Raksha
Jindal (A-45), all the above mentioned accused persons have admitted the
aforesaid particulars to be correct during trial and in their statements u/s 313
Cr.P.C.
19. It is not in dispute that Om Prakash Chautala was the Chief Minister
of Haryana from 1999 to 2005. Vidya Dhar (A-1) was his OSD and Sher
Singh Badshami (A-2) was his political advisor during that time. Vidya Dhar
was an officer of Haryana Civil Services and later on promoted as IAS
Officer and, therefore, a public servant. Sher Singh Badshami was not a
public servant, though, holding a post of Political Advisor to Chief Minister
during the relevant time. Ajay Singh Chautala (A-5) is son of Om Prakash
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 32 of 400


Chautala (A-4) and was Member of Parliament from Bhiwani constituency
during the said period.
20. It is also not in dispute that more than 8000 candidates applied and the
result was prepared by HARTRON based on the Directorate Lists and
appointments were given to 3206 candidates pursuant to the said result.
21. The contents of the Writ Petition No. 93/2000 Ex.PW-63/B-1 filed by
Sanjiv Kumar and his reply (Ex.PW-63/B3) to the counter affidavit of the
respondent therein and the order of Supreme Court (Ex.PW-63/PX, D-113)
are also not in dispute.
RESPECTIVE STANDS OF THE ACCUSED
22. Om Prakash Chautala (A-4), Ajay Singh Chautala (A-5) and Sher
Singh Badshami (A-2) have denied not only their participation in the crime,
but also, having any knowledge of the same at the relevant time. They have
claimed that Sanjiv Kumar and Rajni Shekri Sibal are playing in the hands of
their political opponents namely Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the Chief Minister
of Haryana (at the time of trial) and earlier the main opposition leader
belonging to Indian National Congress Party, in connivance with other
politicians like Karan Dalal and Kapil Sibal.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 33 of 400


23. Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) claims that his stand in Supreme Court as well as
before this court is a correct stand and the Supreme Court Lists are false lists,
whereas Directorate Lists are genuine lists.
24. Daya Saini (A-40), the Chairperson of Panipat District Level Selection
Committee and its members Ram Singh (A-41) and Puran Chand (A-42
since expired) had taken the stand in their statements u/s 313 CrPC as well as
during the entire trial that they had prepared only one list which is the
Directorate List and, therefore, Directorate List of District Panipat (D-18
Ext.PW15/C) is a genuine award list.
25. Madan Lal Kalra (A-27), the Chairman of District Level Selection
Committee-Kurukshetra also stated that he had prepared only one list i.e. the
Directorate List (D-16(I), Ex.PW-15/D) and the same is genuine.
26. Pushkar Mal Verma (A-37), the Chairman of District Level Selection
Committee-Mahendergarh (Narnaul) and its members Durga Dutt Pradhan
(A-38) and Bani Singh (A-39) denied having signed both the lists. Bani
Singh (A-39) in fact denied being a member of the District Level Selection
Committee and having conducted any interviews.
27. Raksha Jindal (A-45) took the defence that she was never appointed as
member of the District Level Selection Committee-Panchkula. However, she
was misled by Rekha Sharma (A-44) another member of the committee and
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 34 of 400


she signed the two award lists only as the token of having calculated the
marks given in the said award lists.
28. To sum up, whereas A-3, A-27, A-40, A-41 and A-42 have taken the
stand that the Directorate Lists are the genuine lists, most of the
Chairpersons and the members of the District Level Selection Committees
support the prosecution version and assert that the Supreme Court Lists are
the genuine lists and Directorate Lists are the fake lists and that these fake
lists were prepared by them, not voluntarily, but, under immense pressure
from Sanjiv Kumar, Sher Singh Badshami and Vidya Dhar. These accused
persons have consistently claimed during the whole trial that they were not
only apprehensive of harm to their service but also to their physical safety
and their family's lives.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL JUDGE
29. The trial Judge has held as proved the following circumstances:
i) Members who had retired before making of fake lists are not
public servants and, therefore, acquitted of charge under The
Prevention of Corruption Act, however they were charged and
ultimately convicted of conspiracy read with Section 13
Prevention of Corruption Act because they conspired with other
public servants including A-3.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 35 of 400


ii) The Directorate lists compiled by the prosecution during
investigation and on the basis of which the results were declared
were the fake lists.
iii) Specimen signatures of the appellants taken by the police during
investigation without seeking permission of the Magistrate are
admissible in evidence.

iv) The evidence of the handwriting expert proving the signatures
of the Chairpersons and members on the fake award list is
substantive evidence and can been relied upon.
v) With regard to appellants who have denied their signatures on
the Directorate list, signatures of such appellants in their
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have been used for
comparison to arrive at a finding of identification of such
signatures.
vi) With regard to the changing of award lists, it has been
concluded that the almirah was duly sealed by PW-23 Rajni
Shekri Sibal, the then Director Primary Education. Then
almirah was placed behind a wooden screen in the chamber of
successor Director A-3, Sanjiv Kumar and was concealed from
the view of officials and visitors entering his room.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 36 of 400


vii) Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was able to take out the original award lists
from the almirah in the month of August 2000.
viii) In the last week of August and on 01.09.2000, these original
award lists were available with A-3 when he met concerned
DPEOs of different districts in Water Supply & Sanitation
Department's Guest House, Chandigarh and Haryana Bhawan,
New Delhi.
ix) For the offence of forgery as contained under Section 467 IPC,
the Supreme Court Lists are valuable security, and the
Directorate Lists (even if the same are illegal being forged) are
also forged ‗valuable securities‘. The concerned appellants
having signed the Directorate Lists have caused the making of
false documents and are thereby guilty of offences under
Section 467 and 468 IPC.
x) For the offence of cheating as contained under Section 418 IPC,
the State of Haryana has been dishonestly induced by the act of
forgery of the award lists and by their implementation due to
which jobs were given to undeserving candidates and deserving
candidates failed to get the same. The concerned appellants are
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 37 of 400


therefore, guilty of the offence of cheating under Section 418
IPC.
xi) For the offence of criminal misconduct as contained under
Section 13 PC Act, it was observed that by implementing the
forged lists, undeserving candidates have availed the benefit of
salary, stability and security which is one of the finest pecuniary
advantages and such public servants are, therefore, guilty of the
offence of criminal misconduct.
xii) A-3, Sanjeev Kumar is an accomplice to the conspiracy of
changing the original lists and ultimately implementing them,
however, his testimony as a witness in his defence can be used
to corroborate the prosecution version regarding the roles of
other co accused.
xiii) PW-23, Rajni Sekhri Sibal is a reliable witness and has
truthfully testified regarding the pressure exerted upon her to
change the original lists and the events leading up to the
declaration of the results. PW-16 Prem Prashant and PW-26 P K
Mohapatra are also reliable witnesses and have truthfully
testified.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 38 of 400


xiv) A-1 Vidya Dhar was present at the meeting held at his residence
and at the Water Supply Guest House wherein efforts were
being made to replace the lists and that he has conspired
towards the same.
xv) A-2 Sher Singh Badshami was present at the meetings (all of
them), his presence at the meeting in Haryana Bhawan was
symbolic of the approval of the conspiracy at the highest level
and he took an active interest in pressurizing and threatening
other chairpersons and the members of the District Level
Selection Committees.
xvi) A-5 Ajay Chautala was present at the meetings wherein PW-16,
PW-23 and PW-26 were pressurised to change the award lists.
Thereafter, he was constantly in touch with A-3 through
telephonic conversations on 30.08.2000 and 01.09.2000 which
is the period during which the fake award lists were being
prepared. A-5 had a stake in the parliamentary constituency of
district Bhiwani and the final result shows that the candidates
selected from District Bhiwani far exceeded the vacancies of
that district. Thus, A-5 stands fully proved to be conspiring in
this scam.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 39 of 400


xvii) The note sheet exhibited as Ex.PW-38/E proves that the
meeting wherein the decision to enhance the interview marks
was taken was attended by A-1, A-2 and A-4 and, therefore,
their involvement in the conspiracy from its very inception
stands fully corroborated.
xviii) A-4 Om Prakash Chautala was instrumental in taking out JBT
vacancies out of the purview of the Haryana Staff Selection
Commission and enhancing the marks allotted towards
interview. His son, his OSD and his political advisor being
persons close to him actively executing the conspiracy coupled
with the testimony of A-3 regarding the breakfast meeting
wherein express instructions were given to change the award
lists leads to the irresistible conclusion that the entire conspiracy
was hatched at the behest of A-4.

30. On behalf of the prosecution, learned ASG Mr. Rakesh Kumar
Khanna assisted by Mr. Harsh Prabhakar have addressed arguments
regarding appellants A-1 to A-5 and Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned SPP has
addressed arguments for appellants A-6 to A-62.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 40 of 400


ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF A-3
31. Since the edifice of this case is based on a factual finding regarding
the genuineness or the falsity of a particular set of lists, whether the
Directorate lists or the Supreme Court lists, at the outset it would be most
appropriate to highlight the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties
regarding the two sets of lists. A-3 had submitted before Supreme Court a set
of 15 award lists, thereafter one list of District Kaithal and a part list of
District Kurukshetra was handed over to the investigating officer during
investigation.
32. It is the case of the CBI that the lists which were implemented i.e. the
Directorate lists are the fake lists whereas A-3 has argued that the Supreme
Court lists are in fact the fake lists which were handed over to him to be
implemented and, therefore, he is the leading appellant to prove the falsity of
the Supreme Court lists.
33. Rival submissions regarding the two sets of lists are enlisted district
wise as under:

I. FARIDABAD
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-4 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15/L and the Supreme Court list is D-22 exhibited as Ex.PW-
17/A. A-17, R. S. Kukreja was the Chairman of this committee
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 41 of 400


and conducted interviews only till 02.12.1999 after which he
was transferred to Sirsa. He was replaced by A-16, Harbans Lal
who conducted interviews from 02.12.1999 onwards.
ii) D-61 is a file recovered from the office of DPEO, Faridabad
and contains 2 lists. One list is a complete list containing all
interview marks and grand total marks along with signatures of
all committee members and the other is a photocopy in which
interview marks and grand total marks are concealed,
seemingly by putting some paper on it. It is the case of the
prosecution that this file contains a copy of the fake list and one
copy of the original list.
iii) It is submitted on behalf of the prosecution that PW-17 Brij
Mohan, who was a member of the District Selection
Committee, Faridabad has deposed that on 02.09.2000 he was
pressurized to append his signatures on an award list at the
instance of Chairperson of District Selection Committee –
Harbans Lal and other persons. He scribed the letters ―UP‖
under his signatures on the first nine pages as an imprint of
protest and the said letters signified ―under pressure‖. The
witness explained that he could not scribe the letter ―UP‖ on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 42 of 400


subsequent pages of the said list as one Suresh Girdhar, Deputy
Superintendent stood up from his chair and witness
apprehended that he may notice the same, therefore, he did not
scribe ―UP‖ any further. This witness has not been cross-
examined at all on behalf of A-3 and his testimony has gone
unchallenged on all counts.

iv) Learned ASG Mr. Khanna has drawn my attention to the
Directorate List of District Faridabad and points out that at the
top of page 39 the date ―09.12.2000‖ has been scribed in hand.
This fact is a tell-tale mark of the creation of award list in the
year 2000 and thus, lends further credence to the assertion of
the prosecution that the said list was in fact created in the year
2000 as deposed by Brij Mohan and not in the year 1999.
v) It is submitted that the pattern of marks awarded to various
candidates in the Supreme Court List of District Faridabad (D-
22) is evenly spread whereas; the marks awarded to candidates
in the Directorate List of Faridabad lie in stark extremes.
vi) It has been argued on behalf of A-3 that the signatures of R.S
Kukreja are not present on the Supreme Court List which
reflect the interview marks for the first two days when he was
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 43 of 400


the Chairperson of the District Selection Committee-Faridabad
before his transfer whereas they are present on the Directorate
list for the first two days of the interviews. It is also argued that
the prosecution is silent over the fact that A-16, Harbans Lal
who succeeded R. S. Kukreja has signed on all the pages of the
Supreme Court list as the Chairman, including the 2 days when
R. S. Kukreja was the Chairman.
vii) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arvind Nigam has sought to
destroy the credibility of PW-17, Brij Mohan by pointing out
the following fallacies:

 It is argued that PW-17 has deposed that Harbans Lal
had reached his house seeking his signatures on the
second list, on 31.08.2000, (which is the date on which
Brij Mohan had retired), claiming to have been coming
straight from Haryana Bhawan. It is not the case of the
prosecution that A-3 was involved in the making of the
fake lists on 31.08.2000, since it is alleged that M. L.
Gupta (PW-56) and Sardar Singh (PW-31) were on their
way to New Delhi on 31.08.2000 from Chandigarh and
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 44 of 400


had allegedly stayed the night in SCERT Gurgaon. They
have also deposed that till the morning of 01.09.2000
they were unaware of where the said meeting was to be
held, nor, had any idea about why they had been called to
Delhi. It is submitted that it is highly unlikely that PW-
17 would have gone wrong in remembering the date of
his retirement. Therefore, it is argued that the testimony
of PW-17 on one hand and that of PW-56 and PW-31 on
the other hand regarding the dates on which PW-17
could have been approached to sign on the fake lists is
not in harmony with each other.
 It was submitted that the factum of scribing ‗UP‘ has
also not been stated in the affidavit dated 26.07.2003
[Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-58/Page 217] filed by Brij Mohan.
 It has been urged on behalf of A-3 that PW-17 has as a
matter of fact appended his signatures on three lists,
however he deposes about appending his signatures only
on two lists.
 It has been vehemently contended that the discharge of
Brij Mohan on the ground of appending his signatures on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 45 of 400


the second award list under pressure impelled the other
accused to coin a similar defence and falsely implicate
Sanjiv Kumar for securing parity with Brij Mohan.
 It is also submitted that non-examination of Suresh
Giridhar by the prosecution casts suspicion since in his
presence Brij Mohan claims to have scribed ―UP‖ under
his signatures.
 It has been urged that the forensic report does not
evidence the existence of words ―UP‖ and on its strength
it is sought to be submitted that no such words have been
scribed by Brij Mohan.
 Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the
prosecution has suppressed one Brij Mohan s/o Late
Ram Singh; who was proposed to be examined as a
prosecution witness as evidenced from the List of
Witnesses appended along with the Final-Report [Part
1/Vol 1C/Page 207-Seriatum No. 13] and rather the
prosecution surreptitiously examined at Trial accused-
Brij Mohan s/o Sh. Ram as PW- 17.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 46 of 400


II. JIND
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-5 exhibited as Ex.PW-
2/2 and the Supreme Court list is D-23, exhibited as Ex.PW-
2/1. Three witnesses, PW-5 Milap Singh, PW-14 Dhup Singh
and PW-2 Ravi Dutt have deposed regarding the genuineness
of the D-23, the Supreme Court list.
ii) PW-14 has deposed that he was posted as the Deputy
Superintendent in the office of DPEO, Jind from 01.05.1998 to
14.10.2004 and he had signed the original award list as a token
of having checked the academic qualifications of the
candidates. He has also deposed that sometime in the month of
September, 2000 Ajit Singh Sangwan (A-26), Chairperson of
District Selection Committee, Jind pressurized him to sign an
award list, which he refused to sign unless the original list
would be shown to him. He further deposed that two clerks,
namely Ravi Dutt and Milap Singh had visited Delhi on
01.09.2000 and perhaps after two or three days they were
typing the list, which they stated was being prepared on the
basis of photocopies supplied to them at Delhi by A-3. The
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 47 of 400


Directorate list does not bear his signatures whereas the
Supreme Court list does.
iii) PW-2 Ravi Dutt and PW-5 Milap Singh have deposed about the
meeting at Haryana Bhawan on 01.09.2000 and how the
Directorate List of District Jind was prepared by them in the
month of September, 2000 at the instance of the members of
the District Selection Committee. Learned ASG submits that
they also corroborate the testimony of PW-14 Dhup Singh to
the extent that the Directorate list prepared by them in the
month of September, 2000 does not bear his signatures,
whereas, the Supreme Court List bears the same.
iv) Learned ASG submits that a careful perusal of the two lists vis-
a vis each other would significantly reveal that the Supreme
Court List has several corrections and there are many instances
where white fluid has been applied to effect such corrections.
The Directorate List on the other hand evidences no such
corrections and the corrected entries are typed. It is, therefore,
evident that the Supreme Court List bears the stamp of
genuineness as these corrections evidence the contemporaneity
of the said document, whereas, the Directorate List which was
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 48 of 400


prepared later and utilized the Supreme Court List as its base,
naturally had no correction as the corrected content was
straightaway typed by its authors who would obviously not
make the same mistake which had occurred during the
preparation of the document make contemporaneously.
v) It is pointed out by the CBI that the pattern of marks awarded
to various candidates in the Supreme Court List of District Jind
is also spread evenly whereas the marks awarded to candidates
in the Directorate List of Jind lie in stark extremes.
vi) It is argued on behalf of A-3 that PW-2 and PW-5 were the
steno-typist and clerk in the DPEO office of Jind. They were
not the DLSC members and had no role to play in the
interviews. As such they wouldn‘t know the difference between
the lists, not being familiar with the marking pattern as they had
not conducted the interviews. This is clearly exhibited by PW-2
when he identifies the SC list as the fake one in the first
instance and then subsequently, clarifies that it is the
Directorate list which is fake.
vii) It has been explained by A-3 that PW-14 Dhup Singh was not a
member of the District Selection Committee and, therefore, was
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 49 of 400


not required to append his signatures on the award list. It is
submitted that PW-5 has deposed that the second list was not
signed by PW-14 because he was on leave on that particular
day. It is argued that the prosecution has not been able to
establish whether the absence of signatures of PW-14 on the
Directorate lists is owing to the fact that he was not authorized
in the first place to sign or on moral grounds or due to the fact
that he was on leave.
viii) It has been contended by A-3 that PW-14 Dhup Singh in his
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. [Part 7(II)/Pages
48-54] had stated that he received a message on 30.08.2000
from Shadi Lal Kapoor that the committee members should
come along with the records on 01.09.2000 and it was thus
sought to be urged that the copies of the original award lists
were already available with the District Selection Committee-
Jind. Therefore, the case of the prosecution was alleged to be
baseless that the original award list of District Jind was
supplied to Ajit Singh Sangwan (A-26) at instance of Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) for getting the same photocopied.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 50 of 400


ix) A-3 has examined Subhash Chander (A-3/DW-11) in his
defense to purport a claim that the fake award list for District
Jind were dispatched in a sealed envelope [Part 8/S.No. 12
Misc Exhibits/Page 138] by Ajit Singh Sangwan (A-26)
through the said Subhash Chander on the first Saturday of
September 2000 and he delivered the said envelope to Vidya
Dhar (A-1) at his residence in Sector-7, Chandigarh. According
to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3), the said envelope was handed over as it
is by Vidya Dhar (A-1) to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) and Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) without opening the said envelope submitted the
same before the Supreme Court. The Investigating Officer had
taken into custody the said sealed envelope from the registry of
the Supreme Court. A-3 argues that although he had opened all
the fake lists thrusted upon him for implementation before
presenting the same in the Supreme Court, but, he had
deliberately kept the envelope received from Jind, duly sealed
and it was opened in presence of Pushpa Ramdeo, Dy.
Registrar (PW-43) in Supreme Court. A-3 submits that she
testified that at serial no. 15 of the memo, it is written that "one
envelope containing award list of JBT teachers-Jind these list
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 51 of 400


were in sealed cover". It is argued by A-3 that this proves that
sealed envelope containing the fake Jind list opened in the
Supreme Court, is the same list which Subhash Chander
delivered to Vidya Dhar. Subhash Chander has also identified
his handwriting on the Jind envelope Ex.PW-43/DA-1. It is
contended that the Trial Court being empowered in this regard,
did not make an attempt to compare the handwriting of this
witness with the one on the sealed envelope.
x) It is also submitted on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) that he had
asked the Investigating Officer to get the said envelope
subjected to forensic analysis, however it was not done.
xi) The prosecution addresses this contention by submitting that
testimony of this witness is not worth the paper on which it is
scribed. The version belatedly deposed to by this witness is
inherently incredible and a yarn of falsehood for the following
reasons:
 The said witness had no reason to oblige Ajit Singh
Sangwan (A-26)-DPEO by carrying his confidential
documents to Chandigarh as he was of his own
admission not subordinate to the DPEO. The witness
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 52 of 400


does not remember the messenger through whom he was
summoned by the DPEO-Ajit Singh Sangwan (A-26).
 It has emerged in evidence led by prosecution (PW-14,
PW-5, PW-2) that the Directorate List of District Jind
was prepared 2-3 days after 01.09.2000. Subhash
Chander has claimed before the court that he carried the
envelope containing the fresh JBT lists to Chandigarh on
the first Saturday of September, 2000. It is highlighted
that the first Saturday of September, 2000 was in fact
02.09.2000 and by then the said award lists had not been
prepared by the clerks – PW-2 and PW-5. Therefore, the
testimony of this witness is vitiated at its core.
 It is palpably unconscionable that Ajit Singh Sangwan
would divulge the sensitive contents of the envelope to a
mere carrier like Subhash Chander; who was not even his
subordinate and has no discernable reason to repose trust
in him. As a matter of fact, Ajit Singh Sangwan (A-26)
has denied the version of this witness by putting such
suggestions in the cross-examination of this witness and
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 53 of 400


the statement made by him in terms of Section 313
Cr.P.C.
 The witness is unable to describe the topography of the
house of Vidya Dhar (A-1) which was allegedly visited
by him for the said purpose.
 The witness claims that he wanted to make a statement to
CBI about the said facts which he perceived as relevant
to the investigation of the case and he even visited the
CBI office at Chandigarh and Delhi but his statement
was not recorded. Curiously, he never gave any
representation in writing through registered AD/e-mail to
the superior officers or the Court about the fact that his
statement was not being recorded. The witness is unable
to describe the office of the CBI.
 This witness has concocted an amusing and an
improbable version of how he could discover the
whereabouts of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in a bustling city
like Delhi. The witness would have the Court believe
that by visiting the Supreme Court and inquiring from
random lawyers about the JBT case in the court corridor
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 54 of 400


he received information from some advocate that one
Shri Malik was handling this case, whereas, of his own
admission he did not even have a gate-pass. The witness
does not explain how he traced Shri Malik and according
to him he obtained the address of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)
from the said lawyer. Interestingly, the said lawyer (Shri
Malik) is not produced as a witness for the defence by
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) to vouch for the testimony of this
facile witness.
 He claims that Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) asked him to supply
a copy of his typed statement to him, which would be
given to CBI and in furtherance thereof, he got his
statement typed and handed over the same to Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3). It would be relevant to note that had this
been true, Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) would have definitely
forwarded the said statement to CBI. No suggestion has
been given to the Investigating Officer that he withheld
such evidence and neither has Sanjiv Kumar deposed
about such a chance/fortuitous meeting with Subhash
Chander in his deposition as a witness before the Court
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 55 of 400


in terms of Section 315 Cr.P.C or in his examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No foundation for the
evidence of this witness for the defence has been laid by
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) before the Court which casts serious
suspicion on the veracity of such evidence. It is the
submission of the prosecution, the evidence of this
witness is, therefore, a product of afterthought and
confabulations.
 The witness claims that he had kept a copy of the said
typed statement with himself and had handed over the
original to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3). The witness could not
produce the copy of the said statement in the court at any
stage even though he stated that he had handed over the
same to his son-Sandeep Kumar; who had accompanied
him to the Court during his deposition. The witness in
fact produced a statement (Ex.A-3/DW-11/1) (Part
8/S.No 12 Misc Exhibits/ Page 113-114) before the Trial
Court which was claimed by him to be faxed by his son;
who was in possession of the copy of the said statement.
Evidence revealed that the statement produced by this
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 56 of 400


witness before the Court had in fact been faxed from
01126895640 (Fax installed in the name of Virender
Chopra, H.No.8001 GF Pocket-8, Sector-C, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi).
 The witness was evasive in tendering his specimen
writings before the Trial Court as he claimed that owing
to his illness there may be some difference in his
handwriting.
 The witness admitted that in the year 2005 he had
contested elections for the Zila Parishad in Haryana and
record reveals that the said elections took place in the
month of April. It is highly improbable that he would
trace Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in an alien city without leads
in the month of March, 2005; when he must be subsumed
in the preparation for the said elections.

III. PANCHKULA

i) The Supreme Court List of this District is D-21 exhibited as
Ex.PW-18/A and the Directorate List is D-3 exhibited as
Ex.PW-18/B. Both these lists are computerized. According to
the FSL report, D-21 was prepared on 17.12.1999 by one
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 57 of 400


Hitesh Bansal at his residence. D-3 was prepared by a private
firm M/s. V.C.C Computer Education, Sector 12A, Panchkula.
It is the case of the prosecution that D-3 was prepared at the
instance of A-44, Rekha Sharma, who was a member of the
Selection Committee, Panchkula.
ii) PW-20 Hitesh Bansal has testified that in 2004 the IO, R.N.
Azad inquired from him about the computer job which he had
done for Rekha Sharma during December, 1999. R.N. Azad
had taken the relevant data from his computer in a floppy and
the floppy & the hard disc of the computer were seized by him.
From the floppy, a print of the said work i.e. award list of JBT
candidates was taken. It showed that this list was got prepared
on 17.12.1999. This print out (D-42) is Ex.PW-20/C and tallies
with the Supreme Court List.
iii) A-3 relies on testimony of the expert witness U.Ramamohan
(PW-65) wherein he testifies that the computer was updated in
MS-Word-2000. It is argued that the fact that the computer of
Hitesh Bansal was having 2000 version of Microsoft Office, it
is clear that the list contained in the print out Ex.PW-20/C
could not have been prepared in the year 1999. Rather this fact
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 58 of 400


proves the contention of A-3 that this list was prepared in the
year 2000. It is argued that in the year 2000 the fake list was
prepared whereas genuine list was prepared in the year 1999.
As per submissions of Sanjiv Kumar, the print out Ex.PW-20/C
is, therefore, of the year 2000 and the same tallies with the
Supreme Court List and thus the Supreme Court List is a fake
list, whereas the Directorate List of Panchkula District is the
genuine list.
iv) It is also argued that the forensic expert PW-65 was not
mandated by the CBI to authenticate the date/time/month/year
which appeared on the hard disc seized from the computer of
Hitesh Bansal, PW-20. Seizure of the CPU of the computer of
Hitesh Bansal would have given evidence of the Bios clock
which in turn controls the chronological stamping of the hard
disc.
v) Factually, the Directorate list at Page No. 9 has 5 incorrect Roll
Nos. that have been corrected by hand and attested by A-44.
These corrections do not exist at all in the Supreme Court list.
It is argued by Learned Counsel on behalf of A-3 that if the
Supreme Court list was indeed the original list then how could
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 59 of 400


the original list have 5 incorrect Roll Nos. and led to the
preparation of the final results. In the same breath it is argued
that if Supreme Court list were the original list and a fake list
had to be prepared from it, then what was the need to correct
mistakes that were present in the original list. Similarly,
calculation errors are pointed out in the Supreme Court list for
Roll Nos. 85036/85008/85030/85038/85054/ 85032/85035 and
85063 to show that an original list cannot have such mistakes
thereby leading to the conclusion that the Supreme Court list
cannot be the genuine list.
vi) It is argued on behalf of A-3 that the Supreme Court list is
complete in all respects, carrying details of all categories
including SC(A), SC(B), BC(A), BC(B), ESM, PH etc whereas
the Directorate list only contains data relating to General
Category candidates and, therefore, cannot be the original list.
vii) The trustworthiness of PW-20 is attacked on the ground that it
is highly improbable that a person who neither ran a
commercial computer shop nor ever knew Rekha Sharma nor
gave any receipt for the work that he had undertaken was
chosen by Rekha Sharma for such a sensitive job and also
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 60 of 400


allegedly kept the said confidential data of December, 1999
stored in his computer till the year 2004, allegedly at the behest
of Rekha Sharma, when the C.B.I. I.O. seized the same, even
though he had allegedly stopped doing such computer work 6
months after Rekha Sharma had come to him for getting the
award lists of Panchkula computerized in December, 1999.
IV. REWARI
i) The Directorate list is D-14 and exhibited as Ex.PW-39/A and
the Supreme Court list is D-32 and has been exhibited as
Ex.PW.15/B. A-49, Sudha Sachdeva and A-50, Darshan Dayal
Verma were the Chairpersons of the District Level Selection
Committee- Rewari and Saroj Sharma (A-51) and Tulsi Ram
Bihagra (A-52) were its members. D.D. Verma (A-50) was
initially the Chairperson for the first three days of the
interviews thereafter, he was transferred and Sudha Sachdeva
was posted in his place.
ii) The Directorate list is signed by all the members except A-49
whereas the Supreme Court list contains signatures of all
members. Another factual aspect of the Supreme Court list is
that Darshan Dayal Verma (A-50) has signed as "Ex DPEO" on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 61 of 400


first 12 pages of the award lists and thereafter, Sudha Sachdeva
has signed as the chairperson.
iii) It is argued on behalf of A-3 that the list which contains the
signatures of all members should be the fake list as it was not
possible for a member to refuse even an illegal direction that
came from the government headed by Om Prakash Chautala.
The fearful environment in which the remaining members were
made to sign the fake lists is evident from their statements
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel submits that a
Chairman or a member may not sign in case he or she is not
available on the date of interview for any reason. Attention is
drawn to the affidavit (D -58) of Sudha Sachdeva which has
been proved as Ex.PW-46/10 in which she swears on oath that
she had signed the second list. It is argued that this also fortifies
the argument that Sudha Sachdeva had signed the second list
and consequently, the list which bears the signatures of Sudha
Sachdeva should be fake list.
iv) It is also argued that on the original list, Darshan Dayal Verma
(A-50) would have signed for first three days as DPEO and not
as Ex DPEO. The Directorate list bears the signatures of D. D.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 62 of 400


Verma with the designation DPEO. His designation on the
Directorate list shows that he signed this list when he was
District Primary Education Officer, Rewari. The Supreme
Court list bears his signatures with designation as Ex DPEO,
which demonstrates that he signed this list when he had already
relinquished the charge as DPEO. Therefore, Supreme Court
list must be termed as the fake list and the Directorate list
should be treated as the original list
v) Learned Counsel points out that the SC list till page 14 follows
the predictable pattern of grand total marks being in decimals.
However, from pages 15-59 the grand total marks in decimals
have been rounded off to whole numbers. On contrast, in the
Directorate list pages 1-37 reflect the actual and exact marking
in the Grand total column thereby evidencing that the
Directorate list is the original one.
vi) Learned ASG submits that the evidence tendered by PW-39
Om Prakash and PW-40 Subhash Chand establish that the
Directorate List of District Rewari was prepared in August/
September, 2000. It is pointed out that PW-39 was not
subjected to any cross-examination by A-3 and his evidence
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 63 of 400


has gone unchallenged. Furthermore, even PW-40 Subhash
Chand has not been suggested by A-3 that he has deposed
falsely, although he was cross-examined by him.
vii) A-50/ DW-1 Darshan Dayal Verma has stepped into the
witness-box in terms of Section 21 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988/Section 315 of Cr.P.C., 1973 and has
explained how he was pressurized by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) and
Sher Singh Badshami (A-2) at Haryana Bhawan to cooperate in
creation of a second award list. He further deposed that Sudha
Sachdeva (A-49) had dictated the interview and grand total
marks to him while getting prepared the second award list in
September, 2000. It is argued that during his cross-examination
by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) he has not been questioned with regard
to the aspect that why he signed on the Supreme Court List as
Ex DPEO. Even otherwise, it is submitted that D.D. Verma was
the Chairperson of the District Selection Committee, Rewari
for the first three days only as he was transferred to Sirsa,
therefore, it is highly probable that he signed the Supreme
Court List after having received the transfer orders and,
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 64 of 400


therefore, chose to write Ex DPEO. Therefore, the Supreme
Court List cannot be termed as the fake list on this count.

V. BHIWANI
i) The Supreme Court list of this district is D-25 exhibited as
Ex.PW-30/A and the Directorate list is D-7 and has been
exhibited as Ex.PW-15/M.

ii) The prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW-30 Tara
Chand; Deputy Superintendent in the office of District Primary
Education Officer, Bhiwani who has deposed that the Supreme
Court List contains his signatures on all 47 pages as a token of
checking the particulars etc and that the same was prepared
during December, 1999. The Directorate List does not contain
his signatures anywhere.
iii) This is vehemently refuted by Learned Counsel for A-3 by
citing the advertisement issued in the newspapers as well as the
Corrigendum (D-40/II, Page No.137, Corrigendum to Adv
No.1/99) which clearly states that the applications must be
submitted personally only on 28.11.1999. The following
portion of the deposition of PW-30 is pointed out:

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 65 of 400


―the advertisement 01/99 appeared on 15.11.1999 in the
newspapers and thereafter the applications started
coming which continued up to 28.11.1999. I had got
started category wise typing of the lists from
26.11.1999…..‖

iv) It is argued that the original certificates were to be checked and
returned to the candidates on the same day after 4:00 p.m. and,
therefore, his testimony is totally false, misleading and
mischievous. It is also pointed out that Tara Chand was not a
member of the Selection Committee and as such absence of his
signatures on the Directorate list is justified by this explanation.
VI. ROHTAK
i) D-12 is the Directorate list and D-30 is the Supreme Court list.
It would be relevant to highlight that D-30 is a carbon copy and
does not contain the interview and grand total marks.
ii) It is pointed out on behalf of A-3 that Pages 9, 10, 11, 13 and
14 of the Supreme Court list do not contain any signatures of
the Committee Members. It is, therefore, contended that in
view of these irregularities remaining unexplained by the
prosecution, it cannot be said that the SC list is the original list.
iii) Learned ASG submits that the fact that the Directorate List of
District-Rohtak (D-12) carries marks in the said columns
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 66 of 400


cannot be dispositive of an inquiry into the veracity of the lists
of the said district. A-3 has alleged that the bunch of Supreme
Court Lists were handed over to him by Vidya Dhar (A-1) for
substituting them in place of the original award lists. It is
respectfully submitted that Om Prakash Chautala (A-4) and
others would not be in a position to fulfill their sinister motives
by handing over a list to A-3 for implementation which does
not carry the interview and grand total marks. Therefore, the
Supreme Court List cannot be the fake award list as sought to
be canvassed by A-3.
iv) It is submitted that the answer to this vexing question and the
reason for the existence of such a list which does not carry the
interview and grand total marks, surfaces from the explanation
tendered by accused- Jeet Ram Khokhar (A-46), Nirmal Devi
(A-47) and Amar Singh (A-48) under Section 313 Cr.P.C that
they had separately sent such an award list (carbon copy)
without marks in the interview column, in addition to the award
list which duly carried marks in the interview and grand total
column.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 67 of 400


VII. KURUKSHETRA
i) The Directorate list of this district is in two parts, the first being
the general list and the second being the award list of B. Ed
candidates exhibited as Ex.PW-15/D. The Supreme Court list
of this district is a part list and an equivalent of the list carrying
interview marks of the B. Ed candidates.
ii) It is pointed out on behalf of A-3 that the application forms of
the B.Ed. candidates were received in Kurukshetra and the
academic profiling of these candidates based on their
Application forms was done in Kurukshera itself. It is then
argued that based on the contention of the prosecution that the
Supreme Court list (D-36) is the original list, how is it on the
same stationery/sheet as that of D-29 & D-11 i.e. the Supreme
Court list and Directorate lists of the JBT lists of Yamunanagar.
The written statement of A-59, who was DPEO Kurukshetra,
under Section 313 is pointed out wherein he states that in the
second week of September, 2000 he signed an award list of
B.Ed. candidates in the office of DPEO Kurukshetra.
iii) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nigam submits that the award lists
for B. Ed candidates were received after the almirah containing
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 68 of 400


the original lists was sealed by PW-23. A-59, in his statement
under Section 313 has said that he had deposited the sealed
award lists by hand on 01.08.2000 to Om Prakash Kundu. PW-
31 has deposed that Mr. Kundu was a clerk in his branch and
was deputed to collect the award lists of B. Ed candidates from
Kurukshetra and deliver them to M.L.Gupta. It is argued that
the original lists were in the possession of M.L. Gupta .
iv) Learned ASG submits that the interviews of the B.Ed
candidates were conducted at Kurukshetra by the DPEO
Yamunanagar [Part 8/D-40 (I)/ Page 66-67]. Therefore, the fact
that the said list appears in the same format or handwriting does
not cast any suspicion and is in fact natural.
v) Addressing the argument on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) that
if he was hand in glove with the scamsters, he would have
never called for the real B.Ed candidates award lists from
Kurukshetra through Kundu on 01.08.2000. It is argued that the
said contention is liable to be rejected as Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) is
not so juvenile to foist the fake lists without even calling for the
original award lists from Kurukshetra as this would have surely
exposed their conspiracy since question-mark would be raised
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 69 of 400


as to how result was declared without the award lists of B.Ed
candidates being even called for.
vi) It is submitted that it has been established by testimony of PW-
56 M.L. Gupta that the members of the Result Compilation
Committee were handed over the list of B.Ed candidates
interviewed at Kurukshetra along with award lists of other
districts on 16.09.2000. Significantly, it was deposed that the
said list of B.Ed candidates was lying in the drawer of Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) and it was collected from there whilst being
handed over to the members of the Result Compilation
Committee on 16.09.2000. [Part 2(II)/PW-56/Page 151] It is
yet again pointed out that the said portion of his evidence has
not been challenged by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in cross-
examination.
VIII. KARNAL
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-9 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15/F and the Supreme Court list is D-27 exhibited as Ex.PW-
28/A.
ii) It is submitted on behalf of A-3 that PW-28, Dheeraj Kumar,
clerk at DPEO-Karnal has categorically stated that the members
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 70 of 400


of the selection committee used to sign the last page of the
interview list on each date of the interview and used to sign at
the relevant place at the end of the list which was filled till that
moment on that date. This description best fits the Directorate
list as opposed to the Supreme Court list of Karnal wherein
there are no signatures at the bottom of the page rather there is
a certificate containing signatures of all members after every
few pages.
iii) It is submitted that the order passed in case of WP(C) 16220/99
pertaining to Julie Chhabra is dated 19.07.2000 i.e. her
interview was conducted later in time and the Directorate list
Karnal contains her particulars along with signatures of the
Chariman- N.S. Ruhil (A-29) and Dy.DEO- K.L. Narang as Ex
DPEO and Ex.Dy.DEO. This can be explained by the fact that
when her interview was conducted after passing of the order,
the DPEO and Dy.DEO were not the chairman and deputy
DEO and signed accordingly, therefore, the Directorate list is
the original list of Karnal. The Supreme Court list on the other
hand does not even contain her result. This is further fortified
by the deposition of PW-55.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 71 of 400



IX. FATEHABAD
i) The Directorate List of Fatehabad is D-13 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15/A and the Supreme Court List is D-31 and has been
exhibited as Ex.PW-43/E.
ii) Learned Counsel for A-3 points out inconsistencies between the
Section 313 statement of A-13 on the one hand and that of PW-
56 and PW-31 regarding the meeting at Haryana Bhawan.
According to A-13, the message had come on 31.08.2000 at
4pm from M. L. Gupta, PW-56, PA to DPE, for coming to
Haryana Bhawan on 01.09.2000 at 10:00 a.m. with all members
of DLSC for meeting about JBT Teachers. This is totally
contrary to the deposition of PW-56, M.L. Gupta and PW-31,
Sardar Singh that they themselves were unaware till the
morning of 01.09.2000 as to where they had to reach in Delhi
and for what purpose.
iii) It is also pointed out on behalf of A-3 that even though both the
lists have been signed by the same members and Chairperson,
the signature of A-13, is missing on 2 pages, i.e. Page Nos. 9 &
57 of the Supreme Court list, D-31. Directorate list, D-13 is
duly signed by all DLSC members including A-13 on all pages.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 72 of 400



X. MAHENDERGARH
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-6 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15/O and the Supreme Court list of this district is D-24
exhibited as Ex.PW-43/B.
ii) It is pointed by learned counsel on behalf of A-3 that the
Supreme Court list is signed by 5 persons, 3 of whom are
authorized and 2 of whom are unauthorized to sign the same.
The Directorate list on the other hand has only been signed by
the 3 authorised members. It is argued that the prosecution has
failed to explain the identity of these 2 unauthorized persons
whose signatures appear on the Supreme Court list, which
accordingly to him could have lent material evidence in
establishing the falsity of the Supreme Court list.
iii) Learned counsel submits that at the time when the interviews
for JBT candidates were being conducted, simultaneously the
interviews of the candidates for the posts of C & V Teachers
(Classic & Vernacular Teachers), Masters and Lecturers were
also being conducted. It is argued that during the investigation,
CBI had seized the award lists of interviews of C & V teachers
of District Mahendergargh (Narnaul, Ex.PW-24/L, D-60
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 73 of 400


Volume I to IV). It is argued that perusal of this list would
show that its pattern of interview marks tallies with the
Directorate list. It is submitted that the CBI had not found this
list to be a fake. Had it been so, CBI would have also
prosecuted the officials, who prepared this award list of C & V
teachers.

iv) It is argued by Sanjiv Kumar (A3) that if in the eyes of CBT,
the interview pattern of the C & V teachers is not illegal and if
this award list is not fake, how the Directorate lists, which
contain the same pattern of interview marks as that of Ex.PW-
24/L, could be termed as the fake lists. Accordingly, it is
submitted that not only the Directorate list of Mahendergarh
but also all the Directorate lists having the same pattern of
interview marks as contained in Ex.PW-24/L are genuine lists.
Consequently the Supreme Court list of District Mahendergarh
and the other Supreme Court lists should be treated to be fake
lists.
XI. GURGAON
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-15 and the Supreme
Court list is D-33.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 74 of 400


ii) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of A-3 has pointed out 2
Roll Nos. to show skewed pattern of marking in Supreme Court
list. On Page No. 2, Roll No. 20001, the total academic marks
is 49.42 whereas interview marks are 15.58 making a grand
total in whole numbers of 65. For Roll No. 20002, the total
academic marks are 48.92, and interview marks is 18.08,
making a grand total of 67. The Supreme Court list shows that
the interview marks have been given in decimals so that when
added with the academic marks (which are bound to be in
decimals), results in Grand Total marks which are in whole
numbers. Unlike the Directorate list where the interview marks
are in whole numbers (19 and 18 respectively) for the said Roll
Nos. and so the Grand Total marks are in decimals. It is argued
that this artificial marking in interviews leading to the Grand
Totals being in whole numbers cannot be the basis of any fair
interviews and, therefore, the Supreme Court list is not the
original list.
XII. AMBALA
i) It is argued that the tables in Supreme Court list are drawn in
hand in a slant and shoddy fashion which shows they are fake
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 75 of 400


lists because it is the fake lists which are made in a hurry and
are not very systematic.

XIII. SIRSA
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-19 and has been
exhibited as Ex.PW-15/N and the Supreme Court list is D-34
and has been exhibited as Ex.PW-43/G.

ii) Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A-3 argues that the
Prosecution has failed to address the issue that R.S. Kukreja, A-
17, DPEO, Sirsa, claims to have gone to Chandigarh sometime
in the first week of September whereas the Prosecution‘s case
is that only one meeting was held in Chandigarh and that too on
30.08.2000. It is also argued that contrary to what R.S. Kukreja
says, the other 2 DLSC members of Sirsa deny having gone to
Chandigarh for any such meeting.

XIV. YAMUNA NAGAR

i) The Directorate list of this district is D-11 and has been
exhibited as Ex.PW-15/J and the Supreme Court list is D-29
exhibited as Ex.PW-27/A.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 76 of 400


ii) It is contended on behalf of A-3 that A-62, Joginder Lal was a
substituted member after 3 days of conducting of interviews to
fill in for A-61, Urmil Sharma and the signatures of both A-61
and A-62 appear together on Pages 1-17 of the Supreme Court
list which demonstrates that the Supreme Court list of this
district cannot be the genuine list. A-61 has deposed in her
statement under Section 315 that her signatures were taken
forcibly on the second set of award lists where she has signed
on more number of pages than she had done on the original list.
In the Directorate list her signatures are present only from
pages 1-23 thereby lending support to the contention that the
Directorate list is the original list of this district.
iii) It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to explain
how the signatures of the other two DLSC members is missing
on some of the pages whereas the signatures of the chairman is
present on all the pages. It is also pointed out that on pages 52-
55 of D-29, only the signatures of DPEO R. P. Singh are
appearing and the signatures of the other two members are
absent.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 77 of 400


XV. SONEPAT
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-8 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15/G and the Supreme Court list is D-26 and exhibited as
Ex.PW-43/C
ii) It is submitted on behalf of A-3 that A-56, R.S. Dahiya has
stated in his statement under Section 313 that he has deposited
th th
the fake lists of Sonepat on 17 or 18 September, 2000 at
HARTRON with PW-31. It is, therefore, argued that the list
that came out from the almirah on 16.09.2000 should be the
original list of this district. It is also argued that the prosecution
has not explained the fact that the Directorate list is the typed
First List and the Supreme Court list is the carbon copy .
iii) It was also pointed out that on page 17 of the Supreme Court
list, the signature of the Chairman, R.S. Dahiya is missing. The
Directorate list on the other hand is duly signed by all 3
members on all the pages.

XVI. KAITHAL
i) Similar to the argument put forth for the district Sonepat, it is
argued on behalf of A-3 that A-35, the Chairman of the
Selection Committee has stated in his statement under Section
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 78 of 400


313 Cr.P.C. that he has deposited the fake lists in HARTRON
th th
on 17 or 18 September, 2000, therefore, the list that came out
from the almirah and was signed by the Result Compilation
Committee ought to be the original list.
ii) It is also argued that the said ―FORMULA‖/marking pattern is
reflected in the Directorate list which came out of the almirah
on 16.09.2000, and, so, it cannot be the Fake List. It couldn‘t
have been substituted later by another set as it was signed by 6
members on each page and so one can only deduce that this
marking pattern would be of the Original List which came out
of the almirah on 16.09.2000, and, not of the Fake List which
was given by Dilbaag Singh at HARTRON on 17/18.09.2000.
XVII. PANIPAT
i) The Directorate list of this district is D-18 exhibited as Ex.PW-
15C. A-3 has not submitted any list pertaining to this district.
ARGUMENTS OF A-3 REGARDING HIS ROLE IN CONSPIRACY

34. At the very outset, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of A-3
alleges that the prosecution has evolved two different theories against A-3,
one being that he got prepared a second set of award lists and replaced the
same. For this the prosecution has relied on the testimony of PW-31 Sardar
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 79 of 400


Singh and PW-56 Mohan Lal Gupta. At the same time the prosecution is also
trying to prove that at the time when Mrs Rajni Shekhri Sibal (PW-23) was
holding the post of Director Primary Education a second set of award lists
were already prepared however upon refusal of Mrs Rajni for replacing the
second set of award lists with the original ones, A-3 was brought in her
place.

I. Haryana Bhawan/Punjab Guest House and Hartron Exercise

35. It is argued that somewhere in the middle prosecution mixed both the
aforesaid stories and developed a new story that it was A-3 who had got a
fake set of award lists prepared by calling meetings of the district level
selection committee members at Punjab guest house and Haryana Bhawan
Delhi and for achieving the ends of having a second set of award lists
prepared, in the last week of August, 2000, brought the original lists with
him to Delhi at Haryana Bhawan for making available photo copy of the
original award lists which were submitted by the District Level Selection
Committee in the office of Director Primary Education, by hiding the
interview marks and grand total so that a fresh set of list may be prepared.
36. It is pointed out that although the mandate of the meeting was to
give/make available only the names, roll numbers and marks for academic
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 80 of 400


qualifications of the candidates (done at the DLSC level prior to holding the
interview), yet what is unclear from the case of the prosecution is as to why
was there a need for the appellant to carry the above original award lists for
holding such meetings when it is culled out conclusively from the documents
available on the records that the data which was to be allegedly supplied to
the candidates was already available in the form of data entered by
HARTRON from the original application forms which had already been
submitted to HARTRON soon after letter dated 31.07.2000 (D-56 page 33-
Ex.PW-55/D) was received from HARTRON for handing over the data to
Mukesh Bajaj AGM (PW 55).
37. It is sought to be explained that the application forms were not sent
out on 03.08.2000 through the following list of dates:

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 81 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 82 of 400

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 83 of 400

II. Prerna Guest House
38. It is argued that the prosecution has tried to suggest that since the
nature of work was confidential, therefore, an inference is drawn from the
statement of A3/DW-1 to show that a room was provided to the persons
from DPE office for doing the official work which was supposed to be done
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 84 of 400


by them. It is submitted that A-3/DW-1 although was in-charge of the Prerna
Guest House, yet he used to sit in the office building at Sector 17/C, at
Chandigarh which is flowing from a statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.
which had been attached by the prosecution along with the charge sheet.
Meaning thereby that it was always in the knowledge of the prosecution that
the said witness was never stationed in the Prerna Guest House. It would,
therefore, be misleading to rely upon a statement for the purpose of showing
that PW-31 and PW-56 had taken a room in Prerna Guest House for the
purpose of performing the alleged mandate given to them by A-3 Sanjiv
Kumar.
39. So far as A-3/DW-2 i.e. Ramji Tiwari who was in charge of the
workshop which were conducted in Prerna Guest House for the purpose of
creating the text books is concerned, it is submitted that there is positive
evidence which had come out that in the month of August, 2000 while the
workshop was going on, 2 officials from the Directorate of Primary
Education, namely, M.L.Gupta and one Sardar Singh had come with one bag
and one person was holding one handle of the bag and the other was holding
the other handle of the bag. Further it has come in the evidence of Ramji
Tiwari that Sharwan Kumar – Caretaker of the guest house who was
permanently stationed in Prerna Guest House informed him in advance that
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 85 of 400


the 2 officials from the office of director Primary Education would come and
he requested that some space may be given to them for doing that work. It
has further come in his evidence that since the room demanded by them had
already been occupied by teachers attending the workshop which was
continuing at the relevant point in time, therefore, they had given the
aforesaid 2 officials from space in one corner of the hall.

40. During the cross examination of his A3/DW-2, upon being specifically
asked about his presence in the Prerna guest house, he had given a specific
answer that Prerna Guest House was maintaining a register in which the
names of the participants in the workshops were mentioned and further he
specifically stated that his name must also be mentioned in the said register.
He has also specifically stated that when he had asked M.L. Gupta and
Sardar Singh about the lists, they had informed them that the same were
HARTRON lists brought for the purpose of proof reading.
41. It is contended that from all the statements of the aforesaid different
witnesses it becomes absolutely clear that the exercise done by Sardar Singh
th
and M.L. Gupta at Prerna Guest House was in fact done in the 3rd or the 4
week of August, 2000 i.e. when the 2nd proof (taken out on 25.08.2000 as
ascending and descending lists) prepared by HARTRON after correcting the
mistakes which are pointed out to them as mentioned in note dated
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 86 of 400


14.08.2000 and 16.08.2000 at Pages 81 and 84 of D-40-(I) wherein at Page
84 it is stated that while reading the proof prepared by HARTRON it was
found that roll numbers and Data of candidates do not match & in case of
many candidates the category is not written. Even in SC (A), SC (B), BC(A),
BC (B), ESM or DESM their category is not written.

[That it becomes clear (that the said Prerna Guest House
exercise took place in the 3rd – 4th week of Aug. 2000),
from the statements of :-
Sardar Singh PW-31 in :
Part 7(1) Page 172 (Statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C)
Part 7(2) Page 41 (Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C)
M. L. Gupta PW-56 in :
Part 7(1) Pg.176 & 180 (Statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C)Part 2(II)
Page 92, 107, 108 (Statement recorded during the course of
Trial)
Daryao Singh A-3/DW-1 in :
Part IV, Page 11 says that the Prerna Guest House happened
in last week of August, 2000]

42. It is contended that from all the statements of the aforesaid different
witnesses it becomes With reference to the evolving of formula and checking
overlapping of castes/categories, it is argued that even the IO in his
testimony admits Joint Merit List was essential to determine the final
placement of candidates. It is an admitted case of prosecution that at the
time when the said exercise of Prerna Guest House was being conducted
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 87 of 400


there was no joint merit list available either with PW-31 or with PW-56.
Therefore, it was absolutely impossible for anyone to find out of 8000 JBT
candidates as to firstly how many of them would be figuring in the final
merit list of 3206 candidates and secondly to find out as to how many SC/BC
candidates would have overlapped the seats of General Category Candidates
out of the 3206 candidates who would have come up in merit. The statement
of the Investigating Officer himself that without there being any joint merit
list of the candidates no purpose whatsoever would be served by either
evolving a formula or by trying to find out as to how many SC/BC
candidates had overlapped the seats of general candidates assumes
significance.
43. With a view to discredit the testimony of PW-56, my attention was
directed towards his testimony where he deposes regarding the lists being
perused by A-3. He states that it was his general impression and that he had
not specifically seen those lists. On being asked whether the two dak bags
meant for the alleged Prerna Guest House exercise contained the said
original award lists, he says he is not certain. He further deposed that he
cannot say whether they were those very award lists which had come from
the districts and that he was not asked to check the said district level award
lists in Prerna Guest House. It is highlighted that while M.L. Gupta talks
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 88 of 400


about A-3 perusing award lists, Sardar Singh who was present at the same
time with ML Gupta in the Director‘s room, in his examination in chief (Part
2/I, Pg. 304,) has deposed that the Director had two bags before him which
he directed them to take to Prerna Guest House. In his statements u/s 161
Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. also, Sardar Singh does not say that he saw A-3
perusing the award lists.
III. Circumstantial Evidence Against A-3
44. It is pointed out that the almirah in which the lists were contained was
put behind a wooden screen in the office of Director Primary Education
(DPE), however it is sumitted that for this fact neither any question been put
to the appellant while examining under section 313 Cr.P.C nor the Site Plan
Ex.PW-31/DK (D-88 page 3) shows any wooden screen.
45. Learned Senior Counsel contends that during the stage of framing of
charges, the trial judge had prejudged the issue of the Directorate Lists being
fake and Supreme Courts being genuine while discharging A-19 Brij Mohan
by giving a positive finding that a ‗UP‘ appears under the signatures of Brij
Mohan without there being any comments with regard to the same by the
Forensic expert in Part8/D-150 page 94-95.
46. With reference to district Faridabad, it is submitted that the document
D-61(I) which is a copy of D-4, the Directorate list contains the same
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 89 of 400


interview marks and grand total for all candidates as Directorate Lists, D-4,
and the original signatures of all the 3 District Level Selection Committee
Members, namely, Harbans Lal, Brij Mohan and Udal Prasad. This clearly
shows that although a copy of D-4 was prepared, the original list was sent to
HARTRON for the purposes of preparation of the final merit list, and the
copy of D-4, which is D-61(I), was retained in the DPEO office as an office
copy. This copy was seized by the CBI during raids in the year 2004 from
the office of the DPEO Faridabad and labeled as D-61(I) by the CBI.
47. It is pointed out that PW-17 Brij Mohan in his deposition [Part 2(1) at
page 144] has clearly stated that he signed 40 pages of the fake lists.
However a perusal of Directorate list and D-61(I) would reveal that in fact he
had signed 40 pages of Directorate list + 28 pages of D-61(I) which is a copy
of the Directorate List. However, as far as the Supreme Court list of district
Faridabad is concerned, he has signed only 40 pages of the Supreme Court
lists of Faridabad.
48. It is submitted that the factum of the lists being taken out from the
almirah before 16.09.2000 emerges from the evidence of PW-56 and PW-31.
Therefore, their testimonies have to be gone through with a fine toothed
comb. It is pointed out that the minutes of the meeting dated 16.09.2000
Ex.PW-31/A (Part 8, D-42, Page 23) shows that the almirah was completely
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 90 of 400


sealed from all sides by cloth and had three seals over it which also shows
that there was no tampering of seals when the almirah was opened before the
de-sealing committee on 16.09.2000. The office note of PW-31, dated
15.09.2000 (Part 8/D-40/I, Page 87-88) also endorses the abovementioned
fact. Further, (in Part2/I, Page 331) PW-31 states that he cannot tell whether
the said almirah was opened prior to 16.09.2000. It is argued that nowhere in
their depositions either the Supreme Court or the Directorate Lists were put
to them to identify as to which one was seen by them prior to 16.09.2000 at
Prerna Guest House. There is no identification of any list being made by
them during the course of trial with respect to the one seen by them at Prerna
guest house. It is argued that there is no positive evidence forthcoming to
show that either of the star witnesses of prosecution i.e. PW-31 or PW-56
have deposed as to which one of the lists was seen by them prior to
16.09.2000, therefore, when the prosecution has itself not lead such evidence
to prove a positive fact which could lead to the hypothesis of conviction of
the accused then it cannot be concluded that the lists were taken out prior to
16.09.2000.
49. Learned Senior Counsel has highlighted the following circumstances
as proof of his innocence in the conspiracy of preparation of fake lists:
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 91 of 400


i) Vishnu Bhagwan, A-5/DW-1 (Part IV page 161 and 164)
deposes that he had recommended to the then CM, the name of
A-3, for additional charge of DPE.
ii) A-3, deposes u/s 315 Cr.P.C. that he came to know of the
design of the CM after he had taken charge and met the CM
over breakfast.

iii) The effort by A-3, to appoint all the remaining JBT candidates
under the World Bank aided project, DPEP, of which he was the
State Project Director, supports his stand that he did not accept
the directions of the CM and his officials about implementing
any fake lists so that their candidates could be favoured.
iv) That the fact that documentary evidence brought by A-3 shows
beyond doubt that the Supreme Court lists cannot be the
genuine lists, proves that A-3, frustrated the ends of the said
conspiracy contemplated by the CM.
v) That the fact that A-3, safeguarded the fake lists and brought the
scam in the open through his Writ Petition No.93/2003, also
proves his intention of not being part of the said scam.
vi) The factum of a dozen criminal and departmental inquiries
instituted against A-3 after 16.09.2000, also establishes that he
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 92 of 400


was being hounded and punished by the State Government
rather than rewarded.
vii) That A-3 has always held that he never accepted the directions
of the then CM about the said scam. These facts as stated above
show that it is not the normal conduct of a person who is
allegedly part of any conspiracy. Rather, his actions indicate
that he never agreed to be part of any conspiracy right from the
beginning.
viii) That the B.Ed. candidates interview results reached his office on
01.08.2000 and remained with his PA, M. L. Gupta, and A-3
did not bother to take it in his possession from him, if there was
any intention on his part to prepare a second set of lists or to
switch the lists.
ix) That even though Prem Prashant, Rajni Shekhri Sibal, P. K.
Mahapatra, and, Vishnu Bhagwan as well as R. P. Chander
were at some stage or the other, aware of the said scam taking
shape, and, had also attended meetings where some of these
officers discussed the difficulty regarding various aspects of
what was being asked of them by officials of CM office, yet
they have not been charged with being of co-conspirators;
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 93 of 400


implying thereby that merely attending the meetings in ones
official capacity and discussing the viability of what was being
asked of them, does not make them conspirators; in fact, when
called for a meeting by the CM office, a senior officer like Prem
Prashant went to a junior officers house, taking with him 2 other
officers. It is argued that this is precisely what happened with
A-3 who is asking for parity with these officers.

50. Heavy reliance has been placed on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) upon
the decision of the Bombay High Court reported as Om Prakash Berlia and
Another v. Unit Trust of India and Others , AIR 1983 Bom 1 to contend
that in the absence of examination of the authors of the lists as witnesses, the
prosecution has failed to prove the truthfulness of the contents of the lists. It
has been urged that all the authors of the lists are arrayed as accused and,
therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences, as it could not
establish the truthfulness of its contents.
IV. Whether A-3 was in a position to exert pressure

51. Learned counsel submits that much reliance is placed on the stand
taken by the accused A-6 to A-62 to show that A-3 exerted pressure on them
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 94 of 400


to sign the fake lists. With a view to discredit this impression, the following
evidence is pointed out:
i) Rajni Shekri Sibal PW -23 (Part 2/1, page 188 last Para) clearly
states that DSE (Director Secondary Education) was the co-
ordinator for effecting appointments to both the Primary and
Secondary Directorates.

ii) P. K. Mahapatra, DSE, frames complete policy regarding these
appointments, end to end, as revealed through these 9 pages of
the file. (Part 8/ D -40 /II Pg 101-109)
iii) The DSE also suggests that the third member of the DLSC, i.e,
the BEO to be nominated by the DSE himself. Pertinent to
mention here that second member Deputy DEO, reports directly
to DSE. (On Page 102)
iv) The DSE is being requested by the DPE to nominate the
DPEO‘s. (On pages 127 and 135). Similarly, the supremacy of
DSE over DSE is clearly revealed and established. (On Pages
28, 29, 127 & 135 as well as 182 & 184 etc.) Most of the DLSC
members have themselves deposed that their services were
regulated by the Directorate of Secondary Education.
v) Deposition of 5 defence witnesses u/s 315 Cr.P.C. in this regard
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 95 of 400


 Cross of D. D. Verma, A-50/DW-1 by A-3 dated
25.07.2012
Q. Who was the next reporting authority for you when
you were posted as Dy. DEO Yamuna Nagar?
A. The next reporting authority was the DEO Yamuna
Nagar. The DEO Yamuna Nagar would be reporting to
the Director Secondary Education in Chandigarh.
Q. When you were posted as Principal DIET in Ding,
District Sirsa, is it correct that Director Secondary
Education was your controlling authority?
A. Yes, it is correct.

Q. When you were transferred four times, under whose
orders these transfer orders issued?
A. The Financial Commissioner Education & Languages
and Secretary to Education Department. To the best of
my knowledge, Sh. Prem Prashant was at this post.

 Cross of Sher Singh A-23/DW-1 by A-3 dated
07/07/2012 :

It is pertinent to mention that Sher Singh had retired on
31.01.00 and so would not have been under any kind of
pressure from A-3.

―He (DC Jhajjhar) also threatened me that till the time I
do not make the second set of lists, I would not be
allowed to leave Jhajjar. It is correct that the first threat
that I received was from DC Jhajjar‖. About the
telephonic threat from A-3, Sher Singh says that, ―This
conversation did not take place face to face but over the
telephone. On telephone, I answered Sh. Sanjeev Kumar
that I will prepare the lists as directed. The then DPE
Sanjeev Kumar did not tell me as to how this second set
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 96 of 400


of list had to be made. Other than this particular episode,
there was no instance whereby Sanjeev Kumar ever
threatened or pressurized me. There was also no
previous instance of any threat or pressure from Sanjeev
Kumar‖….. ―I had never remained a subordinate of Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar.‖

 Cross of Jogindar Lal, A-62/DW-1.

He retired on 31/3/2000 and in Part IV page 223 says ― I
do not know if Sanjiv Kumar was the Director at that
time. I never met Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, the DPE” . So clearly
the pressure could not have come from Sanjiv kumar, A-
3.

 Urmil Sharma,A-61/DW-1 & (5) Sarwan Kumar Chawla
A-60/DW-1

They do not claim to have met Sanjiv Kumar or spoken to
him on phone and their services came under the
Directorate of Secondary education. They were not under
the administrative control of DPE.

52. With regard to the role of PW-2 and PW-5 in Haryana Bhawan, it is
submitted as per their own admission, Ravi Dutt & Milap Singh did not go
inside Haryana Bhawan where these alleged proceedings were taking place.
M.L. Gupta states (Part 2/II, page 139) that he gave the original list of
district Jind to A.S. Sangwan, A-26, which he has also stated in his statement
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Part 7(1), page 176) he nowhere mentions Ravi Dutt or
Milap Singh. Similarly, Sardar Singh also does not mention these two
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 97 of 400


witnesses in response to questions put to him therein. In his statement
recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. ( Part 7(1), page 172), and, u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Part
7(2), page 42), Sardar Singh talks of the original list given to A.S. Sangwan,
A-26 and not to Ravi Dutt or/and Milap Singh. Both Ravi Dutt and Milap
Singh have deposed that original list was given to them.
53. Coming to the argument regarding Supreme Court list of Jind being
retrieved from a sealed envelope in November-December, 2003 it is argued
that the IO, R.N. Azad, deposes that no investigation was carried out on this
point whether the envelope of Jind carrying the Supreme Court list was in
sealed condition and whether the handwriting on this envelope is that of one
Subhash Chander, A3/DW-11. To the next question, he feigns amnesia as to
from where the Supreme Court list of Jind was retrieved in November-
December, 2003. The testimony of Pushpa Ramdeo, PW-43 has to be
considered in this light.
54. It is also argued that it is significant that A.S. Sangwan, A-26 and Ravi
Dutt have given different versions as to how the fake lists were delivered at
Chandigarh.
i) Statement of A. S. Sangwan u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Part 8/D-
nd
135 Page No.16, 2 para, wherein he states that ― on
5/9/2000 we sent the said list to SPD office, DPEO,
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 98 of 400


Haryana Chandigarh through Ravi Dutt and he handed
over the same to one Mr. Arora (most probably PA to Mr.
Sanjiv Kumar) at Chandigarh .‖
ii) Statement of Ravi Dutt u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Part 8/D-137,
Page No. 27, : ― The selection committee handed over the
lists after giving marks of the interview in a sealed cover
& it was deposited in Chandigarh with Mr. Sanjiv
Kumar….I had accompanied Mr. Sangwan to deliver the
said list to the PS of Mr. Sanjiv Kumar …..And the said
list was handed over to Mr. Sanjiv Kumar ‖.
ARGUMENTS BY CBI REGARDING ROLE OF A-3 IN
CONSPIRACY
55. A-4 inducted A-3 as Director Primary Education by giving him
additional charge on 11.07.2000 after having met him over a breakfast
meeting on 10.07.2000, wherein the issue of changing award lists was
discussed. It is argued that if Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) had not been in agreement
with the sinister designs of O.P.Chautala (A-4) on 10.07.2000 wherein
according to his own admission in his deposition U/s 315 Cr.P.C. the issue of
changing the award lists was discussed, he would never have been endowed
with the said additional charge on 11.07.2000 on the basis of oral/informal
orders from the Chief Minister which were confirmed/approved by him on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 99 of 400


17.07.2000 [Part 8/S.No. 7-Miscellaneous Documents exhibited from the
side of Prosecution/Pages 30 and 34-37].
56. PW-26 has deposed that A-3 used to often boast about his proximity
with the Chautala Government and this part of his deposition has gone
unchallenged in cross-examination. Furthermore, it would be relevant to
highlight that PW-26 is a senior IAS officer and had no animus or ill will to
falsely implicate any of the accused.
57. Evidence led by the prosecution in form of testimonies of PW-31,
PW-56 and PW-58, clearly establish beyond the shadow of doubt that the
original award lists which were supposed to be lying sealed in the almirah
were in fact taken out by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) and were handed over to PW-
31 and PW-56 for the purpose of being taken to Prerna Guest House,
Panchkula, in the second-third week of August of 2000.
58. It was mandated by A-3 that the said lists be checked for ascertaining
the number of candidates from the reserved category who would encroach
upon the seats of the General Category.

59. It is highlighted that Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) has suggested to PW-31 and
PW-56 in their cross-examination that they were sent to Prerna Guest House
to compare the HARTRON lists that were collected from HARTRON on
28.08.2000 as evidenced by the gate-pass to the said effect (Part 8/D-37-D-
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 100 of 400


66/D-59/Page 2-3). However, interestingly, no such suggestion was given to
PW-58; who had also visited Prerna Guest House.
60. In order to substantiate his claim, Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) has examined
two witnesses in his defence, namely, A-3/DW-1 Daryao Singh and A-
3/DW-2 Ramji Tewari. It is submitted by the prosecution, that bare perusal
of their testimony reveals that the version deposed by the said witnesses is
ex-facie destructive to one another and, therefore, no implicit reliance can be
placed thereon.
61. Learned ASG submits that the documentary evidence (Part 8/D-37-D-
66/D-59/Page 2-3) clearly laments that on 25.08.2000 only the ascending
and descending lists of 8192 candidates were taken out from HARTRON
and not the application forms of 8192 candidates as well, as is being claimed
by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) without any evidentiary basis. As a matter of fact,
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) has suggested to PW-55 Mukesh Bajaj, an official from
HARTRON, that the material collected from HARTRON on 25.08.2000 was
taken out in two bags. It is highlighted that even the proforma of the
application form (Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-40(II)/Page 119-123) runs into four
pages and the same is required to be necessarily filed by the candidate along
with relevant documents in support. It is impossible for the ascending and
descending lists of 8192 candidates and also the application forms of 8192
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 101 of 400


candidates running in at least four pages each to have been carried from
HARTRON in merely two bags as suggested by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)
himself.
62. Furthermore, file notings (Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-40(I)/Pages 81-84)
reveal that proof-reading was done by the officials of the Directorate of
Primary Education at HARTRON premises itself and the same was complete
by 14.08.2000. Therefore, there was no occasion for PW-31 and PW-56 to
have conducted any such comparison at Prerna Guest House, as suggested by
Prerna Guest House.
63. The applications forms were in fact received from HARTRON along
with the result on 03.10.2000 as the Gate-Pass (Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-59/Page
4) indicates that the Original Interview JBT records and result was being
taken out from the premises of HARTRON.
64. Therefore, it is contended that the very foundation of the evidence
sought to be tendered by the two defence witnesses of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)
stands demolished in wake of the above-described documentary evidence.

65. Analysis of the testimony of the two witnesses examined by Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) in his defence would reveal fundamental contradictions
between them in core areas which warrant their rejection. A-3/DW-1 Daryao
Singh; who was the Care-Taker of Prerna Guest House deposed that PW-31
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 102 of 400


and PW-56 had informed him that they had come to compare the forms of
JBT teachers with some confidential HARTRON lists. Significantly the said
fact finds no mention in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made
before the Investigating Officer during the investigation [Part 7/Vol. I/ Page
136-137]. In fact PW-31 and PW-56 had not even suggested in cross-
examination by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) that they had such a conversation with
Daryao Singh, which casts serious suspicion on the veracity of the evidence
of this witness. It is not the case that Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was not aware of
the existence of Daryao Singh at the time of cross-examination of these
witnesses as his name has figured in questioning therein. Sanjiv Kumar (A-
3) has thus not laid the foundation of his defence evidence at the earliest
opportunity which materially detracts its credibility. A-3/DW-1 Daryao
Singh deposed that Balram Yadav (PW-58) had also visited Prerna Guest
House to assist PW-31 and PW-56. However, curiously, he later volunteered
that he had inquired from PW-31 and PW-56, and they informed that Balram
Yadav did not visit the Prerna Guest House as he was not required. A-3/DW-
1 Daryao Singh further deposed that in pursuance of the request of PW-31
and PW-56, he provided them one room along with the keys of the room and
its almirah. Per contra, A-3/DW-2 Ramji Tiwari has struck a discordant note
and has deposed that he had permitted PW-31 and PW-56 to do their
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 103 of 400


assigned work by providing space in corner of the hall which was being used
for their workshop. It is submitted that the said contradiction goes to the root
and is, therefore, fatal to the version sought to be projected by Sanjiv Kumar
(A-3). Again no suggestion was given to PW-31 and PW-56 during their
cross-examination that they had informed Ramji Tiwari that they were proof
reading HARTRON lists. It also assumes significance that A-3/DW-2 Ramji
Tiwari was employed on contractual basis and his contract was renewed by
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3). It is, therefore, submitted that Ramji Tiwari is a pliable
witness for the defence but not a reliable witness for the Court.
66. It is thus evident that the explanation coined by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)
and sought to be corroborated by the defence-witnesses that HARTRON lists
were being compared with the application forms at Prerna Guest House by
PW-31 and PW-56, is fatuous and negatived by the positive documentary
evidence led at trial.
67. It has been contended that the prosecution has failed to prove with
exactitude when, how and by whom the seal of almirah was broken open and
in absence of same. Apropos the contention raised on behalf of Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3), it would be suffice to state that since Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was
the custodian of the said almirah which was lying in his room behind a
wooden screen, it is virtually impossible and unrealistic for the prosecution
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 104 of 400


to adduce direct evidence on such terms as these facts lie within the
exclusive knowledge of the accused. In view of the unequivocal mandate of
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the facts evidently lie within his
special knowledge and the onus shifts upon him to tender explanation as to
how and under what circumstances the fake/fresh award lists have been
implemented. However, the prosecution, as highlighted earlier in the
preceding paragraphs, has successfully proved at Trial that the original
award lists (Supreme Court Lists) which were supposed to be lying sealed in
the almirah, were in fact handed over to PW-31 and PW-56 by Sanjiv Kumar
(A-3) himself in the second or third week of August. In view thereof, no
further evidence is required to be adduced by the prosecution to prove that
the original award lists were removed from the almirah much before 16-09-
2000.
68. Call records evidencing telephonic exchange between him and Ajay
Chautala (A-5) on 27.07.2000 and 30.08.2000. The said evidence has not
been denied by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)[Part 8/D-80-161/D-93-Call records from
Delhi and Part 8/D-80-161/D-94-Call records from Chandigarh].
69. Furthermore, Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) has himself deposed in his
testimony when he entered the witness-box that he spoke to Ajay Chautala
(A-5) on 01.09.2000.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 105 of 400


70. That it is proved by own admission of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in his
deposition u/s 315 Cr.P.C. that he attended the meetings at Punjab Guest
House, Chandigarh and Haryana Bhawan, Delhi, where several members of
the various District Level Selection Committees were also called for creation
of new award lists.
71. Numerous accused persons (A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-59) in their
statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. state that they attended the
meeting at Punjab Guest House. The TA details of Prem Behl- DPEO
Ambala (A-6) indicate that she travelled to Chandigarh on 30.08.2000 [Part
8/D-37-D-66/D-65/Page 3]. PW-49 and PW-56 also depose with regard to a
meeting held at the Punjab Guest House wherein several committee
members of various districts had been called for preparation of fresh award
lists and the photocopies of the original list were offered to them for the said
purpose.
72. Depositions of D.D.Verma (A-50) and Sher Singh (A-23) in terms of
section 21 of P.C.Act/Section 315 of Cr.P.C. to the effect that they were
being pressurized by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) at Haryana Bhawan to create new
award list.
73. Testimony of PW-31 and PW-56 affix the presence of Sanjiv Kumar
(A-3) at Haryana Bhawan, Delhi on 01.09.2000 and also highlight the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 106 of 400


prominent role played by him in the said meeting, wherein he addressed the
members of the selection committees on the issue of award of marks in the
interviews for appointment of JBT teachers. Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) is also
stated to have announced that the original award lists were available and the
members of the District Level Selection Committee could get the same
photocopied, if they did not already have the copy of the same.

74. Overwhelming evidence available on record to the effect that many
members of various District Level Selection Committees attended the
meeting at Haryana Bhawan-Delhi on 01.09.2000. Testimony of PW-2 and
PW-5 sheds light in this regard and is also corroborated by clinching
documentary evidence in form of notings in the Telephone Register-
Jind[Part 8/D-99/Page 4] about the communication received from the Office
of the Chief Minister on 30.08.2000 that a meeting at Haryana Bhawan-
Delhi must be attended by DPEO-Jind on 01.09.2000 and entry in the
vehicle log-book in this regard[Part 8/D-101/Page 58]. Various District
Selection Committee members admit to their presence at Haryana Bhawan in
their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
[A-9,A-13,A-16, A-17, A-18,A-20,A-24, A-26, A-27, A-28, A-46, A-
47, A-48, A-50, A-51, A-52 and A-56].

75. PW-56 has deposed that after the meeting at Haryana Bhawan, Delhi
on 01.09.2000 some DPEO‘s were also called at the Office of the Director of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 107 of 400


Primary Education for preparation of fresh award lists and the photocopies of
the original list were offered to them for the said purpose.
76. The Chairperson of District Selection Committee-Bhiwani [A-9] and
Karnal [A-29] during their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C have
indicated that they visited the office of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) on 04.09.2000
with regard to the preparation of fresh award lists.

77. Member of District Selection Committee-Kaithal [A-35] has stated
during his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he visited office of
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) on 06.09.2000 with regard to the preparation of fresh
award lists.
78. Substitution of the original award lists (Supreme Court Lists) by
newly created award lists (Directorate Lists) which were prepared in the year
2000 (end of August and early September).
79. Addressing the argument on proving of lists only by the authors i.e.
the committee members, Mr. Khanna points out that the decision in Om
Prakash Berlia (Supra) pertains to a civil suit pending adjudication before
the Bombay High Court, wherein the question arose -―If the truth of the
contents of an extract of annual returns certified to be true by the Registrar
under Section 10 of the Companies Act, 1956 is prime facie established by it
being exhibited as evidence.‖
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 108 of 400


80. After noticing various provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 and
judgments rendered by various Courts on the subject, it was observed as
under:
―6. Secondly, Ss. 61 and 62 read together show that the
contents of a document must, primarily, be proved by the
production of the document itself for the inspection of the
Court. It is obvious that the truth of the contents of the
documents, even prima facie, cannot be proved by merely
producing the document for the inspection of the Court.
What it states can be so established.

7. Thirdly, it is laid down that the writer of a document must
depose to the truth of its contents. …

12. The Act requires, first the production of the original
document. It the original document is not available,
secondary evidence may be given. This is to prove what the
document states. Upon this the document becomes
admissible, except where it is signed or handwritten, wholly
or in part. In such a case the second requirement is, under S.
67, that the signature and handwriting must be proved.
Further, where the party tendering the document finds it
necessary to prove the truth of its contents, that is the truth
of what it states, he must do so in the manner he would
prove a relevant fact.As the cases of BishwanathRai (AIR
1971 SC 1949); MadholalSindhu (AIR 1954 Bom 305); and
Mr. D. (AIR 1968 Bom 112) indicate, this is generally done
by calling the author of the document.

13. ... Secondary evidence of a public document so led only
proves what the document states, no more. In other words,
he who seeks to prove a public document is relieved of the
obligation to produce the original. He can produce instead a
certified copy. All other requirements he must still comply
with.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 109 of 400


14. … A consideration of the relevant provision of the
Evidence Act clearly showed the Court that the only
difference which the Act made between public and private
documents was in regard to the form of secondary evidence
which is admissible viz. a certified copy, and in regard to
the presumption of the genuineness of the certified copy; in
all other respects, no distinction was drawn by the Act
between public and private documents.‖

81. In view of the law laid hereinabove, the Bombay High Court was
pleased to repel the contention that a certified copy of a public document
proved prime facie the truth of its contents. However, in view of the mandate
of Sections 159 and 164 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Bombay High
Court was pleased to hold that prime facie the truth of contents was
established.
82. Mr. Khanna contends that the Om Prakash Berlia judgment (Supra) is
of no avail and has no applicability to the present case wherein the gravamen
of charge against the accused is commission of forgery of the lists. It is a
settled proposition of law that the gist of the offence of forgery pertains to
falsity of execution and not the falsity of the contents/ recitals of the said
document. Reliance is placed upon the luminous observations comprised in
the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court The Public Prosecutor v.
ThallGangadharudu reported as (1956) ALT 678 .
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 110 of 400


83. The said position of law is similar in foreign jurisdictions as well and
it has been eloquently observed by Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,
United States of Americain Wayne S. Marteney v. United States of
America, [ 216 F.2d 760] :

―…As used in criminal statutes, the words "falsely made"
and "forged" are homogeneous, partaking of each other.
They have always been synonymously construed to describe
a spurious or fictitious making as distinguished from a false
or fraudulent statement. The words relate to genuineness of
execution and not falsity of content .”

84. The said observations have been cited with approval by the United
States Supreme Court in R. Milo Gilbert v. United States [370 U.S. 650
(1962)] .
85. It would also be apposite to draw attention of this Hon‘ble Court to the
view of the eminent author- Dr. Hari Singh Gour expressed in his celebrated
th
treatise - Penal Law of India, 11 Edition, 2013. The views expressed by the
said author in the above mentioned treatise on various nuances of law have
been cited with approval by the Supreme Court and other Courts.

86. At page nos. 4449-4450; Volume IV, the author has opined that the
mere fact that a document contains false recitals or statements would not
make it an offence of forgery within the meaning of Section 463 IPC.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 111 of 400


87. At page no. 4471; Volume IV, the author has opined that the mere
making of the document, some recitals whereof are at variance with the
reality, does not constitute an offence of forgery.
88. Therefore, it is established beyond pale of controversy that in a
prosecution for the offence of forgery, as in the present case, the truthfulness
or the falsity of the contents/recitals of the forged document is irrelevant and
the prosecution is not obliged to labour on the said aspect. The prosecution is
required to prove that the ‗Directorate Lists‘ were not contemporaneously
prepared in December, 1999 when the interviews were conducted by the
District Level Selection Committees, but much later, and the original lists
were substituted.In the present case, the date/timing of preparation of the
‗Directorate Lists‘ is the fact-in-issue. The observations of the Bombay High
Court are applicable in cases where a litigant desires or is required under law
to establish the truthfulness of the contents of the document and in such a
situation, the said fact must be proved in the manner prescribed by law,
which is generally done by summoning the author of the document.

89. Furthermore, even the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Om
Prakash Berlia’s case (Supra) clearly permits that the contents of a
document-‗What it says‘ can be read in evidence upon the production of its
original for the inspection of the Court. However, it imposes an embargo that
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 112 of 400


if a litigant is required to establish the truth of such contents, then the mere
production of the said document for inspection of the Court would not
suffice.
90. Interestingly, even otherwise, the inherent fallacy of the said argument
canvassed on behalf of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) can also be evidenced by the fact
that if the same is accepted to be correct, then in no case an author of a
forged document could be convicted for the offence of forgery, as the
prosecution would be mandatorily required to make him step in the witness-
box as a witness to testify for his own misdeeds. Article 20(3) of the
Constitution of India mandates that no person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. Such a situation would be a ‗theoretical absurdity
and practical impossibility‘ and the same is rightly not countenanced by the
makers of Section 464 IPC; who in their wisdom did not choose to telescope
‗falsity of content‘ of a document as an ingredient of the offence of forgery.
The said argument, therefore, is ex-facie misconceived, frivolous and is
liable to be rejected.

91. With reference to the facade of de-sealing of almirah before the
members of the result compilation committee, it is argued that the same was
done on 16.09.2000. The memorandum (Part 8/D-42-D-53/D-42/Page 23)
prepared to this effect was vague and did not even exhibit the minimal
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 113 of 400


degree of specificity, which was expected to be present in genuine
proceedings. Mr. Khanna argues that curiously, the memorandum does not
even describe the nature of sealing (use of One Rupee Coin and white cloth)
and there is no reference of any sealing panchnama to have been shown to
the members of the result compilation committee; who could have thereafter
been in a position to ascertain the fact that the original seals were intact.

92. Furthermore, the opinion of the GEQD [Part 8/D-42-D-53/D-53/Page
104 ] scientifically establishes beyond pale of controversy that factum of
videography has been added to the memorandum dated 16.09.2000 later and
interestingly, the documentary record in form of bills highlighted by A-3 to
lend credence to his false claim of videography of de-sealing proceedings
infact pertains to a three day event and the memo is dated 25.08.2000 (much
before 16.09.2000). The said bill of S.K. Studio was cleared later and was
wittingly depicted in the file noting [ D-80-D-161/D-105/Pages3-4 ] to have
pertained to videography of JBT proceedings.
93. PW-19, Santosh Kumari Sharma, owner of S.K.Studio has clearly
deposed that their studio conducted no videography on 16.09.2000, however,
some job for the department was done earlier. She also deposed that in
March, 2004, one person namely – Sushant Swain contacted her
telephonically and told her to make a statement that videography was done
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 114 of 400


by her firm on 16.09.2000, however, she refused to make such a statement. It
would be worthwhile to highlight that the said Sushant Swain has also
stepped as a defence witness [A-3/DW-3] for Sanjiv Kumar (A-3).
94. It also assumes significance that during cross-examination of the
Investigating Officer- R.N Azad (PW-63), Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) put a leading
question recorded at foot of Page 324, which continues at Page 325 [ Part
2(II) ] wherein the factum of videography being conducted in the
proceedings dated 16.09.2000 was not even put by him to the witness. In
response, the Investigating Officer- R.N Azad (PW-63) refuted the sanctity
of the proceedings dated 16.09.2000 and also stated that no videography was
done. Thereupon, Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) gave a quiet burial to the issue and did
not put it to PW-63 that he is lying or has wrongfully withheld/destroyed the
videography.
95. A-4 praising A-3 on 18.09.2000 at a function when the task assigned
to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was successfully executed. The factum of such
praises has been deposed to by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) himself in his deposition
in terms of section 21 of P.C. Act / Section 315 of Cr.P.C.
96. False and misleading stand taken by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) before the
Supreme Court and Trial Court which snowballs as an additional
circumstance in the chain of evidence against him. Therefore, the falsity of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 115 of 400


the defence plea adds as an additional link in chain of evidence against
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3).
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF A-4
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
97. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Cheema appearing on behalf of A-
4 and A-5 has cantered his legal arguments on two vital aspects:


i) Admissibility of statement of A-3, given under Section 315
Cr.P.C., to prove incriminating evidence against the appellants A-4
and A-5
ii) The effect of such incriminating evidence
 In terms of the extent of reliance that can be placed on
evidence of such witness and,
 In default of the same not being put to the appellants for
their explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
98. Factually, in the present case, 6 appellants (A-3, A-23, A-50, A-60, A-
61 and A-62) have stepped into the witness box, on their own application,
and given evidence on oath under Section 315 Cr.P.C. The prosecution is
relying on such evidence of the Committee members as incriminating
evidence against A-3 and the evidence given by A-3 in his statement under
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 116 of 400


Section 315 Cr.P.C. is being relied upon to as incriminating evidence against
A-4.
Admissibility
99. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Cheema has vehemently argued that
Section 315 Cr.P.C. permits an accused to appear as a witness with the
object of giving evidence to either defend himself or his co-accused. This
provision does not envisage a situation where an accused assumes the role of
a complainant or whistle blower and starts giving evidence to prove the
charge against a co-accused. The deposition of an accused on such lines is
diametrically opposed to the spirit of the provision besides being in conflict
with the purpose for which such permission is granted.
100. Learned Counsel relies on the case reported as Yusufbhai alias
Isubbhai Umarbhai Mallek v. State of Gujarat and Anr ., 2009 Cri L J
4015 , wherein the scope of Section 315 Cr.P.C. has been discussed
elaborately. The relevant portions of the judgment are reproduced below:
―18. It further appears that after recording of the statements
of all the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, A-1 wanted
him to be examined as the witness for defence and the
learned Sessions Judge has permitted so under Section 315 of
Cr.P.C. In the deposition of A-1 he has deposited in
confirmity with the confessional statements made before the
learned Magistrate dated 18-11-1998. Section 315(1) of CrPC
Reads as under:
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 117 of 400


315. Accused person to be competent witness.- (1) Any
person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court
shall be a competent witness for the defence and may
give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made
against him or any person charged together with him at
the same trial;
Provided that-
(a) he shall not be called as a witness except on his own
request in writing;
(b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the
subject of any comment by any of the parties or the
Court or give rise to any presumption against himself
or any person charged together with him at the same
trial.
19. The aforesaid provisions show that what is required for
availing the benefits as per the provisions as contained in the
Section is; (1) that there must be a trial in the criminal Court;
(2) person applying to be examined under the provisions of
the said provisions would be necessarily an accused; (3)
when the stage of invoking the provisions of the said Act has
reached i.e. to say after conclusion of record of evidence of
the prosecution followed by the explanations/submissions of
the accused as required under Section 313 of CrPC., is over;
(4) the evidence as such accused may adduce will be on oath
as a witness and lastly; (5) such evidence must be in
disproving of the charges made against him or any person
charged together with him at the trial. Therefore, if the
evidence is given by accused after the examination under
Section 313 of Cr. P.C., and under Section 315 of CrPC., it is
required to be considered in light of the aforesaid provisions
of Section 315 of Cr.P.C. The pertinent aspect is that such
evidence must be in disproving of the charges made against
him or any person charged together with him at the same
trial. Therefore, the nature of evidence cannot be for
strengthening the case of the prosecution to prove guilt of any
of the accused, but must be in disproving of the charges made
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 118 of 400


against him. The evidence of A-1 as recorded by the learned
Sessions Judge shows that the same is not in disproving of
the charges made against him or in disproving of the charges
made against any person together with him at the trial, but is
to prove the guilt of A-1 himself and/or other co-accused
namely; A-2 and/or A-3. Therefore, such evidence so far as it
relates to not in disproving of the charges, could be said as
beyond the scope of Section 315(1) of CrPC for the purpose
of deciding the case before the learned Sessions Judge. It is
an admitted position that the learned Sessions Judge has not
considered the said aspects and if this Court is to examine the
said aspects, the deposition of A-1 under Section 315, so far
as it relates to involvement of A-1 himself and other co-
accused namely; A-2 and A-3, since is not in disproving of
the charges, cannot be considered since the same would be
outside the scope of Section 315(1) of CrPC.
20. If the confessional statements of A-1 is found as, as
observed earlier, non-trustworthy and if the deposition of A-1
under Section 315 is excluded, since the same is not in
disproving of the charges made against him or other co-
accused, the whole premise or the basis of the case of the
prosecution would fall to ground and the very substratum of
the case of the prosecution would be lost. The reason being
that the whole case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence and the basis of the prosecution is the
confessional statements of A-1, which itself is found as non-
trustworthy by this Court as referred to herein-above. The
second basis, if any, could be the deposition of A-1 under
Section 315, but as observed hereinabove, since the same is
not in disproving of the charges and, therefore, beyond scope
of Section 315(1) of CrPC., and, therefore, excluded, the
effect would be that the second basis of the case of the
prosecution would also not available. The pertinent aspect is
that A-1 was initially cited as the witness by the prosecution
and thereafter has been dropped as the witness by the
prosecution. Therefore, even otherwise also for proving the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 119 of 400


case, the prosecution could not legitimately rely upon the
evidence of A-1, whatever may be the legal value to be
attached to the same.‖
101. Learned Counsel strongly relies on the test of admissibility laid
down in Yusufbhai (supra) to contend that the statement of a co-accused
under Section 315 Cr.P.C. is limited in its application towards ‗disproof‘ of
charges against either the concerned accused himself or a co-accused. The
test of admissibility being whether the witness is stepping into the witness
box to fulfill the objective stipulated in the provision and not with a view
to pass on the buck and implicate others.
102. Learned Counsel illustrates the distinct difference between
establishing innocence of oneself through evidence and testifying on oath
with the sole object of implicating others through evidence of their guilt. In
a case of possession of narcotics, a person sitting beside the owner as well
as the driver of the car may be permitted to take the stand that though they
were present at the time of seizure yet the container did not belong to them.
In the present case, the statement of the co-accused (A-3) is not in disproof
of charges against him rather it is being used by the prosecution to ascribe
and prove guilt of A-4 which is not contemplated by the provision of
Section 315 Cr.P.C.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 120 of 400


Reliability of accomplice evidence
103. An accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily and with common
intent unites with others for commission of a crime. Accomplice evidence
anyway suffers from a memorable taint and, therefore, needs to satisfy the
requirement of self incrimination in order to lend credence to itself.
Learned Counsel argues that A-3 being an accomplice in crime, his
evidence has to be considered on those parameters.
104. It is argued that in the instant case, A-3 has been least worthy of
credence. He claimed to be a whistle blower and misdirected the
investigation as well as the Supreme Court from the very inception in order
save his own skin. His statement under Section 315 is wholly exculpatory
and he has not proved to be a truthful witness. Other co- accused have
admitted their presence at the relevant meetings while truthfully deposing
the involvement of A-3 and the pressure exerted by him on them.
Therefore, the weight of his evidence has to be seen in this light to decide
whether is worthy of reliance.

105. Learned Counsel next traces the guiding principles evolved by the
Supreme Court in order to appreciate the evidence of such witness.
Reliance is placed on Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1952 SC 159 to urge that even in case of confession, where the statement is
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 121 of 400


required to be inculpatory, the approach of Court is to weigh the testimony
independent of the confession. Relevant para is extracted below:
―11. Translating these observations into concrete terms they
come to this. The proper way to approach a case of this kind
is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused
excluding the confession altogether from consideration and
see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be
based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the
confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the
confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is not
prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even
though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a
conviction. In such an event the judge may call in aid the
confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence
and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of
the confession he would not be prepared to accept.‖

106. Elaborating on the requirement of reliability of approver‘s evidence,
the case reported as Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637
is cited. Relevant paras are extracted below:
―7. On behalf of Harbans Singh, it has been urged before us
by Mr. Kohli that the judgment of the High Court of Punjab
suffers from a serious infirmity in that, in dealing with the
evidence of the approver, the learned Judges do not appear to
have addressed themselves to the preliminary question as to
whether the approver is a reliable witness or not. The
problem posed by the evidence given by an approver has
been considered by the Privy Council and courts in India on
several occasions.
It is hardly necessary to deal at length with the true legal
position in this matter. An accomplice is undoubtedly a
competent witness under the Indian Evidence Act. There can
be, however, no doubt that the very fact that he has
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 122 of 400


participated in the commission of the offence introduces a
serious stain in his evidence and courts are naturally reluctant
to act on such tainted evidence unless it is corroborated in
material particulars by other independent evidence.
It would not be right to expect that such independent
corroboration should cover the whole of the prosecution story
or even all the material particulars. If such a view is adopted
it would render the evidence of the accomplice wholly
superfluous. On the other hand, it would not be safe to act
upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in
minor particulars or incidental details because, in such a case,
corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance that the
main story disclosed by the approver can be reasonably and
safely accepted as true.
But it must never be forgotten that before the court reaches
the stage of considering the question of corroboration and its
adequacy or otherwise, the first initial and essential question
to consider is whether even as an accomplice the approver is
a reliable witness. If the answer to this question is against the
approver then there is an end of the matter, and no question
as to whether his evidence is corroborated or not falls to be
considered.
In other words, the appreciation of an approver's evidence has
to satisfy a double test. His evidence must show that he is a
reliable witness and that is a test which is common to all
witnesses. If this test is satisfied the second test which still
remains to be applied is that the approver's evidence must
receive sufficient corroboration. This test is special to the
cases of weak or tainted evidence like that of the approver.‖

107. Learned Counsel relies on Tribhuvan Nath v. State of
Maharashtra, (1972) 3 SCC 511 to urge that even in Tribhuvan (supra)
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 123 of 400


the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of double test in case of
approver‘s evidence. Relevant paras are extracted below:
―30. As aforesaid, the evidence of Puransingh, Elavia and
Mosin Burmawalla was held by the Trial Judge as
accomplice evidence in that each of them had in one way or
the other helped the accused in furthering their objectives. In
such a case the duty of the court apprising the evidence
clearly is to apply the double test as laid down in Sarwan
Singh v. State (1902) 1 K.B. 882. The court, therefore, has
first to see whether the evidence of an accomplice is reliable,
and secondly, even if it is so, whether it is corroborated in
material particulars by other independent evidence, direct or
circumstantial. An Sarwan Singh's case 1957CriLJ1014
points out, the test of reliability is the same as the one applied
to all witnesses. Therefore, it does not mean that an
accomplice's evidence cannot be relied upon unless it is
totally and absolutely blemishless. In majority of cases such
is not the case and inspite of some discrepancies and other
such infirmities, courts have often found it safe to act on the
evidence of such witness. A case illustrating this proposition
is to be found in Sarvanabohavan v. Madras 1966CriLJ949
where the evidence of the approver contained certain
discrepancies and was also contradicted by the testimony of
another witness and yet that evidence was held to pass the
test of being credible and was accepted as it was also
corroborated by other evidence. Regarding the second test,
that is, of the necessity of corroboration, such corroboration
need not, on the one hand, be of every particular given by an
accomplice, and on the other hand, of only minor particulars.
The corroboration must be adequate enough to afford the
necessary assurance that the main story testified by the
accomplice can be reasonable and safely accepted as true.
,
Ramanlal v. The State AIR 1960 SC 961 .

108. Learned Counsel has relied on K. Hashim v. State of Tamilnadu ,
AIR 2005 SC 128 , State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem, 2010 (10) SCC
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 124 of 400


179 , Suresh v. State , 1991 Cri L J 859 , Ranjeet Singh v. State of
Rajasthan , AIR 1988 SC 672 , Abdul Sattar v. Union Territory,
Chandigarh, AIR 1986 SC 1438 , Chonampara Chellappan v. State of
Kerala , AIR 1979 SC 1761 , Lal Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984
SC 226 , to urge the argument of corroboration.
109. The second limb of this legal argument is that assuming but not
conceding admissibility of such evidence, what can be the value thereof in
absence of the same not being put to the concerned accused for his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mandate of Section 313
Cr.P.C. is a derivative of the maxim audi alteram partem, an epitome of the
principles of natural justice considered constitutionally sacred for the
benefit of the accused. Perfunctory examination under the provision,
resultantly depriving the accused of explaining his version on incriminating
evidence against him defeats the very purpose of such examination
reducing it to an empty formality.
110. It is submitted that while right to cross examine a witness is a
valuable right, the right to lead defence evidence is a separate and
independent right. When the accused was allowed to lead defence
evidence, he merely had to meet the case of the prosecution and any other
additional evidence led by a co-accused was not within the zone of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 125 of 400


consideration at the time. After additional, highly incriminating evidence
has come forth, the accused has a right to further meet such evidence
through his own defence evidence and that right cannot be washed down
merely because he was given the right to cross examine such co-accused.
The Court is under a legal obligation to record a supplementary statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in order to consider the explanation given by the
accused to such additional evidence.
111. It is further submitted that in the instant case, incriminating evidence
that has come forth by way of statement of a co-accused under Section 315
Cr.P.C. has additionally been used as a material circumstance to prove
guilt of the appellant A-4. Therefore, such omission on the part of the Trial
Judge leads to the indubitable conclusion that such circumstances that were
not put to the appellant could not be taken into account against him and
had to be ruled out of consideration.
112. Learned Counsel supports this contention through various judgments
reported as Akhtar Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR1927LAh720 , Ibrahim
v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Sindh 49 , Hooghly Chinsura Municipality v.
Keshab Chandra Pal , AIR 1933 Cal 347 , Channu Lal v. Rex , AIR 1949
All 692 , Bhiari Singh Madho v. State of Bihar , AIR1954SC692 , Hans
Raj & Anr v. State , AIR 1966 HP 52 , Balwant Kaur v. Union Territory of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 126 of 400


Chandigarh , 1988 (1) SCC 1 , Jagannath Sah v. State of Assam, 1993 Cri
L J 3704 , Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand , 2003 (2) SCC 401 , Kuldip
Singh v. State of Delhi , 2004 (12) SCC 528 and Ashraf Ali v. State of
Assam, 2008 (16) SCC 328 .
FACTUAL ARGUMENTS
113. At the very outset is it urged by Counsel for the appellant that none
of the prosecution witnesses have implicated the appellant directly. The
circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution to prove the element
of conspiracy as emerging from the official record are as under:
i) Taking the selection of JBT Teachers out of the purview of
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and entrusting it to the
District Level Selection Committees under the Directorate of
Primary Education.
ii) The transfers and appointment to the post of Director, Primary
Education.
iii) Enhancement of marks for the interviews/viva voice from
12.5% to 20%.
iv) The passing of message to DPEO Jind on 30.08.2000 from the
office of the Chief Minister instructing the Committee
Members and others to reach Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi
along with the record on 01.09.2000.

CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 127 of 400


Cabinet Decision
114. It is urged that the note Ex.PW-38/DE enlisting the proceedings of
the meeting of the Council of Ministers would show that that issue of
shortage of JBT Teachers was taken up by the then Education Minister as
opposed to the then Chief Minister A-4. The Education Minister suggested
the need to fill the existing vacancies through special selection by
authorized Departmental Committees by taking these posts out of the
purview of the Haryana Staff Selection Committee. It is pointed out from
the note that the Council of Ministers after deliberations approved the
proposal and it was a collective decision of the Cabinet. It is further
clarified that the permission of the Chief Minister was only required to take
up the item in the said meeting as the same was not in the agenda. It is,
therefore, argued that merely the fact of the Chief Minister‘s permission
cannot be seen as a fortuitous circumstance to show malice or evidence of
conspiracy. This argument is fortified with the fact that the CBI did not
examine any other Cabinet Minister who was part of this Cabinet decision.
115. Learned Counsel draws support from the testimony of PW-16 to
depict the factual state of affairs and the reasoning behind the Cabinet
decision. PW-16 has deposed that there were thousands of vacancies of
JBT teachers in the State of Haryana and that Primary Education at that
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 128 of 400


time was in a state of utter neglect. He states that attrition was on account
of superannuation/casualty which is around 3% annually and if teachers are
not recruited then the vacancies keep getting accumulated. He admits that
recruitment of JBT teachers is the duty of the Staff Selection Commission
but there had been some failure somewhere which led to this situation. He
admits the suggestion that the decision of the Cabinet on 08.09.1999 to
take out posts of JBT teachers from the purview of the Staff Selection
Commission was in view of the existing circumstances i.e. immediate
filling of the large number of JBT teachers. He also states that in his
opinion, this was the best course for expediting the process of selection.
116. PW-38 and PW-62 have also deposed to the effect that the
recruitment was entrusted to DOP as the HSSC process was too lengthy
and time consuming. It was also stated that there was huge shortage of
teachers and whenever selection of particular staff is required urgently, the
Government takes steps to take out the selection of the same from HSSC in
order to make selections expeditiously.

117. It is, therefore, stressed that the Cabinet decision was taken in
accordance with the settled procedure by a competent authority and as per
the Rules of Business. There has been no allegation of pressure or of any
special interest taken by A-4 from any person in the Cabinet and in view of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 129 of 400


the consistent testimony depicting the sordid state of affairs in primary
education it was indeed a requirement to entrust the selection process with
DOP.
118. Another complementary argument is that the said decision was taken
in the year 1999 and a new government took office under A-4 in March
2000. If the object was to manipulate the selection process, it would have
been easier to do so by scrapping the previous decision and enlarging the
size of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. It is argued that it is
simpler to manoeuvre selection in a small centralized body than in a large
decentralized body of more than 50 persons spread over 18 districts of the
State. Therefore, the allegation does not seem plausible of logical human
conduct.
Transfer of R.P. Chander
119. It is alleged by the prosecution that the transfers of R.P. Chander and
subsequently Ms. Rajni Sekhri Sibal were in furtherance of the conspiracy
and with a view to appoint a person favorable to the main conspirators.
Learned Counsel relies on the statement of PW-38 himself to meet this
allegation. PW-38 admitted that on 24.04.2000, he had recorded a note
mentioning that the work for the declaration of the result may be assigned
to HARTRON and marked the file to FCEL and on 27.04.2000 FCEL
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 130 of 400


recorded his note on the said file. On being questioned regarding his
transfer on 26.04.2000 being as soon as he sent the note for declaration of
results, he admitted that he had sent the note on 24.04.2000, however he
did not think his transfer had anything to do with the note.
120. Learned Counsel submits that a new government essentially re
arranges the bureaucratic set up leading to routine transfers, which was
essentially the case here. There is no evidence to show that there existed
any enmity between A-4 and PW-38 or that he had defied the instructions
of the former in any manner. It is also submitted that PW-63, the
Investigating Officer was put a specific question regarding the motive
behind transfer of PW-38 to which he replied that he did not make any
enquiry into the same.
Transfer of Rajni Sekhri Sibal
121. Prosecution relies on the transfer of PW-23 to evidence the fact that
since she was not cooperating in effecting the conspiracy, therefore, she
was transferred.
122. Learned Counsel submits that PW-23 through her own admission
had requested for her transfer a day after the sealing of the almirah.
Though she was unable to conclusively affix the date for this request,
however, it has been established that the sealing took place on 20.06.2000.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 131 of 400


Therefore, as per her own version she made a request for transfer on
21.06.2000. It is pointed out that her order of transfer was finally issued on
11.07.2000, nearly 3 weeks after the request. The factum of her transfer
being at her own request is further corroborated by the deposition of
Vishnu Bhagwan A5/DW1 to whom she had made the request. No
suggestion was put to either witness that PW-23 had not approached
Vishnu Bhagwan with such a request.
123. The second limb of the argument is that A-3 was in no manner the
chosen official showing favour towards either A-4 or A-5. Vishnu
Bhagwan in his cross examination is specifically put a suggestion that it
was the then CM and not him who had suggested the name of A-3 to take
over the charge as Director Primary Education. Denying the suggestion he
has stated that he suggested A-3 as he already had the experience of
working in that department as Incharge of DPEP.
Enhancement of interview marks
124. It has been alleged by the prosecution that in order to achieve the
purpose of tinkering with the selection process and to ensure selection of
favored candidates, a meeting was held on 10.11.1999 under the
chairmanship of A-4 wherein besides the fixing of norms of selection by
DLSCs, the marks for interview were enhanced from 12.5% to 20%. For
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 132 of 400


this purpose, the prosecution relies on a note Ex.PW-38/E which notes that
a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister and attended by the Finance
Minister, Minister of State for Education, the Advocate General, the PS-
CM, the Secretary Finance, Finance Secretary Education and others was
held on 10.11.1999. The break-up of marks for each category towards
selection were enlisted and the marks allotted for interview were
mentioned 20 out of 100. This note is signed by PW-16, PW-38 and others.
125. Learned counsel submits that the instant note does not bear the
signature of A-4 and his presence at any such meeting is not conclusively
established. Even otherwise, enhancement of marks would not constitute
any incriminating evidence in furtherance of conspiracy.
Note instructing DPEO Jind to reach Haryana Bhawan on 01.09.2000
126. Prosecution has alleged that Dhup Singh, DPEO Jind had received a
telephonic message recorded in the telephone register (D-99) on
30.08.2000 from PW-9, Shadilal Kapoor, P.A to PW-1 Sanjeev Kaushal,
Addl. Principal Secretary-II to the then Chief Minister (A-4) to instruct
DPEO Jind and A-26 Ajit Sangwan and other members of JBT Selection
Committee, Jind to reach Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi along with records
on 01.09.2000. A-26, Ajit Sangwan had endorsed it ―Seen and Signed‖.
PW-1 Sanjeev Kaushal Addl PS-II to Chief Minister had communicated
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 133 of 400


this message to PW-9 Shadi Lal Kapoor on instructions received from the
office of Chief Minister, A-4.
127. Learned Counsel has strongly challenged this allegation in wake of
the testimony of PW-1 who deposed that he does not remember having
passed any such message dated 30.08.2000 to PW-9. Having been declared
hostile, he was cross examined by the Prosecutor and he clarified not
remembering any such message particularly because he did not ever handle
the education department.
128. Coming to the testimony of PW-9, he states that he did remember
sending a message to DPEO Jind on 30.08.2000 as directed by PW-1,
however, he did not remember the contents of the message. Learned
Counsel urges there is, therefore, insufficient evidence to establish this
allegation.
Testimony of A-3 Sanjeev Kumar
129. Sanjeev Kumar A-3, has testified in his examination under Section
315 Cr.P.C. that he met A-4 on 10.07.2000 at 9:00 a.m. over breakfast and
A-4 Om Prakash Chautala, the then Chief Minister Haryana, asked him
that second set of lists was to be prepared afresh at the earliest because his
Government has got the clear majority of his own and there was no
necessity to oblige the MLAs of the parties. Vidya Dhar (A-1) told him
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 134 of 400


that mandate for DPEOs is that fresh lists were to be prepared according to
the list, which he (Vidya Dhar) would give to him, and the role of Sanjiv
Kumar was to replace the list kept in the sealed almirah and declare the
results as per the second set of award lists.
130. Learned Counsel has vehemently challenged the inherent worthiness
of the testimony of A-3 on grounds of admissibility and reliability.
Assuming arguendo even if his testimony were to be admissible, the
credibility attached to the same is highly devalued in light of the following
proven circumstances:

i) He was admittedly the sole custodian of the original award
lists which were kept in a sealed almirah in his office. It is,
therefore, impossible for anyone to undertake any substitution
or replacement of the lists except with the leading and active
participation of A-3.
ii) Prosecution witnesses PW-31 Sardara Singh, PW-56 Mohan
Lal Gupta and PW-58 Balram Yadav being officials deputed
in the office of A-3 have deposed that in the middle/end of
August, 2000, despite the almirah being officially sealed, the
award lists had been taken out. A-3 had directed these
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 135 of 400


officials to scan and examine the record to work out the
possibility of minimizing the number of reserved category
candidates entering the selection process. It is, therefore, writ
large that the record had already been obtained and an effort
was being made to carry on an in depth analysis to tamper
with the selection process.

iii) Other prosecution witnesses being PW-2 Ravi Dutt, PW-5
Milap Singh, PW-14 Dhoop Singh and PW-17 Brij Mohan
have also deposed that the preparation of fake award lists was
under the direction and control of A-3.
iv) The Directorate lists that were implemented and on the basis
of which appointments were made have been declared to be
fake and in view of A-3 stand in trial that Directorate lists
were genuine, it is the most cogent stark evidence of his guilt.
v) He has been consistently inconsistent on material aspects.


131. In addition, learned counsel has repeatedly pointed out that the
factum of the alleged breakfast meeting was not put to A-4 in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and at the same time has been used
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 136 of 400


by the Trial Judge as the most incriminating evidence to prove guilt of A-4
which is impermissible under the mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Evidence of Conspiracy

132. Learned Counsel has elaborated the judicial principles evolved on
principles of appreciation of evidence in a case of conspiracy. It is argued
that when factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from
circumstances, the same must give rise to a conclusive or irresistible
inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit the
offence. At the same time, concurrence cannot be inferred by a group of
irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance of coherence.
133. Learned Counsel relies on following circumstances to render the
allegation of conspiracy highly improbable:

i) The execution of a conspiracy of this scale required a person
to be handpicked to the post of DPE to act as an engine of the
conspiracy. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show
that either R P Chandra or Rajni Sekhri Sibal or Sanjeev
Kumar were appointed by prior agreement with A-4. There is
no allegation that R P Chander was shifted from the said post
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 137 of 400


on instruction from A-4. It is also nobody‘s case that Rajni
Sekhri Sibal was brought in with a prior meeting of minds to
execute the nefarious designs. The circumstances in which
Sanjeev Kumar had taken over rule out any interest having
been shown by A-4 in his posting
ii) Learned Counsel has urged that the period of conspiracy
needs to be properly demarcated in order to take benefit of
Section 10 Indian Evidence Act. The report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. vaguely mentions the period of conspiracy to be 1999-
2000. Learned Counsel however, relies on testimony of PW-
63 the Investigating Officer who has deposed that conspiracies
being hatched in darkness, it is difficult to state as to when the
conspiracy started but the factum of asking Rajni Sekhri Sibal
to change the lists is the foundation of the entire conspiracy. It
is submitted that this testimony establishes that no conspiracy
can be inferred prior to the taking over of Rajni Sibal vide her
transfer orders on 27.04.2000. This is further strengthened by
the fact that PW-63 had collected the call detail records only
w.e.f 01.03.2000. Therefore, all decisions prior to this must
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 138 of 400


logically be divorced from consideration being regular
administrative decisions without a taint of criminality.
iii) Learned Counsel argues that had there been an ulterior
motive, A-4 would have put pressure to ensure that the
selections take place before the election in order to reap the
electoral harvest. Therefore, the probabilities strongly militate
against the existence of conspiracy overarching over two
periods of the government i.e prior to elections and after
induction of new Cabinet
iv) It is also argued that had A-3 been acting according to dictates
of A-4, their relations would be intimate having obliged the
Chief Minister by committing serious crimes. It is, therefore, a
moot question as to why and when they had a fall out. A
number of FIRs were registered against A-3. It not the case of
CBI that these FIRs were false or motivated.
v) It is argued that A-4 had won a fresh mandate with secured
majority in the year 2000 which was to last till March, 2005.
Hence, there was no reason for A-4 or his political
companions to take any desperate measures for the selection
of their chosen ones. The government could have dropped the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 139 of 400


tedious process undertaken and got fresh selections held on
ground of delay
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY CBI
LEGAL ARGUMENTS
134. The legal arguments raised by Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Cheema
have been addressed by the prosecution in the first instance:
135. The first attack on the testimony of A-3 is on grounds of
admissibility in view of the fact that he is a co-accused. At the outset it was
highlighted that no provision in the law of evidence governing the field
was cited to buttress the claim of inadmissibility of such statements. It is
submitted that there is no prohibition encompassed in the language of
Section 315 Cr.P.C. or law of evidence in India to warrant exclusion of
such statements as inadmissible. It has been held since time immemorial
and there exists profusion of authorities to evince that the test of
admissibility lies in relevancy and evidence is admissible as long as it is
relevant to the cause, subject to any expressed provision engrafted under
law. For instance the contents of a statement tendered by an accused in
custody of a police officer may seem to be relevant for the cause; however,
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 140 of 400


Section 25 of the evidence imposes a ban on proof of such statements and
treats them as inadmissible.
136. Relience is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
of Tribhuvan Nath (supra) , wherein it has been held that an accused may
step into the witness box and choose to implicate his co-accused, such
evidence would be admissible against the co-accused as long as an
opportunity for cross examination was granted. The Supreme Court cited
with approval the law in England in this regard, which has remained
unchanged ever since that such evidence is admissible as long as an
opportunity is given to the co-accused to cross-examine such accused who
has implicated him. It is submitted that the very emphasis on securing this
right to conduct cross-examination stems from the underlying principle that
such evidence is admissible, otherwise there would have been no necessity
to labour on providing an opportunity to conduct cross-examination if such
evidence was ipso facto inadmissible.
137. The decision of the Supreme Court in Tribhuvan case (Supra) has
been followed by the Bombay High Court in Hiten Prasan Dalai and
Others v. Abhay Dharmasi Narottam and Another, (1998) 5 Bom CR 822
and Central Bureau Of Investigation, Bank Securities And Fraud Cell v.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 141 of 400


Mulangi Krishnaswamy Ashok Kumar and Others, (1999) 3 Bom CR
189 .
138. It is argued that the judgement of Gujarat High Court rendered in
Yusufbhai case (supra) is in teeth with the law laid down in by Supreme
Court in Tribhuvan case (supra) and is, therefore, not a good law. It may
be highlighted that in fact the decision of the Gujarat High Court does not
even notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Tribhuvan case (supra) .
139. It is reiterated that the Apex Court has always sounded a note of
caution that judicial discipline obliges the High Courts of the land to
follow the judgments of the Supreme Court and the fact that a particular
argument was not considered or a provision was not cited, cannot denude
the judgment of Supreme Court of its precedential value.
140. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Ambika Prasad Mishra v.
State of U.P. , (1980) 3 SCC 719 observed that every new discovery or
argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding
precedent.

141. Reliance is also placed upon Section 21 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 to evidence the fact that a statement made by an
accused against the interest of a co-accused is admissible and subject to
cross-examination. The said section is pari materia Section 7 of the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 142 of 400


Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It would be beneficial to extract the
contents of Section 21 herein below: -
―21. Accused person to be a competent witness.—Any
person charged with an offence punishable under this Act,
shall be a competent witness for the defence and may give
evidence on oath in disproof of the charges made against him
or any person charged together with him at the same trial:

Provided that—

(a) he shall not be called as a witness except at his own
request;

(b) his failure to give evidence shall not be made the
subject of any comment by the prosecution or give rise
to any presumption against himself or any person
charged together with him at the same trial;

(c) he shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required
to answer, any question tending to show that he has
committed or been convicted of any offence other than
the offence with which he is charged, or is of bad
character, unless—

(i) the proof that he has committed or been convicted of
such offence is admissible evidence to show that he
is guilty of the offence with which he is charged, or

(ii) he has personally or by his pleader asked any
question of any witness for the prosecution with a
view to establish his own good character, or has
given evidence of his good character, or the nature
or conduct of the defence is such as to involve
imputations on the character of the prosecutor or of
any witness for the prosecution, or

(iii) he has given evidence against any other person
charged with the same offence.‖
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 143 of 400



142. Bare reading of proviso (c) sub-clause (iii) of the above extracted
provision laments that when an accused person tenders evidence against
his co-accused he may be questioned during his cross-examination about
his previous convictions or bad character (which is otherwise
impermissible under law in view of Section 54 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872). Therefore, proviso (c) sub-clause (iii) expressly contemplates
reception of evidence by an accused against the co-accused, however in
such cases the co-accused enjoys the right to expose the bad character of an
accused who implicates him. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a
special act, later in time, and it overrides the provisions of the general law
viz. the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, section 21 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would prevail over Section 315 of
Cr.P.C., 1973.
143. At any rate, it is argued that even Section 315 of Cr.P.C., 1973 does
not prohibit the use of such evidence tendered by the accused against the
interest of the co-accused as held in Tribhuvan case (supra) and there is no
dichotomy as such between section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 and the Cr.P.C., 1973, though the language of Section 21 is clearly
more express in this regard.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 144 of 400


Admissibility of deposition of an accused against the co-accused when
such deposition is not self-incriminatory but exculpatory

144. The second legal objection canvassed by Counsels appearing on
behalf of the appellants to the reception of evidence tendered by the
accused against the interest of his co-accused at trial, is that such evidence
must also necessarily implicate/inculpate the accused himself, failing
which, the evidence of such accused would be inadmissible qua the co-
accused.
145. It is submitted that there is no jurisprudential hiatus for such a
submission as no such requirement has been engrafted by the legislature
either in Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 315
of Cr.P.C., 1973 or Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
deals with the admissibility of the evidence tendered by accomplice. As a
matter of fact, the prosecution has cited the decision of the Supreme Court
of India in Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66 ,
and the decision of the Privy Council in Mahadeo v. The King, (1936) 44
L.W 253 , wherein it has been held that an accomplice who completely
exculpates himself may require corroboration and the court did not treat
such evidence inadmissible per se. Reliance was also placed upon Para 31,
inter alia, in the decision of the Supreme Court in Tribhuvan case (supra) ,
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 145 of 400


wherein the Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the accused 3 was
claiming his acts to be innocent and yet the Court while rejecting his claim
of innocence, used his statements that incriminated the co-accused.
146. The concept of self incrimination emerges as a necessary pre-
requisite for statements of the accused which fall within the ambit of
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.

147. At the outset, it is highlighted that evidence contemplated as
admissible under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act is materially
different in its nature and quality from the evidence of an accomplice
which is admissible under Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act. The
judgment of the Supreme Court in Tribhuvan case (supra) clearly
prescribes the applicability of Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act to
the testimony of an accused who steps in the witness box and deposes
against the co-accused.
148. The confessional statements made by an accused under Section 30
may not necessarily be on oath, such statements are made behind the back
of an accused and not in his presence, and significantly cannot be subjected
to cross-examination by the accused against whose interest they may be
made. The Apex Court has in fact held that such statements of accused
falling within Section 30 of the Evidence Act are not even strictly speaking
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 146 of 400


―evidence‖ qua the co-accused for the purpose of Section 3 of the Evidence
Act and is a mere material which can be taken into consideration by the
Court after marshalling the other evidence against the accused. The reason
is obvious, as it would be hazardous to use such statements of an accused
as evidence against a co-accused; who does not even get an opportunity to
cross examine the maker of such statement. The rationale/sanction for the
limited use of such statements of an accused against the co-accused in
terms of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act lies in the fact that the
accused incriminates himself as well which affords some assurance of
truth. Reliance is placed upon the observations in this regard comprised in
the treatise of the eminent authors- Sir John Woodroffe and Syed Amir Ali-
Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa-Nagpur in Volume 2,
Chapter 5 at Pages 1558-1559.
149. In view of the above described sublime philosophy, the Apex Court
has held that evidence under section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act is of
superior quality and higher pedestal then evidence/ material under Section
30 of the Indian Evidence Act. [ Haricharan Kurmi v. State Of Bihar , AIR
1964 SC 1184 and Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State Of Maharashtra , AIR
1968 SC 832].
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 147 of 400


150. Therefore, it is urged that self incrimination is not a condition
precedent for admissibility of evidence of an accomplice against his co-
accused. No such requirement has been engrafted in any statutory
provision dealing with the evidence of accomplices. Rather insistence of
self incrimination would militate against the very object of introducing
Section 315 Cr.P.C. wherein an accused steps into the witness box in
disproof of charges against him and he, therefore, cannot be expected /
compelled by a convoluted interpretation of law to admit charges against
him. Such insistence of self incrimination by an accused to render evidence
admissible against the co-accused would also fall foul of Article 20 (3) of
the Constitution of India.
The degree of corroboration required to act upon accomplice evidence.
151. Since time immemorial the Apex Court of our land has reiterated the
principles which need to be kept in mind while appreciating the probative
value of the evidence adduced by accomplices; who are in fact participant
criminis and may themselves be culpable partners in the crime along with
their confederates. Needless to say, that since such evidence does not
spring from pious sources, the courts, as a matter of practice (rule of
prudence) seek corroboration from independent sources before acting upon
the evidence of such a witness. The said rule of caution stands embodied in
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 148 of 400


illustration (b) appended with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 and it suggests that a Court may draw a presumption that an
accomplice is unworthy of credit and requires corroboration in material
particulars.
152. A bare reading of the said provision, brings to fore two striking
features. Firstly , the use of the term ‗may‘ suggests that such presumption
is not automatic and is not required to be mandatorily drawn as a ‗rule of
law‘. As a matter of fact, Section 133 of the said act laments that an
accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction proceeding solely on
the edifice of such uncorroborated evidence would not be illegal.
Secondly , even when the Court chooses to draw such a presumption having
regard the factual contours of the case, corroboration is required only in
material particulars as distinct from every particular.
153. Significantly, the Supreme Court while considering the said issue
has pertinently held that corroboration is not required even on every
material particular because if independent evidence was required to
corroborate the evidence tendered by an accomplice on every aspect, it
would render the evidence of such accomplice superfluous and mere
surplus age. The independent evidence must be such that it would be
reasonably safe to believe the witness‘s story that the accused was amongst
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 149 of 400


those, who committed the offence. It has been held that the corroboration
need not be of a kind which proves the offence against the accused. It is
sufficient that it connects the accused with the crime. Furthermore, such
corroboration need not necessarily be furnished by direct evidence and the
same may be provided in form of circumstantial evidence.
154. The Learned Counsels for various appellants have laboured before
this Court to submit that since the co-accused; who stepped into the
witness-box in disproof of charges levelled against them, have themselves
been held blameworthy by the prosecution and the Trial Court, it would
ipso facto be impermissible to rely on their statements as they are
inherently devoid of trustworthiness and the question of seeking
corroboration would not even arise for consideration.
155. It is contended that said argument is liable to be repelled in view of
decision of the Apex Court in the Tribhuvan’s case (supra) , which is a self
contained code to the law in this regard and a complete answer to the
submission of the appellant. Even in Tribhuvan’s case (supra) , the Court
was pleased to place reliance upon the portion of the testimony of an
accused that incriminated the co-accused and the residual portion
(canvassing his own innocence) was rejected, consequently resulting in
conviction of the said accused as well. Therefore, the fact that such an
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 150 of 400


accused is himself convicted and that his version is not held believable in
its entirety by the Court, is no ground to detract the court from culling out
the ‗ nuggets of truth ‘, if they are found to exist, and acting upon the same.
It is a settled tenet of criminal jurisprudence in India that the doctrine of
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one particular, false in every
particular) is not applicable in our country. The Court is under a bounden
duty to make an endeavour to separate the grain from the chaff i.e.
disengage truth from falsehood. It has been held in the Tribhuvans case
(supra) that once an accused steps in the witness-box, he is like an
‗ordinary-witness‘. However, in view of the fact that he is a participant in
the crime, while attaching testimonial-worth, the safeguards of
appreciating evidence of accomplices apply to such evidence.
156. Therefore, the mere fact that an accused is blameworthy in crime
and stands convicted himself, does not imply that owing to such stigma his
evidence tendered against the co-accused must be thrown out from
consideration lock, stock and barrel.
EXAMINATION UNDER SECTION 313
157. Learned ASG submits that the mere omission on part of the Trial
Court to put certain incriminatory circumstances in form of questions during
the examination of the accused in terms of section 313 Cr.P.C. does not
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 151 of 400


vitiate the trial as unfair and offensive of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Furthermore, such omission would also not necessarily lead to the exclusion
of such evidence from consideration against the accused persons.
158. It is pointed out that most such incriminatory circumstances which
were not put to the accused during their examination in terms of Section 313
Cr.P.C., as highlighted by the appellants before this Court, infact emerged
during the course of defence evidence, particularly when some accused
persons examined themselves as witnesses in their own defence under
Section 21 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988/Section 315 Cr.P.C.
and shed valuable light on the misdeeds of their confederates in crime.
159. Relevant portion of Section 313 Cr.P.C. herein below:-
―313. Power to examine the accused.—(1) In every inquiry or
trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to
explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him, the Court—
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the
accused put such questions to him as the Court considers
necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been
examined and before he is called on for his defence,
question him generally on the case:…‖
160. Perusal of the said provision reveals that sub-clause (b) of Clause (1)
of Section 313 Cr.P.C. is couched in mandatory terms as the legislature has
employed the phrase ―shall‖ as distinguished from the term ―may‖ used in
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 152 of 400


sub-clause (a) preceding the same. Therefore, it seems the trial court
conducted the examination of the accused after the culmination of
prosecution evidence as obligated under sub-clause (b) but did not conduct
any such examination thereafter.
161. It is also pointed out that at no stage any of the appellants-accused
raised the issue of insufficient examination before the Trial Court, which was
in the best position to conduct such additional examination, if desired
necessary by the accused; who were represented by a battery of competent
legal professionals. As a matter of fact the additional evidence which was led
at the stage of defence evidence was subjected to gruelling cross-
examination at the hands of the Learned Counsels for the effected accused
persons and it was not the case that they were unaware about the introduction
of such evidence against them and were taken by surprise at the time of
pronouncement of judgment, so as to result in miscarriage of justice.
162. The Supreme Court has held since time immemorial that mere
omission to question the accused with regard to certain incriminatory
circumstances would not result in automatic exclusion of such evidence and
the accused must demonstrate prejudice. It has also been held that when such
an objection is not raised before the trial court which could have easily cured
the defect, and such objection is belatedly raised for the first time before the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 153 of 400


appellant court, that itself demonstrates that the appellants did not feel any
prejudice.
163. It is submitted that the appellants before this Court have not even
pleaded much less proved/ substantiated any prejudice and have only
highlighted the alleged omission and claimed its exclusion from
consideration against them. No appellant has even attempted to demonstrate
how he was misled in his defence or taken by surprise by introduction of
such evidence, which in fact he arduously subjected to cross-examination
and addressed its credibility extensively at the stage of final arguments
before the Learned Trial Court. Furthermore, the Apex Court has also held
that all which an accused is entitled to in such cases is that his explanation, if
any, be considered by the Appellate Court while evaluating the prosecution
evidence and no more. As highlighted earlier, the appellants have not
projected any such explanation which they desired to tender with regard to
the circumstances upon which they claim they were not questioned by the
Learned Trial Court.
FACTUAL ARGUMENTS
164. Learned ASG submits that A-4 chaired the Cabinet meeting dated
08.09.1999 and with his permission the issue of appointment of JBT
teachers was taken up for consideration as it was not an item on the
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 154 of 400


agenda. It was decided to take the appointment of JBT teachers out of the
purview of Haryana Staff Selection Committee (HSSC) – a statutory body
and bring the same under the control of Directorate of Primary Education.
It would be relevant to highlight that at the said time he was holding the
portfolio of Education Minister as well. A meeting dated 10.11.1999 was
chaired by the then Chief Minister- O.P.Chautala (A-4). It is in the said
meeting, the vital decision of increasing the weightage of interview marks
from 12.5 % to 20 % was taken in furtherance to the cabinet decision dated
08.09.1999 by which the JBT teachers appointment was taken out of the
purview of the Haryana Staff Selection Committee (HSSC), which is a
statutory body. The said meeting was also attended by his close aides –
Vidya Dhar (A-1) and Sher Singh Badshami (A-2); who were occupying
the post of his OSD and his political advisor respectively. Interestingly,
O.P Chautala (A-4) had approved the ―chayan‖ formula only a fortnight
earlier i.e. on 12.10.1999 itself, wherein 12.5 % was the weightage
prescribed for interview.

165. It is submitted that positive acts of A-4 and others, subsequent in
time, would reveal that the said decision of taking the appointments out
from the purview of HSSC and increasing the weightage to be accorded to
interview marks substantially was not innocuous or a sheer co-incidence.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 155 of 400


As a matter of fact these two ostensibly innocuous decisions formed the
very edifice upon which the conspiracy to effect this employment scam of
vast magnitude rested as it could not have been given effect to without
these enabling policy decisions.
166. Addressing the contention that the period of conspiracy has been
deposed by the Investigating-Officer (PW-63) to commence upon the
demand of substituting the award lists being made to PW-23 and, therefore,
the circumstances of removing JBT appointments from the purview of
HSSC and increasing the weightage of interview marks pale into
insignificance, it is pointed out that the IO has categorically deposed that-
―The conspiracy in this case started when the then Chief Minister Sh. Om
Prakash Chautala took a decision to withdraw the vacancies of the J.B.T
Teacher from the purview of Staff Selection Commission and the
conspiracy ended on appointment of undeserving candidates on the basis of
directorate lists…‖ [Part 2(II)/Page 277]
167. Furthermore, if it was the case of the prosecution since the inception
that the circumstances highlighted above were NOT an integral
manifestation of conspiracy, the prosecution would not have labored and
examined relevant witnesses to prove the said facts at trial. Reliance is
placed upon the observations of Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 156 of 400


of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 . The
Court observed that it is difficult to spell out with exactitude the details
relating to the starting point of conspiracy and reiterated the view taken by
it earlier in its decision in Esher Singh v. State of A.P. , (2004) 11 SCC
585 wherein it was held that it is not always possible to give affirmative
evidence about the date of the formation of the Criminal Conspiracy.

168. It is also mentioned that a similar view has been echoed by the
Supreme Court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra) wherein it was observed
that agreement between the conspirators can be inferred by necessary
implication.
169. It is argued that the conspiracy in the present case had commenced
much before the induction of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3). The first overt
manifestation of the conspiracy is found when the recruitment process was
taken away from the purview of Haryana Staff Selection Committee
(HSSC) and entrusted to Directorate of Primary Education vide a Cabinet
decision dated 08.09.1999, when such issue was not even comprised in the
agenda prepared for the meeting. Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) joined the
conspiracy around 10.07.2000, when he met O.P.Chautala (A-4) at his
residence over breakfast meeting.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 157 of 400


170. The prosecution has enumerated and explained the gist of
incriminating evidence against A-4 as under:
i) Transfer of PW-38, R.P.Chandra – Director Primary Education
within two days of his initiating the note dated 24.04.2000 for
compilation of the result through HARTRON [Part 8/D-37-D-
66/D-40 (I)/Page 57].

ii) Deposition of PW-16 Prem Prashant to the effect that someone
from the Office of the Chief Minister had informed him to attend
the said meetings at Haryana Niwas and at residence of Vidya
Dhar (A-1); who was as a matter of fact much junior to them.
iii) Pressure being exercised by his close aides- Vidya Dhar (A-1)
and Sher Singh Badshami (A-2) in presence of his son- Ajay
Chautala (A-5) upon PW-23 Rajni Sekhri Sibbal for substitution
of fresh award lists in place of the original award list lying in her
custody as Director Primary Education.
iv) Unjustifiably sitting - over the proposal for constitution of
Results Compilation Committee till 16.07.2000, which had been
initiated by PW-23 Smt Rajni Sekhri Sibal on 20.06.2000 and
had reached the Office of the Chief Minister on 22.06.2000 itself
[Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-40 (I) /Page 72-73], although the JBT
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 158 of 400


teachers appointment was purportedly taken out of the purview
of HSSC on the pretext that there was acute shortage of such
teachers and making appointments through HSSC would
consume more time. It is argued that had the approval been
granted by O.P.Chautala (A-4) during the tenure of PW-23, he
would not have been successful in his illegal designs of getting
the original award lists replaced as PW-23 had clearly conveyed
her unwillingness to his representatives during the two meetings
and she would have ensured that the original award lists be
expeditiously handed over to representatives of HARTRON in
front of the other members of the Result Compilation
Committee. It is, therefore, only on 16.07.2000 that A-4 gave his
nod to the proposal for declaration of results, once the new
incumbent of his choice had been given additional charge as
Director Primary Education on 11.07.2000 in place of PW-23, on
the basis of informal orders conveyed after the breakfast meeting
with Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) on 10.07.2000. It assumes significance
that the attending circumstances in which PW-23 was herself
compelled to seek transfer included– pressure/repeated demands
in the two meetings by the aides of O.P Chautala (A-4) to
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 159 of 400


substitute the new award lists that were to be created in place of
the original award lists lying in her custody, anonymous phone
calls offering threats and bribe, theft at her residence etc.
v) Deposition of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in terms of Section 21 of
P.C.Act / Section 315 Cr.P.C. highlighting a breakfast meeting
dated 10.07.2000 with O.P.Chautala (A-4), wherein A-4 asked
him to change the original award lists. The factum of such a
meeting was also averred in the writ petition filed by Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) in the year 2003 and not that this version sprung
for the first time during trial. [Part 8/D-37-D-66/D-64/Pages 25-
53 at Page 31]. It has also been deposed by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3)
that a suggestion had been made by O.P Chautala (A-4) that the
almirah be broken open from its back side using a blow-torch
and then re-welded thereafter.
vi) Message emanating from the Office of the Chief Minister
requiring the DPEO‘s to attend meeting at Haryana Bhawan on
01.09.2000. Conjoint reading of the testimony of PW-1, PW-9
and PW-14 unequivocally evince the said fact.
vii) Presence of Sher Singh Badshami (A-2)-Political Advisor of O.P
Chautala (A-4), amongst others, at Haryana Bhawan, Delhi on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 160 of 400


01.09.2000 and at Punjab Guest House along with Vidya Dhar
(A-1), and pressurizing various District Selection Committee
Members to prepare fresh award lists. Section 10 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 envisages a concept of ‗vicarious liability‘ in
cases of conspiracy and act(s) of one co-conspirator bind the
other and, therefore, the evidence emerging against one co-
conspirator is to be read as evidence against the other conspirator
as well.
viii) Despite the fact that O.P.Chautala (A-4) was not holding the
portfolio of the Education Minister, the file relating to JBT
teachers appointment was reaching his office for approval of
almost every decision made during the process, such as change
of Result Compilation Committee Members [Part 8/D-37-D-
66/D-40(I)/Page 80, 86] and even declaration of result.
According to the rules of business in vogue [Part 8/S.No.7-
Miscellaneous Documents exhibited by the prosecution/Page 5-
25] primarily the minister in charge was competent to take the
final decision on a matter, however, the domain of the Chief
Minister has been expressly carved out [Rule 6, 18 and Rule 28].
It is argued that from the positive evidence available in form of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 161 of 400


departmental file notings, it can be safely inferred that at any
rate, O.P.Chautala (A-4) was in complete stock of things and the
file of JBT teachers appointment was reaching his office,
warrantedly or unwarrantedly, for his approval on the matters
comprised therein.
ix) Per Contra, curiously, O.P.Chautala (A-4) in his examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has feigned ignorance about the
process of appointment of JBT Teachers after the Cabinet
decision dated 08.09.1999. The file movement and notings as
evidenced from the bare perusal of D-40 (I) clearly belie the
stand projected by O.P.Chautala (A-4) in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and such false plea adds as an additional
link in the chain of evidence against him. The Apex Court has
held that such false plea can supply the missing link to the chain
of circumstantial evidence against the accused. (caselaws to be
added)

x) Praising Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) on 18.09.2000 at a function when
the task assigned to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was successfully
executed. The factum of such praise has been deposed to by
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in his deposition in terms of section 21 of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 162 of 400


P.C. Act / Section 315 of Cr.P.C. He has also got exhibited a
DVD (Ext. A3/DW-9/D-1) containing the videography of the
said function. This portion of his testimony has gone
unchallenged in cross-examination.

171. Learned ASG submits that it would be too much for A-4 to feign
blissful ignorance about the events which were transpiring around him and
it cannot be termed as an innocuous coincidence that the key aides of O.P.
Chautala (A-4) and his son were getting enforced such a scam of vast
magnitude spanning over 18 districts of Haryana and that messages for the
said purpose were even rallied through his Office by his staff
unauthorisedly without his approval/directions/consent. Furthermore, the
key policy decisions which gave impetus to the conspiracy were taken
under his aegis. The period also saw successive transfer of two Directors of
Primary Education who refused to toe the line dictated by the aides and son
of O.P. Chautala (A-4). The file travelled to O.P. Chautala (A-4) for
approval of almost every decision in the matter relating to JBT
appointments and it was being cleared expeditiously, however, curiously
when PW-23 initiated the proposal for declaration of result, the wheels of
bureaucratic machinery jammed for no perceivable reason whatsoever and
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 163 of 400


moved only when the new incumbent; who was a newly joined co-
conspirator had been inducted to achieve the ends of conspiracy that had
been delayed/thwarted by PW-23. Fortunately for the society, a
confederate of crime- Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) also furnished direct-evidence
during trial, in addition to the overwhelming circumstantial evidence
already adduced by the prosecution, about his breakfast meeting with O.P
Chautala (A-4) and the mandate of changing the award lists which had
been voiced by him at the said meeting.
172. It is argued that the version of the said accomplice has received
ample corroboration from the circumstantial evidence led by the
prosecution at trial and it is not the case that there exists no evidence
otherwise to link O.P. Chautala (A-4) with the crime and the case against
him hinges solely on the substratum of this breakfast meeting, which
would make it unsafe to act upon the testimony of the accomplice. It is a
settled proposition of law that corroboration need not extend to every
circumstance deposed to by the accomplice as that would in fact render
such accomplice evidence wholly superfluous. It is also settled proposition
of law since time immemorial that corroboration can be received even
through circumstantial evidence, as in the present case, and not necessarily
by direct evidence. It has been often cited with approval by the Apex Court
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 164 of 400


that ―witnesses may lie but circumstances do not lie‖. (caselaws to be
added)
173. It is contended that even otherwise it would be unrealistic to expect
direct evidence against the Chief-Minister: O.P. Chautala (A-4) from any
person, other than an accomplice like-Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) in the present
case, as O.P. Chautala (A-4) was the kingpin/author of the conspiracy,
occupying his position at the pinnacle and was getting the same enforced
through his son and aides. Thus, the submission on behalf of O.P. Chautala
(A-4) that no member of the District Selection Committee or the three IAS
officers have deposed against him and this fact is indicative of his
innocence, is specious and liable to be rejected.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF A-5
Role of investigating agency
174. At the very outset Learned Counsel has sought to highlight the role of
the investigating agency in desperately attempting to falsely implicate A-5 in
the present case. It is demonstrated that the original statement of PW-16
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was subjected to fabrication with a view to make
out a case against A-5. The statement of PW-16, Ex.PW-16/DA is contained
in a total of 7 pages out of which page 4 and 5 are in a font different from the
remaining pages. Similar is the case with the statement of PW-26, Ex.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 165 of 400


PW.26/DA wherein page 3 and 4 has a different font. It is also pointed out
that pages 4 and 5 of Ex.PW-16/DA and pages 3 and 4 of Ex.PW-26/DA are
in the same font. The relevance of these allegedly substituted pages is that
these pages contain the details of the two meetings wherein the presence of
A-5 is sought to be established by the prosecution.
175. Learned Counsel seeks to invigorate this argument by mentioning that
these observations were put to PW-16 in his cross examination, however, he
evaded the answer by saying that he was not an expert on this subject. PW-
26 explained that the computer, on which his statement was being recorded,
was so bad and defective that it was constantly being retyped which could
have caused a difference in fonts.
176. It is further pointed out through the testimonies of PW-16, PW-23 and
PW-26 that they were provided copies of their statement to refresh their
memories prior to their deposition in court. It is submitted that the CBI was
at pains to strengthen the evidence at trial to escape the consequences of
illegal acts of fabrication. Learned counsel relies on the cases of Zahiruddin
v. Emperor , AIR(34) 1947 Privy Council , 75 and Ranbir Yadav v. State of
Bihar, (1995) 4 SCC 392 to bring home the point
177. Learned Counsel has invited my attention to portions of the testimony
of PW-16, PW-23 and PW-26 to demonstrate the manner in which leading
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 166 of 400


questions were put to this witness to show involvement of A-5 in the entire
conspiracy.
178. It is, therefore, strenuously argued that the entire trial particularly with
regard to the meetings stands vitiated beyond redemption by the unethical
tactics adopted by the prosecution. Learned Counsel relies on the case of
Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported as 1993 Suppl(3) SCC 745 in
this regard.
Testimony of PW-16
179. Learned Counsel seeks to challenge the credibility of PW-16 in view
of the fact that he was the immediate superior officer of the Director Primary
Education, Director Secondary Education and the Director of Higher
Education. With a full fledged circus running right under his nose, it is rather
strange that it all happened without his knowledge. He seems to have
escaped being arrayed as an accused based on his self serving statement that
he had objected to the suggestion for change of award lists. PW-26 did not
corroborate any such suggestion and in fact squarely accused PW-16 for the
situation created by way of meetings. Regarding the first meeting PW-16 has
deposed that it was an informal meeting and he did not recollect other items
which might have been discussed there. With regard to the meeting held at
the residence of Vidya Dhar A-1, he states that he did not know the source
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 167 of 400


from which the message had come for the meeting. It is urged that the
testimony of PW-16 paints the picture of a person being blamed by PW-23
and PW-26 for having dragged them to some meeting. He was questioned as
to with what authority and on whose direction was the meeting called.
Having been put on the defensive, he gave evasive answers.
Testimony of PW-26
180. Learned Counsel submits that the testimony of PW-26 is highly vague
and suffers from tutored improvements at the behest of the Prosecutor
intended at implicating A-5. His testimony has not been in sync with the case
of the prosecution regarding the sequence of the meetings as he places the
meeting at Haryana Niwas to be the second meeting wherein the issue of
changing award lists was discussed by A-2
181. It is also argued that this witness has not given any specific details
about the meetings
Testimony of PW-23
182. With regard to the testimony of PW-23 it is submitted that at no stage
in the course of preliminary enquiry or the investigation did she name A-5 as
the person who was present in either of the meetings. She mentions a person
as ‗Bhaisaab‘. Considering the fact that A-5 was a sitting Member of
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 168 of 400


Parliament at the relevant time, it is highly unlikely for a senior bureaucrat to
not know him in a small State like Haryana. It is, therefore, a very significant
highly belated improvement in her statement to have named A-5 in court. A
few other improvements have been pointed out regarding details of who had
contacted her were not stated by her to CBI. She did not state in her previous
statements that PW-16 had taken her by saying that these meetings had been
convened by A-4. She also did not mention in her statement that on the
following morning of the wrongful suggestion to her, she had met Vishnu
Bhagwan and told him what had happened and requested for her transfer
183. It is also pointed out that PW-23 did not disclose these facts before the
Supreme Court at the time when A-3 had filed the writ CWP No. 93 of 2003
and she was requested by the government vide letter Ex.PW-42/DA to give
her version by way of an affidavit to which she gave a perfunctory reply
merely stating the period of her tenure. This creates serious doubt on the
extent of exaggeration in her deposition in court.
184. Coming to the aspect of her inability to remember the exact dates of
the meetings, it is suggested that it is rather ironic for her to boast of having
an iconic memory and yet not remember the exact dates when the alleged
meetings took place. In her examination in chief and even through the cross
examination by A-39 she maintained that the first meeting took place on
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 169 of 400


02.05.2000 at Haryana Niwas. During cross examination by A-38 when she
was confronted with a note dated 25.05.2000 (Ex.PW-16/G) wherein she had
written in her handwriting that it should be ensured that the record is sealed
in the almirah, she still maintained that she had sealed the almirah on
02.05.2000, however, there being no record on file to say that this process
had been undertaken, it was the first opportunity for her to place this fact on
file. Interestingly, on further cross examination by A-1, she regained her
iconic memory and corrected her sequence to be in order by stating that she
had sealed the almirah on 25.05.2000 as per record and that is when the first
meeting took place thereby belying her previous explanation to the note.
185. Learned Counsel now relies on the testimonies of subordinate officials
in the office of PW-23 to establish that the sealing had in fact taken place on
20.06.2000. PW-13, Bhim Singh, clerk who had purchased the cloth vide
cash memo Ex.PW-11/A dated 20.06.2000 had claimed to be reimbursed for
the same vide note dated 22.06.2000 bearing his signature. He has deposed
that the cloth was purchased on the date when the cash memo was prepared.
PW-11, Ajay Singh, Assistant has identified the signature of PW-13 on the
note. It is therefore, submitted that any illegal suggestion to change the
change award lists was made on 20.06.2000 and by her own showing PW-23
had asked for her transfer on 21.06.2000 and as per the record, she was
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 170 of 400


transferred on 11.07.2000. It is submitted that this falsifies all claims of her
having been under constant undue pressure and defies her credibility
completely as a witness.
186. With reference to the conduct of PW-23, it is also argued that had she
been an honest officer repulsed by the thought of the illegal suggestions
allegedly made by A-2 and A-5 then she should have made a formal protest
to that effect. My attention was brought to Rules 3 (ii) and (iv) of the CCS
(Conduct) Rules, 1964, which provide that a government servant when
acting under the directions of his/her official superior is required to obtain
such direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not
practicable to obtain written direction, he/she shall obtain written
confirmation as soon thereafter as possible. It light of this, it is submitted
that the conduct of PW-23 was not becoming of an honest officer upon
whom pressure had been exerted.
Conspiracy
187. Learned Counsel seeks to address the allegation of conspiracy by
stating that A-5 was not part of the government in any manner even though
he was a member of Lok Sabha from Bhiwani constituency from 1999 to
2004. He was, therefore, not in a position to take any decision or pass any
order. The prosecution relies on 3 circumstances to prove conspiracy
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 171 of 400


i) The two meetings discussed hereinabove wherein A-5 was
allegedly present
ii) Call record details between A-3 and A-5
iii) Disproportionately large number of people being selected from
Bhiwani constituency
Call records
188. At the very outset Learned Counsel has urged that the prosecution has
failed to prove the call detail records in accordance with the mandatory
provision contained in Section 65B Indian Evidence Act and are, therefore,
inadmissible. The witness PW-65/1 Chief Accounts Officer, MTNL
examined by the prosecution stated that no certificate under Section 65B was
obtained and also that that the call records Ex.PW-65/1/B did not bear the
date and time when they were printed. Even otherwise, A-5 in his statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has explained that his residence at 18, Janpath
was being used as an office of the INLD Party which was accessible by all
party workers and secretarial staff. Therefore, merely evidence of call
records does not prove that A-5 was in fact in touch with A-3 in absence of
evidence to prove the content of these calls.
189. Learned Counsel further fortifies this argument by stating that A-3 has
deposed that A-5 had called him to discuss about recommending candidates
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 172 of 400


for contractual teachers in DPEP, which are wholly unconnected with the
present case.
Bhiwani Constituency
190. Learned Counsel points out that Bhiwani district and Bhiwani
Parliamentary Constituency are not the same. There were 19 districts in the
State of Haryana at the relevant time and 10 Lok Sabha Constituencies,
therefore, each Parliamentary Constituency was spread over more than one
or even two districts. It is, therefore, deceptive to suggest that the number of
candidates selected from Bhiwani were equivalent to the number of
candidates selected within the Bhiwani Lok Sabha Constituency.
ARGUMENTS BY CBI
191. With reference to his presence, it is submitted that the same has been
deposed by PW-23 for having attended a meeting at Haryana Niwas and by
PW-16, PW-23 and PW-26 for having attended a meeting at the residence of
Vidya Dhar (A-1), wherein at both the meetings the issue of change of award
lists was discussed. The said witnesses are senior IAS officers and have no
animus or ill-will to falsely implicate the accused.

192. Call records evidencing telephonic exchange between him and Sanjiv
Kumar (A-3) on 27.07.2000 and 30.08.2000.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 173 of 400


193. Learned ASG submits that A-5 was a Member of Parliament from
Bhiwani and Sanjiv Kumar was an IAS officer who was holding additional
charge of Director Primary Education-Haryana. Ajay Singh Chautala (A-5)
was unable to tender any satisfactory account of what necessitated such
telephonic exchange and rather baldly denies having had any conversation
with Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) and stating that 18, Janpath-New Delhi was being
primarily used as an office of INLD. No defence evidence whatsoever (any
party-worker, screen-shot from the website of the political party, any letter-
head or printed literature of the political party depicting its official address as
18, Janpath-New Delhi) was led at trial to substantiate such a plea that at the
relevant time it was essentially used as an office of INLD or that which
person repeatedly made and received calls from Chandigarh on the said days.
194. It also assumes significance that on 30.08.2000, message was also
transmitted from the Office of the Chief Minister to various DPEO‘s for
attending a meeting to be held at Haryana Bhawan on 01.09.2000.
195. The Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht
@ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2010) 6 SCC 1has held that such
exchange of calls unerringly point towards the close-proximity of accused
persons and it is not the right approach of appreciation of evidence to
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 174 of 400


trivialize such circumstance by holding that in absence of proof of what
transpired during the calls or its contents, such evidence would be value-less.
196. Referring to the contention that has been urged on behalf of the
Appellant-Ajay Chautala (A-5) that the Prosecutor during Trial himself gave
a suggestion ― with his eyes wide open ‖ to Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) that he got
calls from Abhay Chautala from the residence of Ajay Chautala and this
militates against the case sought to be projected by the prosecution otherwise
[ Part 4/Page 64 ]. It is argued that the said suggestion does not whittle down
the consistent case of the prosecution that A-5 was in telephonic
communication with A-3, as the said questioning of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) was
merely being conducted by the Learned Prosecutor in terms of Section 145
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by confronting/contradicting the witness
vis-à-vis his previous statement dated 19.07.2005 recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C [ Part 8/S.no. 12-Misc Exhibits- Misc Defence Exhibits/Page
80-99 @ Page 89-90 ], wherein he had made a statement to such effect
before the Investigation Agency. The said manner of questioning is also
evidenced from the last question asked by the Learned Prosecutor on the
very next page i.e. Page 65 wherein express reference to the statement of
Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) dated 19.07.2005 before the Investigating Officer is
made.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 175 of 400


197. Telephonic conversation between A-5 and Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) on
01.09.2000 (date of the crucial meeting at Haryana Bhawan, Delhi), as
deposed to by Sanjiv Kumar (A-3) before the Trial Court. The said fact was
not specifically controverted in cross-examination of Sanjiv Kumar (A-3).
198. A-5 was Member of Parliament from Bhiwani and 312 candidates
were selected from District- Bhiwani (which is comprised in the
Parliamentary Constituency of Bhiwani) as against the 60 advertised
vacancies arising therein which further goes on to show that this particular
district was favoured as part of the conspiracy.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF A-1
199. It is the case of the prosecution that A-1, was present at the meeting at
Haryana Niwas as also the second meeting which was allegedly held at his
residence, wherein the suggestion to change the award lists was made.
Prosecution has alleged that the presence of A-1, the Officer on Special Duty
to the Chief Minister, at such meetings was a reminder and affirmation of the
involvement of A-4 in this conspiracy. The convening of the meeting at his
residence wherein officials much higher in rank than him were called and the
issue of changing lists was discussed, speaks volumes of his involvement in
the conspiracy.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 176 of 400


200. Presence of A-1 at the third meeting held at Punjab Guest House has
been brought out by the evidence of A-3.
Meeting at Haryana Niwas
201. It is argued that PW-26 does not state that A-1 was present in first
meeting held at Haryana Niwas. Similarly, PW-23 has not stated that A-1 was
present in the first meeting held at Haryana Niwas, Chandigarh. Therefore, it
is argued that testimony of PW-16 that A-1 was present in the meeting at
Haryana Niwas should be disbelieved. It is pointed out that on showing PW-
16 his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has admitted that in his
statement, the name of A-1 does not appear with respect to first meeting.
The Trial Judge has also accepted the plea that A-1 was not present in the
first meeting
Meeting at residence of A-1
202. With reference to the venue of this meeting, it is urged that only PW-
16 has categorically mentioned that it took place at the residence of A-1.
PW-23 and PW-26 have only mentioned that they were taken to a house in
Sector-7, Chandigarh. In the absence of corroboration of testimony of PW-
16, it cannot be conclusively held that the meeting in fact took place in the
residence of A-1.
CRL.A. 124/2013 & ORS. Page 177 of 400


Meeting at Punjab Guest House
203. At the outset it is pointed out that A-1 was not charged with the
occurrence of this meeting and it has only come up by way of testimony of
A-3. It is pertinent that the third meeting with respect to A-1 did not find
mention in the charge sheet or the order on charge. It was not put to A-1 in
his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and consequently cannot be
considered against him.

204. It is also argued that contrary to evidence, the Trial Judge has
erroneously arrived at a finding that the Punjab Guest House and Water
Supply & Sanitation Department, Punjab are the same, which is another
material discrepancy that the prosecution has not been able to explain.
205. The next attack is on the corroborating testimony of PW-56 with
regard to this meeting. It is alleged that A-3 and PW-56 are talking about
different meetings held in different time periods with different participants.
The following discrepancies are pointed out: