Chautala Haryana Teachers Recruitment Scam Case Judgement

1 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.
2013
INTHECOURTOFSPEICIALJUDGEII(PREVENTIONOFCORRUPTION ACT)(CBI),ROHINI,DELHI IDNo.02404R0008692008 CCNo.37/2010 RCNo.3(A)/04/ACU.IX/NEWDELHI CBIVs 1. VidyaDhar,IAS S/oSh.RamSwarup R/oV&PODhabdhani,Tehsil&DistrictBhiwani, Haryana. 2. SherSinghBadshami S/oLateSh.KartaRam R/o(i)931,Sector5,Kurukshetra,Haryan. (ii)327Sector4,M.D.Complex,Panchkula, Haryana. 3. SanjivKumar,IAS S/oDr.MaheshwarKumar R/oFlatNo.6360,Sec.C,Pkt.6&7VasantKunj, NewDelhi70. 4. OmPrakashChautala S/oLateSh.DeviLal R/o(i)V&POChautala,TehsilDabwali, Sirsa,Haryana,. (ii)231232,ChautalaHouse,BarnalaRoad, Sirsa,Haryana. (iii)TejakheraFarmHouseVillageTejakhera, TehsilDabwali,Sirsa,Haryana. 5. AjaySinghChautala S/oSh.OmPrakashChautala R/o(i)231232ChautalaHouse,BarnalaRoad,
2 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013
6.
7. 8. 9.
10. 11.
12. 13.
Sirsa,Haryana. (ii)18Janpath,NewDelhi. Smt.PremBahl W/oSh.BalbirKumarBahl R/oHouseNo.925,Sec.7,UrbanEstate, AmbalaCity,Haryana. Smt.ShashiMalhotra W/oSh.PrabhuSharanRaiNayyar R/oH.No.10,VikashVihar,AmbalaCity,Haryana. Smt.KrishnaGupta W/oSh.OmPrakashMalhotra R/oH.No.74,VijayNagar,AmbalaCity,Haryana. BrahmaNand S/oSh.ChandgiRam R/oVillageNinar,PostOfficeKaunt,Bhiwani, Haryana. MsVinodKumari D/oSh.HarbansLalSharma R/o100,RamNagar,Bhiwani,Haryana. MamanChand S/oSh.PalaRam R/o(i)A12/GeetaColony,Bhbiwani. (ii)Village&PostOfficeDevasarDistrict Bhiwani,Haryana. SawanLal S/oSh.Gurdayal R/o50,KamalaNagar,Bhiwani,Haryana. Smt.KantaSharma W/oSh.BhimSinghSharma R/o3928,Sector22D,Chandigarh.
14.
Sh.PrabhuDayal(expiredbeforefilingofthe chargesheet) S/oSh.AudRam R/oVillage&PostOfficeKhabraKalan, Bhatukala,District,Fatehabad,Haryana. 15. Smt.PhoolKhurana W/oSh.BhupinderPal R/oOldPostOfficeStreet,Bhuna,Fatehabad, Haryana. Presentaddress:H.No.1386,VillageBhuna, Block4,TehsilFatehabad,DistrictHissar,Haryana. 16. HarbansLal S/oSh.SadiLal R/oVillage&PORamgarh,NearPNB,Ramgarh, DistrictAlwar,Rajashtan. 17. RamSaranKukreja S/oSh.KhemChand R/o127,VijayColony,JawaharNagar,Hissar, Haryana. 18. UdalPrasadSharma(expiredduringtrialon 05.12.2012) S/oSh.BadriPrasadSharma R/o1398,ParvatiaColony,Faridabad,Haryana. 19. BrijMohan(dischargedon23.7.2011) S/oSh.ShriRamSharma R/o365,NearShradhaNandPark,NewColony, Palwal,Haryana. 20. ChandSinghVerma S/oSh.KirpaRamVerma R/o591/18,OmNagar,KhandsaRoad,Gurgaon,
21.
22. 23.
24.
25. 26. 27. 28.
Haryana. YogeshKumarSharma S/oSh.B.R.Sharma R/o860,Sector7,Extn.UrbanEstate,Gurgaon, Haryana. Smt.AbhilashKaur W/oSh.SardarSingh R/o107,PratapNagar,JailRoad,NewDelhi. SherSingh S/oSh.NandRam R/oVillage&PostOfficeMandhan,TehsilTosham, DistrictBhiwani,Haryana. AnarSingh S/oSh.NekiRam R/o(i)H.No.C37,SuryaVihar,NearSec.4,Police outpost,Gurgaon,Haryana. (ii)H.No.1446Huda,Sector6,BahadurGarh, Haryana. Smt.KailashKaushik W/oSh.KarnaSinghKaushik R/oH.No.1132,HousingBoardColony,Jind. AjitSinghSangwan S/oSh.MojiRam R/oVidyaNagar,MehramRoad,Bhiwani,Haryana. Smt.RamKaur W/oSh.OmPrakash R/oH.No.1498,UrbanState,Jind,Haryana. MahavirSinghLathar S/oSh.BalrajSinghLathar R/oShadipur,Julana,DistrictJind,Haryana.
29.
30.
31. 32.
33.
34.
35.
NarainSinghRuhil S/oSh.PreetSingh R/o(Present)H.No.66,OfficersColonyKunjPura Road,Karnal,Haryana. (Permanent):Village&POBeholi,DistrictPanipat, Haryana. KrishanLalNarang S/oSh.L.R.Narang R/oH.No.1973,Sector13UrbanEstate,Karnal, Haryana. Smt.UshaRani W/oSh.RadhaKrishanChanana R/o847,Sector13,UrbanEstate,Karnal,Haryana. MadanLalKalra S/oSh.JaiLalKalra R/o(i)HouseNo.B4,D.C.Colonyu,Kurukshetra. (ii)HouseNo.534,ModalTown,JindRoad, Kaithal,Haryana. VeerBhanMehta S/oSh.ThakurDasMehta R/oWardNo.6,Village&PostOffice,IndriDistrict, Karnal,Haryana. ShashiBhushan(expiredduringtrialon 12.11.2008) S/oSh.AtmaRam R/oH.No.1142,Sec.13,UrbanState, Kurukshetra,Haryana. DilbagSingh S/oSh.LehriSingh R/oHouseNo.320,WardNo.1,CharkhiDadri,
36.
37.
38.
39. 40. 41.
42.
43.
DistrictBhiwani,Haryana. RamKumar S/oSh.BhanaRam R/oMandirWaliGali6,PatelNagar,Kaithal, Haryana. PushkarMalVerma S/oSh.RamChanderVerma R/oH.No.1360,MohallaShivColony,Opp. PanchayatBhawan,Narnaul,DistrictMahendergarh, Haryana. DurgaDuttPradhan S/oSh.MahaRamSharma R/oGaliNewSari,SainChowkRoad,Narnaul, Haryana. BaniSingh S/oSh.AmarSingh R/oMohallaSainipura,Mahendergarh,Haryana. Smt.DayaSaini W/oSh.B.S.Saini R/oH.No.396/1,Sector44,Chandigarh. RamSingh S/oSh.SuratSingh R/oVillage&PostOfficeSheikhPura,District, Karnal,Haryana. PuranChand(Expiredduringtrialon 03.12.2012) S/oSh.LachhamanDas R/oH.No.301,WardNo.11,Panipat,Haryana. SheeshPalSingh S/oSh.HoshiarSingh
44. 45. 46.
47. 48.
49.
50. 51.
R/o(i)1165,Sector15,Sonepat. (ii)257,SarojiniColony,YamunaNagar, Haryana. Smt.RekhaSharma W/oLateSh.RaviDuttSharma R/oH.No.438,Sec.16,Punchkula,Haryana. Smt.RakshaJindal W/oSh.R.C.Jindal R/o1383,Sec.15,Punchkula,Haryana. JeetRamKhokhar S/oSh.ShobhRam R/oH.No.326,OppositePowerHouse,Modal Town,Rohtak,Haryana. Smt.NirmalDevi W/oSh.DhambirSingh R/o813/23,DLFColony,Rohtak,Haryana. AmarSingh S/oSh.RamKrishan R/oVillage&POMeham,Mohalla,Kharikuri, DistrictRohtak,Haryana. Smt.SudhaSachdeva W/oSh.R.S.Sachdeva R/oH.No.72A,ModelTown,NearShravanJayanti Park,Rewari,Haryana. DarshanDayalVerma S/oSh.VasudevPrasadVerma R/o380,AgarsainColony,Sirsa,Haryana. Smt.SarojSharma W/oSh.R.B.Dutta R/oH.No.207,Sec.7,Gurgaon,Haryana.
52. 53.
54. 55. 56. 57.
58.
59.
60.
TulsiRamRamBihagra S/oSh.RamSwaroop R/o251,Street7,GulabiBagh,Rewari,Haryana. NathuRam(expiredduringtrialon17.01.2012) S/oSh.KuraraRam R/oVillageAdampur,PostOfficeMandiAdampur, DistrictHissar,Haryana. OmPrakashTiwari S/oSh.MangatRamTiwari R/oNahoriaBazar,Sirsa,Haryana. BihariLal S/oSh.PatRam R/o15/249,BansalColony,Sirsa,Haryana. RajenderSinghDahiya S/oSh.HoshiarSingh R/oH.No.62,8Marla,Sonepat,Haryana. DalipSingh S/oSh.ChandRam R/o245/5/3AdarshNagar,Gohana,District Sonepat,Haryana. Smt.KamlaDevi(expiredbeforefilingofthe chargesheet) W/oSh.RanbirSingh R/o174L9A),ModelTown,Sonepat,Haryana. RajenderPalSingh S/oSh.RanbirSingh R/oHouseNo.3903/D,Sec.22,Chandigarh. (PermanentAddress:365,JagatColony,Bhiwani, Haryana). SarwanKumarChawla
61.
62.
S/oSh.ManoharLalChawla R/o44,MadhuColony,BehindMadhuCinema, YamunaNagar,Haryana. Smt.UrmilSharma W/oLateSh.RameshChanderSharma R/o72,KrishnaColony,YamunaNagar,ITIRoad, Haryana. JoginderLal S/oSh.RamLal R/o1026,DwarkaPuri,Jagadhari,DistrictYamuna Nagar,Haryana.
Dateofconcludingthefinalarguments:17.12.2012 Dateofjudgment:16.01.2013 JUDGMENT 1. TwosetsofinterviewawardlistsareplacedbeforethisCourt.The axlearoundwhichtheentiretrialrevolvesisashortquestion:Whichsetof theinterviewawardlistspreparedforselectionofJBTteachersisgenuine andwhichisthefakeone? 2. SanjivKumar(A3),anIASOfficer(1985Batch)ofHaryanaCadre, claims himself to be a whistleblower. He filed a writ petition (Cri.) no. 93/2003inSupremeCourtofIndiaallegingthatwhilehewaspostedas Director Primary EducationHaryana, he was pressurized by Om Prakash Chautala(A4),thethenChiefMinisterofHaryanatoreplacetheoriginal
awardlistspreparedfortheselectionofJBTteacherswithfakeawardlists. The genuine lists were prepared by the Selection Committees of various districtsinHaryanaaftertakingtheinterviewsofthecandidates. Sanjiv KumarproducedbeforeSupremeCourtofIndiaasetof15awardlistsduly signedbythemembersoftheselectioncommitteesandsubmittedthatthese fakelistsweretobesubstitutedinplaceoftheoriginallistsandwhenhe (i.e.A3)refusedtodothisillegalact,oneFIRandvariousdepartmental enquiries were initiated against him. Sanjiv Kumarclaimed that despite suchapressure,heimplementedtheoriginalawardlistsanddeclaredthe results, which antagonized Om Prakash Chautala and his political and bureaucraticcolleagues. Accordingly,heprayedthatCBIinvestigationin thisscam. 3. 4. SupremeCourtofIndiavideitsorderdated25.11.2003directedthe Duringinvestigation,SanjivKumarhandedoveronesetofinterview CBItoinvestigatethematter. listofDistrictKaithalandpartlistofDistrictKurukshetratoCBI.Forsake ofconvenience,the15awardlistsfiledbyA3inSupremeCourtandthe one interview list of District Kaithal and part list of District Kurukshetra givenbyhimtoCBIduringinvestigationwouldbereferredtohereinafteras SupremeCourtLists.
5.
Duringinvestigations,CBIcollectedtheawardlistsof18districtsfrom
theofficeofDirectorPrimaryEducationHaryana.Theselistswouldnowbe referredtoasDirectorateLists. ItisnotindisputethattheresultofJBT teacherswasdeclaredonthebasisoftheseDirectorateLists. 6. 7. SanjivKumarclaimsthattheseDirectorateListsaregenuinewhereas Theinvestigationsdisclosedthattill1999recruitmentofJBTteachers SupremeCourtlistsarefake.Prosecutionclaimsviceversa. wasbeingconductedbyHaryanaStaffSelectionCommissionChandigarh. OmPrakashChautala,thethenChiefMinisterofHaryanawasalsoholding the portfolio of Education MinisterHaryana in September, 1999. A malafidedecisionwastakenintheCabinetofMinisterson08.09.1999vide which the JBT Teachers' recruitment was taken out from the purview of HaryanaStaffSelectionCommissionandwasentrustedtotheDirectorateof PrimaryEducationHaryanawithulteriormotivetobringtherecruitment under his control on the pretext of acute shortage of teachers. In complianceofthisCabinetdecision,theDirectorateofPrimaryEducation advertised3,206districtwisevacanciesofJBTteachersinIndianExpress and Dainik Tribune on 15.11.1999. These selections were to be made throughDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesin18districtsofHaryana.As perthechargesheet,the18DistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesconducted
theinterviewsforthesepostsduringDecember,1999.Theawardlistswere senttoDirectorate,PrimaryEducation.Atthattime,Sh.R.P .ChanderIAS wastheDirectorofPrimaryEducation. 8. ItisallegedthatSh.R.P .Chanderwastransferredon27.04.2000and Ms.RajniShekriSibalIAStookoverasDirectorPrimaryEducationonthat day. ItisallegedthatMs.RajniShekriSibalwascalledalongwithPrem PrashantIAS & P MahapatraIAS at Haryana NiwasChandigarh where .K. AjaySinghChautala(A5),SherSinghBadshami(A2)werealsopresent.It isallegedthatshewasaskedtochangetheawardlists.RajniShekriSibal alongwith Prem Prashant and P Mahapatra were called to another .K. meeting which was held at H.No. 78, Sector7, Chandigarh which isthe residence of Vidya Dhar (A1). This meeting was also attended by Ajay SinghChautalaandSherSinghBadshamiapartfromVidyaDhar.Herealso, SherSinghBadshamiaskedRajniShekriSibaltochangetheawardlistsso thattheirfavouredcandidatesmaybeaccommodated. Itisallegedthat RajniShekriSibal,PremPrashantandP .K.Mahapatrarefusedtoagreeto thisproposal. 9. ProsecutionhasallegedthatOmPrakashChautalawasChiefMinister ofHaryanafrom1999to2005.AjaySinghChautala(A5)isthesonofOm Prakash Chautala (A4) and was Member of Parliament from Bhiwani
ConstituencyofHaryanaattherelevanttime. VidyaDharanHCSOfficer (later promotedtoIAS)was Officeron Special Duty(OSD)totheChief Minister and SherSinghBadshami wasthepolitical advisortotheChief Ministerduringtherelevantperiodofconspiracy. PremPrashantIASwas Financial Commissioner Education and Languages (FCEL) and P .K. MahapatraIASwasDirector,SecondaryEducation,Haryana. 10. Asperprosecution,RajniShekriSibalreceivedananonymousphone callatherresidenceandshewasoffered5%shareofthecollectedmoneyto agreetotheaforesaidproposal.Subsequently,herhousewasalsoburgled. Itisallegedthatwithaviewtoensurethesafetyoftheawardlistsreceived from 18 District Primary Education Officer, she wrapped the almirah containingthesaidawardlistswithfourmetresofclothandsealeditusing one rupee coin. Vide a note dt. 20.06.2000, she proposed to form a committeeforcompilationandpreparationoftheresultsofJBTteachersby Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (HARTRON), Chandigarh. 11. ItisallegedthatwhenRajniShekriSibalrefusedtomodifyorreplace theinterviewawardlists,shewastransferredandwasreplacedbySanjiv KumarIAS(A3)on11.07.2000withtheapprovalofOmPrakashChautala, thethenChiefMinisterHaryana. Atthattime,SanjivKumarwasalready
holding the substantive charge of Special Project Director, Haryana PrathmikShikshaPariyojnaParishad(HPSPP)andhewasgivenadditional chargeofDirectorateofPrimaryEducationwithanunderstandingthathe wouldprepareasecondsetofawardlistsandreplaceitwiththeoriginal awardlists. 12. ItisallegedthatSanjivKumartookouttheoriginalawardlistsfrom thesaidalmirahinthemiddleofAugust,2000andaskedhisP .A.namely MohanLalGuptaandOfficeSuperintendentSardarSinghtocheckasto how many scheduled caste and backward class candidates are exceeding their vacancies and are being selected in the General category. For this purpose,PrernaGuestHousePanchkulawasarrangedbySanjivKumar.Itis alleged that Mohan LalP Sardar SinghSuperintendent and Balram .A., YadavAssistantinDirectoratePrimaryEducationmadeuseofPrernaGuest Housefortwoorthreedaysandcheckedtheoriginalawardlists,but,could notreachtoanyconclusionandaccordinglythoselistswerereturnedto SanjivKumar.Prosecutionclaimsthatthisshowsthatactuallytheoriginal awardlistshadbeentakenoutofthealmirahpriorto16.09.2000,whena drama of desealing the said almirah and taking out the award lists in presenceofsixmembersofresultcompilationcommitteewasenacted.As perinvestigation,thenewsetofawardlistshadalreadybeenplacedinthe
almirah before 16.09.2000 and these new lists were sent to HARTRON whichcompiledtheresultofJBTteacherscandidates.Theresultwasready on03.10.2000andthereafteritwaspublishedinthenewspapersandthe appointmentsweregiventotheselectedcandidatesonthebasisofnewand fakeawardlistssoonthereafter. 13. Asperprosecution,atthebehestofOmPrakashChautalathethen ChiefMinisterandwiththeactivesupportofVidyaDharOSDtoCMand SherSinghBadshamiPoliticalAdvisortoCM,someChairpersonsandthe members of District Level Selection Committees were called by Sanjiv Kumar at the rest House of Water Supply & Sanitation Department of Punjab located at 1257, Sector18B, Chandigarh in last week of August2000, some were called in Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi on 01.09.2000 and some were called in the office of Director Primary EducationChandigarh. These Chairpersons and members(who have been impleaded as A6 to A62) were instructed to prepare the second set of awardlistsoftheirrespectivedistricts.Ontheirrequest,evenphotocopies oforiginalawardlistsweregiventothemforthispurpose. 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,heconductedbogusproceedingsofdesealingthealmirahand
taking out the award lists from it and sent the same to HARTRON for compilationofresults. 14. During investigation, CBI has seized from the Directorate, Primary EducationChandigarh, the set of award lists upon which the result was finallydeclared.Forsakeofconvenience,alltheseawardlistsof18districts havebeenreferredtoasDirectorateLists. 15. ProsecutionclaimsthattheseDirectorateListsareinfactthefakelists upon which the result was declared and the candidates were given appointmentsasJBTteachersinStateofHaryana.Prosecutionalsoclaims thattheSupremeCourtListspresentedbySanjivKumarinSupremeCourt of India are infact the original and genuine award lists prepared by the DistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesinDecember,1999. Imayrepeatthat Sanjiv Kumar has stressed in the Supreme Court of India as well as throughoutthetrialareversecasei.e.SupremeCourtListsbeingthefake listsandDirectorateListsbeingthegenuinelists. CHARGES,PROSECUTION&DEFENCE 16. Prosecutionfiledthechargesheet,cognizancewastakenandaccused personsweresummonedtofacethetrial.Itisnecessarytostateherethat accused Prabhu Dayal (A14), Shashi Bhushan (A34) and Smt. Kamla
Devi (A58) hadexpired beforefilingofthechargesheet. AccusedUdal Prasad Sharma (A18), Puran Chand (A42) & Nathu Ram (A53) expiredduringthependencyofthetrial. 17. Argumentsonchargeinrespectofrestoftheaccusedpersonswere heard. Videmyorderdated23.7.2011, accusedBrijMohan(A19)was discharged. However a charge under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)dofP .C.Act1988wasframedagainstaccusedO.P .Chautala(A4). A separate charge was framed against accused Sanjiv Kumar (A3) underSection13(2)readwithSection13(1)dofP .C.Act1988aswellas underSection420IPC. Achargeagainstalltheaccusedpersons(exceptA14,A19,A34& A58) was framed under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/467/468/471IPCandalsoreadwithSection13(2)readwithSection 13(1)dofP .C.Act. AseparatechargewasframedagainstA6toA62(exceptthosewho haddiedordischarged)underSection13(2)readwithSection13(1)dofP . C.Act1988,underSection420/468/467/471IPC. 18. Alltheaccusedpersonspleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.Inorder toproveitscase,prosecutionexaminedinall68witnesses.Statementsu/s 313 CrPC were recorded and many accused persons gave their written
statementsalsou/s313(5)CrPC.VidyaDhar(A1)examinedonewitness in defence, Sher Singh Badshami (A2) examined one witness in his defence, Sanjiv Kumar (A3) examined 11 witnesses in his defence including himself, O.P Chautala (A4) examined one witness in his . defence,AjaySinghChautala(A5)examinedonewitnessinhisdefence. Brahamanand (A9) examined one defence witness, Sher Singh (A23) examined himself as defence witness. Sheesh Pal Singh (A43) examined one defence witness and Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49) also examined one defence witness. Darshan Dayal Verma (A50) stepped himselfinwitnessboxtotestifyhisversion. RajenderSinghDahiya(A56)examinedthreedefencewitnesses. SarwanKumarChawla(A60),UrmilSharma(A61)andJoginderLal (A62)themselvesenteredthewitnessboxandtestifiedbeforethiscourt aboutthecircumstancesinwhichtheyhadtosignonthefakeawardlists. Nootheraccusedledanydefenceevidencedespitehavingbeengiven theopportunitytodoso. RESPECTIVESTANDSOFTHEACCUSEDPERSONS 19. Before discussing the evidence and submissions of the accused persons, it would be appropriate to mention here in brief the respective stands of the parties. Om Prakash Chautala (A4), Ajay Singh Chautala
(A5) and Sher Singh Badshami (A2) have denied not only their participationinthecrime,butalso,havinganyknowledgeofthesameat therelevanttime.TheyaretheprominentmembersofIndianNationalLok Dal and have claimed that Sanjiv KumarIAS and Rajni Shekri Sibal are playinginthehandsoftheirpoliticalopponentsnamelyBhupinderSingh Hooda, the present Chief Minister of Haryana and earlier the main opposition leader belonging to Indian National Congress Party, in connivancewithanotherpoliticianslikeKaranDalalandKapilSibal. SanjivKumar(A3)claimsthathisstandinSupremeCourtaswellas beforethiscourtisacorrectstandandtheSupremeCourtListsarefalse lists,whereasDirectorateListsaregenuinelists. DayaSaini(A40),theChairpersonofPanipatDistrictLevelSelection CommitteeanditsmembersnamelyRamSingh(A41)andPuranChand (A42sinceexpired)hadtakenthestandintheirstatementsu/s313CrPC aswellasduringtheentiretrialthattheyhadpreparedonlyonelistwhich istheDirectorateListandtherefore DirectorateListofDistrictPanipat (D18Ext.PW15/C)isagenuineawardlist. Madan Lal Kalra (A27), the Chairman of District Level Selection CommitteeKurukshetraalsostatedthathehadpreparedonlyonelisti.e. the DirectorateList(D16(I),Ext.PW15/D) and thesameisagenuine
list. PushkarMalVerma(A37)theChairmanofDistrictLevelSelection CommitteeMahendergarh(Narnaul)anditsmembersDurgaDuttPradhan (A38)andBaniSingh(A39) deniedhavingsignedtheSupremeCourt List and the Directorate List of District Mahendergarh presented in the court. BaniSingh(A39)infactdeniedbeingamemberoftheDistrict LevelSelectionCommitteeandhavingconductedanyinterviews. RakshaJindal(A45)tookthedefencethatshewasneverappointed asmemberoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteePanchkula.However, shewasmisledbyRekhaSharma(A44)anothermemberofthecommittee andshe signedthetwoawardlistsonlyasthetokenofhavingcalculated themarksgiveninthesaidawardlists. Tosumup,whereasA3,A27,A40,A41andA42havetakenthe stand that the Directorate Lists are the genuine lists, most of the ChairpersonsandthemembersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittees supporttheprosecutionversionandassertthattheSupremeCourtListsare thegenuinelistsandDirectorateListsarethefakelistsandthatthesefake listswerepreparedbythem,notvoluntarily,but,underimmensepressure fromSanjivKumar,SherSinghBadshamiandVidyaDhar. Theseaccused personshaveconsistentlyclaimedduringthewholetrialthattheywerenot
onlyapprehensiveofharmtotheirservicebutalsototheirphysicalsafety andtheirfamily'slives. EFFECTOFRETIREMENTBEFOREAUGUST/SEPTEMBER2000. 20. Someoftheaccusedpersonshaveraisedthepleathattheyhadretired beforeAugust2000andsincethefakelistswerepreparedinthemonthof AugustSeptember 2000, they cannot be convicted under the substantial charges of Prevention of Corruption Act. The names of these accused personsandtheirdatesofretirementsareasunder: Names 1. 2. 3. 4. SherSingh(A23) DilbaghSingh(A35) RamSingh(A41) JoginderLal(A62) DateofRetirement 31.01.2000 30.04.2000 31.01.2000 31.03.2000
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutordoesnotdisputethedateofretirement and the fact that the fake lists were prepared in the month of August September2000. However,hearguesthatalthoughtheaforesaidaccused persons had retired before the preparation of the fake lists, but, these accusedpersonshadpurportedlysignedasapublicservantonthefakelists.
Hence, they are public servants within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act. I disagree with the submissions of the Special Public Prosecutor. The substantial provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act wouldbeapplicablewhenanactisdonebyapersonduringthetimewhen hewasapublicservant.Here,whentheaforesaidaccusedpersonssigned thesecondsetoflists,theyhadretiredandwerenomoreactingincapacity ofpublicservant.Therefore,A23,A35,A41&A62standsacquittedu/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. However, these accused persons will have to answer the charge of conspiracy u/s 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of CorruptionActbecausethechargeagainstthemisthattheyconspiredwith otherpublicservantsincludingSanjivKumar(A3),apartfromtheother charges. AFEWUNDISPUTEDFACTS. 21. Itwouldbeapttomentionafewfactswhicharenotindispute. As perpara13ofthechargesheet,thenamesandparticularsofChairpersons andmembersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesareasunder: Sr. Name No. I.AMBALA 1 Smt.PremBahl District Primary ChairPerson A6 Designation Chairpersons/ Accused members
Education Ambala 2 3 Smt. Malhotra
Officer, A7 A8
Shashi Principal,Govt.Sr.Sec. Member School,Ambala Ex Block Education Member Officer,AmbalaII, District Education Bhiwani Primary Chairman Officer,
Smt.Krishna
II.BHIWANI 4 BrahmaNand A9
5 6 7
Ms.VinodKumari Principal,Govt.Sr.Sec. Member School,Bhiwani SawanLal Maman BlockEducationOfficer, Member BlockEducationOfficer, Member BhiwaniII Saran District Education Faridabad
A10 A12 A11
III.FARIDABAD 8 Ram Kukreja Primary Chairman Sh. A17 Officer, R.S. Kukreja was DPEO till 02.12.1999 afterwhichSh. Harbans Lal took over the charge. A16 A18
9 10
HarbansLal Udal
DPEO, (02.12.1999 till Chairman 31.01.2002)
Prasad Dy. District Education Member
Sharma 11 BrijMohan
Officer,Faridabad Block Education Member Officers,PalwalII Kanta District Education Fatehabad Primary Chairperson Officer, Member A19
IV .FATEHABAD 12 Smt. Sharma A13
13
PrabhuDayal
Principal,KhabraKala
A14 (since expired) A15
14
Smt. Khurana
Phool BlockEducationOfficer, Member Bhuna Primary Chairman Officer,
V .GURGAON 15 Chand Singh District Verma Education Gurgaon A20
16 17
Smt. Abhilash BlockEducationOfficer, Member Kaur Gurgaon Yogesh Kumar The then Dy. District Member Sharma Education Officer, Gurgaon SherSingh District Education Jhajjar Primary Chairman Officer,
A22 A21
VI.JHAJJAR 18 A23
19
AnarSingh
Dy. Distt. Education Member
A24
Officer,Jhajjar 20 Smt. Kaushik Ajit Sangwan RamKaur MahavirSingh Kailash Sr. Block Education Member Officer,Jhajjar Singh District Primary Chairman EducationOfficer,Jind Dy. District Education Member Officer,Jind BlockEducationOfficer, Member Jind Primary Chairman Officer, A25
VII.JIND 21 22 23 A26 A27 A28
VIII.KARNAL 24 Narain Ruhil Krishan Narang Singh District Education Karnal A29
25 26
Lal Dy. District Education Member Officer,Karnal BlockEducationOfficer, Member Karnal District Education Kurukshetra Primary Chairman Officer,
A30 A31
Smt.UshaRani
IX.KURUKSHETRA 27 MadanLalKalra A32
28 29
VeerbhanMehta ShashiBhushan
Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Kurukshetra BlockEducationOfficer, Member Kurukshetra
A33 A34
X.KAITHAL 30 DilbagSingh District Primary Chairman EducationOfficer,Distt. Kaithal BlockEducationOfficer, Member Kalayat,Distt.Kaithal A35
31 32
RamKumar Megh Sharma
A36
Nath Dy. Distt. Education Member (But Not Officer,Kaithal didnotsign.) accused
XI.MAHENDERGARH 33 Pushkar Verma Durga Pradhan BaniSingh Mal District Primary Chairman Education Officer, Mahendergarh Dutt Principal, Govt. Girls, Member Sr.Sec.School BlockEducationOfficer, Member Mahendergarh Primary Chairman Officer, A37
34 35
A38 A39
XII.PANCHKULA 36 SheeshPalSingh District Education Panchkula Smt. Sharma Smt. Jindal A43
37 38
Rekha BlockEducationOfficer, Member Ramgarh,Panchkula Raksha ExPrincipal Govt. Sr. Member Sec.School,Panchkula
A44 A45
XIII.PANIPAT
39
Smt.DayaSaini
Assistant Director, Chairperson Primary Education, Haryana,Chandigarh Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Panipat BlockEducationOfficer, Member Panipat
A40
40 41
RamSingh Puran Chand(expired duringtrial)
A41 A42
XIV .ROHTAK 42 Jeet Ram District Khokhar Education Rohtak AmarSingh NirmalDevi Primary Chairman Officer, A46
43 44
BlockEducationOfficer, Member Narnaul Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Rohtak Primary Chairman Officer, Primary Chairman Officer,
A48 A47
XV .REWARI 45 Smt. Sudha District Sachdeva Education Rewari Darshan Dayal District Verma Education Rewari Smt. Sharma Tulsi Bihagra A49
46
A50
47 48
Saroj Dry. Distt. Education Member Officer,Rewari Ram BlockEducationOfficer, Member BawalIIDistt.Rewari
A51 A52
XVI.SIRSA 49 NathuRam District Primary Chairman EducationOfficer,Sirsa (expired duringtrial) A53
50
Ram Saran The then District Chairman Kukreja same as Primary Edu. Officer, atSr.No.8 Faridabad, (Only till 02.12.1999)andDPEO, Sirsathereafter Om Tiwari BihariLal Prakash Distt.EducationOfficer, Member Sirsa BlockEducationOfficer, Member Kalanwali,Sirsa Primary Chairman Officer,
A17
51 52
A54 A55
XVII.SONEPAT 53 Rajinder Singh District Dahiya Education Sonepat DalipSingh A56
54 55
Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Sonepat
A57 A58
Smt.KamlaDevi BlockEducationOfficer, Member SonepatII Rajinder Singh Pal District Primary Chairman Education Officer, YamunaNagar
XVIII.YAMUNANAGAR 56 A59
57
Sarwan Kumar Dy. Distt. Education Member Chawla Officer,YamunaNagar
A60
58 59
JoginderLal Smt. Sharma
BlockEducationOfficer, Member YamunaNagar
A62 A61
Urmil BlockEducationOfficer, Member YamunaNagar
22. Except Bani Singh (A39) and Raksha Jindal (A45), all the abovementionedaccusedpersonshaveadmittedtheaforesaidparticularsto becorrectduringtrialandintheirstatementsu/s313CrPC. 23. ItisnotindisputethatOmPrakashChautala(A4)wastheChief MinisterofHaryanafrom1999to2005.VidyaDhar(A1)washisOSDand SherSinghBadshami(A2)washispoliticaladvisorduringthattime.Vidya DharwasanofficerofHaryanaCivilServicesandlateronpromotedasIAS Officer and therefore a public servant. Sher Singh Badshami was not a publicservant,though,holdingapostofPoliticalAdvisortoChiefMinister duringtherelevanttime.AjaySinghChautala(A5)issonofOmPrakash Chautala(A4)andwasMemberofParliamentfromBhiwaniconstituency duringthesaidperiod. 24. Itis notindisputethatmorethan 8000 candidates appliedand result was prepared by HARTRON based on the Directorate Lists and appointmentsweregivento3,206candidatespursuanttothesaidresult. 25. ThecontentsoftheWritPetitionNo.93/2000Ext.PW63/B1filed bySanjivKumarandhisreply(Ext.PW63/B3)tothecounteraffidavitof
the respondent therein and the order of Supreme Court (Ext.PW63/PX, D113)arealsonotindispute. WHICHSETOFLISTSISGENUINEANDWHICHONEISFAKE? 26. Thiscourtisfacedwithtwoversionsinthisregard.AccusedSanjiv Kumar (A3) had submitted before Supreme Court of India a set of 15 award lists and thereafter one list of District Kaithal and a part list of District Kurukshetra was handed over to the investigating officer during investigation.Alltheselistsforsakeofconveniencearebeingreferredtoas 'Supreme Court Lists'. The stand of Sanjiv Kumar (A3) from the very beginningisthatSupremeCourtListsarethefakelists,whichweregivento him for implementation. However, since he refused to do so, he was implicatedinvariouscases/inquiriesbytheGovernmentofHaryana. He also claims that he declared the result on the basis of Directorate Lists, whichasperhimweregenuinelists,and,thereforeinvitedthewrathofthe GovernmentheadedbyOmPrakashChautala.Insupportofhiscontention on the point of genuineness or fakeness of the lists, he had taken me througheachlistandhassubmittedasunder: RegardingPanipatList 27. SanjivKumarhadnotfiledanylistofPanipatinSupremeCourtorto
CBI.Therefore,onlyoneawardlistofPanipat(D18Ext.PW15/C)which
was collected from the Directorate Primary Education by Investigating Officerisavailablebeforethiscourt.SanjivKumarhasdrawnsupportfrom thestandoftheChairpersonsandthemembersofDistrictLevelSelection CommitteenamelyDayaSaini(A40),RamSingh(A41)andPuranChand (A42)whohavestatedintheirstatementsu/s313CrPCthatDirectorate ListofPanipatisagenuinelist. RegardingKurukshetraList[D16(1)] 28. Inthisregard,itispertinenttonotethatMadanLalKalra(A32)was
the Chairman of the District Level Selection CommitteeKurukshetra and Veer Bhan Mehta (A33) & Shashi Bhushan (A34) were its members. ShashiBhushan(A34)hadexpiredbeforefilingofchargesheet. Sanjiv KumarhasdrawnmyattentiontoQuestionno.311puttoMadanLalKalra (A32)u/s313CrPC.A32hasansweredthattheListExt.PW15/Disthe genuine list which is signedbyhim. Sanjiv Kumar submits that the list Ext.PW15/DisDirectorateListandthisagainprovesthatDirectorateLists arethegenuinelists. RegardingPanchkulaLists 29. TheSupremeCourtListofthisDistrictisD21whichisexhibitedas
Ext.PW18/A. The Directorate List of this district is D3 and has been exhibitedas Ext.PW18/B. Thepeculiarityofthesetwolistsisthatthese
listsarecomputerizedlists.Iwouldliketoreproducepara50ofthecharge sheetasunder: The report of APFSL Hyderabad shows that the list submitted by SanjivKumar,(A3)beforethe SupremeCourt andthe listofDistrict Panchkula,seizedfromDirectorateofPrimaryEducation,ofDistrict Punchkulahadbeengeneratedoncomputers. The SupremeCourtlist waspreparedoncomputeron17.12.1999byhiringtheservicesofone Hitesh Bansal, at his residence. Whereas the Directoratelist was got preparedfromanotherprivatefirmM/sV.C.C.ComputerEducation,SCO 60,Sec.12A,Panchkula,whoseproprietorwasoneShriNareshKumar. TheforensicopinionontheharddiskofprivatefirmM/sV.C.C.Computer Educationseizedduringinvestigationstatesthatthereisnodataavailable withrespecttothetwoawardlistsi.e.theSupremeCourtlistandthe Directorate list. Shri Naresh Kumar, proprietor M/s V.C.C. Computer EducationhadpreparedtheDirectoratelistofDistrictPanchkulainthe month of September2000 when approached by Miss Rekha Sharma, (A44)BlockEducationOfficer,Ramgarh,Panchkula,whowasamember oftheSelectionCommitteeofPanchkula. 30. ProsecutionexaminedHiteshBansalasPW20. Hetestifiedthatin
2004R.N.AzadAdditionalS.P .CBIinquiredfromhimaboutthecomputer job which he had done for Rekha Sharma during December1999. R.N. Azadhadtakentherelevantdatafromhiscomputerinafloppyandthe floppy & the hard disc of the computer were seized by him. From the floppy,aprintofthesaidworki.e.awardlistofJBTcandidateswastaken. Itshowedthatthislistwasgotpreparedon17.12.1999. Thisprintout (D42)isExt.PW20/CandtallieswiththeSupremeCourtList. 31. SanjivKumararguesthatthefakeevidencehasbeencreatedbyCBI and he has drawn my attention to the testimony of the expert witness U.Ramamohan(PW65)whereinhetestifiesthatthecomputerwasupdated inMSWord2000. ItisarguedthatthefactthatthecomputerofHitesh Bansalwashaving2000versionofMicrosoftOffice,itisclearthatthelist containedintheprintoutExt.PW20/Ccouldnothavebeenpreparedinthe year1999. RatherthisfactprovesthecontentionofA3thatthislistwas preparedintheyear2000.Itisarguedthatintheyear2000thefakelist waspreparedwhereasgenuinelistwaspreparedintheyear1999.Asper submissionsofSanjivKumar,theprintoutExt.PW20/Cisthereforeofthe year2000andthesametallieswiththeSupremeCourtListandthusthe SupremeCourtListisafakelist,whereastheDirectorateListofPanchkula Districtisthegenuinelist.
RegardingRewariLists 32. Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49) was the Chairpersons of the District
LevelSelectionCommitteeRewariandDarshanDayalVerma(A50),Smt. SarojSharma(A51)andTulsiRamBihagra(A52)wereitsmembers. The SupremeCourtlistD32isprovedasEx.PW39/A,whereastheDirectorate listofRewariD14isprovedasEx.PW15/B.TheSupremeCourtlistbears thesignaturesofSudhaSachdeva(A49)aswellasalltheothermembers. HoweverthepeculiarityoftheDirectoratelististhatthesignaturesofthe chairpersonnamelySudhaSachdeva(A49)arenotpresent,howeverthis listisdulysignedbyothermembers.ItisarguedbySanjivKumar(A3)that ifDirectoratelistisafakelist,itmusthavecontainedthesignaturesofchair personi.e.A49becauseintheregimeofOmPrakashChautalanoonehad couragetosaynoeventoanillegaldirectionissuedbytheGovernment. ItissubmittedbySanjivKumar(A3)thatmostofaccusedpersonsamongst A6toA62haveexplainedandnarratedtothiscourtinnouncertainterms aboutthefearfulenvironmentobtainingintheStateofHaryanaunderthe repressiveGovernmentofIndianNationalLokDalheadedbyOmPrakash Chautala. Insuchasituation,alistwhichbearsthesignaturesofallthe membersshouldbethefakelist,whereasthelistinwhichchairpersondid notsignshouldbeagenuinelist.SanjivKumar(A3)arguesthatamember
orchairmanmaynotsignincaseheisnotavailableonthedateofinterview for any reason. Sanjiv Kumar has drawn my attention to the affidavit (D58)ofSudhaSachdevawhichhasbeenprovedasExt.PW46/10inwhich sheswearsonoaththatshehadsignedthesecondlist.Itisarguedthatthis alsofortifieshisargumentsthatSudhaSachdevahadsignedthesecondlist, therefore, it means that the list which bears the signatures of Sudha Sachdevashouldbefakelist. Inthiscase,itisarguedthatonlySupreme CourtList(andnottheDirectorateList)bearshersignatures. Hence,itis submittedthatSupremeCourtlistofDistrictRewariisafakelist. 33. SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattentiontothefactthatDarshan Dayal Verma (A50) was initially the chair person of Rewari Selection Committee for first three days of the interviews. Thereafter he was transferredandSudhaSachdevawaspostedinhisplaceasthechairperson ofRewariSelectionCommittee.SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattention totheSupremeCourtlist,whereDarshanDayalVerma(A50)hassignedas Ex DPEO on first 12 pages of the award lists. Thereafter, the Sudha Sachdevasignedasthechairperson.Itisarguedthatontheoriginallist, DarshanDayalVerma(A50)wouldhavesignedforfirstthreedaysasDPEO andnotasExDPEO. SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattentiontothe DirectoratelistofRewari(D14)andwhichisexhibitedasEx.PW15/Band
submits that itbears thesignaturesofD.D. Vermawiththedesignation DPEO. ThereforeitisarguedthathisdesignationontheDirectoratelist Ex.PW15/B shows that he signed this list when he was District Primary EducationOfficer,Rewari. ItisarguedthatSupremeCourtlistbearshis signatureswithdesignationasExDPEO,whichshowsthathesignedthislist whenhehadalreadyrelinquishedthechargeasDPEO.ThereforeSupreme CourtlistmustbetermedasthefakelistandtheDirectoratelistshouldbe treatedasthegenuinelist. RegardingYamunaNagarlists 34. Rajender Pal Singh (A59) was the chairman of the Selection
Committee. SarwanKumarChawla(A60),Smt.UrmilSharma(A61)and JoginderLal(A62)werethemembersthiscommittee.Itispertinenttonote that A60, A61 and A62 stepped into the witness box to give their own versions. SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattentiontothetestimonyof Smt.UrmilSharma,whoexaminedherselfindefenceasA61/DW1aswell astotheevidenceofJoginderLal,whoexaminedhimselfasdefencewitness asA62/DW1. SanjivKumar(A3)submitsthatboththeseaccusedpersons havetestifiedthatSmt.UrmilSharmahadonlyconductedinterviewsfor firstthreedaysandthereaftersheproceededonleave.ThereafterJoginder Laltookhisplaceandconductedtheinterviews.JoginderLalA62/DW1has
testifiedthathissignaturesweretakenforciblyevenonfirstthreedatesof interviews on which he had he was not a part of the interviewing committee. JoginderLalalsotestifiedthat sinceonpage1to17onthe Supreme Court list Ex.PW27/A (D29), his signatures as well as the signaturesofSmt.UrmilSharmaarepresent,thereforeSupremeCourt lististhefakelist.Itisbecauseinnocasehissignaturesandsignaturesof Smt. Urmil Sharma would be found together, since he became part of interviewingcommitteeafterSmt.UrmilSharmahasproceededonleave. He also testified that the Directorate list of Yamuna Nagar Ex.PW15/J (D11)isthereallist. 35. SanjivKumar(A3)hasarguedthatSarwanKumarChawla(A60)and Smt.UrmilSharmahavebeenunabletoidentifyastowhichoneisthereal listbutJoginderLal(A62)hasgivenhisreasonsastowhyheisidentifying theDirectoratelisttobegenuinelistandSupremeCourtlistasthefakelist. SanjivKumar(A3)arguesthatalthoughJoginderLal(A62)laterontakea UturnincrossexaminationbySh.AshokKumar,adv.butitmustnotbe forgottenthatSh.AshokKumar,adv.onbehalfofRajinderPalSingh(A59) crossexaminedhimafterafewdays. Thistimegapwasusedbyaccused RajinderPalSingh(A59)andSherSinghBadshami(A2),whobelongedto thesamedistricttopressurizethiswitness,whohadalreadysufferedmuch
agonyasreflectedinhistestimony.HenceitisarguedthatDirectoratelist ofDistrictYamunaNagaristhereallistandtheSupremeCourtlististhe fakelist. RegardingRohtaklists 36. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) has drawn my attention to the columns of
interviewmarksandgrandtotalintheSupremeCourtlist(D30)ofDistrict Rohtak,whichis Ex.PW43/D. Itissubmittedthatboththecolumnsare blankanddonotcontainanymarks. Haditbeeninoriginallist,these columnsmusthavebeenfilledup.ItisarguedthatattheinstanceofOm Prakash Chautala, the bureaucratic and political henchmen executed the entire work of creating fake lists in most crude manner and got the signatures of chair person and members of Rohtak Selection Committee withaviewtofillthemarkslateronaspertheirconvenience.Inthishaste theyforgottofillupthemarks.Itisarguedthatthisisthereasonthatthis listdoesnotcontaintheinterviewmarksandthegrandtotal.Ontheother hand,D12istheDirectorateListofDistrictRohtak,whichisexhibitedas Ex.PW15/K. Itisarguedthatinthislistinterviewmarksandgrandtotal aredulyfilledupwhichshowsthatthisisthegenuinelist. RegardingSonepatlists 37. TheSupremeCourtListofDistrictSonepat(D26)is Ext.PW43/C.
TheDirectorateListofthisdistrict(D8)isExt.PW15/G. RajenderSingh Dahiya(A56)wastheChairmanofthisDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee andDalipSingh(A57)wasitsmember.AnothermembernamelyKamla Devi(A58) hadexpiredbeforefilingthechargesheet. A56&A57in their statements u/s 313 CrPC admit their signatures on both the lists. Sanjiv Kumar has drawn my attention to the Directorate List which is properlytypedinrespectofallthecolumnsexceptinterviewmarksandthe grandtotal.However,itisarguedbyhimthatthetypingofparticularsof thecandidatesinSupremeCourtListwouldshowthatthisisacarboncopy ofthetypeddocument. Itisarguedthatwhywouldtheselectorsusea carbon copy of the sheets containing particulars of the candidates for puttingtheinterviewmarksonit. Itisarguedthathaditbeenagenuine list,theinterviewmarksshouldhavebeengivenontheoriginaltypedcopy andnotonitscarboncopy.ItisarguedbySanjivKumarthatthesecondlist waspreparedinagreathurryandwhentheyfoundthecarboncopyofthe particulars of the candidates, the fake list was prepared by putting the interviewmarksandgrandtotalonthesame.Itwasdonewithaviewto effecttheschemeofcreatingnewsetoflistsexpeditiously.Itis,therefore, arguedthatSupremeCourtListofDistrictSonepatisafakelistandthe DirectorateListofthisdistrictisagenuinelist.
RegardingFaridabadLists 38. The Directorate List (D4) is Ext.PW15/L. It has also been given
anotherexhibitnumberExt.PW17/Binadvertentlyduringtheexamination of PW17 Brij Mohan who proved these lists. The Supreme Court List (D22)ofthisdistrictis Ext.PW17/A. Itispertinenttonotethatinitially Ram Saran Kukreja (A17) was the Chairman of this committee and conductedinterviewsonlytill02.12.1999whenhewastransferredtoSirsa. HewasreplacedbyHarbansLalwhoconductedinterviewsfrom02.12.1999 onwards.SanjivKumarhasdrawnmyattentiontotheSupremeCourtList Ext.PW17/AandsubmitsthatthesignaturesofR.S.Kukreja(A17)arenot availableonit,though,hehadconductedinterviewsforfirsttwodays.He hasdrawnmyattentiontotheDirectorateListExt.PW17/Bandhasalso drawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPW17BrijMohanwhoidentifies thesignaturesofR.S.Kukrejaonfirsttwelvesheetsatserialno.1. Itis arguedthatthegenuinelistmustbearthesignaturesofR.S.Kukrejaonfirst two days of the interviews. Since his signatures are available on the DirectorateListonfirsttwelvepages,itstandsprovedthattheDirectorate ListofFaridabadisthegenuinelist.SanjivKumararguesthatBrijMohan (PW17) has testified that Supreme Court List was genuine list and DirectorateListwasthefakelistbecausewhenhewaspressurizedtosign
thefakelist,hewrote'UP'underhissignatures. Thiswitness,whowasa memberofFaridabadSelectionCommitteestatedthatbywriting'U.P .'under hissignatures,hemeantthathehadsigned'UnderPressure'.Argumentsof theprosecutionisthatsincetheletters'U.P .'areappearingintheDirectorate List,therefore,theDirectorateListisafakelist. Thisargumenthasbeen metbySanjivKumaronthegroundthatnowhereintheDirectorateListthe words 'U.P are visible under or alongwith his signatures. Hence, it is .' arguedbyA3thatDirectorateListofdistrictFaridabadisthegenuinelist andSupremeCourtLististhefakeone. 39. Inthisregard,SanjivKumarhasalsodrawnmyattentiontothefile D61whichwasrecoveredbyCBIfromtheofficeofDPEOFaridabad.Itis submittedthatthislistisintwoparts.Asperprosecution,thisfilecontains a photocopy of Supreme Court List (D22) of Faridabad, of which the columnsofinterviewmarksandgrandtotalappeartohavebeenconcealed byputtingsomepaperwhiletakingitsphotocopy. Myattentionhasbeen drawn to the testimony of investigating officer PW63, wherein he has testifiedthatthiswasthemanner(i.e.gettingthephotocopyoftheaward listbyputtingapaperontheinterviewmarksandthegrandtotal)inwhich thephotocopyoftheoriginal/genuinelistsweregiventotheChairpersons andthemembersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesforpreparation
ofthefakelist. SanjivKumarcontrovertsthiscontentionbydrawingmy attentiontothefactthatinfactthisisacarboncopyofDirectorateList (D4). 40. IhaveseenD61.Ithastwolists.Onelistisacompletelisthaving interviewmarksandgrandtotalandhavingsignaturesofHarbansLal,Udal PrasadandBrijMohan.Thereisanotherlistwhichisaphotocopyinwhich total interviewmarksandgrandtotalappearstohavebeenconcealedby puttingsomepaperonit. Theinvestigatingofficerhastestified(incross examinationdt.15.02.2012)thatthisfileD61(Ext.PW63/DB)wasseized duringinvestigationanditcontainsonecopyofthefalseawardlistsand one photocopy of the genuine award list (i.e. the Supreme Court list) preparedfrom01.12.1999to10.12.1999andphotocopyhasbeenobtained byplacingapaperonthecolumnsoftotalmarks,interviewmarksand grandtotalmarks. Asperprosecution,thisfilewasseizedon26.05.2004 from the office of District Primary Education OfficerFaridabad. Sanjiv Kumararguesthatifthisphotocopy,itstypinganditslinesarecompared withthelists,itwouldbeclearthatitisaphotocopyoftheDirectorateList ofFaridabad. ThisalsoprovesthatthephotocopiesofDirectorateListof Faridabad was given to the Chairperson/members of the District Level SelectionCommitteesforpreparationofthenewlist. Hence,itisargued
thatthisalsofortifiesthecaseonA3thatDirectorateLististheoriginallist andSupremeCourtlististhefakelist. RegardingKaithalLists 41. Dilbagh Singh (A35) was the Chairman of this District Level
Selection Committee and Ram Kumar (A36) was its member. Another member namely Megh Nath Sharma did not sign any of the lists. It is admitted fact that although he conducted the interviews alongwith Chairman and another member, but, he was in disagreement with his Chairmanonthemannerofgivingmarks.MeghnathSharmainsistedthat theinterviewmarksshouldbegivenaspertheinstructionsissuedtothem. TheseinstructionswereissuedtoalltheDistrictPrimaryEducationOfficers (DPEOs)inameetingcalledon24.11.1999byDirectorPrimaryEducation andthesamehasbeenexhibitedasExt.PW24/DJ(D40Vol.I,instruction no.10atpage155). Thisinstructionno.10mentionsthatitshouldbe ensuredthatthemeritlistofeducationalqualificationshouldbeprepared aspertheselectionformulabefore01.12.1999andthreelistsshouldbe preparedforthethreemembersoftheselectioncommitteeandbeforestart oftheinterviewsallthemembersshouldbegivenonecopyofthelisteach. Another copy of these instructions is exhibited as Ext.PW52/C. Sanjiv KumarhasdrawnmyattentiontothereplysentbyMeghnathSharmain
responsetotheshowcausenoticeforrefusingtosignthelist.Itisargued thatinthisreplyMeghnathSharmahasstatedthathehadgivenmarksin interviewincodewords'A,B,C,D'and'A'=6.5;'B'=5.0,'C'=4.0,'D'=3.0& 'E'=2.5marks. ItisarguedbySanjivKumarthatthispatterntallieswith thepatternofinterviewmarksoftheDirectorateListswherelargenumber ofpersonshadbeengiven3,4,5,6interviewmarks.Thus,itisarguedthat the reply of Meghnath Sharma not only proves that the Directorate List Ext.PW21/B(D17)ofDistrictKaithalisgenuinelist,but,alsoprovesthat alltheDirectorateListswhichcontainedthispatternofinterviewmarksare thegenuinelists.Consequently,theSupremeCourtlistsmustbetreatedas thefakelists. RegardingJindLists 42. Ajit Singh Sangwan (A26) was the Chairman of District Level Selection committee. Smt. Ram Kaur (A27) and Mahavir Singh (A28) wereitsmembers. TheSupremeCourtList(D23)hasbeenprovedas Ext.PW2/1.TheDirectorateList(D5)ofthisdistrictisExt.PW2/2. 43. ProsecutionhasexaminedPW5MilapSingh,theclerkintheoffice ofDPEOJind,PW14DhupSinghtheDy.Superintendentintheofficeof DPEOJindandRaviDuttPW2aclerkintheofficeofDPEOJind. They havetestifiedthatinDecember1999,aninterviewlistwaspreparedwhich
bears the signatures of Dhup Singh on all the sheets. Dhup Singh also testifies that he had signed this list in token of checking the academic qualificationmarks.However,hetestifiedthataftertwoorthreedaysfrom 01.09.2000thelistswereagaintyped,butherefusedtoputhissignatures unlessoriginalwasshowntohim.Asperprosecutioncase,testimonyofthe aforesaidwitnessesprovesthatthelistbearingthesignaturesofDhupSingh aregenuineandthelistwhichdoesnotbearhissignaturesisafakelist. 44. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) refutes this argument. It is argued that the award lists must bear the signatures of the members of District Level SelectionCommitteesonly.Itisarguedthatitcannothavethesignaturesof anyotherpersonandifsignatureofanyotherpersonisavailable,itmeans thatitisafakelist.A3remindsthiscourtthatitmustnotbeforgottenthat the fake lists were prepared with a great speed, forcibly without having regardstoanynormsresultinginsuchtypeofabsurditiesandillegalities whichareappearingalmostonallthefakelists. ItisarguedbyA3that PW14 Dhup singh was not the member of the District Level Selection Committee and therefore his signatures should not be available on the genuinelist. Since,hissignaturesareavailableonSupremeCourtlist,it means that it is a fake list. On the other hand, his signatures are not availableonDirectorateList,whichprovesthatitisgenuinelist.
45.
A3furtherfortifieshisargumentsbyreferringtothetestimonyof
A3/DW11namelySubhashChander.ThiswitnesswasexaminedbyA3in his defence. This defence witness testified that in the first week of September, 2000, he was posted at Govt. High School, Pandu Pindara, DistrictJind, Haryana associalstudiesmaster,when Ajit singhSangwan (A26)DPEOJindcalledhimtohisoffice.Somepaperswerespreadonthe tableinhisoffice.AjitSinghSangwantoldhimthatattheinstanceofthe government,freshlistsrelatingtoJBTappointmentswereprepared. A26 putsomelistsinhispresenceinanenvelopeandputgumtocloseitand alsoputsomesealonit.Thereafter,ontheinstructionsofA26,hewrote 'DirectorPrimaryEducationHaryana'ontheenvelopeandonthecornerof thisenvelope,he(i.e.thiswitness)alsowrote'DistrictPrimaryEducation OfficerJind.'Thereafter,atdirectionsofA26hedeliveredthisenvelopeto Vidya Dhar OSD to CM at his residence at Sector7, Chandigarh. A3 arguesthatalthoughhehadopenedallthefakeliststhrusteduponhimfor implementationbeforepresentingthesameintheSupremeCourt,but,he haddeliberatelykepttheenvelopereceivedfromJind,dulysealedandit was opened in presence of Pushpa Ramdeo, Dy. Registrar (PW43) in Supreme Court. A3submitsthatshetestifiedthatatserialno.15ofthe memo, it is written that one envelope containing award list of JBT
teachersJindtheselistwereinsealedcover.ItisarguedbyA3thatthis provesthatsealedenvelopecontainingthefakeJindlistopenedinSupreme CourtofIndia,isthesamelist whichSubhashChanderdeliveredtoVidya Dhar.SubhashChanderhasalsoidentifiedhiswritingontheJindenvelope Ext.PW43/DA1.A3hasdrawnmyattentionthatthisenvelopecontained SupremeCourtListofJindandthereforetheentirechainofdirectevidence proves beyond doubt that Supreme Court list of Jind was a fake list. Consequently,itissubmittedthattheDirectorateListofDistrictJindisthe genuineandoriginallist. RegardingMahendergarh(Narnaul)lists 46. IthasbeeninformedtothiscourtthattheHeadQuarterofDistrict Mahendergarh is at Narnaul and therefore Mahendergarh lists have also beenmentionedasNarnaullists. TheSupremeCourtlist(D24)ofthis districtisEx.PW43/BandtheDirectoratelistofthisdistrictisEx.PW15/O. 47. SanjivKumar(A3)hasarguedthatatthetimewhentheinterviews forJBTcandidateswerebeingconducted,simultaneouslytheinterviewsof the candidates for the posts of C & V Teachers (Classic & Vernacular Teachers),MastersandLecturerswerealsobeingconducted.Itisargued by Sanjiv Kumar (A3) that during the investigation, CBI had seized the
award lists of interviews of C & V teachers of District Mahendergargh (Narnaul).Itisarguedthatperusalofthislistwouldshowthatitspattern ofinterviewsmarkstallieswiththeDirectoratelist.Itissubmittedthatthe CBIhadnotfoundthislisttobeafake.Haditbeenso,CBIwouldhavealso prosecutedtheofficials,whopreparedthisawardlistofC&Vteachers. 48. Ihaveperusedtheselists,whichhasbeenexhibitedduringtrialas Ex.PW24/L(D60VolumeItoIV).Onperusalofthisinterviewawardlist of C& Vteachers, Ifind thattheinterviewpatternintheselists isalso similartotheDirectoratelists.ItisarguedbySanjivKumar(A3)thatifin theeyesofCBI,theinterviewpatternoftheC&Vteachersisnotillegaland ifthisawardlistisnotfake,howtheDirectoratelists,whichcontainthe samepatternofinterviewmarksasthatofEx.PW24/L,couldbetermedas thefakelists.AccordinglyitisarguedSanjivKumar(A3)thatnotonlythe DirectoratelistofMahendergarhbutalsoalltheDirectoratelistshavingthe samepatternofinterviewmarksascontainedin Ex.PW24/L aregenuine lists.ConsequentlytheSupremeCourtlistofDistrictMahendergarhandthe otherSupremeCourtlistsshouldbetreatedtobefakelists. RegardingBhiwanilists 49. TheChairpersonofDistrictLevelSelectionBhiwaniwasBrahmanand (A9).MsVinodKumari(A10),MamanChand(A11)andSawanLal(A12)
wereitsmembers. TheSupremeCourtlistofthisdistrictis Ex.PW30/A (D25).TheDirectoratelistisEx.PW15/M(D7). 50. SanjivKumar(A3)arguesthatVidyaDhar(A1)wastheOSDtothe ChiefMinisterandwasalsofullyinvolvedincreationoffakelists. Itis arguedthatinfacttheentireconspiracyofcreationoffakelistswascarried out by Om Prakash Chautala, the then Chief Minister, through his OSD namelyVidyaDhar(A1).Myattentionhasbeendrawntoadefencewitness namelySatbir(A1/DW1)examinedbyVidyaDhar(A1)inhisdefence.This witnesshastestifiedthatheisthecloserelativeofVidyaDhar(A1)andthat heappearedintheinterviewforJBTteacherswithrollno.5506.Hestated thathiswifeShardaDevi(rollno.5135)andhiscousinsnamelyPradeep (roll no. 5505) and Ghanshyam (roll no. 5507) also appeared for this interviewsbutnoneofthemwasselected. 51. SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattentiontotheinterviewmarksof theseclosefourrelativesofVidyaDhar(A1).Itabulatethesameasunder: Name Satbir ShardaDevi Pradeep Ghanshyam RollNo. 5506 5135 5505 5507 7 7 7 7 Interviewmarks DirectorateList SupremeCourtList 17 13 18 17
52.
SanjivKumar(A3)arguesthatthefactthatVidyaDhar(A1)theOSD
to Chief Minister was able to get much higher interview marks in the SupremeCourtlist,whereasinDirectorateliststheirmarksaremuchless. ThisprovesthattheSupremeCourtlist,whichcontainsveryhighinterview marksofthefourcloserelativesofVidyaDhar(A1),shouldbethefakelist. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) has drawn my attention to his own testimony as A3/DW9aswellashiswritpetitionno.93/2003inwhichhehasstatedthat attheinstanceofOmPrakashChautala,VidyaDhar(A1)hadhandedover tohimi.e.SanjivKumar(A3),thefakelistsforimplementation.Insucha casethereisnoreasonthatrelativesofVidyaDhar(A1)shouldgetless interviewmarksinthefakelists. ItisthereforearguedbySanjivKumar (A3) that the Directorate list of District Bhiwani is genuine list and the SupremeCourtlistisafakeone. MARKINGPATTERN 53. TheSupremeCourtlistsfiledbySanjivKumarbeforeSupremeCourt of India can be identified by his signatures in red ink and signatures of PW43PushpaRamdeo,theDy.Registraringreeninkonthebackofeach sheet,whereas,theDirectorateListsdonotbeartheirsignatures. Rather,
these lists bear the signatures of six members of result compilation committee. TheDirectorateListswereseizedduringinvestigationbyCBI fromDirectorate,PrimaryEducation.Asatokenofsuchreceipt,oneinitial withthedateofseizurei.e.18.12.2003canbeseenonthebacksideofeach sheetoftheseDirectorateLists. Inthismanner,theselistscanbeeasily differentiated. 54. SanjivKumar(A3)arguesthathehasshownthattheDirectorate Lists of 12 districts were genuine lists. It is argued that the pattern of interviewmarksintheDirectoratelistsoftheremaining7districtsisalso akintotheDirectorateListsofabovediscusseddistricts.Therefore,allthe DirectoratelistsshouldbetreatedtobegenuinelistsandtheSupremeCourt listsshouldbedeclaredtobethefakelists. 55. Inordertoappreciatethesubmissionsofthepartiesonthemarking pattern of the two sets of lists, I would like to reproduce the relevant portionofpara36ofthechargesheetaswellaspara47ofthechargesheet asunder:
para36 ..... AspertheformulagivenbySh.SanjivKumar(A3),the GeneralcategorycandidateswhosenameswereinthelistprovidedbySh.Sanjiv Kumarweretobegiveninterviewmarksbetween17and19andtheotherswereto begivenmarksbetween5to7.Similarly,forbackwardclassthecandidateswhose nameswerementionedinthelistoffavouredcandidatesprovidedbySh.Sanjiv
Kumarweretobegiveninterviewmarksintherangeof6to8andtherestwereto begiveninterviewmarksintherangeof2to5outof20.Thiscorrelateswiththe patternofmarksfoundintheDirectoratelistswhichwereretrievedandreleased fromthealmirahon16.09.2000bySh.SanjivKumarandon thebasisofwhich appointmentshavebeenmade. para47Investigationhasdisclosedthepatternofinterviewmarksinfalse listsof18districtsreceivedfromDirectorateofPrimaryEducation,Haryanaand false lists of 17 districts received from Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Sh. SanjivKumarrevealedthefactthattheDirectoratelists(falselists)areshowingtwo rangesofmarksonlyi.e.3to6inlowerrangeand16to20inhigherrange.Such markshavebeengivenpurposelywithamalafideintentiontoshowfavourtosome candidates.Whereas,thepatternofinterviewmarksintheSupremeCourtlists& listsgivenbySh.SanjivKumar(A3)fallsintherangebetween6to20outof20for allcategoriesofcandidates,whichindicatesthenaturalwayofgivingmarksinany interview.
56.
ProsecutionhadsoughttheopinionofPW16PremPrashantIASon
thismarkingpattern.Inhisexaminationinchief,hetestifiedasunder:
Duringinvestigation,InvestigatingOfficerhadshownmetwosetsofinterview lists ofthevariousDistricts.Inonesetoflist,themarkingswereveryextremeand inthe otherset,itwasnormalasitnormallyshouldbe.
ProsecutionalsosoughttheopinionofPW23RajniShekriSibalwho testifiedasunder: Afterperusingboththelists,IcansaythatlogicallyD14M688/2003is
falsebecauseatpageno.2pickeduprandomlyrelatingtocandidatesserialno.14to 26beginningfromMahinderSingh,S/oChottuRamtoserialno.26isVinodKumar, S/oNandLal,outof12candidates,allexceptonei.e.VinodKumar,S/oNandLal havebeenallotedinterviewmarksbetween'0to5'outof'20',whileVinodKumarRoll no.65026S/oNandLalistheonlycandidateonthispagetohavegot'18'marksout of'20'.Sameisthecaseatpageno.10whereallcandidateshavemarksbelow'5'in mostcases.Sameisthecaseatpageno.8whereeveryonehasbeengivenlowmarks. Itappearsthatthispatternistherethroughouttoensurethatmostcandidateshave beengivenmarksatthelowerextremeandonlyafewhavebeengivenmarksbetween '17'to'20'i.e.ontheotherextremeendandthereisnointermediatemarking.If oneweretodrawagraphofthenumberofpeopleagainstthemarksalloted,it wouldbeskewedinthecaseofthislist. WhereaslistD32M655/2003appearstobeanormalinterviewlist where the number of marks alloted against the number of total people interviewedappearasanormalbellshapedcurvewithmajoritybeingalloted marksinthemedianrangeandveryfewonthetwoextremities.
57.
ImaypointoutthatD14istheDirectorateListofDistrictRewari
andD32istheSupremeCourtListofDistrictRewari. Theabovequoted answerofPW23hascomeaftershewasshownboththeselistsinthecourt. 58. I have carefully perused the Supreme Court Lists as well as the Directorate Lists of all the districts and one feature is very clear and commontoalltheDirectorateListsthatsomecandidateshavebeengiven extremeinterviewmarksonthehighersideandmostofthecandidateshave
gotthelowinterviewmarksontheotherextreme.Inotherway,itcanbe saidthatitisbunchingofhighrangeofmarksforafewcandidatesinthe Directorate Lists. On the contrary, there is no specific pattern of the interviewmarksintheSupremeCourtLists.Mostofthepeoplehavegot fairly good interview marks in these lists. For example, I take up the SupremeCourtListofDistrictMahendergarh(Narnaul).Itisinterestingto notethatmostofthecandidateshavegot'19','19.50'marks.Onlythreeor fourcandidatesgot'13','12.5','11'&'10'marksintheinterview. Noone hasgotlessermarksthanthat.Infact,onlyafewcandidateshavegotless than17marksinthislist.Itispertinenttonotethatalltheinterviewmarks onsuchahighersidehasbeengiventothecandidatesirrespectiveoftheir casteandcategory.ItappearsthateachDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee awarded interview marks as per its own wisdom but very low interview markstoanycandidateareonlyexceptions. 59. On the other hand, in the Directorate List of District Mahendergarh(Narnaul) onlyafewhavegotthemarksmorethan17. Theremainingcandidateshavebeengivenverylowmarksrangingbetween 7to9inGeneralCategory. 60. SametypeofmarkingpatterncanbeseeninalltheDirectoratelists withminorvariations.
61.
This court has before it the version of many Chairpersons and
members about the marking patterns given in the fake lists as per their statementsu/s313CrPC,but,itwouldnotbepermissibletoconsiderit against A3. However, one of the accused persons namely Sher Singh (A23)steppedinthewitnessboxinhisdefenceandexaminedhimselfas A23/DW1.Ireproducetherelevantportionofhisexaminationinchiefas under:
Sh.AnarSinghwashavingaslipofrollnumbersonly.The patternwasthatthecandidatesagainstwhoserollnumbersastar markwasthere,theyweretobegiven19marksirrespectiveof theircategory,whilecandidatesagainstwhoserollnumberswere encircledweretobegiven19marksirrespectiveoftheircategory.For theremainingrollnumbersinthislistofgeneralcategory17to18 markswastobegivenandforthoseofgeneralcategorywhoseroll numbersdidnotfigureinthislisttheyweretobegivenbetween6to 8marksininterview.AsfarasBCcandidateswasconcerned,for thosewhoserollnumberswerethereinthislist,theyweretobegiven 5to7marksininterview,whilethosewhoserollnumberswerenot figuringinthislist,weretobegiven3to4marksininterview.ForSC candidateswhoserollnumberswerethereinthesaidlist,weretobe given3,4whilethosewhoserollnumberswerenotinthislistwereto begiven2to3marksininterview.
Thisevidencefullysupportstheprosecutionversion. 62. Sanjiv Kumar had availed the opportunity to cross examine this witness.HedidnotsuggesttoA23/DW1thatthismarkingpatternpertains totheoriginallistsandnottothefakelistspreparedin2000.
AnalysisofthemarksbySanjivKumar(A3) 63. SanjivKumar submits thattheprosecutionhas failed tocomeout with theproperanalysis of theinterviewmarks deliberately and thereby misled this court on the pattern of interview marks. He examined PushpenderBhardwaj(A3/DW4)andParveenKumar(A3/DW5)inhis defence. Theytestifiedthattheyhadcompiled,collatedandanalyzedthe data on the basis of the copies of the award lists i.e. Directorate Lists, SupremeCourtListsandHARTRONlistsprovidedbySanjivKumar. 64. This analysis is contained in three spiral books namely A3hasfiledwrittensubmissionsinwhichhehasgivenhisanalysis asunder:
'formula' was allegedly being evolved and implemented, there was no D129. What was indeed available was the list of appx. 8000 JBT applicants. This formula was to be applied to those applicants who were to be favored. Accordingly,thepresentanalysishasmergedallthe18districtlevelawardlists(A seriesforBCcandidates),and,thereafter,thelistsofallthoseapplicantswhowere givenmarksaccordingtothesaidformulawasshortlisted.Thereafter,thecut off percentage was applied to such candidates and the result was arrived at whetherthesecandidateswhoweregivenmarksaccordingtothisformulawere successfulornot. Example1: ListA1: ListA2: ListA5: Totalno.ofapplicantsinallthe18districts=7345 Totalno.ofBC(A)candidatesinA1=670 Totalno.ofBC(A)candidatesgetting68marksininterviews=
Ex.A3/DW4/A,Ex.A3/DW4/BandEx.A3/DW4/C.
57 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010

298 ListA3: ListA4:
Judgment dt. 16.01.2013
Totalno.ofBC(A)candidatesfinallyqualifying=235
Totalno.ofBC(A)candidatesfromabovelistgetting68marks= 154=154/235=65.5% %ageofBC(A)candidateswhoweregivenmarksasperthesaidallegedformula butwhofailedtoqualify=ListA5ListA4=298154=144;144/154=65% ExampleII: ListA1: ListA6: ListA7: ListA9: ListA8: Totalno.ofapplicantsinallthe18districts=7345 Totalno.ofBC(B)candidatesinA1=440 Totalno.ofBC(B)candidatesqualifying=121 Totalno.ofBC(B)candidatesgetting68marksininterviews=103 Totalno.ofBC(B)candidatesfromListA7getting68marksin interviewsandqualifying
=53 %ageofBC(B)candidateswhoweregivenmarksasperthesaidallegedformula butwhofailedtoqualify=ListA9ListA8=10353=50=50/103=50% ExampleIII: List14: Totalno.ofgeneralcategorycandidatesinA1=1978 List18: Totalno.ofgeneralcategorycandidatesinListgettingmarks57 in interviews as per the 'formula'fornonfavoredcandidates=392 Implication: So,theno.ofcandidatestobefavoredisList14List18= 1586 candidates List16: Which is the list of those general candidates who were given marksin interviews from 1720 accordingtosaidformulaandhavequalified also=698 %ageofgeneralcandidateswhoweretobefavored(1586)andsoweregiven1720 marksininterviewsandqualified(698)=Just63%
58 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010

ExampleIV: ListB20: Totalno.ofgeneralcandidatesgetting17marksinD129,i.e.the DirectorateJML=454outofatotalof1120generalcandidates(ListB15);List B21: If given 4 marks less ininterview thenno. qualifying=356, i.e. 356/454= 78.4% ListB23: Totalno.ofgeneralcandidatesgetting18marksinD129,i.e.the DirectorateJML=230outofatotalof1120generalcandidates(ListB15);List B24: If given 4 marks less in interview then no. qualifying=208, i.e.208/230= 90.4% ListB26: Totalno.ofgeneralcandidatesgetting19marksinD129,i.e.the DirectorateJML=137outofatotal of1120generalcandidates(ListB15);List B27: If given 4 marks less in interview then no. qualifying=113, i.e. 113/137= 82.48% ListB29: Totalno.ofgeneralcandidatesgetting20marksinD129,i.e.the DirectorateJML=1outofatotalof1120generalcandidates(ListB15);ListB30: Ifgiven4markslessininterviewthenno.qualifying=1,i.e.1/1=100% Implication:TheIOhasdonenoanalysisofthecorrelationbetweentheinterview marks and the academic merit of acandidate. The above analysis proves that thosewhoweregiven1720marksininterviewswereacademicallysogoodthat givingthem4markslesswouldalsonotaffecttheirperformance.Instead,ifsuch weretheprecisionoftheformulacalculation,thenevenabandwidthof1316 markingpatternforsuchcandidateswouldhaveseen84%ofthemthrough.
Judgment dt. 16.01.2013
65.
SanjivKumar(A3)hasarguedthathisanalysisshowsthatevenafter
theapplicationoftheformulaimplementedintheDirectoratelist,itisnot hundredpercentsuccessformula.TheperusaloftheDirectoratelistsand
thefinalresultwouldshowthatthepersons,whoweregivengoodmarksas perthisformulahadfailedandmanypersons,whohadgotverylowmarks asperthisformulaintheDirectoratelist,wereabletomakeitinthejoint merit list. Therefore it is argued that the plea of prosecution regarding preparationofthefakelistsaspertheformula/markingpatternmentioned inthechargesheetdoesnotholdgood. Theanalysesoftheinterviewmarksbythiscourt. 66. Forthisanalysis,IwouldliketotakeuptheDirectoratelistofDistrict BhiwaniandIwouldliketoseeastowhetherthepersons,whohadgot17 marksininterviewormorethanthat,hadactuallybeenselectedornot.I may point out that CBI had seized from Mula Ram (PW15), the then Assistant Director Primary Education, the Directorate list as well as the result/jointStateMeritlistEx.PW55/W(D129)preparedbytheHARTRON andprovedbyMukeshBajaj(PW55),thethenAssistantGeneralManagerof HARTRONattherelevanttime.Thiscomparisonbythiscourtistabulated asunder: Sl. Roll No. No. Name Candidates of General Selected/No Status as Category tselected per State Interview marks Meritlist outof20
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
5003 5006 5007 5008 5009 5010 5012 5016 5018
Manju NeelamKumari Sheela SusheelaDevi MukeshDevi Shakuntala Snehlata Annu Neelam PromilaGill SeemaRani RajeshRani SanjuDevi ManjuRani Alka Vedwanti Yashwanti BirMati ManojKumari SaritaDevi Suman MonikaDalal
18 17 19 19.50 18 19 18 17 19 17 17 18 19 19 18 18 18 17.60 18 18 18 19
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
762 353 998 63 1085 1277 1009 37 604 1115 905 28 110 700 106 492 274 780 1460 239 404 514 214
10. 5020 11. 5027 12. 5029 13. 5032 14. 5038 15. 5040 16. 5041 17. 5047 18. 5048 19. 5050 20. 5051 21. 5053 22. 5058 23. 5059
KrishnaSharma 18
24. 5060 25. 5061 26. 5064 27. 5067 28. 5068 29. 5070 30. 5075 31. 5076 32. 5081 33. 5083 34. 5085 35. 5088 36. 5094 37. 5099 38. 5101 39. 5104 40. 5105 41. 5106 42. 5108 43. 5112 44. 5113 45. 5120
SunitaDevi Veena Chaturvedi SavitaSingh Babita MadhuBala Sushma RosieJain SunilKumari KantaKumari MamtaDevi SunitaGupta NeelamRani NeelamYadav Sharmila SudeshKumari
17 19 17 18 17 17 17 18 17 17 17 19.50 18 17 18
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
800 145 839 169 415 330 844 245 659 680 1516 115 511 410 532 282 06 27 293 174 361 64
ManjeetKumari 18 KanchanPrabha 19 VershaRani Neelam YogitaRani Anita 19 18 18 18
MukeshKumari 18
46. 5122 47. 5128 48. 5173 49. 5175 50. 5176 51. 5184 52. 5185 53. 5188 54. 5191 55. 5193 56. 5196 57. 5197 58. 5198 59. 5199 60. 5200 61. 5201 62. 5202 64. 5205 65. 5207 66. 5211 67. 5219 68. 5226
MamtaRani SarojBala Rajbir RajeshKumar RamphalSingh Ombir ManojKumari MukeshKumar VijayKumar DaraSingh SunilKumar KamalSingh YakvirSingh JitenderKumar RajeshKumar SurenderSingh SurenderSingh SunilKumar SurenderSingh ManojKumar MukeshKumar
17 17 17 18 17 17 17 18 17 18 17 17 17 19 17 18 17 19.50 17 17 17 19
792 1043 1212 67 120 753 1501 944 367 1124 107 1018 398 1110 414 1035 154 502 300 793 1184 1414 68
NarenderKumar 19
63. 52003 KuldeepKumar
69. 5227 70. 5228 71. 5230 72. 5233 73. 5234 74. 5239 75. 5242 76. 5243 77. 5246 78. 5249 79. 5250 80. 5251 81. 5253 82. 5258 83. 5261 84. 5263 85. 5264 86. 5265 87. 5266 88. 5268 89. 5272 90. 5278 91. 5280
Narvinder RajeshKumar AjaySingh SurenderPal ShankarLal AnilKumar RajKumar VinayKumar KuldeepSingh RajeshMalik JaiParkash AshokKumar PawanKumar AjitKumar Rajesh HansRaj JaiParkash DurgaParsad AshokKumar SatishKumar Sandeep
19 17 17 17 17.50 17 17 18 17 17 18 17 18 18 17 17 18 18 17 18 17
113 783 827 510 983 909 892 531 1202 1005 1483 262 407 1338 517 441 962 999 213 418 763 906 954
BhupinderSingh 17 SurenderKumar 17.50
92. 5281 93. 5282 94. 5288 95. 5289 96. 5290 97. 5291 98. 5292 99. 5293 100. 5301 101. 5304 102. 5306 103. 5307 104. 5308 105. 5310 106. 5320 107. 5321 108. 5323 109. 5325 110. 5327 111. 5329 112. 5334 113. 5335
JoginderSingh BhimSingh NareshKumar NareshKumar Sombir Rajpal RajKumar JaibirSingh RajKaran SurenderSingh AnilKumar KuldeepSingh SunilKumar SanjayKumar PardeepKumar SatishKumar TarunKumar Pushpender Singh SanjayKumar SureshKumar AnilKumar
19.50 17 17 18 17 18 17 18 18 17 17 19 18.50 17 18 19 18 17 18 18 18
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
848 1367 1113 523 1240 225 1251 893 104 1012 166 1112 105 160 1160 449 102 180 1252 823 512 329
SubashChander 18
114. 5336 115. 5338 116. 5339 117. 5343 118. 5345 119. 5352 120. 5358 121. 5361 122. 5366 123. 5369 67.
AshokKumar OmParkash RakeshKumar KuldeepSingh RaviParkash JaiPal SombirSingh PawanKumar AnilKumar AmarjeetSingh
19.50 17 19 19 17 19.50 18 18 18 19
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
344 1317 18 130 1320 53 739 765 522 44
Althoughfewpersonswiththerollnumbers5013,5043,5055,5063,
5077,5100,5111,5174,5267,5274,5284,5314,5479and5034havegot 5orlessthan5marksintheDirectorateawardlistsofdistrictBhiwani,but still they were able to get their names in the merit list by dint of their qualification/academicmarks.Butnoneofthecandidates,whogot17or morethan17marks,remainedunsuccessful. 68. PerusaloftheinterviewmarksoftheBC(A)categoryaswellasthe remainingcategorieswouldshowthatwhosoevergot17marksormorewas gotselected.Seethetableasunder:
Sl. Roll No. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5443 5473 5495 5497
Name Candidates SunilKumar DineshKumar JaiSingh NareshKumar Name Candidates
of Backward Class Selected/No Status as (A) Interview tselected per State marksoutof20 Meritlist 19.50 19.50 19.50 19.50 Selected Selected Selected Selected 942 784 1673 1192
Sl. Roll No. No. 1. 2. 5169 5413
of Backward Class Selected/No Status as (B) Interview tselected per State marksoutof20 Meritlist 19.50 19.50 Selected Selected 1188 1292
SudeshKumari KrishanKumar Name Candidates Bhupender Chanderbhan Jagbirsingh AnilKumar VinodKumar VijaySingh VijayKumar
Sl. Roll No. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 5181 5189 5192 5194 5222 5237 5238
of DESM Interview Selected/No Status as marksoutof20 tselected per State Meritlist 19 17 18 17 17 17.50 18 Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected SELECTED Selected 181 908 335 1353 1386 1168 570
8. 9.
5247 5259
Surender SunilKumar VijaySingh RameshKumar Sombir AjitSingh RakeshKumar SunilKumar Jaspal BhoopSingh Name Candidates
18 17 18 18 17 17.50 18 17 19.50 18
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
312 1028 574 458 1284 918 534 647 380 880
10. 5260 11. 5295 12. 5296 13. 5300 14. 5309 15. 5351 16. 5372 17. 5373 Sl. Roll No. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 69. 5224 5244 5349 5374
of PH Interview Selected/No Status as marksoutof20 tselected per State Meritlist Selected Selected Selected Selected 1605 1058 1241 1156 17 17 17
RameshKumar 17 AttarSingh RajSingh SatishKumar
Thereforethetotal150candidatesweregiven17ormorethan17
interviewmarksintheDirectoratelistandallofthemgotselected. This certainty of their success came from the formula, which was devised to ensure theirsuccess. As per this formula, all the other candidates were
givenverylowmarksi.e.below6marksingeneralcategory.Thepatternof interviewmarksfortheothercategoriesalsomatchesmoreorlesswiththe formulagiveninthetestimonyofSherSingh(A23/DW1)andpara36and 47ofthechargesheet,forthepurposeofpreparationofthefakelists. 70. NowIwouldliketoseeastohowmanycandidatesinDistrictPanipat got17ormoreinterviewmarksintheDirectoratelistandwhetherthey have been declared successful in the final result. A comparison of the Directorateawardlistandthefinalresultyieldsfollowingresults:
Sl. Roll No. No.
Name Candidates
of General Selected/No Status as Category tselected per State Interview marks Meritlist outof20 Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected 992 571 560 938 916 1232 1230 1309 837 17 17 17 18 17 18 17 18
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
55001 NarenderSingh 18 55002 SunilKumar 55007 NareshKumar 55009 Brijeshsingh 55013 SultanSingh 55014 RavinderSingh 55016 Rajpal 55022 RameshKumar 55024 JaiBhagwan
10. 55023 SunilKumar 11. 55025 Ramesh Chander 12. 55026 VedPrakash 13. 55027 SanjeevDahiya 14. 55029 RajKamal 15. 55033 DeepakMalik 16. 56001 SushilaDevi 17. 56002 GeetaRani 18. 56003 Sushma 19. 56004 Rituraj 20. 56008 SeemaDevi 21. 56009 Anitadevi 22. 56013 Suman 23. 56017 SahibKaur 24. 56029 Anju
17 17 18 18 18 19 18 19 17 19 19.50 17 18 18 18
Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected Selected
997 1068 1053 1412 802 737 455 47 577 868 90 360 1026 358 61
Sl. Roll No. No. 1.
Name Candidates
of BC(A) Category Selected/No Status as Interview marks tselected per State outof20 Meritlist 19.50 Selected 1333
58002 Poonam Name
Sl. Roll
of BC(B) CategorySelected/No Status as
No. No. 1. 71. 5838
Candidates WakilSingh
Interview marks tselected outof20 19.50 Selected
per State Meritlist 769
Therefore a total 26 candidates were given 17 or more than 17
interviewmarksandallofthemhavebeenselected. Ineednotmention thatalltheremainingpersonsofgeneralcategoryhavebeengivenlessthan 6marks. Thecategorywiseabovestatedformulaalsoholdsgoodinthis list. 72. ThereisoneanotherpurposeforwhichIhavetabulatedtheresultsas above. Thedistrictwiseexistingvacancieswerecalculatedandthereafter thesamewerementionedinthenote Ex.PW38/C (pageno.15ofD40). DistrictBhiwanihadonly60vacancies. Howevertheabovequotedtable showsthat150 candidatesweregivenmorethan17marksandallwere selected and given appointments. Many more, with very less interview marks,werealsoabletofindtheirplaceinthemeritlisttherebyincreasing thenumberofsuccessfulcandidatestobe312againsttheexistingvacancy of60.Nowthequestionwasastowheretheseextracandidateswouldbe adjusted. Theonlymethodofadjustingthemwasthatlessappointments shouldbemadefromotherdistricts.Thisappearstobethereasonthatin Panipatonly26personsweregiven17oraboveinterviewmarks,though,
thevacancieswere97. Therestofthecandidatesfromgeneralcategory weretobegiven5to7marks. Thismethodensuredthatlesscandidates getselectedfromsuchdisfavoureddistrictssothattheexcesscandidates fromfavoureddistrictsmaybeadjusted.Theabovediscussionprovesthe contention made in para 43 of the charge sheet which I reproduce as under: InvestigationdisclosedthatthenumberofJBTTeachersdeclared successful district wise were not in accordance with the vacancies published, district, wise, in the Advertisement dated 15.11.99 (Pri. Edn.), which shows that the candidates of certain districts were favoured, specifically of districts Bhiwani, Fatehabad, Jind & Mahendergarh. Sh. Ajay Singh Chautala (A5) had represented the BhiwaniConstituencyofHaryanaStateasaMemberofParliamentin theyear2000. Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. NameofDistrict Ambala Bhiwani Faridabad Fatehabad Gurgaon Jind Jhajjar No.ofvacanciesshown No.ofcandidates inadvertisement declaredpassed. 143 60 161 292 210 120 259 57 312 96 335 171 265 196
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 73.
Karnal Kaithal Kurukshetra Mohindergarh Panipat Panchkula Rewari Sirsa Sonepat YamunaNagar Rohtak
408 335 304 83 97 13 42 214 158 292 15
146 224 163 283 47 27 161 250 172 98 29
Here,Ipointoutthatwhereasthevacancypositionmentionedabove
is proved through Ext.PW38/C (D40 page 15) & advertisement Ext.PW38/H(D40Vol.Ipage129)andthenumberofcandidatesdeclared successfulcanbeverifiedfromtheresultExt.PW55/W.Therollnumberand category wise result with the cut off marks of the last candidate in the respectivecategoryisplacedinD40Vol.IIatpageno.294to298.Itisthe sameresultwhichwaspublishedinthenewspaperdt.07.10.2000Indian Express placed at page no. 378 of this file. PW58 Balram Yadav, the AssistantintheofficeofDirector,PrimaryEducation,hasalsoprovedthe vacancypositioninhisevidence.
74.
Agya Ram Batra (PW52), the Assistant Director in the office of
DirectorPrimaryEducationprovedanote Ext.PW52/Cwhichcontainthe detailed instructions for conducting the interviews. As per these instructions,certainrollnumberswereallotedtoeachdistrictandthereafter theChairpersonsweretofurtherallottherollnumberstothecandidates. Thefollowingrollnumberswereallotedtoeachdistrict: Ambala Bhiwani Faridabad Fatehabad Gurgaon Jhajjar Jind Karnal Kurukshetra 0001to5000 5001to10000 10001to15000 15001to20000 20001to25000 25001to30000 30001to35000 35001to40000 40001to45000 Kaithal Narnaul Panipat Rohtak Rewari Sirsa Sonepat Panchkula 45001to50000 50001to55000 55001to60000 60001to65000 65001to70000 70001to75000 75001to80000 85001to90000
YamunaNagar 80001to85000
Thus,arollnumberofacandidatewouldalsoreflectastoinwhich district,suchcandidatewasinterviewed. CheckingofjointmeritlistatStatelevelconfirmstheabovestated dataregardingthecandidatesselectedfromeachdistrict. TheearlierdiscussionbythiscourtofdistrictBhiwaniandPanipatas
examplemakesitclearthatwithaviewtoadjusttheexceedingcandidates from the favoured districts like Bhiwani, the other districts have been prejudiced. This was done by adopting a method of giving 17 or more markstoverylimitedcandidatesinthedisfavoureddistricts. Thisfact showsthebrainsworkingatthehighestlevelastohowtheinterview marksaretobeplottedinthefakeawardliststobepreparedandtobe implemented.IhavealreadystatedthatSupremeCourtlistsdonotexhibit anyspecificpattern.Infact,themannerinwhichtheinterviewmarkshave been given in the Supreme Court lists, it cannot promise success to any favouredcandidate,evenif,heisgetting17ormoremarks,simplybecause mostofthecandidates,whogotlessthan17marks,weregenerallygetting morethan11marks.Infactthenumberofcandidatesscoring17ormore than17marksaresohighthatafavouredcandidateearningthehighestin theinterviewcannotbeassuredofhissuccess,sincetheothercandidates, armed with better academic percentage etc. are not scoring very low interviewmarks.Therefore,themannerinwhichtheinterviewmarkshave beengiveninSupremeCourtlists,doesnotprevent'lowmarks'candidates from overtaking such 'high marks' candidates and from throwing such favouredcandidatesoutofthelistofsuccessfulcandidates/jointStatemerit list.
75.
Suchasituationledtotheeffortsformakingsecondawardlistswitha
viewtomakethesuccessofthefavouredcandidatesadefinitelyreality.The analysisoftheDirectoratelistsandSupremeCourtlistsmakesitveryclear thattheformulaadoptedtocreatetheDirectoratelistswasthesimplestand theonlymethodtoensuretheirsuccess. FurtherAnalysis 76. Firstofall,IshalltakeuptheanalysisofSanjivKumar(A3)ofthe datatakenfromtheSupremeCourtlistsandtheDirectoratelists.Thedata inthespiralbookEx.A3/DW4A,relieduponSanjivKumar(A3)isinrespect oftheDirectoratelists.ThedatainthespiralbookEx.A3/DW4Bisabout the joint merit lists. The spiral book Ex.A3/DW4C isthe datacollected fromtheSupremeCourtlists. 77. ItneedstobementionedherethatannexureA1inEx.A3/DW4/Ahas beentitledas Combined Merit ListAfterMergingDistrictAwardLists (Directorate). Annexure C1 of Ex.A3/DW4/C is titled as Combined Merit ListfromSupremeCourtLists. Butnoneoftheseannexuresare themerit lists. Thesearethe rollnumber wiselists. Theexercise of preparingmeritlistsfromSupremeCourtlistshasnotbeencarriedoutin anyofthespiralbooks.Itappearsthatthewordmerithasbeenwritten inadvertentlyinthecaptionsoftheseannexures.HoweverImaypointout
thatthemeritlistpreparedbyHARTRONonthebasisofDirectoratelistsis available before this court and same has been proved as Ex.PW55/W (D129). 78. Incrossexamination,neithertheprosecutionnoranyoftheaccused personshasraisedanyobjectionastothecorrectnessofthedatacompiled inthesespiralbooks. Infact,theprosecutioninthecrossexaminationhas only alleged that the analysis is vague in nature. [see the cross examination of A3/DW4 Pushpender Bhardwaj examined in defence by Sanjiv Kumar (A3).] None of the accused persons, nor prosecution has found fault in the particulars regarding the roll numbers, name of candidates, their categories, marks and percentage. Therefore, all these particularsinthespiralbooksmustbetreatedtobecorrect. 79. As an abundant caution, I have cross checked randomly the roll numbers,nameofcandidatesetc.fromtheSupremeCourtlists,Directorate listsandtheStatemeritlistsandIhavefoundtheparticularstobecorrect. 80. Itisnecessarytomentionherethattheprosecution,alongwithcharge sheet had filed an annexure C, which gives the roll numbers and the namesofthecandidateswhosemarkshadbeenincreasedorreducedinthe Directorate lists, if compared to the Supreme Court lists. I have also randomlycheckeditwiththeoriginalDirectorateandSupremeCourtlists
andfoundittobecorrect. TheAnnexure'C'showsthatmarksof1577 candidates were increased and marks of 6103 candidates were reduced. Someaccusedpersonsarguedthatprosecutionshouldhaveexaminedthe witness, who had done this exercise so as to put him under cross examinationbythemandthereforeitisarguedthattheselistsshouldnotbe readinevidenceagainsttheaccusedpersons. 81. Inthisregard,IwouldsaythatevenifthesaidlistsofannexureC arenotreadinevidence,stilltheperusalandcomparisonoftheDirectorate lists and Supreme Court lists would show that in Directorate lists a few personshavebeengivenveryhighmarksfrom17to19.50ininterviewsbut mostoftheaccusedpersonshavebeengivenverylowmarks.Acomparison ofthemarksofDirectoratelistswithSupremeCourtlistswouldshowthat marks of most of such persons had been reduced and the analysis of Annexure'C'iscorrect. 82. However,thisanalysisbytheprosecutionwasnotsufficient. Sanjiv Kumar(A3)hassubmittedthathehasspentahugemoneyinpreparation ofthedatainthethreespiralbooksprovedbeforethiscourtbyA3/DW4. Acarefulperusalofthedatacontainedinthesespiralbookswouldshow that although a lot of hard work has been done in preparation of the analysisbutthemostimportantanalysiswhichshouldhavebeendoneby
Sanjiv Kumar(and by the prosecutionaswell)is missing. In the spiral books,thepercentagewisemeritlistsoftheSupremeCourtlistshasnot been prepared. (However, the percentage wise merit list prepared by HARTRONhasbeenprovedbyprosecutionasExt.PW55/W.)Sincethepart Supreme Court list of District Kurukshetra and the list of District Panipat arenotavailablehavingnotbeenfiledbyA3, suchpercentage wise merit lists could have been prepared taking the data from the candidatesoftheremainingdistricts,asperSupremeCourtlistsandthe Directorate lists. For the purpose of analysis, the vacancies of district Kurukshetra,RohtakandPanipatshouldhavebeendeductedfromthetotal vacancies. Thereafter it should have been analyzed as to how many candidates,whogotthejobonaccountofthemeritintheDirectoratelists, would have not got the job, in case the Supreme Court lists been implemented. Further, it could have been analyzed as to how many meritoriouscandidatesofSupremeCourtlistswouldhavegotthejob,had theSupremeCourtlistsbeenimplemented.Thisjobcouldhavebeendone easily with the help of the computers. I may add here that in the DirectoratelistsaswellastheSupremeCourtlists,thepercentageofmarks havebeengivenundertheheadofgrandtotal. 83. Nowwhensuchanalysisisnotavailabletothiscourt,Ihavetried
anothermethodtofindoutastowhethertherearesomeunsuccessful candidates,whowouldhavebeensuccessful,hadtheSupremeCourt listsbeenimplemented. IhavescannedthroughalltheSupremeCourtlists.Evenabird'seye viewwouldbeenoughtoknowthatonlyahandfulcandidateshavegot morethan66.80%ofmarksingrandtotal. AperusalofalltheSupreme Courtlistswouldalsomakeitclearthatasmanyas565candidateshavegot morethan66.80%ofmarks.ImaypointoutthattheSupremeCourtlistof PanipatandRohtakarenotavailable.FromtheDirectoratelistofPanipat, it is found that 138 candidates were interviewed by the District Level SelectionCommittee. SimilarlytheDirectoratelistofKuruksherta(D16 part1)isavailablebutitscorrespondingSupremeCourtlistisnotavailable. The perusal of D16 (1) shows that as many as 508 candidates were interviewedbyM.L.Kalra,thethenChairman. Similarly,inRohtak116 candidateswereinterviewed.Presumingthatallthesecandidates(i.e.138 +508+116=762)hadalsogotmorethan66.80%marks,afigureoftotal candidates getting 66.80% or more marks would come out to be 1327. Sincethetotalvacanciesofgeneralcandidateswere1329(ifwecalculate thedistrictwisevacanciesasshowninthenoteEx.PW30/C,D40page15 as well as as per the advertisement Ext.PW38/H (D40 Vol. I placed
betweenpageno.129&130),allthecandidatesgettingmorethan66.80% ofmarksmusthavebeenselectedinthegeneralcategoryitself,irrespective of the fact as to whether they belong to general category or the other categories like BC(A) etc., provided that the Supreme Court lists are implemented. 84. Nowletitbeseenastowhethertherearecandidates,whogotmore than 66.80% of marks in Supreme Court lists (irrespective of their category) but were not able to find place in the list of successful candidates/the State merit list (i.e. Ext.PW55/W). In view of the candidates being large in number, this court cannot enter into an exhaustiveanalysisbutarandomcheckdisclosedthatfollowingcandidates, whogotmorethan66.80%intheSupremeCourtlists,werenotdeclared successful in the final result prepared on the basis of Directorate lists, becausetheirmarksweredrasticallyreducedintheDirectoratelists: RollNo. Name Interview Grand Interview Grand marks in total/perce marks in total/perce Supreme ntage in Directorate ntage in Courtlists Supreme lists Directorate Courtlists lists 18 67.20% 5 54.20
11002 Soniya (Faridabad Rani lists (General Category)
35014 (Karnal lists)
Sanjay Kumar (General Category)
18
66.91%
54.91
85.
The above mentioned candidates therefore must have got selected,
had SupremeCourtlists beenimplemented.ButsinceintheDirectorate lists,theirinterviewmarksandgrandtotalhavebeenshowntobeverylow, they were notshownas successful candidates in the resultdeclared and publishedinthenewspaper(placedatpageno.378ofD40Vol.II,alsoat page no. 295). This result shows that the last candidate declared successfulinGeneralcategorysecured 57.38marks. Thewaitinglistfor Generalcategoryshowsthatthelastcandidatehadsecured 55.85marks. The HARTRON list/Joint State Level Merit List Ext.PW55/W (D129) preparedonthebasisofDirectorateLists,alsoconfirmstheaforesaidcutoff marksforGeneralcategorycandidatesaswellasthewaitinglistofGeneral category.Thus,theaforesaidcandidateshavenotbeenregisteredevenin thewaitinglist,whattotalkofthelistofsuccessfulGeneralcandidates.Ifa detailed analysis is done, large number of such unfortunate candidates wouldbedisclosed. 86. Ifoneawardlistisreplacedwithanotherawardlisthavingdifferent marksthanthefirstone,itisnaturalthatanumberofpersonsupinthe
merit infirst list,would fail ifthemerit ispreparedon the basis of the secondawardlist.Theabovementionedexampleofthecandidateswasnot in fact needed, but in order to reinforce this proposition, the aforesaid exercisewasdonebythiscourt. Consequently,italsofollowsthatmany candidates, who would have failed on implementation of the Supreme Courtlists,musthavefiguredassuccessfulcandidatesintheStateMeritList preparedonthebasisofDirectoratelists. Here,Imaypointoutthatthis dataandcomparisonoffiguresmayadmitsomeminorvariation,asitwas donebymewithoutanyhelpfromanyexpertorassistancefromanyofthe partiesinthiscase. 87. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) has drawn my attention to Annexure B1 of Ex.A3/DW4/B,whichisthelistofcandidatesofgeneralcategorydeclared successful in the list prepared by the HARTRON. He has drawn my attentiontothefactthattheformula,whichisallegedtobedevisedby him,isabsolutelyimperfectbecausedespiteimplementationofthisformula alargenumberofcandidatesingeneralcategory,whogotonly2to5marks wereselected.Similarly,itisarguedthatalargenumberofscheduledcaste andbackwardcategorycandidateshavealsomadeinroadsintogenerallists. ThereforetheallegationsthatthepurposeofcreatingtheDirectoratelists wastocontainthecandidatesofothercategoriesnamelyBC(A)etc.from
encroaching the space of general candidates stands falsified. I have considered this argument and have perused this list Annexure ' B1' of Ex.A3/DW4/B carefully. I have already stated that I have noreason to doubttheparticularsanddataproducedbySanjivKumar(A3)beforethis court.Moreso,whennoneofthepartieshasraisedanyfingerofdoubton thesame. IfindsubstanceinthesubmissionsofSanjivKumar(A3)that despiteimplementationoftheformulaasdiscussedabove,manycandidates of SC(A), BC(A)etc. have been able tocome in the categoryofgeneral candidates. ButitmustnotbeforgottenthatiftheSupremeCourtlists wereimplemented,thereservedcategorycandidatesfiguringinthespace meantforthegeneralcategorywouldhavebeenmuchhigherinnumber than the Directorate lists. The formula devised and implemented in the Directorate lists has contained this trend to a great extent. Rest of the arguments and analysis of data by per A3 are only hair splitting and nothingmore. 88. (i) Fromtheabovediscussionfourfactsstandproved: Thereisnospecificpatternofgrantinginterviewmarkscommontoall
theSupremeCourtlistsofvariousdistrictsanditcannotbesaidthatany personhasbeenspecificallyfavoured. Northereisanypatterntoshow
differentbunch/rangeofinterviewmarkstovariouscategories. (ii) ThepatternofinterviewmarksasappearingintheDirectorateLists moreorlessservesthepurposeofcontainingthecandidatesofreserved categorieswithinthevacanciesarisingintheirrespectivecategories. (iii) Allotmentof17ormorethan17interviewmarkstocertaincandidates (incontrasttotheremainingcandidatesgettingverylowinterviewmarks) isalmostasureguaranteeofselectionofsuchcandidates. (iv) Incertaindistricts,highinterviewmarksof17ormorethan17were giventomorecandidatesintheDirectorateliststhanthevacanciesinthe respective district. On the other hand, in a few districts, only a small number of candidates were given this type of marks. The inevitable conclusionisthatthemindswereworkingzealouslypriortopreparationof theDirectoratelistssothatthefavouredcandidatesexceedingthevacancies couldbeadjustedagainstthevacanciesoftheotherdistricts. 89. Inviewofabovediscussion,Iwouldcomebacktothequestionas towhetherthepatternofinterviewmarks,asappearinginboththe setsoflists,justifiesthecontentionofA3oritprovestheprosecution case. SanjivKumarA3inhispetitionbeforeSupremeCourtaswellasin his defence evidence as A3/DW9 is very categorical that the political
bigwigs wanted to implement the fake lists i.e. the Supreme Court lists, which had been got prepared by them from the Chairpersons and the membersofDistrictLevel SelectionCommittees. Inhiscrossexamination byLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor, SanjivKumarelaboratesthebackground whichperpetuatedthecreationofsecondsetofawardlistsasunder:
ThepredecessorgovernmentwasheadedbySh.BansiLalwiththesupportof theBJP.Thereafter,about12MLAsdefectedfromthecoalitiongovernmentof HaryanaVikasPartyheadedbySh.BansiLaltosupporttheIndianNational LokDal(INLD)headedbySh.O.P.Chautala.Itispertinenttomentionhere thatduringthiscoalitiongovernmentofINLD,theoriginalawardlistswere prepared in the month of December, 1999January,2000. Thereafter, the politicalsituationtookaturnand inthemidtermelectionscalledbySh. O.P.Chautalaintheyear2000,theINLDgotaclearcutmajorityonitsown strength and steam without requiring the support from any other political party,although,theINLDwassupportedbytheBJP. Itwasprobablythis veryimportantpoliticaldevelopmentintheStateofHaryanawhichprompted creationofasecondsetofawardlistswhichwouldbemorereflectiveofthe preferencesoftherulinggovernment.
90.
ThistestimonyofSanjivKumarshowsthatthepurposeofcreatingthe
newsetoflistswastoappointthecandidatesfavouredbytheINLD,which hadformeditsgovernmentonitsownmajoritywithoutdependinguponthe support of anyotherpartyorindependents. In such asituation, only a carefullycreatedfakeawardlistwouldservethepurposeofselectingthe
favouredcandidates. Ihavealreadydemonstratedthatthisobjectivewas achievedintheDirectorateListsbyadoptingthreefoldmechanism.One,by givingveryhighinterviewmarkstocertaincandidatesandbygivingvery less marks to the remaining candidates. Two, by giving high interview marks to greater number of candidates of the favoured districts and by givinghighinterviewmarkstolessernumberofcandidatesinotherdistricts as compared to the vacancies. Three, by creating a specific pattern of interviewmarkstoeachcategorysothat,asfaraspossible,thecandidates ofreservedcategoriesdonotreducethespaceforgeneralcategory.Inthis manner,notonlyspecificcandidateshavebeenfavoured,butalso,specific districts have been favoured. This pattern further checked, to a great extent,thepossibilityofreservedcandidatesoccupyingthevacanciesmeant forgeneralcandidates. 91. SanjivKumarhasarguedthattheSupremeCourtlistswereprepared inagreathasteresultinginsomanyirregularities,hencetheselistsshould betreatedtobefake. Idisagreewiththissubmission. Infact,Supreme Court Lists show the inexperience of the members of the selection committeesresultedinsomeirregularities. Moreover,theSupremeCourt listsdonotexhibitanycarefullycraftedpattern. Ontheotherhand,the Directoratelistsnotonlyshowacategorywisepatternofinterviewmarks
whichiscommontothelistsofallthedistricts,but,alsothispatternisalso reflectiveofashrewdmindworkinginsuchafashionthatononehandthe candidatesofreservedcategoriesaregenerallykeptwithintheirquota,on theotherhand,thefavouredcandidatesgetsuchahighinterviewmarks, irrespectiveoftheircategories,thattheymustfigureinthelistofsuccessful candidates. Further,thefavoureddistrictslikeBhiwanialsogetbenefitted atthecostofthecandidatesfromotherlessfavoureddistricts.Therefore,it stands proved that the Directorate lists have been prepared in a well planned manner with a well thought design. On the other hand, the interview marks in the Supreme Court lists do not exhibit any common pattern. It appears that every district level selection committee was awardinginterviewmarksaccordingtoitsownassessmentofthecandidates appearing before them. Due to this reason, there is no bunching of interviewmarksintheSupremeCourtlists,whereasacommonpatternand bunchingofinterviewmarksisvisibleinalltheDirectoratelistsleadingto anirresistibleconclusionthatsomecentralauthorityinStateofHaryana had planned and executed the creation of Directorate lists with clear objectivesintheirminds. 92. NowItakeupthepointsraisedbySanjivKumar(A3)inrespect ofthelistsofthedistricts.
InrespectofthelistofdistrictPanchkula,itisarguedthatas perthetestimonyofPW65U.RamamohanSPCyberCrimes,thecomputer seizedbytheCBIfromHiteshBansalfromwhichaprintoutoftheSupreme CourtawardlistofdistrictPanchkulawasupdateduptotheyear2000.Itis argued that this proves that the Supreme Court list of Panchkula was prepared on this computer in the year 2000. I disagree with the submissionsofSanjivKumar(A3).Thereisadifferencebetweencomputer havingbeenupdateduptotheyear2000andcomputerhavingthe2000 versionoftheMicrosoft.IftheversionofMSOfficeisoftheyear2000,it cannotcontainthedataoftheyear1999.Butifithasanoldversionand hasbeenupdateduptotheyear2000,thedataofthepreviousyearswould remaininthecomputerandcanberetrieved.Itispertinenttonotethatin hisexaminationinchief,PW65testifiedthattheprintoutoftheawardlist isunderthefilenamesS.doc,S1.docandS2.docandthedatesofcreation ofthesefilesintheharddiscwas17.12.1999.IncrossexaminationbyA3, PW65 testified that the version of MSOffice in the hard disc was updatedinMSWord2000.SanjivKumardidnotputanyspecificquestion astohowthedataoftheyear1999wasfoundintheharddiscdespitethe computerhavingbeenupdatedinMSWord2000.Nosuggestionhasbeen giventhatanydataoftheyear1999wouldnotberetrievableincasethe
computerisupdatedinMSWord2000. Insuchcircumstances,thepoints raised by Sanjiv Kumar is of no value. Sanjiv Kumar has drawn my attention that the hard disc of the computer was accessed upto November2004, as per the testimony of PW65 and therefore it clearly showsthatCBIhadchangedthedateofthedocument(i.e.theSupreme Court award list of Panchkula typed in the computer) to a back date of 1999.PerusalofthetestimonyofPW65wouldshowthattheharddiscwas receivedintheofficeofPW65on11.08.2004indulysealedcondition.CBI didnothaveanymotivetomanipulatethedatesinNovember,2004.Infact, PW65hasexplainedincrossexaminationthattheharddiscshowsaccess upto November2004 but this access dates are dependent on many issues.ItdoesnotimplythatCBIhadchangedthedateinthisparticular data. Therefore, the expert's evidence does not support the case of A3, rather,itfullysupportsthedirecttestimonyofHiteshBansal(PW20)who testifiedthattheawardlistofPanchkulawasfedinthecomputer(itemno. 2i.e.harddiscofthesaidcomputer)on17.12.1999andittallieswiththe printoutof theawardlist (item no.8)exceptthelistofExServicemen whichisreflectedinthesaiddocuments. NowIadverttothesubstantialevidencecomingonrecord. PW18PradeepKumarisaJBTteacherworkingintheofficeof
DistrictPrimaryEducationOfficerPanchkula. HetestifiedthatSheeshPal Singh (A43) was DPEOPanchkula, Rekha Sharma (A44) was Block EducationOfficerandRakshaJindal(A45)wasworkingasPrincipal,Govt. Sr. Secondary Girls School, Sector7, Panchkula during the period 19992000. Heidentifiedthesignaturesofalltheseaccusedpersonson SupremeCourtawardlistsaswellastheDirectorateListofPanchkula.He also testified that in the month of January2000 he had gone alongwith Rekha Sharma (A44) for computerization of JBT teachers interview list which was prepared on the computer in the presence of Rekha Sharma. ProsecutionalsoexaminedHiteshBansal(PW20)whohadfedinthesaid awardlistinhiscomputer.HetestifiedthatRekhaSharmahadcometohim duringDecember,1999forsomecomputerjobwhichwasdonebyhim.In the year 2004, R.N. AzadAddl. SPCBI inquired from him about the computerjobwhichhehaddoneforRekhaSharmaduringDecember,1999. Hetestifiedthatsinceprinterofthecomputerwasoutoforder,hegota printofmeritlistforthepostofJBTteachers(General)inafloppyfromhis computer.R.N.Azadhadtakenthesaidfloppyaswellastheharddiscofhis computerandanotherprintoutofthesaidworkwasalsotakenfromthat floppy. SanjivKumarhasdrawnmyattentiontothefactthatPW18has stated that the computerization of result of JBT teachers was done in
January2000 whereas PW20 is testifying that it was done in December1999. It is submitted that in view of the two contradictory statements,theviewfavourabletotheaccusedshouldbetakenbythiscourt anditshouldbepresumedthattheresultwasfed inthecomputerinthe year2000.Idisagreewithhissubmissions.Thereisnotmuchdifferenceof time in December 1999 and January 2000. In fact, by way of cross examination,A44alsoadmitstothisfact.ThetestimonyofHiteshBansal regardingthetimewhenthiscomputerjobwasdonehastobeaccepted becausethisissupportedbytheexpert'sopinion(PW65)whohastestified that the files which contain this document in the computer is dated 17.12.1999sincethisdatafedon17.12.1999fullytallieswiththeSupreme CourtlistofPanchkula,therefore,itstandsprovedthattheSupremeCourt listofPanchkulaisthegenuinelist. Consequently,theDirectoratelistof DistrictPanchkulahastobetermedtobeafakelist. Regarding Rewari Lists it is argued that in the Supreme Court list of DistrictRewari,DarshanDayalVerma(A50)hassignedasExDPEO.Itis arguedthathehadconductedtheinterviewsastheChairmanoftheDistrict Level Selection Committee being DPEORewari for first three days. Therefore,underhissignaturesintheDirectorateListsforfirstthreedays, hehaswrittenhisdesignationas'DPEO'. Ontheotherhand,itisargued
that since Supreme Court lists were prepared in the year 2000 when DarshanDayalVermahadalreadyrelinquishedthechargeofDPEOJind, therefore,hehaswrittenhisdesignationbelowhissignaturesas'ExDPEO.' ItisarguedthatthisprovesthatSupremeCourtlistisafakelist.Idisagree withthesubmissionsofA3.Inthisregard,IwouldsaythatDarshanDayal Verma(A50)hashimselfsteppedintothewitnessboxasdefencewitness A50/DW1. Inhistestimony,heexplainedthe circumstanceinwhichthe secondawardlistwaspreparedintheyear2000,but,hetestifiedthatdue tolapseoftimehewasunabletotellastowhethertheDirectorateList (Ext.PW15/B) of District Rewari is real or the Supreme Court List (Ext.PW39/A)isreal.Headmittedhissignaturesonboththelists.Incross examinationby SanjivKumar (A3), he admitted that hehadsigned the awardlistmadeinDecember,1999forthreedaysinhiscapacityasDPEO Rewari. However, it appears that A3 deliberately did not draw the attention of the witness to the words ExDPEO written under the signaturesofDarshanDayalVermaintheSupremeCourtlist. Theonly inference that can be drawn out is that had A3 drawn the attention of A50/DW1tothisfact,DarshanDayalVermawouldhavegivenaproper explanationdemolishingthedefenceofSanjivKumar.Imaypointoutthat Special Public Prosecutor had argued that it appears that Darshan Dayal
VermasignedtheSupremeCourtListsafterreceivingthetransferordersto Sirsaandthatoutofhisconfusionabouthiscapacity,hewroteExDPEO underhissignatures. Whatevermaybethesituation,itisenoughtohold that A3 cannot play hide & seek with the witness and the court and thereafter claim the benefit of doubt at the stage of final arguments. Therefore,onthisgroundtheSupremeCourtlistofDistrictRewaricannot heldtobeafakelist.A3submitsthattheDirectoratelistdoesnotbearthe signatures of Sudha Sachdeva (A49), the subsequent Chairperson of DistrictLevelSelectionCommittee. Letmediscussthedirectevidenceof PW39&PW40inthisregard. OmPrakash(PW39)wasateacherwho hadworkedwithDarshanDayalVerma(A50)Chairpersonforthreedays, Sudha Sachdeva (A49)subsequent Chairperson as well as with Saroj Sharma(A51)&TulsiRamBihagra(A52)membersofthecommittee.He testifiedthathehadpreparedtheSupreme CourtlistExt.PW39/Ainhis ownhandwritingexceptthelastthreecolumnsandthatthesesheetswere writtenbyhimundertheinstructionsofdealinghandKrishanKumarand Phool Singh during the period 01.12.1999 to 17.12.1999 when the interviewswereconductedbythemembersoftheinterviewcommittee in district Rewari. He also testified that another award list Ext.PW15/B of district Rewari (i.e. the Directorate list) was also prepared by him in
September2000 when he was asked to prepare this list again as it was statedbythedealingclerkandSuperintendentthattheearlierlistwasnot proper. PW40SubhashChandisanotherteacherofdistrictRewari. He testified that page no. 14,30,31 & 32 of the Directorate list Ext.PW15/B havebeenwrittenbyhimexceptlastthreecolumns.Incrossexamination, hestatedthattheDirectorateListdoesnotbearthesignaturesofSudha Sachdeva. IncrossexaminationofPW40,A3doesnotsuggestthatthe Directorate list of District Rewari Ext.PW15/B was not prepared in the month of August/September 2000. Testimonies of both the witnesses proves beyond doubt that the Directorate Lists of District Rewari were prepared in August/September 2000 and the Supreme court lists of this district were prepared from 01.12.1999 to 17.12.1999. Accordingly, by leadingdirectevidence,theprosecutionhadprovedthattheDirectoratelist ofdistrictRewariisafakelistandtheSupremeCourtlistofRewariisthe genuinelist. RegardinglistsofDistrictYamunaNagar SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawn myattentiontothetestimonyofUrmilSharma(A61/DW1).Itispertinent to note that Urmil Sharma (A61) was the member of the District Level SelectionCommitteeYamunaNagarandshesteppedintothewitnessboxas adefencewitness.Shetestifiedthatsheconductedtheinterviewsonlyfor
three days and thereafter went on leave and in her place Jogender Lal (A62)actedasamemberofDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee. A3has drawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofJogenderLal(A62)whoappeared as defence witness (A62/DW1). He testified that after conducting interviewsforthreedays,UrmilSharmaproceededonleaveandthereafter hewasappointedasmemberofthe DistrictLevelSelectionCommitteein herplace. HetestifiedthattheSupreme courtlistExt.PW27/AofDistrict YamunaNagarisafakelistbecausethesignaturesofUrmilSharmaandhis ownsignaturesarepresentonpage1to17,whichwasnotpossiblebecause hehadbecomethememberoftheinterviewboardonlywhenUrmilSharma proceeded on leave. He testified that Directorate List Ext.PW15/J is thereforethegenuinelistbecausehissignaturesarenotfoundonanypage alongwithUrmilSharma. In cross examination by Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, this A62/DW1stoodfirmonthisstandbutincrossexaminationheadmitted thatthefirstrollnumberoftheDirectorateListExt.PW15/Jis'80001'on page28ofthelistandthatfrompage28to40ofthislistpertainingtothe firstthreedaysonwhichinterviewswereconductedandwhenhewasnot thememberoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee. Healsoadmitted thathissignaturesarenotpresentfrompage28topage40ofthelistand
on these pages only the signatures of Urmil Sharma (apart from the signaturesofRajenderPalSinghA59andSarwanKumarChawlaA60)are present. AsperthesubmissionsofA3,JogenderLalwaspressurizedto changehisversionincrossexaminationbyAshokKumar,AdvocateforA59 whichtook placeon04.08.2012. Inthiscrossexamination,JogenderLal (A62/DW1)statedthatonlastdatehebecamepuzzledandwronglystated that Directorate List Ext.PW15/J was real list. He further testified that infactthelistExt.PW15/JisafakelistwhichwaspreparedinAugustor September2000andtheSupreme CourtListExt.PW27/Aistheactuallist whichwaspreparedinDecember1999.Heclarifiedthathewasstatingso onseeingthepatternofinterviewmarks awardedintheselists. Ifindno force in the submissions of Sanjiv Kumar that A62/DW1 changed his versionunderanypressure.Infact,hewastryingtoidentifythegenuinelist bycorelatingwiththefactthatforfirstthreedayshewasnotthemember of the interview committee and therefore his signatures should not be present on those days. In the Supreme Court list, the pages are not in seriatumoftherollnumbers. Thefirstrollnumberinthisdistrictstarts from'80001'.WhenSpecialPublicProsecutordrewattentionofA62/DW1 thathissignaturesarenotavailablefrompage28topage40i.e.fromRoll
no.80001to80049,itappearsthatthiswitnessbecamewiserandwasable toformthecorrectopinionastowhichwasthegenuinelistandwhichone wasfake.Therefore,thetestimonyofA62/DW1thattheDirectorateList Ext.PW15/J is a fake list and the Supreme Court list Ext.PW27/A is the actuallistisreliableandworthyofcredence. Inthisregard,prosecution hadexaminedMehtabSingh(PW27)tosubstantiateitscase.Thiswitness waspostedasAssistantintheofficeofDPEOYamunaNagarattherelevant time. He testified that all the 68 sheets of D29(Ext.PW27/A) i.e. the SupremeCourtlistareinhishandwritingexceptthelasttwocolumnsand the same were prepared by him in December1999 when the interviews were conducted by the interview committee of Yamuna Nagar. He also testified that another award list (D11 Ext.PW15/J) of district Yamuna NagarwasalsopreparedbyhimsometimeduringAugust/September2000 onthedirectionsofRajenderPalSingh(A59).Itispertinenttonotethat Ext.PW15/JistheDirectorateList.SanjivKumar(A3)hasnotcontroverted this evidence and therefore a conjoint evidence of PW27 as well as of A62/DW1provesthattheDirectorateListofdistrictYamunaNagarisfake listpreparedinthemonthofAugust/September2000whereastheSupreme CourtlististhegenuinelistandwaspreparedinDecember1999. RegardinglistofDistrictRohtakitisarguedthattheSupremeCourtlistis
blank.Haditbeentheoriginallist,howitcouldhavebeentheoriginallist. A3 has drawn my attention to D12 i.e. Directorate List of this district whereallthecolumnsarefilledup.IhaveseentheSupremeCourtListof District Rohtak which is signed by the Chairperson as well as by the members of the District Level Selection Committee. Although all the columnsarefilledupbuttheinterviewmarksandthegrandtotalmarksare notfilledup. Insuchasituation,thiscourtcannotreachtoaconclusion thattheDirectoratelistisgenuinelist,rather,theonlyconclusionwhichthis courtcandrawisthattheoriginallistinwhichtheinterviewmarksand grand total were duly filled is missing. Therefore, the case of District RohtakwouldfallunderthecategoryofDistrictPanipatwheretheoriginal listwasnotfiledbySanjivKumarintheSupremeCourtofIndiaortothe CBI. RegardinglistofDistrictSonepatitisarguedthattheSupremeCourtList D26Ext.PW43/Cisacarboncopyandthereforecannotbesaidtobethe originalone.Idisagreewiththissubmission.Onlytheparticularsappearto bethecarboncopybutthemarksfilledthereinareinoriginalhandwriting. Moreover, the original signatures of the Chairperson and member of the interview committee are available on this list. Therefore, the Supreme Court list cannot be termed as fake list especially when the manner of
grantingofinterviewmarksissimilartotheotherSupremeCourtlists.The Directorate list on the other hand is on the same pattern as the other DirectorateListsandaccordinglyheldtobefake. RegardinglistsofDistrictFaridabad itisarguedbyA3thatBrijMohan (PW17)hasmisledthiscourtandthewords'UP'arenotwrittenanywhere under his signatures. Brij Mohan was the member of the District Level SelectionCommittee.Hewascitedasaccusedaswellastheprosecution witness.Duringtheargumentsoncharge,prosecutionleftittothecourt's wisdom as to whether Brij Mohan should be treated as a prosecution witnessorasanaccused. Afterhearingargumentsoncharge,thiscourt dischargedhimandlateronhewasexaminedasPW17.Hetestifiedthat theDirectorateListExt.PW17/B(D4)ofDistrictFaridabadisafakelistand thatsincehewaspressurizedtoputhissignaturesonthisfakelist,hewrote 'UP' under his signatures by which he meant that he had signed under pressure.IhaveperusedtheDirectorateListExt.PW15/L(D4)(ithasalso beengivenanotherExt.PW17/Binadvertently).Aperusalofthesignatures ofBrijMohanatserialno.3oftheDirectorateListwouldshowthepresence ofwords'UP'underhissignatures.Theword'UP'wouldbemoreclearly visible under his signatures, if seen from a magnifying glass (which was availableinthiscourt)moreclearlyonfirstninesheets.Onthebasisofthe
words'UP'with/underhissignatures,heidentifiedthatD4i.e.Directorate ListwasafakelistpreparedinSeptember2000.HealsotestifiedthatD22 (Ext.PW17/A)i.e.theSupremeCourtlististheoriginallistpreparedfrom 01.12.1999to10.12.1999whentheinterviewswereconducted.Noneof the accused persons including A3 has refuted his evidence in cross examination in this regard as to which is the fake list and which is the genuinelist. A3haschallengedthegenuinenessoftheSupremeCourtliston the groundR.S.Kukreja(A17)wastheChairmanforfirsttwodays. He washowevertransferredandinhisplaceHarbansLal(A16)waspostedas ChairpersonoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee.Ifthatbeso,howthe signaturesofR.S.Kukrejaarenotpresentontheinterviewlistoffirsttwo days. I am of the opinion that A3 had an opportunity to seek this explanationfromBrijMohan(PW17)whowasmemberoftheDistrictLevel SelectionCommittee.Prosecutionhastriedtoexplainbystatingthatsince R.S.Kukrejawastransferredjustaftertwodays,hissignaturesmightnot have been procured on the interview sheets due to inadvertence. It is submittedthatitmustbekeptinmindthatitwasforthefirsttimeintheir life time that these officers were asked to perform the job of holding interviewsetc. WithoutcommentingonthesubmissionofSpecialPublic
Prosecutor, I would say that if an accused lets go an opportunity to challenge the testimonyof awitness, naturalconsequence willfollow. I havealreadystatedthatSanjivKumar(A3)didnotcontroverttheversion ofPW17whichstatesthattheDirectoratelistisfakelistandtheSupreme Court List is the genuine list. Consequently, the stand of Sanjiv Kumar standsfalsifiedandtheprosecutionversionstandsjustified. RegardingthelistsofDistrictKaithaltherelianceofSanjivKumar(A3) on the reply of Megh Nath Sharma infact goes against him. A3 has submitted that when the interviews were being conducted in District Kaithal,onememberofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeKaithalnamely MeghNathSharmarefusedtosigntheawardlistsonthegroundthatthese were prepared in contravention to the instructions issued by the department. My attention has been drawn to the fact that as per the instructionsthreelistsweretobepreparedandgiventoeachmemberand each member would give his marks. Finally, the marks given to each candidatebysuchmemberswouldbecalculatedandenteredinthefinal list.A3submitsthatashowcausenoticewasissuedbythedepartmentto MeghNathSharmaandinhisreplytothisshowcausenotice,MeghNath Sharmahadstatedthathehadgivenmarksintheinterviewincodewords 'A,B,C,D'and'A'means'6.5','B'means'5.0','C'means'4.0','D'means'3.0'
and'E'means'2.5' marks. Ifthisistrue,tomymindthispatternwould supportthemarksgivenintheSupremeCourtlistofdistrictKaithalandnot theDirectoratelists.Itispertinenttonotethatthesemarksarebeinggiven byonememberandiftheothertwomembersofthecommitteearealso giving the marks in the same manner, on calculating marks of each candidategivenbyallthethreemembers,nospecificpatternofinterview markswouldemerge,whichisthecaseintheSupremeCourtlistofdistrict Kaithal. On the other hand, Directorate lists clearly exhibit a definite patternwhichisfavourabletoonesuchofcandidatesandbiasedagainst restofthem. RegardingthelistsofdistrictJindSanjivKumar(A3)hadheavilyrelied upon the defence witness examined by him namely Subhash Chander (A3/DW11).ThisdefencewitnesstestifiedthatinSeptember2000hewas posted at Government High School, Pandu Pindara, District Jind. He testifiedthatinthe firstweekofSeptember2000,Sh.AjitSinghSangwan DPEO(A26)hadcalledhimtohisoffice.Sh.AjitSinghSangwantoldhim thatGovernmenthaddirectedthemtomakesomefreshlistsrelatingtoJBT appointments,then,heputsomelistsinanenvelopeandputgumtocloseit andputsomesealsonit.He(i.e.SubhashChand)wroteDistrictPrimary EducationHaryanaonthisenvelopeontheinstructionsofSh.AjitSingh
SangwanandhealsowroteDistrictprimaryEducationofficerJindonthe cornerofthisenvelope. HetestifiedthatasperthedirectionsofSh.Ajit SinghSangwan,hedeliveredthatthesaidenvelopetoSh.VidyaDhar(A1) OSDtoChiefMinisterathisresidence.HetestifiedthattheaddressofSh. VidyaDhar(A1)wasgiventohimbySh.AjitSinghSangwan.Heidentified accusedSh.VidyaDhar(A1)inthecourt.A3hasdrawnmyattentionto theenvelope Ext.PW43/DA1. Itissubmittedthatthisistheenvelopein whichfakeawardlistoftheSupremeCourtlistofDistrictJindwaslyingin sealedcoverandwashandedovertotheInvestigatingOfficerbeforethe AssistantRegistrar(PW43)oftheSupremeCourt.Itisarguedthatthefact of the Jind list having been delivered in sealed condition has been mentioned in the memo prepared in the presence of Pushpa Ramdeo (PW43)whowasworkingasAssistantRegistrarintheSupremecourtof Indiaatthattime.A3hasdrawnmyattentiontotheexaminationinchief ofPW43whereinshetestifiesthatdetailsoftherecordhandedoverbyA3 to R.N. AzadAddl. SPCBI has been mentioned in the document Ext.PW43/H. Shealsotestifiedthatbundlewasopenedinpresenceof SanjivKumarandthereafteralltheenvelopescontainingaward lists were also opened in his presenceand afteropening the bundle and thereafter opening the envelope a list which is Ext.PW43/J were
prepared.Allthe15envelopescontainingtheawardlistsafteropeningthe sameweresignedbyheraswellasbyA3.Myattentionisalsodrawnto thecrossexaminationofPW43byA3inwhichsheadmitsthatatSerial no.15ofthislist,itiswritten'OneEnvelopeContainingAwardListsofJBT TeachersJind(theselistswereinsealedcover)'. Shefurthertestifiesthat these sealed covers were opened and all 65 pages coming out of these sealed cover were signed by her in green ink. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) has drawnmyattentiontotheenvelopeExt.PW43/DA1andsubmitsthatthe words'AwardListsfromDistrictPrimaryEducationOfficer'atpointXandat the lower corner the words 'Distt. Primary Education Officer Jind' are writtenatpointZ.ItisfurthersubmittedthatatpointYonthisenvelope 'DirectorPrimaryEducationHaryanaChandigarh'waswritteninthemiddle ofthisenvelope. Itissubmittedthatallthesewritingsareinthehandof A3/DW11SubhashChander. Myattentionisdrawntothefactthatwax sealsareplacedinthisenvelope.Itisarguedthatasperthetestimonyof A3/DW11SubhashChanderhehadthewritingsatpointsX,YandZonthe envelopeandhadtakenitfromAjitSinghSangwan,DPEOJindandhad deliveredittoVidyaDhar(A1)athisresidence. A3arguesthatwitha viewtoprovehisdefencethatSupremeCourtlistsarethefakelists,hekept thisenvelopeinsealedcover,whichwasopenedinpresenceofPW43in
Supreme Court. I have seen this envelope Ext.PW43/DA1. The handwritingsatpointsX,Y&ZaretestifiedbySubhashChandertohave beenwritteninhisownhandwriting. However,questionisastowhether thiswitnessisreliableatall?Thecrossexaminationofthiswitnessbythe prosecutionhastotallydiscreditedthiswitness.Hewasnotworkingunder DPEOJindbutstillhegoestoChandigarhwiththe envelopepurportedly containing a fake award list. Ajit Singh SangwanDPEO/Chairperson of DistrictLevelSelectionCommitteehadpreparedafakeawardlistandfool enoughtotellhimthathewasputtingafreshawardlistofJBTcandidates andputthelistintheenvelopeinthepresenceofthiswitness. Hehas testifiedthatCBIraidedtheofficeofDPEOJindin2004. Hewantedto makestatementandforthatpurposehewenttoCBIofficeChandigarhand thereaftervisitedCBIofficeDelhibutCBIofficedidnotentertainhim.To mymind,ifhewassodesperatetostateeverythingtotheCBIandCBIwas notentertaininghim, hecouldhaveeasilysenthisversionbysendinga registered letter to the Director, CBI but he did not do so. Further, he testifiedinhisexaminationinchiefthathedecidedtocontactSanjivKumar andwenttoSupremecourtofIndiaandgotthedetailsofthelawyerof SanjivKumar. Thereafter,hereachedtheresidenceofA3atVasantKunj, NewDelhimethimandnarratedtheentirestory.A3/DW11testifiedthat
A3wasaskedhimtogeteverythingtypedneatly.Accordingly,hewenttoa typistinthemarketnearbyandgottheentireversiontypedandputhis signaturesandgaveittoSanjivKumarwhotoldhimthathewouldgiveitto CBI.Hestatedthathehadgotaphotocopyofthestatementwithhimand provedthesaidphotocopy. Iamsurprisedatthestrenuouseffortsbeing madebythiswitnessforsearchingthelawyersofA3fromotherlawyersat SupremeCourtandthereaftermeetingSanjivKumarandgettingtheentire versiontyped.Thisishighlyunbelievablehumanconduct.Imaypointout thattrustworthinessofthiswitnesswasassailedbytheprosecutionincross examinationpointingoutthattheprintoutExt.A3/DW11/1wassentby SanjivKumarfromthepremisesofoneVirender,r/oH.No.80001,Ground FloorPocket8,SectorC,VasantKunj,NewDelhividefaxno.01126995640, whichisaplaceneartotheresidenceofA3.Itispertinenttonotethatthis fax number is written on the typed statement Ext.A3/DW11/1 which clearlyshowsthatthetypedmaterialwassentbyfaxbyA3tothiswitness justafewdaysagobeforeheappearedinevidencebeforethiscourt.Ifthe evidence of this witness Subhash Chander examined by A3 are read in detail,theentirestorynarratedbyhimisnotdigestible.Thewitnessisan oversmartpersonandisclearlytestifyingattheinstanceofSanjivKumar. Even if it is presumed that on the envelope the handwriting is that of
SubhashChander,still,itdoesnotmeanthatinthisenvelopehehadtaken theSupremeCourtlistofDistrictJindfromAjitSinghSangwan.Thereason isthatthiswitnesscouldnothaveunderstoodthedifferencebetweenthe Supreme Court List and the Directorate list. Therefore, the attempt of SanjivKumartoprovethatthelistcarriedbySubhashChandwasinsealed covertillopenedinSupremeCourtsurelyfails.Evenifitispresumedthat thislistinsealedcoverwasdeliveredtoVidyaDhar,itisnaturalthatVidya Dhar(A1)wouldhaveopenedittoseeastowhetherthelisthasbeen preparedasperplanning.IrepeatthatasperA3,VidyaDharwascarrying outthedirectionsoftheChiefMinisterinthisscam.Therefore,thereisno reason that Jind List delivered by Subhash Chand to A1 would not be openedbyA1. Hence,thepleasthatthesealoftheenvelopecontaining JindlistremainedintacttillhavingbeenopenedinSupremeCourtisnot believable. Further,IwouldliketorefertothetestimonyofButaRam (PW10). This is the person with whom Sanjiv Kumar had kept all the SupremeCourtlistswrappedinaplasticbagwithinstructionstokeepthe bagsafely. This bagremainedwithButaRamfromAugust2000upto the year2003whenhedeliveredthesaidbagtoSanjivKumarwholateron presentedthelistsintheSupremeCourt. A3hasdrawnmyattentionto thetestimonyofPW10ButaRaminwhichhehadadmittedthatSanjiv
Kumarhadstatedtohimthatthereisoneyellowsealedbundleanditwas not to be touched. Sanjiv Kumar argues that this bundle pertained to DistrictJind.ImaypointoutherethataspertheevidenceofPW10,itwas SanjivKumarwhohadgiventheseliststohim.Hence,itisclearthatA3 wasinapositiontoputallthelistsoranylistintheenvelopes.Inviewof thetrustworthytestimonyofnotonlySardarSingh,M.L.GuptaandBalram Yadav, but also, the evidence of PW2 Ravi DuttSteno Typist and PW5 MilapSinghClerkwhowereworkingintheofficeofDPEOJind,itstands provedastohowtheoriginallistofJindwashandedoverforthepurpose ofobtainingitsphotocopyinthemannerthatlastcolumnsofinterviewand grandtotalmarksareconcealed.PW2&PW5havetestifiedthattheyhad preparedtheDirectorateListonthebasisofsuchphotocopyinwhichthe interviewmarksandgrandtotalwasfilledupbytheChairpersonandthe membersofthecommittee.ImaypointoutthatA3didnotcrossexamine PW2&PW5norcontrovertedtheirtestimoniesinrespectoftheirversion that the photocopy of the original was procured in Haryana Bhawan on 01.09.2000 andthereafter a second awardlist namely Directorate list of Jindwasalsoprepared. NowItakeupthetestimonyofDhupSingh(PW14)whowasthe Dy.SuperintendentintheofficeofDPEOJindontherelevanttime. He
testifiedthatExt.PW2/1(D23i.e.theSupremeCourtlistofJind)wasthe genuine/original list because in token of checking the academic qualification,marksetc.,hehadputhissignaturesatpointDonallthe65 sheets.HealsotestifiedthatExt.PW2/2(D5i.e.Directoratelistofdistrict Jind) was prepared by Ravi Dutt and Milap Singh and when Ajit Singh SangwanDPEOJind(A26)askedhim(i.e.PW14)tosignit,herefusedto signthesameunlesstheoriginallistisshowntohim. Thiswitnesswas crossexaminedbySanjivKumar(A3)whodidnotassailhistestimonyin thisrespect.InviewofuncontrovertedtestimoniesofPW2,PW5&PW14 andinviewofthediscreditedevidenceofSubhashChander(A3/DW11),it stands proved that the version of A3 that the Supreme Court lists was preparedbyAjitSinghSangwanintheyear2000andthattheDirectorate lististhegenuineliststandsfalsified. RegardinglistsofdistrictMahendergarh(Narnaul) Iwouldsaythatif theawardlistofC&VTeachersi.e.Ext.PW24/L(D60Vol.ItoIV)hasthe samepatternastheDirectorateLists,Ihavenohesitationinstatingthatthe samefraud(asintheinterviewsoftheJBTteachers)hashappenedinthe selections of C&V teachers which were being conducted almost simultaneouslyalongwiththeinterviewsofJBTteachers.Itisveryrelevant to mention here that the submission of A3 (that the award list of C&V
teachersisgenuine)isinfactcontrarytohissubmissionswhichhemadein theWritPetitionno.93/2003filedbyhimintheSupremeCourtofIndia. Hespecificallymentionedinthispetitionthatsimilarfraudhasalsotaken place in the appointments of 3000 posts of Secondary School teachers. Therefore,theawardlistExt.PW24/LpertainingtotheinterviewsofC&V teachers,supportshisavermentswhichhemadeinhisWritPetition.Hence, atotallyoppositestandtakenbyA3beforethiscourtnowstandsfalsified. RegardingtheargumentsofA3inrespectofthelistofDistrictBhiwani Iwouldsaythatthisisalsosuperficial.Asperhisowncase,thelistswere changedattheinstructionsofOmPrakashChautalaandVidyaDharOSDto Chief Minister was actively executing the same. Therefore, it is not necessary that wishes of Vidya Dhar (A1)could have been of much importancebeforeoverridingwishoftheChiefMinister. Nevertheless,all therelativesofA1thoughwerenothighlyfavouredinDirectorateListsbut wereputinthehigherbracketofBCAcandidatesasallofthemhadgot'7' markseach(asdiscussedinearlierpartofthisjudgment). NowIrefertothetestimonyofTaraChand(PW30)whowasDy. SuperintendentintheofficeofDPEOBhiwaniduringtherelevantperiod. HeidentifiedtheSupremeCourtlistofBhiwaniExt.PW30/A(D25)asthe original list which was prepared in the month of December1999. He
testifiedthattheDirectorateListExt.PW15/Mwasafakelistbecauseitdoes notbearhissignaturesanywhere,whereastheoriginalSupremeCourtlist Ext.PW30/Asignedbyhimoneachofthe47pagesatpointAashehadgot allthepagestypedintokenofcheckingtheparticularsi.e.DateofBirth, marks etc. from the certificates of the candidates. Interestingly, in cross examinationofthiswitness,A3hasnevercontrovertedthetestimonyof PW30 in respect of the Supreme Court List being the genuine list and Directoratelistbeingthefakeone. Inviewofthisclearcutevidence,the SupremeCourtlistofDistrictBhiwanistandsprovedtobeagenuineone andtheDirectoratelistisprovedtobeafakelistpreparedintheyear2000. Regarding other districts: In view of overwhelming evidence discussed above,itwouldbeworthwhiletocomparethepatternofinterviewmarksof the Directorate list of Panipat and part Directorate list of Kurukshetra (preparedbyM.L.KalraA32)andtheDirectoratelistofDistrictRohtak withtheDirectoratelistsofotherdistrictsmentionedabove.Abareperusal andcomparisonoftheselistsshowthatDirectoratelistsofdistrictsPanipat, Rohtak and part Directorate lists of District Kurukshetra have the same pattern of interview marks which appears in the remaining districts. Therefore,thepleaofDayaSaini(A40),RamSingh(A41)(Chairmanand MemberofPanipatSelectionCommittee)andthepleaofM.L.Kalra(A32)
thattheyhadsignedonlyonelisti.e.Directoratelistandthesameisthe genuine list prepared in December1999 stands falsified and it stands proved beyond doubt that all the Directorate lists were prepared in August/Septmeber2000andarefakelists. 93. Whether the authorship of both the sets of the award lists Iwouldtakeupthisissuedistrictwise. (I) Jind PW2RaviDutt,PW5MilapSinghandPW14DhupSingh,the officialsintheofficeofDistrictPrimaryEducation,Jindhaveidentifiedthe signatures of Ajit Singh Sangwan (A26) (DPEO & Chairman), Smt. Ram Kaur(A27)andMahavirSingh(A28)onboththelists. (II) Faridabad PW17BrijMohanhasidentifiedthesignaturesofHarbansLal (A16)andUdalPrasad(A18),apartfromhisownsignaturesonboththe lists. He has also identified the signatures of R. S. Kukreja (A17) and HarbansLal(A18)andhisownsignaturesontheDirectoratelist. (III) Panchkula PW18 Pradeep Kumar an official in the office of District Panchkula has identified the signatures of Sheesh Pal Singh (A43) stands proved?
(Chairman/DPEO), Smt. Rekha Sharma (A44) and Smt. Raksha Jindal (A45)asthemembersonboththeawardlists. (IV) Kaithal PW21Smt.SantoshSalujaandPW24ChandRamSharma,the officials in the office of DPEO have identified the signatures of Dilbagh Singh(A35)(Chairman/DPEO)onboththelists.PW21alsoidentifiesthe signaturesofRamKumr(A36),thememberonboththelists. (V) Karnal PW28DheerajKumarandPW32RajArorahaveidentifiedthe signaturesofN.S.Ruhil(A29)(DPEO/Chairperson),K.L.Narang(A30) andSmt.UshaRani(A31)onboththelists. (VI) YamunaNagar PW27MehtabSinghanAssistantintheofficeofDPEOYamuna Nagar has identified the signatures of Rajender Pal Singh (A59) (Chairman/DPEO), Smt. Urmil Sharma (A61), Jogender Lal (A62) and SarwanKumarChawla(A60)onboththesetsoflists. (VII) Bhiwani PW30TaraChand,theDeputySuperintendentintheofficeof DPEO Bhiwani, has identified the signatures of Brahma Nand (A9) (Chairman/DPEO),Smt.VinodKumari(A10)andSawanLal(A12)onboth
the lists. However he was unable to identify the signatures of Maman Chand(A11). (VIII) Ambala PW12PremNathBhatia,AssistantintheofficeofDPEOAmbala, identifiedthesignaturesofSmt.PremBehl(A6)andSmtKrishnaGupta (A8)onboththelists.HeissilentregardingthesignaturesofSmt.Shashi Malhotra(A7). (IX) Jhajjar TheprosecutionhasrelieduponthereportofGEQD(PW64M. C.Joshi)toprovethatboththelistshavebeensignedbySherSingh(A23), AnarSingh(A24),Smt.KailashKaushik(A25). FurtherSherSingh(A23) hadexaminedhimselfindefenceasA23/DW1,whohasalsoprovedthat theaforesaidaccusedpersonshadsignedboththelists. (X) Rewari PW39OmPrakashhastestifiedthatD.D.Verma(A50)wasthe ChairpersonoftheSelectionCommittee.TulsiRamBihagra(A50)andSmt. SarojSharma(A51)wereitsmembers.Aftersomedays,D.D.Vermawas transferredandSmt.SudhaSachdeva(A49)functionedastheChairperson. However he was unable to identify their signatures. However the prosecutionisrelyingupontheevidenceofPW64M.C.Joshi, thehand
writingexpertandhisreport,toprovethatthebothlistsweresignedbythe aforesaidpersons. (XI) Sonepat Lal Singh (PW44), a clerk from the office of DPEO Sonepat, identified the signatures of Rajender Singh (A56) (the Chairman/DPEO) and its members namely Dalip Kumar (A57) and Smt. Kamla Devi (A58 sinceexpired)onboththelists. (XII) Mahendergarh/Narnaul Om Prakash Sharma (PW48), a clerk in the office of DPEO Narnaul,testifiedthatPushkarMalVerma(A37)wastheChairmanofthe DistrictLevel SelectionCommitteeofthisdistrict. Hecouldnottellasto whether Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38) and Bani Singh (A39) were its members. Healsocouldnot identifytheirsignaturesonanyofthelists. Thereforetheprosecutionisrelying uponthereportofthehandwriting expert(PW64)toprovetheirsignaturesonthetwosetsoflists. RemainingDistricts TheprosecutionisrelyingupontheevidenceofPW64M.C.Joshi,the hand writing expert, for proving that the Directorate lists and Supreme CourtlistsweresignedbytherespectiveChairpersonsandthemembersof thesaiddistricts,whohavebeenimpleadedasaccusedpersonsherein.
94.
Evidentiaryvalueofahandwritingexpert ItisarguedbyLd.CounselsforPushkarMalVerma(A37),DurgaDutt
Pradhan (A38) and Bani Singh (A39) (who have been alleged to have signedboththelistsaschairpersonandthemembersoftheDistrictLevel SelectionCommitteeMahendergarh/Narnaul)thattheevidenceofahand writingexpertisnotsubstantiveevidenceandsuchevidencecanbeusedto corroboratesome itemsofsubstantiveevidenceonly,whichareotherwise on record. Ld. Counsels have referred to Musheer Khan Vs State of MadhyaPradesh2010(1)RCR(Criminal)817 deliveredbytheDivision Bench of the Supreme Court of India in their support. I have carefully perusedthiscaselawandIamoftheopinionthatinthiscase,theSupreme Courtwasdealingwiththecircumstanceofavailabilityofthefingerprints oftheaccusedonascooterandthecar.TheSupremeCourtheldthatthis simpleevidenceofavailabilityofthefingerprintsoftheaccusedonthese vehiclescannotformasubstantialevidenceagainstthepersonagainstthe appellantaccusedoftheoffenceofmurder.Thereforeinthiscaselaw,no propositionoflawhasbeenlaiddownthatexpert'sevidencecanbeused onlyascorroborationandnotassubstantivepieceofevidence.Itmustbe keptinmindthatwhenapieceofevidencedirectlyconnectsapersonwith theoffence,it becomessubstantialpieceofevidence. Ifnot,eitheritwill
loserelevanceoratthemost,wouldservethepurposeofcorroboration.For example,presenceoffingerprintsofanaccusedonthehandleofaknife usedforstabbingandmurderingapersonwouldsurelyformadefinitely andsubstantialpieceofevidenceagainstsuchaccused,ifthesaidknifeis found stuck in the dead body or lying near it. On the other hand, availabilityofsuchfingerprintsonthehandleofaknifefoundelsewhere canonlyservethepurposeofcorroboration. In the present case before this court, the hand writing expert's evidencedirectlyprovesthatsignaturesonboththelistshadbeenwritten bytheparticularaccusedpersonsinthiscourtontheawardlists.Therefore handwritingexpert'sevidenceisasubstantivepieceofevidenceinthiscase. ItisfurtherarguedbyLearnedCounselsfortheaccusedpersonsthat itwouldbehighlyunsafetorelyuponthereportsofhandwritingexpert.I wouldsayherethatitwilldependupontheappreciationofreport/opinion ofhandwritingexpertandotherattendingcircumstancestoreachtoajust conclusion. Section45oftheIndianEvidenceActlaydownthatwhenthecourt has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that sciencearerelevantfacts.Ifthetwohandwritingsmatchwitheachother,
thisitselfisanevidenceaspertheIndianEvidenceact.Tosayitdifferently, thematchingoftwohandwritingsisitselfasubstantialevidenceu/s45of IndianEvidenceActandtheopinionofthehandwritingexpertissought onlytofacilitatethecourttoformanopiniononthispoint.Therefore,to saythatconvictioncanbeorcannotbebasedsolelyuponthereportofhand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section45ofIndianEvidenceActisthatcourtiscompetenttoformitsown opiniononthepointofidentityofhandwritingandforthatpurposethe court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevantfactbeforethiscourtisthematchingornonmatchingofthehand writing of an accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writingsmatch,therecannotbeanyhitchinconvictingtheaccusedevenif furthercorroborativeevidenceisnotavailable.Iquotefromthejudgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P Mittal in Jaipal Vs State . CriminalappealNo.137/98andRajendraVsStateCriminalAppealNo. 181/98asunder: itistruethatexceptthehandwritingExpert'sreport Ext.PW4/Athereisnocorroborationthattheransom letterExt.PW12/AwasinthehandwritingofAppellant Jaipal.ThequestionwasdealtindetailbytheSupreme CourtinMurariLalv.StateofM.P .,AIR1980SC531.
TheCourtobservedthathandwritingexpertisnotan accompliceandthereisnojustificationforcondemninghis opinionevidence.ItwasheldthatiftheCourtisconvinced fromthereportofanexpertthatthequestioned handwritingwasoftheaccused,thereisnodifficultyin relyingupontheexpert'sopinionwithoutany corroboration. ItispertinenttonotethatHighCourtofDelhihadrelieduponMurari Lalv.StateofM.P .,AIR1980SC531whereinHon'bleSupremeCourtheld thattherewasnoruleoflawnoranyruleofprudencethattheevidenceof handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
Anexpertisnoaccomplice. Thereisnojustificationforcondemning hisopinionevidencetothesameclassofevidenceasthatofanaccompliceandinsist uponcorroboration.True,ithasoccasionallybeensaidonveryhighauthoritythatit would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert.But,thehazardinacceptingtheopinionofanyexpert,handwritingexpertor anyotherkindofexpert,isnotbecauseexperts,ingeneral,areunreliablewitnessthe qualityofcredibilityorincredibilitybeingonewhichanexpertshareswithallother witness,butbecauseallhumanjudgmentisfallibleandanexpertmaygowrong becauseofsomedefectofobservation,someerrorofpremisesorhonestmistakeof conclusion.Themoredevelopedandthemoreperfectascience,thelessthechanceof anincorrectopinionandtheconverse ifthescienceislessdevelopedandimperfect. Thescienceofidentificationoffingerprintshasattainednearperfectionandtherisk ofanincorrectopinionispracticallynonexistent.Ontheotherhand,thescienceof
identificationofhandwritingisnotnearlysoperfectandtheriskis,therefore,higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessaryscientificcriteriafortestingtheaccuracyofhisconclusion,soastoenable thejudgetoformhisownindependentjudgmentbytheapplicationofthesecriteriato thefactsprovedinevidence.(para4) ExperttestimonyismaderelevantbyS.45oftheEvidenceActandwhere theCourthastoformanopinionuponapointastoidentityofhandwriting,the opinionofaperson'speciallyskilled'inquestionsastoidentityofhandwritingis expresslymadearelevantfact.ThereisnothingintheEvidenceAct,asforexample likeillustration(b)toS.114whichentitlestheCourttopresumethatanaccomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifiestheCourtinassumingthatahandwritingexpert'sopinionisunworthyof creditunlesscorroborated.TheEvidenceActitself(S.3)tellsthat'Afactissaidtobe providedwhen,afterconsideringthemattersbeforeit,theCourteitherbelievesitto exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further,underS.144oftheEvidenceAct,theCourtmaypresumetheexistenceofany factwhichitthinkslikelytohavehappened,regardbeinghadtothecommoncourse ofnaturalevents,humanconduct,andpublicandprivatebusiness,intheirrelation tofactsoftheparticularcase.ItisalsotobenoticedthatS.46oftheEvidenceAct makesfacts,nototherwiserelevant,relevantiftheysupportorareinconsistentwith theopinionsofexperts,whensuchopinionsarerelevant. (Para6) Thereisnoruleoflaw,noranyruleofprudencewhichhascrystalised intoaruleoflaw,thatopinionevidenceofahandwritingexpertmustneverbeacted upon, unless substantiallycorroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect natureofthescienceofidentificationofhandwriting,theapproachshouldbeoneof caution.Reasonsfortheopinionmustbecarefullyprobedandexamined.Allother
relevantevidencemustbeconsidered. Inappropriatecases,corroborationmaybe sought. Incaseswherethereasonsfortheopinionareconvincingandthereisno reliableevidencethroughadoubt,theuncorroboratedtestimonyofahandwriting expertmaybeaccepted.Therecannotbeanyinflexibleruleonamatterwhich,inthe ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed). (Para11) EvidenceActexpresslyenablestheCourttocomparedisputedwritings withadmittedorprovedwritingstoascertainwhetherawritingisthatoftheperson
bywhomitpurportstohavebeenwritten.Wherethereareexpertopinions,they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidancefromsomeauthoritativetextbookandtheCourt'sownexperience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert,withorwithoutotherevidence. (Para12)
Inviewoftheabovestatedlaw,Iamoftheopinionthatwhenacase is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, thecourt shouldbe verycautiousandthereasonsfortheexpert opinionmustbecarefullyexamined.Incasewherereasonsforopinionare convincingandthereisnoreliableevidencethrowingadoubtuponit,the testimonyofhandwritingexpertmaybeaccepted. 95. Whether the specimen signatures taken by the police without
permissionoftheMagistrateareadmissibleinevidence? Sh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.andotherDefenceCounselshavealsoargued thatthespecimensignaturesoftheaccusedpersonswerenottakenwiththe permissionoftheMagistrateandthereforethesamearenotadmissiblein evidence. It is argued that as soon as the fact of taking of specimen signatures is taken out from the domain of this trial, the opinion of the expertwitnesswouldberenderedvalueless. Idisagreewiththissubmission.TheSupremeCourtofIndia,inState ofBombayV .KathiKaluOghad&Ors.AIR1961SupremeCourt1808, consideredthisissueindetailandheldthatnopermissionoftheMagistrate wasrequiredbeforetakingthespecimenhandwritingofanaccusedduring investigation.RelyingupontheratioofKathiKalucase,SupremeCourtof India in a recent judgement Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. RepublicofIndiaAIR2011SC1436,whereaquestionwasraisedabout the admissibility of the specimen signatures of the accused taken during investigationwithoutpermissionoftheMagistrate,hasheldthattakingof specimensignatures/writingsofaccusedforexaminationbyexpertduring investigation,withoutpermissionoftheMagistrate,isproperandreportof expertbasedon suchsignatures/writingscanbeusedasevidenceagainst theaccused.Relevantportionofparano.35ofthisjudgmentcontainthe
rivalsubmissionputbeforeit,whichisreproducedasunder:
AnotherquestionwhichwehavetoconsideriswhetherthePolice(CBI) hadthepowerundertheCrPCtotakespecimensignatureandwritingofA3 forexaminationbytheexpert. Itwaspointedoutthatduringinvestigation, eventheMagistratecannotdirecttheaccusedtogivehisspecimensignature ontheaskingofthepoliceandonlyintheamendmentoftheCrPCin2005, power has been given to the Magistrate todirect any person including the accusedtogivehisspecimensignatureforthepurposeofinvestigation.Hence, itwaspointedoutthattakingofhissignature/writingsbeingperseillegal thereportoftheexpertcannotbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Tomeetthe above claim, learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily relied on a 11Judge BenchdecisionofthiscourtintheStateofBombayV.KathiKaluOghad and Ors.(1962) 3 SCR 10:AIR 1961SC 1808. Thislarger Bench was constitutedinordertoreexaminesomeofthepropositionsoflawlaiddown bythisCourtinthecaseof M.P.Sharma&Ors.Vs.SatishChandra, District Magistrate,DelhiandOrs.,(1954) SCR 1077:(AIR1954 SC 300).
TheSupremeCourtofIndiathenupheldtheviewofOrisaHighCourt which had held that police had power to take specimen signatures of accusedduringinvestigation.Thus,Ifindnoillegalityintakingofspecimen signaturesoftheaccusedpersonsbytheCBIduringinvestigation.Further, the law does not require any corroboration to the expert's opinion. However,itis thedutyofthecourttoapplyitsownmindandforman opinionaboutthecorrectnessoftheexpert'sreport.Theexpert'sreportis Ext.PW64/BandthereasonshavebeenprovedasExt.PW64/C.Thereport
aswellasthereasonsare compiledinD150. Aperusalofthereasons would show that handwriting expert namely M.C. Joshi (PW64) has preparedthisreportinaveryscientificmanner.Whilegivinghisreasons,he hasalsoplacedthephotographsofafewquestionedsignatures,specimen signaturesandsomeadmittedsignaturesinthreecolumns.Thismethodof placingthephotographsofthesignaturesinthereportitselfmakesitvery easyforthecourttoformanopinion.Thedetailedreasonshavebeengiven bytheexpertinhisreportandIappreciatethemannerinwhichtheentire work has been done in a thoroughly professional and scientific manner. SinceA37,A38&A39havedeniedtheirspecimensignaturesonboththe lists,therefore,Iwillconsidertheexpert'sreportinrespectoftheseaccused persons. The specimen signatures of Pushkar Mal Verma (A37) are S99 & S100.ThespecimensignaturesofDurgaDuttPradhan(A38)areS126to S128.ThespecimensignaturesofBaniSingh(A39)areS129toS131. ThequestionedsignaturesofPushkarMalVerma(A37)ontheDirectorate Lists are Q6926, Q6935 and Q7196 have been taken as example for comparison.Intheothercolumn,thespecimensignaturesofPushkarMal VermaatS99&S100havebeenplacedandithasbeenopinedthatthere isnodiversionbetweenthequestionedandthespecimensignatures.
ThereasonsgivenbytheexpertinrespectofhandwritingofPushkar MalVermaarefrompage51to53.Perusalofthereasonswouldshowthat expert has compared all the questioned signatures available on Supreme Court List and allthequestionedsignaturesontheDirectorate Listsand compared the same with the specimen signatures. After perusing the opinion especially the peculiar manner of execution of letter 'P' and the formationofboldletterappearingas'M'andgarlandedmovementinthe medial stroke and the final character appearing as letter 'r' in both the questioned signatures and the specimen signatures are matching. The experthasjuxtaposedthequestionedsignaturesQ6926,Q6923&Q7196 withthespecimensignaturesQ100&Q99asanillustrationatpage52of hisreport(D150).Ihavealsoperusedthequestionedsignaturesandthe specimensignaturesontheSupremeCourtaswellastheDirectoratelists andIfullyagreethatthesignaturesstatedtobeofPushkarMalVermaon boththeliststallywithhisspecimensignaturesS99toS101. The reasons given by the expert from page 66 to page 68 on Ext.PW64/C. The specimen signatures (D150) of Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38)arefromS126toS128.Fordemonstrativepurpose,theexperthas juxtaposedthequestionedsignaturesi.e.Q7197,Q7125&Q6936with hisspecimensignaturesS126. Theexperthasgivendetailedreasonsin
support of his opinion that the questioned signatures and the specimen signaturesmatchwitheachother.Thespecialfeatureofthesesignaturesis thepeculiarmannerofexecutionofletterappearingasfigure'8'andthe specialfeatureofbothtypeofsignaturesistheexecutionofletter'd'&letter 'P'. Ihaveperusedallthequestionedsignaturesaswellasthespecimen signaturesstatedtobeputbyDurgaDuttPradhanandIamleftinnodoubt thatthesameareofoneandthesameperson. The reasons in respect ofBani Singh(A39) have been given from page68topage70Ext.PW64/C.Thespecimensignaturesofthisaccused areS129toS131.Thepeculiarityofthesesignaturesistheexecutionof letter'B'withretracednatureofitsverticalstaffinthecommencingpart andtheextentofcurvatureinthelowerbodyandboldtwistingmovement ofitsfinishingstrokeofprominentloopfollowedwithdownwarddirection and a crossing at the end. The juxtaposed chart of Q7198, Q7126 & Q6937withS129andS130isselfexplanatoryandIamleftinnodoubt thatthequestionedsignaturesandthespecimensignaturesstatedtobeof BaniSinghhavebeensignedoneandthesameperson. Allthesethreeaccusedpersonshavestronglyassailedthetestimonyof Insp.NNSAsthana(PW67)onthegroundthathedidnotrecognizethese
accusedpersonsinthecourtandthereforeitcannotbepresumedthatthe specimen handwriting of A37, A38 & A39 was taken by him. These accusedpersonshavefurtherassailedthetestimonyofPW67NNSAsthana Inspector, CBI on the ground that the specimen sheets of these accused personsisshowntobewitnessedbyMalkhanSinghandSurenderofficials oftheofficeofSDEOMahendergarhbutnoneofthesepersonshavebeen examinedbytheprosecution.ItisarguedthatCBIdidnotgetanyadmitted signaturesoftheseaccusedpersonsfromtheofficialrecords. Itisfurther argued that PW67 stated that location of the office of District Primary Education Officer was at Mahendergarh whereas infact it is situated at Narnaul.Itisarguedthatitisnotexplainedbythiswitnessastohowhe gottheaddressesoftheaccusedpersons.Itisfurtherarguedthathedid notrecordthestatementofanypersonorthewitnessesinwhosepresence thespecimensignaturesweretaken.Furthermore,itisarguedthatPW67 wasneverempoweredtoactastheinvestigatingofficerandhencePW67 hasimpersonatedastheinvestigatingofficerofthecaseandaccordinglythe papersprovedbyPW67shouldbetreatedtobeforged. Thespecimensignaturesoftheaccusedpersonsandthewitnessesare placed in Ext.PW64/E which is in two volumes. In first volume, the specimensignatures(S99toS101)ofPushkarMalVermaareavailableat
page101to103. Insecondvolume,thespecimensignaturesS126and S127ofDurgaDuttPradhanareplacedonpage26&27. Thespecimen signaturesofBaniSingh(whichareS130&S131)areatpage30and31 ofVol.IIof Ext.PW64/E. Theseaccusedpersonshavebeenwitnessesby thetwoofficialsoftheofficeofSDEOMahendergarheach. Therefore,it stands ensured that it were these accused persons themselves who had givenspecimensignatures.Imaypointoutthatthenames,parentageand addressesoftheseaccusedpersonsarewrittenonthetopofthespecimen sheets. However, to be sure about the identity of the persons who had written the specimen signatures as well as the questioned signatures on SupremeCourtandDirectorateLists,Ithoughtitappropriatetofurthergo intothisissue,lest,therebeanyinjusticetotheseaccusedpersons. The signaturesofalltheaccusedpersonsareavailableontheirstatementsu/s 313CrPC. ThesignaturesofDurgaDuttPradhan(A38)oneachpageof hisstatementu/s313CrPCisunmistakablythesamesignaturesasavailable on the specimen sheets as well as on the Supreme Court lists and DirectorateLists.ThesignaturesofPushkarMalVermaandBaniSinghon their statements u/s 313 CrPC are available, but, they have put full signatures whereas on the specimen sheets and award lists, the short signatures are available. However, the formation of word 'P' & 'M'
unmistakablythesameinfullsignaturesofPushkarMalVerma,ifcompared withthespecimensignaturesandsignaturesonawardlists. Similarly,the formationof'B'inthefullsignaturesofBaniSinghathisstatementu/s313 CrPCissimilartothespecimensignaturesandsignaturesonawardlists. Hence, I find no substance in the statements of these accused persons. Rather, their defence that they had not signed these award lists stands provedtobeafalsedefencewhichwillhaveitsownconsequencestobe discussedlateron. Thereportofhandwritingexpertmustbereadinthe contextofthePW48OmPrakash,clerkintheofficeofDPEONarnaulwho has testified that Pushkar Mal Verma was the Chairman at the time of interviews.Theabovediscussionprovesthathissignaturesarepresenton boththelists. BaniSingh(A39): ItisarguedbySh.SudershanKumar,Adv.forBani SinghthatOmPrakashVerma(PW48)hastestifiedthatinDecember1999 hewasworkingasaClerkintheofficeofDPEONarnaulandBaniSingh was working as Principal in Senior Secondary SchoolMadhogarh but neitherhehastestifiedthatBaniSinghwasthememberofDistrictLevel SelectionCommitteenorhehasidentifiedthesignaturesofBaniSinghon thesaidlists.MyattentionhasalsobeendrawntoD40Vol.IIpage265in whichanotehasbeenpreparedmentioningthenamesoftheChairpersons
andthememberoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittees.Thesaidnoteis Ext.PW31/DN. ItisarguedonbehalfofA39thatinfrontoftheDistrict Mahendergarh,thenameofPushkarMalVermahasbeenmentionedasthe ChairpersonwhereasthenamesofDurgaDuttPradhanandJaiDayalhas been written as members. Therefore, it is argued that he was never a memberoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee. Ihaveconsideredhis submissions and I would mention here that during the period when the interviewswereconducted,thereweremanychangesintheconstitutionof theDistrictLevelSelectionCommittees.Somepersonswerechangedbefore conductingtheinterviews,likeDayaSainiwasappointedasChairpersonof DistrictLevel SelectionCommitteePaipatpriortotheinterviewswhereas Darshan Dayal Verma (Chairman Rewari) and M.L. Kalra (Chairman Kurukshetra)were transferredduring the interviews, therefore, theexact evidenceastowhohadconductedtheinterviews,isthesignaturesputby suchpersonsonsuchlists.IhavealreadystatedthatthesignaturesofBani Singh were very much present on the Supreme Court list and the Directorate list of district Mahendergarh. Here, I would point out that duringthecrossexamination(dt.13.10.2011)ofPW31SardarSingh,his attentionwasdrawntothenoteExt.PW31/DNwhichshowsthenameofJai DayalasthememberofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeMahendergarh,
but, he pointed out page 19 of D106 (which is Ext.PW31/DO) which specificallyshowsPushkarMalVermaastheChairpersonofDistrictLevel SelectionCommitteeandDurgaDuttandBaniSinghastheMembersofthe DistrictLevelSelectionCommittee.Inthisdocument,thenameofJaiDayal has not been mentioned. When this witness was cross examined by SudershanKumar,Adv.forBaniSingh(A39),BaniSinghdidnotcontrovert this document nor suggested it to be a fake or manipulated insertion. Rather,ithasbeensuggestedthataccusedBaniSinghwaspressurized byDirectortobecomememberofselectioncommitteeMahendergarh. Thissuggestionoftheaccusedissufficientcorroborationtotheprosecution case that Bani Singh (A39) was indeed a member of the District Level SelectionCommittee.Hischangeofstancelateronwouldbeofnohelpto him.Rather,histakingaUturnonthisissueleadsmetotheinferencethat notonlyhewasthememberoftheDistrictLevelSelectioncommitteeand hadsignedtheSupremeCourtlist,but,alsohadintentionallycooperatedin creationofthesecondfakeawardlist(i.e.theDirectorateList).Further,it is his duty u/s 106 of the Indian Evidence Act toexplain as towhy his signaturesareavailableonthesetwolistsandunderwhatcircumstances.I mayaddherethathedidnotputanysuggestiontotheinvestigatingofficer thathehadtoldhimaboutthefactthathewasnotthememberofthe
District Level Selection Committee, nor he suggests that during investigation, he told the investigating officer that signatures on those awardlistsdonotpertaintohim.True,PW48OmPrakashVermahadnot identifiedhissignatures,but,incrossexamination,Sh.SudershanKumar, Adv.forBaniSingh(A39)putaspecificsuggestionthathe(i.e.PW48)and accused Pushkar Mal Verma had forged the signatures of Bani Singh on theseawardlists. NoreasonhasbeenassignedbyBaniSinghastowhy PushkarMalVermawouldforgethesignaturesofBaniSinghonboththe lists. It must be kept in mind that when Supreme Court list was being prepared, no one had any cause to put forged signatures of any other persons. Therefore, it is clear that A39 is makingalltypes offrivolous defences during the trial. In cross examination, PW67 has specifically testified that he had taken the signatures of Bani Singh in presence of MalkhanSinghandoneS.K.SharmatheofficialsintheofficeofSDEO Mahendergarh.BaniSinghcouldhavecalledanyofthesewitnessesinhis defencetocontroverttheevidenceofPW67,whichhedidnot. Insuch circumstance, Bani Singh cannot claim innocence. Every mistake of the prosecutionandtheinvestigationisnotfataltotheprosecutioncase.Imay point out that it is not the case of Bani Singh that at any stage of investigationhetoldtheinvestigatingofficerthathewasnotamemberof
theDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeanddidnotconductsuchinterviews. Atnostageofthetrialheshowedinclinationtoproducetheofficialrecord astowherehewasworkingonthedateswhentheinterviewshadtaken place.Hissignaturesontheawardlistsisasureevidenceofhisbeingthe partytothemakersoftheSupremeCourtlistsaswellastheDirectorate listsofMahendergarh. RemainingChairpersons&Members. Apartfromtheofficialwitnessesalreadydiscussedinthejudgment, theprosecutionhasrelieduponthehandwritingsexpert'sreport. Asper the report of hand writing expert, the questioned signatures on the DirectorateandSupremeCourtlistsoftherespectiveChairpersonandthe Memberstallywiththeirspecimensignatures.Specimensignaturesofmost of the Chairpersons and the Members of the District Level Selection Committees were taken by the Investigating Officer R. N. Azad (PW63). The specimen signatures of remaining Chairpersons and Members were takenbyInspectorN.N.S.Asthana(PW67).Thepositiveevidenceofthe Investigating Officer (PW63) and PW67 regarding having taken the specimensignaturescannotbedisbelievedonthebasisofminortechnical pointsraisedbyafewaccusedpersons.ImaypointoutthatPW63aswell asPW67arepublicservantsandtheyarepresumedtohaveconductedtheir
officialbusinessinpropermanner.Theperusalofthespecimensheetsofall theseaccusedpersonsinthetwovolumesofEx.PW64/Ewouldshowthat theseCBIofficialshavetakenthespecimensignaturesinpresenceofthe independent witnesses, which substantiate the correctness that the specimensignaturesofthosepersonshavebeentaken,whosenamesand otherparticularshavebeenwrittenintheupperportionofthespecimen sheets. None of the accused persons had ventured to call any such of witnessesintheirdefencetocontroverttheprosecutioncase.Noneofthe accusedpersonsbroughtanyexpertwitnessintheirdefencetoshowthat thespecimensignaturesavailablein Ex.PW64/E havenotbeenwrittenby them. Sh.N.K.Sharma,adv.foraccusedA10,A21andA22hasarguedthat it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to specify as to which sheet D150pertainstowhichaccused. Ld.Counselhasdrawnmyattentionto thefactthatinexaminationinchief,PW63didnottestifythathehadtaken specimen signatures of any of the accused persons. I agree with the submissionsofSh.N.K.Sharma,adv.butIwouldsaythatitappearstobe an inadvertence mistake by the Investigating Officer or the prosecution. Howeverinhiscrossexaminationdated15.2.2012bySh.SudarshanKumar, adv.foraccusedBaniSingh(A39),hetestifiedthatthespecimensignatures
hadbeentakenbyhimandtheaccusedpersonshadvoluntarilygiventheir specimen signatures to him, which were sent to GEQD, Shimla. On 4.4.2012thecrossexaminationofPW63wascomplete,howeveraccused persons made a request that they wanted to further cross examine the InvestigatingOfficerSh.R.N.Azad(PW63)onthelimitedpointsoftaking ofspecimensignatures. Thisrequestoftheaccusedpersonswasallowed andthecrossexaminationofPW63wasdeferredfor10.04.2012.However on10.4.2012,noneoftheaccusedpersonscrossexaminedtheInvestigating Officeronthispointandthereforethefactthataccusedpersonshadgiven hisspecimensignaturesvoluntarilyremainsunrebuttedandaccordinglyhas tobeaccepted. Here,Iwouldalso discussas to whether the signatures ofaccused MamanChandSharma(A11)areavailableonboththelistsornot.Hewas theChairpersonofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeBhiwani.PW30Tara Chandthe Dy. Superintendent in the office of DPEOBhiwani. He could identify the signatures of Maman Chand Sharma on the Directorate List Ext.PW15/M(D7).However,theprosecutioncouldnotfindthesignatures of Maman Chand on the Supreme Court List Ext.PW30/A (D25). However, as per the handwriting expert's report (reasons) Ext.PW64/C (D150), it stands fortified that the signatures of Maman Chand are
availableontheDirectorateList. Hence,hissignaturesontheDirectorate List stands proved, but, his signatures are not available on the Supreme CourtList.IhavealreadyheldthatDirectorateLististhefakelist. I have carefully perused the questioned signatures of all the Chairpersons&Membersi.e.A6toA62onboththelists,theirspecimen signatures and the report of the hand writing expert (PW64). I have alreadystatedthatthereporthadbeenpreparedinamostscientificand methodicalmannerandIfullyagreewiththisreport,whichprovesthatthe questionedsignaturesontheaforesaidlistspertaintoA6toA62. Smt.SudhaSachdeva(A49) It is argued by Sh. S. C. Chawla, adv. for accused Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49) that the Supreme Court list of District Rewari is the genuinelistandtheDirectoratelististhefakelist.However,itissubmitted thatsmt.SudhaSachdevarefusedtosigntheDirectoratelistandtherefore she was put under suspension. My attention has been drawn to the statement under Section 313 CrPC of this accused and the testimony of A49/DW1andsubmitsthatduetoherrefusaltosigntheDirectorateList, she remained under suspension thereafter. Sh. S. C. Chawla, adv. also assailed the testimony of coaccused Darshan Dayal Verma (A50), who examinedhimselfindefence.DarshanDayalVermawastheChairpersonof
the District Level Selection CommitteeRewari and along with the other membersconductedtheinterviewsinDecember1999.Afterthreedays,he wastransferredtoSirsaandthereafterSmt.SudhaSachdevawasappointed astheChairpersonoftheSelectionCommittee,Rewariandshecontinued with the interviews in December 1999. In statement under Section 313 CrPC,shestatesthatthesecondawardlisti.e.Directoratelistwasprepared intheyear2000butsherefusedtosignthesame.Shealsostatedthatshe hadgivenanaffidavit Ex.PW46/40 underpressure. InthisaffidavitSmt. SudhaSachdevahadstatedthatshehadpreparedthesecondawardlistat theinstanceofSanjivKumar(A3).Theissueofaffidavitswouldbetaken upbymelateron.FirstIwouldtakenupthedefencewitnessexaminedby her.ShehadexaminedSh.DeshRajSaini(A49/DW1),theAssistantinthe OfficeofDirectorateSecondaryEducationHaryana.Thiswitnessproduced herservicerecord Ex.A49/DA,whichshowsthatshewassuspendedvide orderdated27.10.2004. Howeverthisdoesnotshowastowhyshewas suspended.ThereforeitsevidenceisofnohelptoSmt.SudhaSachdeva. Now I take up the testimony of accused Darshan Dayal Verma (A50),hetestifiedthatinDecember1999,hewaspostedasDPEO,Rewari andwasChairmanofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeconsistingofthe membersnamelySmt.SarojSharma(A51)andTulsiRamBihagra(A52).
He testified that he had conducted the interviews of JBT teachers from 1.12.1999 to 3.12.1999 i.e. only for three days. Thereafter he was transferred to Chandigarh as Deputy Director in the office of Director SecondaryEducation,Haryana.HetestifiedthatinthemonthofSeptember 2000, he was posted as Principal in District Institute of Education and Training(DIET)inDingDistrictSirsa,Haryana.Incomplianceofamessage receivedfromShadiLalKapoorPStoSanjivKaushal,AdditionalPrincipal SecretarytoCM,hereachedHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhion1.9.2000at about2:00pm.TherehemetSanjivKumar(A3)andSherSinghBadshami (A2)whotoldhimthatnecessaryinstructionshavebeengiventoDPEO regardingthepreparationofthesecondsetofawardlist.Hetestifiedthat hewasthreatenedtocooperateinthisworkbyA2andA3.Hetestifiedthat fromHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhihewentbacktohishometownSirsa. Later,onreceivingatelephonicmessage,hewenttoRewari,whereSmt. SudhaSachdeva,thethenDPEORewari,dictatedtheinterviewandgrand totalmarkstohim(i.e.DarshanDayalVerma).Thisaccusedtestifiedthat hefillupthemarksasdictatedbySmt.SudhaSachdevaandhandedover thelistaftergettingitsignedbySmt.SarojSharmaandTulsiRamBihagra, whowerealsopresentthere. Hetestifiedthathehadputhissignatures only for three days on the second set of list. He was thoroughly cross
examined by Sh. S. C. Chawla, adv. forA49 but histestimony remained unimpeached. TheevidenceofA50/DW1becomesmorecreditworthy becausehisversionwasnotcontrovertedincrossexaminationbytheother membersnamelySmt.SarojSharma(A51)andTulsiRam(A52). Ihave foundthisaccused(i.e.A50/DW1)tobetruthfulwitness.Hehasnottried to shift his guilt upon Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49) rather he has tarred himselfwiththesamebrush.Hefullyexplainshisroleandhasstatedthat astohowtheentireeventtookplace.ItappearsthatSmt.SudhaSachdeva wascleverenoughtohaveavoidedsigningtheDirectoratelist.Therefore, althoughshecannotbeconvictedforsubstantialoffenceofforgerybutsince she got preparedthe Directorate list andgot the signatures ofthe other members on it, she would be responsible for being participant in the criminalconspiracyofthisoffence.Imayaddherethatitwaseasyforher toavoidthedetectionofnotsigningthelistbecauseonfirstthreepages,the signaturesoftheChairmani.e.A50werepresentgivinganimpressionthat signaturesofalltheconcernedhavingbeendulytakenontheawardlists. Smt.RakshaJindal Smt.RakshaJindalisstatedtobethememberoftheDistrictLevel Selection Committee, Panchkula. Sheadmitsher signatureson both the lists.ButherdefenceisthatshewasnotthememberoftheDistrictLevel
SelectionCommitteerathershehadsignedasatokenofhavingcalculated themarks.ItisarguedthatinfactSmt.SavitriWadhawan(PW42)wasthe memberofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteebutshewassavedbyCBIand wasmadeaprosecutionwitness. Thiswitness(PW42)hastestifiedthat shewasworkingasPrincipalGovernmentSeniorSecondarySchoolMorni Hills,Panchkula. ShewascalledbyDeputyCommissionerandunderher pressureshesignedanaffidavit Ex.PW42/A despitethefactthatshewas not the member of the District Level Selection Committee. In cross examination by Sh. Harit Chhabra, adv. for accused Smt. Raksha Jindal (A45),shetestifiedthatshewasonlyaHeadMistressandwasjuniortothe then BEO and therefore she could not be made member of Selection Committee. It is pertinent to note that in the note Ex.PW31/DN (D40 VolumeIIPage265)thenameofSmt.RakshaJindalhasbeenmentionedas thememberoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee.Theperusalofboth theawardlistsofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteewouldshowthather signaturesarepresentprominentlyonboththelistsinsuchamannerthat asifshewasanactivememberofthecommittee.Presumingthatshehad onlycalculatedthegrandtotalatthetimeofconductingtheinterviews,she wasunabletoexplainastowhenshewasaskedtoputhersignatureson secondsetoflisti.e.DirectoratelistofPanchkulaafteraboutninemonths
fromtheinterview,whyshedidnotaskfortheoriginalcopy.Instatement underSection313CrPCalsoshehastriedtoexplainthesefactsbuther argumentsdonotcuticeandthereforesheisunabletoabsolveherselfof theoffencesalleged. 96. AffidavitsoftheChairpersonsandtheMembersofDistrictLevel SelectionCommittees. WhenSanjivKumarfiledWritPetitionNo.93/2003inSupremeCourt ofIndia,theStateofHaryana,withaviewtofileitsreplyaskedtheversion of all the Chairpersons and the members of the District Level Selection Committeesastohowtheirsignatureswerepresentontwolists.Theyfiled affidavitstotheGovernmentofHaryana.CBIhadcollectedtheseaffidavits during investigation from the office of DirectoratePrimary Education, Haryana. Intheseaffidavits,thedeponentshadstatedthatSanjivKumar hadcalledthemandaskedthemtosigntheduplicatelists.Duringthetrial, A6toA62hadtakenaconsistentstandthattheGovernmentofHaryana misusedthegovernmentmachineryandprocuredtheseaffidavitsfromthe members.Infact,theaffidavitwastobepreparedasperthecontentsgiven tothemandthereforeitwassubmittedbythemthattheaffidavitwasnot fullycorrect.MyattentionhasbeendrawntothetestimonyofBrijMohan (PW17) who was a member of District Level Selection Committee
Faridabad. He testified the manner in which the fake award list was preparedintheyear2000. Healsotestifiedthaton26.07.2003hewas called by SDMPalwal who practically forced him to sign the affidavit. PW42SavitriWadhawantestifiedthattheDy.Commissionercompelledher tosigntheaffidavit,despitethefactthatshewasnotthememberofDistrict LevelSelectionCommittee.Shealsotestifiedthatthisaffidavitwasalready typedandshewasmadetosignit. SherSingh(A23&A23/DW1),the Chairpersonof District LevelSelectionCommitteeJhajjartestifiedthatin theyear2003hewascalledintheofficeofDy.CommissionerJhajjar.Anar Singh(A24)wasalsopresentthere.Dy.CommissionerJhajjargavethema writtenproformaandaskedthemtocreateanaffidavitasperthecontents oftheproforma. Onbeingpressurized,theysignedthesame. Similarly, Sarwan Kumar Chawla (A60/DW1), Urmil Sharma (A61/DW1) and JogenderLal(A62/DW1)havetestifiedthattheyweremadetosignthe affidavitundertheseverepressureofDy.CommissionerYamunaNagar. IhaveperusedtheseaffidavitsandIfindthatthelanguageofmostof theaffidavitsissame. Thetestimoniesofthesewitnesseshavenotbeen controvertedbyanyoftheaccusedpersonsnorbytheprosecution. PW17 BrijMohan has clearlystatedthat he nevervisitedHaryana Bhawanon10.09.2000,asstatedinpara3&4oftheaffidavit.Infact,all
the Chairpersons and the Members who had given the affidavits are unanimousinsubmittingthatthecontentsoftheaffidavits,astohowthe fakelistwaspreparedarenotcorrect.Instatementsu/s313CrPCalsothe accused persons have stated that they were pressurized to sign these affidavits.Inviewoftheevidenceappearingonthejudicialfilewhichhas been referred to by me as above, it is clear that the Chairpersons and membersweresuppliedwrittenmaterialbythegovernmentmachineryand they simply signed those affidavits under pressure. As per prosecution evidence, some persons who had not attended any of the meetings nor preparedanylistwerealsomadetosignsuchaffidavits.Sufficientevidence isonrecordthattheDy.CommissionersandSDMswereusedtoprocure these affidavits and infact some written proforma was also given to the deponentsbytheseDy.Commissionersetc.andtheaffidavitswereprepared according to such written material. Furthermore, sufficient prosecution evidencehascomeonrecordtoshowthatthefakeawardlistswerenot preparedinthemanner,asstatedintheaffidavits. 97. ThemannerinwhichtheDirectorateListswereprepared. IwouldrefertothetestimonyofPW2RaviDutt,StenoTypistinthe officeofDistrictPrimaryEducationOfficerJindandPW5MilapSinghClerk inthesaidoffice. ThesewitnesseshavetestifiedthatAjitSinghSangwan
(A26)wastheDistrictPrimaryEducationOfficerJind,RamKaur(A27) wasDy.District PrimaryEducationOfficerJindandMahavirSingh(a28) was BEOJulana, Jind. They testified that on 01.09.2000, both of them accompanied A26, A27 & A28 in a government vehicle and reached HaryanaBhawan,Delhiatabout12p.m. M.L.GuptawhowastheP .A.to Director Primary Education gave them a selection list and told them to obtainitsphotocopiesinsuchawaythattheentriesmentioning'Interview' &'GrandTotal'ofmarksi.e.lasttwocolumnsoftheinterviewsheetsdonot appearonphotocopies.Thereafter,boththesewitnesseswenttoSupreme Courtintheirgovernmentvehicleandobtainedthephotocopiesasperthe directions.OriginallistsweredeliveredbythemtoM.L.Gupta(PW56)and SardarSingh(PW31)andthephotocopiesweregivenbythemtoAjitSingh Sangwan (A26). After returning to Jind, the interview lists were again typedby themonthebasisofthephotocopiesofthelists. PW2testified thatthesetypedlistsweregiventoAjitSinghSangwanwhodestroyedthe photocopiesinhispresence. PW14DhupSinghwastheDy.SuperintendentintheOfficeofDistrict PrimaryEducationOfficerJindattherelevanttimeandhegotpreparedthe originalSupremeCourtlistandhadputhissignaturesintokenofhaving verified the academic marks etc. He testified that he recorded the
telephonic message (Ext.PW14/A) in the telephone register (D99) maintained in the office of District Primary Education OfficerJind on 30.08.2000inhisownhandwritingandpresentedittoAjitSinghSangwan who had endorsed it Seen & Signed on 30.08.2000 itself. This is a message from Shadi Lal KapoorP to Sanjeev KaushalAddl. Principal .A. Secretary to the Chief Minister. In this message, the District Primary Education Officer was directed to reach Haryana BhawanNew Delhi on 01.09.2000.PW14testifiedthattheDirectorateListExt.PW2/2(D5)was typedbytwoclerksnamelyRaviDutt&MilapSinghafterreturningfrom Delhion01.09.2000.HetestifiedthatAjitSinghSangwanhadaskedhimto signthesecondlistbutherefusedtodosowithoutgettingtheoriginal.CBI hadcollectedtherelevantfilesofeachDistrictPrimaryEducationOfficer. OnesuchfileisD16recoveredfromtheofficeofDistrictPrimaryEducation OfficerFaridabadwhichhasaninterestingfeature.Ithasbeencollectively exhibitedas Ext.PW63/DB (D61). Inthisfile,therearetwodocuments. FirstisthelistwhichtallieswiththeDirectorateListofDistrictFaridabad andhasonitthesignaturesoftheChairpersonandtheMembersofDistrict LevelSelectionCommittee.Thesheetsofthisinterviewlistarefrompage1 to28.Frompage29to68arethephotocopiesofthesheetsoftheaward listofthecandidatespertainingtodistrictFaridabad,however,thecolumn
of interviewmarks and grandtotalis concealedas ifthephotocopiesof theseawardsheetswereprocuredafterplacingapaperoverthis. Asper thetestimonyof PW63, thisphotocopy waspreparedfrom the Supreme CourtlistofFaridabadbyplacingthepaperoninterviewmarksandgrand totalinthesamemanner,astestifiedbyPW2&PW5. This evidence was led by the prosecution by examining the InvestigatingOfficer(PW63). ThisevidencehasbeenassailedbyA3by drawingmyattentiontothefactthattheverticalandhorizontalcolumnsof D4(i.e.theDirectorateList Ext.PW15/L)areneatlytypedandformatted whereasthecolumnsinD22(i.e.theSupremeCourtListExt.PW17/A)are slantingand doneinhand. Ihaveperusedboththelistsandfoundthis observationofA3tobetrue.Ihavealsocomparedthecarboncopyofthe interview sheet with its marks (placed in Ext.PW63/DB) with the DirectorateListD4, Ext.PW17/B (alsogivenanotherExt.PW15/L)andI findthatthetypedmaterialandthemannerofformattingtallieswitheach other. Themarksfilledinhandalsotallywitheachother. Therefore,the awardlistavailableinD61isthecopyoftheDirectorateList(D4). A comparison of the photocopy of the award list (placed in D61 with concealedmarksandsignatures)withtheSupremeCourtlistExt.PW17/A wouldshowthatthisistheexactphotocopyoftheSupremeCourtlist. I
reproduce the cross examination of Investigating Officer PW63 dt. 15.02.2012asunder:

I had collected D61 now exhibited as Ex PW63/DB during my investigation. Itwasseizedduringthesearchon26.05.04.Itconsistsof twopart,firstpartis from page 1 to 28 which is a carbon typed copy but column10,11,12are writtenininkandpartsecondisfrompages29to68 whichisphotocopyof an award list prepared from 01.12.99 to 10.12.99 andphotocopyhasbeen obtainedbyplacingapaperonthecolumnsoftotal marks,interviewmarks andgrandtotalmarks. I have seen Ex PW17/A which is Supreme Court List of District Faridabad. On comparing Ex PW17/A with the page No. 29 to 68 of Ex PW63/DB,Istate that thethese pages of Ex PW63/DB aretheexact true copyofExPW17/A exceptthecolumnsoftotalmarks,interviewmarks andgrandtotalmarks which are blank in Ex PW63/DB. It appears that thesecolumnsareblank because of photocopy might have been taken by puttingapaperonthese columns.IstatesobecauseatserialNo.1and10of page29ofExPW63/DB the overtyping on the figures 62 % and 58% is alsoappearinginthe Supreme Court List i.e. Ex PW17/A. This is an evidencewhichprovesthe methodofpreparationofsecondlist.
ThisevidenceofInvestigatingOfficerisfoundtobetruthfulwhen A3 argues that the peculiar feature of the Supreme Court list
thiscourtcomparedthelistsasalreadydiscussedabove. Ext.PW17/A is that the signatures of R.S. Kukreja, who had conducted interviewsforfirstoneortwodaysarenotavailableanywhereinthislist. A3hasdrawnmyattentiontothefactthatthedulysignedcompletelist
availableinD61(placedatpage1to28inthefileExt.PW63/DB)alsodoes nothavethesignaturesofR.S.Kukreja,thefirstChairmanoftheFaridabad Selection Committee. Further, it is argued that the signatures of R.S. KukrejaareverymuchavailableontheDirectorateListExt.PW17/B(D4) atpoint1onfirst13pages. Thereafter,atpoint1,thesignaturesofnext Chairmani.e.HarbansLalareavailableonthesheetsofDirectorateList.It is argued by A3 that signatures of Harbans Lal on all the sheets are a commonfactorintheSupremeCourtListandtheawardlistatpage1to page28ofD61.Therefore,itshouldbepresumedthattheSupremeCourt lististhefakelistanditscopyhasbeenkeptonthefileD61.Iamofthe opinion that this argument is self contradictory. If Supreme Court list (D22,Ext.PW17/A)isthefakelistandthelist(atpage1topage28of D61) are treated to be the copy of each other on the basis of non availabilityofthesignaturesofR.S.Kukreja,then,whyisthedifferencein theinterviewmarksinthislistandtheSupremeCourtList.Sincenotonly themarks,but,alsotheformattingofthislist(page1topage28inD61) andtheDirectoratelistsaresame,therefore,itstandsprovedthatthislist was prepared alongwith the Directorate List. If the signatures of R.S. Kukreja, the first Chairman are not available on first few pages and the signaturesofHarbansLalareavailableonallthepages,itwillnotmakeita
copyofSupremeCourtlist. Rather,itshows someconfusionamongthe personsigningthelists. I have already discussed that the pages 29 to 68 tally with the Supreme Court list not only in formatting but also in the typing at few places,astestifiedbytheInvestigatingOfficer.Thesesheetsalsoshowthat thesephotocopiesoftheSupremeCourtlistofFaridabadwastakenafter puttingsomepaperonthecolumnsofthemarksawarded.Thismethodis the same method in which the photocopies of the Jind lists were got preparedbyPW2andPW5.Oneafteranother,theprosecutionwitnesses havetestifiedthatinSeptember2000,thesecondsetoflistswereprepared intheofficesofrespectiveDPEOsbythetypists/clerksofthesaidoffices and thereafter the marks were filled in as per the instructions issued to them. Hence,Iwouldreproducetherelevantportionofthetestimonyof Sher Singh (A23/DW1) who testified in cross examination by Sanjiv Kumar(A3)asunder:
Ittookusabout45hoursinpreparationofthesecondlist.Sofar asI remember,therollnumbersofcandidatestobefavouredwhichwas with Sh. Anar Singh was hand written on a paper. In the page mentioningthe rollnumbers,therewasa'star'givenonsomerollnumbers andthese candidates had to be given '19 ' marks while roll numbers'encircled' hadtobegiven'19'. Theremainingrollnumbersin thatlistbelongingto General Category were to be given '1718' marks in
interview.Forthe remainingrollnumberswhichwerenotmentionedinthe saidlist,wereto begiven'5,6or7'marks. Itiscorrectthattherewasnospecificmarkswithinthebandwidthof '57', whichweretobeallotedagainstanyspecificrollnumber,andwe werefree allotanymarkswithinthebandwidthof'57'candidates whowereinthe listofcandidatesofB.C.categorytobefavoured. Regarding S.C. Category, the candidates to be favoured, the roll number werewritteninthesaidlist,weretobegiven'3,4,or5'marksand remainingcandidatesweretobegiven'2or3'marks. Withinthe widthof '3 to 5' marks, we were free to give any marks within this bandwidth.
The above quoted cross examination is infact reiteration of the facts,whichthisaccused(A23)hadnarratedinhisexaminationinchief. Thisaccusedwhiletestifyingasadefencewitnesswasveryauthenticasto in what manner the marks were put in the fake award list prepared in September2000. Thistestimonyfullysupportstheprosecutioncasethat theDirectoratelistswereforgedlists. It is therefore clear that generally the lists were prepared in the officesofDPEOsinthemonthofSeptember2000andtheChairpersonsand thememberswerecalledtoprepareitandsignthesame.However,afew oftheaccusedpersonshavestatedintheirstatementsu/s313CrPCandin their defence evidence that their signatures were taken elsewhere. e.g. A60,A61&A62havetestifiedthattheirsignatureswerenottakeninthe
office of DPEO, rather, they were called to a private school where their signatures were taken by Rajender Singh Rana (A59) who was the ChairpersonoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeYamunaNagar.Ido notdoubttheirtestimoniesinthisregard. 98. PRESSSURE PushkarMalVerma(A37),DurgaDuttPradhan(A38)andBani SinghRao(A39)hadtakenthedefencethattheyhadnotsignedanyofthe lists.Asalreadydiscussed,thisdefencestandsfalsified.Thereisnodefence on their behalf that any kind of pressure was exerted upon them for preparingthefakeawardlists. DayaSaini(A40), RamSingh(A41)& Puran Chand (A42 since expired) who are the Chairpersons and the members of Panipat Selection Committee have also stated that they had signedonlyonelistandtheDirectorateLististhegenuinelist. Similarly,accusedM.L.Kalra(A32)theChairpersonoftheDistrict Kurukshetrahasstatedthathehassignedonlyonelisti.e.DirectorateList andthatDirectorateLististhegenuinelist.Therefore,A32,A37,A38, A39A40&A41havenottakenthedefencethatpressurewasexerted uponthemtosignthefakelist.Ihavealreadydiscussedthattheirstandof DirectorateListsbeingthegenuinelistsstandsfalsified. Consequently,thiscourthasnooptionbuttodrawaninferencethat
A32, A37, A38, A39 A40 & A41 had prepared their respective Directorate Lists voluntarily without any pressure and were active participantsintheconspiracyinquestion. Inrespectoftheremainingaccusedpersons,Iwouldsaythatmost ofthemhaveadmittedintheirstatementsu/s313CrPCthatDirectorate Listisafakelistandthattheyhadtosignthesameunderimmensepressure from Sanjiv Kumar, Vidya Dhar, Sher Singh Badshami, their respective ChairpersonsortheseniorofficialsoftheGovernmentofHaryana.Maman ChandSharma(A11)inhisstatementu/s313CrPChasstatedthathis signaturesarepresentonlyononelistExt.PW15/MwhichistheDirectorate List and that his signatures are not present on the Supreme Court List Ext.PW30/A,but,hewasnotabletotellastowhichlistwasgenuineand whichwasfake.However,Sh.HarishBhardwaj,Adv.forA11,duringfinal arguments took the stand that Directorate List was the fake list and the signaturesofA11weretakenbyChairpersonBrahmanandbypressurizing him. Someoftheaccusedpersonsintheirstatementsu/s313CrPCgave vagueanswersregardingthepreparationofthesecondawardlists,but,at thestageoffinalargumentsalloftheseaccusedpersons{exceptA32,A37, A38,A39,A40&A41}havemadetheirstandclearthattheDirectorate Lists were the fake lists and they had to sign the same under severe
pressure.Ld.Counselsfortheseaccusedpersonshavedrawnmyattention to the Writ Petition no. 93/2003 in which Sanjiv Kumar has stated that these accused persons were compelled to sign the fake award lists. My attention has been drawn to the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW63) who has testified that as per his investigation, these accused personshad signed the award listsundercompulsion. My attention has been drawn to the testimony of a defence witness Captan Singh (A9/DW1)examinedbyBrahmanand(A9). Thiswitnesswasthedriver of theofficialvehiclewhich tookBrahmanandtoHaryanaBhawan,New Delhion01.09.2000. Hetestifiedthatwhentheywerecomingbackfrom Delhi, Brahmanand got the vehicle stopped in village Lakhanmajra. Brahmanandwassweatingandhevisitedadoctorthere.Myattentionhas beendrawntothetestimonyofSherSingh(A23/DW1)whotestifiedinhis evidencethathewascalledbytheDy.CommissionerJhajjarwhoinstructed himtochangetheawardlistsaspernewpattern.HetestifiedthattheDy. Commissioner made him to talk to Sanjiv Kumar through his Reader on telephoneandSanjivKumarthreatenedhimthathisgratuityetc.wouldbe stoppedandthatheshouldnotplaywiththefireandthathisdaughterand soninlaw who are teachers would be transferred to far flung areas like Mewat. In such a scenario with such pressure and threats, A23 was
compelledtosigntheawardlists.Myattentionhasalsobeendrawntothe testimony of Darshan Dayal Verma (A50/DW1) who testified that on instructionsreceivedfromShadiLalKapoorP .A.toSanjeevKaushalAddl. PrincipalSecretarytotheChiefMinister,hewenttoHaryanaBhawan,New Delhion01.09.2000at2p.m.wherehemetA3SanjivKumar.Hetestified thatSanjivKumartoldhimthatthenecessaryinstructionshavebeengiven to the DPEORewari regarding the preparation of the second award list. Whenheshowedhishesitationtoprepareasecondsetofawardlists,Sanjiv Kumarthreatenedhimofdireconsequencesandalsotookhimtoaroom whereSherSinghBadshami(A2)wassitting.Bothofthemmadehimclear thatthese weretheorders of the StateGovernmentandthathehad no optiontodefythesameotherwisehewouldhavetofacetheconsequences. My attention has been drawn to the testimony of the defence witnesses examinedbyR.S.Dahiya(A56).ShashiMehta(A56/DW1)testifiedthat hewasacolleagueofA56.HecamealongwithR.S.Dahiya(A56),Dalip Singh (A57) & Kamla Devi (A58) to Delhi on a private vehicle. R.S. DahiyahaddroppedhimatITOandthereaftertheyhadgonetoHaryana Bhawan. He testified that thereafter at about 11.30 a.m., he reached HaryanaBhawanonanautoandcametoknowthatR.S.Dahiyawasina meeting. HetestifiedthatwhenR.S.Dahiyacameoutofthemeeting,he
wasterriblyperturbedandthereweretearsinhiseyesanditappearedthat hewastorturedandtherewassomepressureonhim.A58alsoappeared inhighlydisturbedstate.Aftersomedays,whenhevisitedtheofficeofR.S. Dahiya,hefellfromhischairandgotsomeinjuries. Hetestifiedthathe alongwithVinodGuptatookR.S.Dahiyatohospital.Later,R.S.Dahiyatold himthathewaspressurizedtopreparealistotherwisehewouldnotgetthe pecuniarybenefitsandhisfamilymemberswouldalsosuffer.VinodKumar Gupta (A56/DW2), a colleague of A56 also testified that in September2000hefoundR.S.Dahiyainadisturbedstateofmindandonce hefellfromhischairandhadtobetakentothehospital.Myattentionhas also been drawn to the testimony of PW17 Brij Mohana member of Faridabad Selection Committee who has testified that he retired from governmentserviceon31.08.2000andwhenhereachedathisresidence, HarbansLal(A16)alongwithsomemembersofthestaffreachedhishouse andtoldhimthathehadtosignasecondlistbecausetheyhavedirections fromtheDirectorandCommissionertothateffect.Theyalsotoldthatthey arecomingstraightwayfromHaryanaBhawan,Delhi.Hetoldthemthathe isretiredandwouldnotsigntowhichtheystatedthattheythemselveswere undergreatpressuretodoit. Somehowhewasabletosendthemback assuringthathewouldreachtotheofficenextday.However,onthenext
dayhedidnotgototheofficeandnumerouscallsweremadefromthe officetohisresidence. Atabout8p.m.,HarbansLalthreatenedhimon telephonethathe(PW17)thathehasnotyetreceivedasinglepennyafter retirementandthathisdaughterisalsoworkingateacheroncontractbasis whocanberelievedatanytimeandthathiswifewhoisateacherwouldbe transferred. PW17 testified that he became so pressurized and told HarbansLaltocometotheofficenextday. Onnextday,hevisitedthe officeandsignedthesecondawardlistbutonfirstfewpages,hewasable to write 'UP' under his signatures. He clarified that 'UP' meant 'Under Pressure'. IamconvincedwiththesubmissionsofSh.N.K.SharmaAdv.,Sh. S.C.Chawla,Adv.,Sh.R.K.Sharma,Adv.,Sh.AshokKumarAdv.,Sh.Amit KumarAdv., Sh. R.C. DalalAdv., Sh. Sumit Chaudhary, Adv., Sh. Arvind Chaudhary,Adv.,Sh.InderPalKhokhar,Adv.,Sh.HaritChabra,Adv.andall theLd.CounselsfortheaccusedpersonsotherthanA32,A37,A38,A39 A40 & A41 and I am convinced that the signatures of these accused personsweretakenontheawardlistsbyputtingpressure,threateningthem ofdeprivingthemfromtheirpensionarybenefits,transferringthemortheir wives,childrenandrelativestofaroffplacesetc. AshokKumarAdv.has arguedthatanoppressivepressurefromtheDirectorandpoliticalbosses
created such a fear in the minds of accused persons that they found themselves optionless and were compelled to sign the award lists. It is argued by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Adv. that the fact of fear exerted by the governmentofthedaycannotbebroughtinevidencebecausethereisno scientific method to measure the pervasiveness of such fear psychosis. However,Ld.CounselhastriedtoexplainthisbycitingapoembyChristina Rossetti. WhoHasSeentheWind?
By Christina Rossetti
Whohasseenthewind? NeitherInoryou: Butwhentheleaveshangtrembling. Thewindispassingthrough. Whohasseenthewind? NeitheryounorI: Butwhenthetreesbowdowntheirheads, Thewindispassingby. Source:TheGoldenBookofPoetry(1947) IfullyagreewiththesubmissionsofLd.Counselsonthisaspect.The overwhelmingevidenceonrecordshowsthattheseaccusedpersonswere putunderseverepressureandfoundthemselvesbetweendevilandthedeep sea. But at the same time, it must not be forgotten that these accused
personswerethetopeducationofficersintheirrespectivedistrictshavinga lotofexperiencewiththem.Theywerethepublicservantswhosedutyisto act without fearorfavour andtoupholdtheConstitutionofIndiaatall cost.TheallegiancetotheConstitutionofIndiamaycomeundertestfrom timetotime.Ifapublicservantfailsinthistest,hewillhavetosuffer. It has been argued by R.C. DalalAdv. for some ofthese accused personsthattheseaccusedpersonshadnointentiontocreateafakeaware list.Rather,eachofthemsignedtheseawardlistswiththeintentiontosave hisownjob,pensionarybenefits,pensionsandevenhisownlifealongwith thelifeofhisspouseandchildren. Myattentionhasbeendrawntothe definition of 'Intention' in a Law Dictionary and argues that intention is doinganactwithdesireforcertainconsequences.Itisarguedthatnoneof theseaccusedpersonshadanydesiretocreateafakelist.Thefollowing definitioninSalmondonJurisprudenceisreproducedasunder: Intentionisthepurposeordesignedwithwhichanactisdone.It istheforeknowledgeoftheactanddesirebeingthecauseoftheact,in asmuchastheyfulfillthemselvesthroughtheoperationofthewill.Anact isintentionalif,andinwasfaras,itexistsinfact,theidearealizingitselfin thefactbecauseofthedesirebywhichitisaccompanied. Iwouldliketopointoutthatcertainpsychologicalemotionsinman
likefear,greed,anger,enmityetc.arethecomponentsofmotive. These psychologicalcomponentsdonotformthepartof'intention'.Forexample, greedformoneymaycreateamotivewhichmayfurtherleadtocreationof intentionforcommissionofanoffence. Similarly,'fear'maygiverisetoa motivewhichleadstothecreationofintentioninthemindofanaccused. Infact,thepsychologicalelementofmotivesometimesmaybeverygood. e.g.Apersonmaycommitmurderofaterroristunderthebenignmotiveof savingthenation.Theworddesireusedinthisdefinitiondoesnotmean an intention free of fear. I have already stated that fear, anger, greed,enmityetc.arethepsychologicalcomponentsof'motive'andnot ofthe'intention'. Therefore,itcannotbesaidthattheseaccusedpersons unintentionallypreparedtheforgedlists. Iamreproducingtherelevantportionon'motive'from Chapter6 'MENS REA', asdiscussedinthebook 'CRIMINAL LAW (7th Edition)' by P .S. ATCHUTHENPILLAIasunder:
Motiveisnotintention. Motiveisanattitudeofmind. Motiveisthe emotion prompting the act, e.g., love, compassion, fear, jealousy, perverted,lust,hatred wish to frighten, political gesture, desire for money.Mrs.Hyamwantedto frightenherrival.TheI.R.A.plantingthe bomb apparently wish to make a political gesture. The father of the deformedchildmaywanttoputitoutofits misery.
Iwouldliketoreferthecommentary(page5&6)on'TheIndian
PenalCode'by'RatanLal&DhirajLal'(23rdenlargededition,reprint2012). Asperthiscommentary, criminalintention simplymeansthepurposeor designofdoinganactforbiddenbythecriminallawwithoutjustcause or excuse. I would say that this is the most appropriate definition of intention and I would say that going by this definition, all the accused persons from A6 to A62 would be held to have intentionally prepared/signedthefakeawardlists.Inthisbook,inrespectof'motive',it ismentionedthatanactwhichisunlawfulcannot,inlaw,beexcusedon the ground that it was committed from a good motive. Springs of humanactionandconductareunfathomableandwhatmotivatesthem isdifficulttopostulate. Therefore,motivesmaybegood,bad,ulteriororsuperiororeven maynotmatchwiththe'intention'ofanoffender. Here,IwouldsaythatSh.R.C.DalalAdv.isconfusingtheword 'motive'with'intention'.Inthiscase,theaccusedpersonsknewwhatthey were doing. They knew the consequences of the same, but, of course I wouldagreethattheirdesirefortheconsequencesarosefromamotiveto savetheirowncareerinterests. Inthesecircumstances,itcannotbesaid thattheseaccusedpersonsdonothaveanyintentiontocommitthesaid crime.
I have already stated that the accused persons were put under severe pressure. Now, this Court has to see as to whether this pressure wouldbecoveredu/s94oftheIPC?IreproduceSection94ofIndianPenal Codeasunder:
94.ActtowhichapersoniscompelledbythreatsExceptmurder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offencewhichis donebyapersonwhoiscompelledtodoitbythreats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence, providedthepersondoingtheactdidnotofhis own accord, or from a reasonableapprehensionofharmtohimselfshoreofinstantdeath, place himselfinthesituationbywhichhebecamesubjecttosuchconstraint.
The facts before this court donot showthat any ofthe accused personswasunderthereasonableapprehensionof'instantdeath'. IwouldliketodiscussherethetestimonyofJogenderLal(A62) whoexaminedhimselfasdefencewitness(A62/DW1). Hetestifiedthat RajenderPalRana(A59)wastheChairpersonofofDistrictLevelSelection CommitteeYamunaNagarandhewasitsmember. Theinterviewswere conductedinDecember2000.HetestifiedthatinthemonthofAugustor September2000 at about 8 p.m., several persons including Rajender Pal Singh(A59)andMehtabSingh(PW27),whowasAssistantintheofficeof DPEOYamunaNagarcametohishousealongwiththeawardlistswhich hadalreadybeensignedbyA59andMs.UrmilSharma(A61).A59asked
himtosignthesaidawardlists,but,herefusedstatingthathehadalready retired. He further testified that when he refused to sign, the persons accompanyingRajenderPalSinghandMehtabSinghstartedbeatinghim andthereaftertookhimtotheresidenceofA59. He testifiedthatthose personswenttotheextentoftwistinghishands.Fearingthreattohislife, hesignedtheaforesaidawardlists. Thistestimonywascontrovertedby A59incrossexamination.Sh.AshokKumar,Adv.forA59arguesthatA59 himself was under pressure to prepare the second award list and this pressurewasequallyuponA62,apartfromothermembers.However,itis arguedthatthetestimonyofA62regardingbeatinggivenbyA59isfalse. IagreewiththissubmissionofSh.AshokKumar,Adv.Imaypoint outthatthisisafailedattemptofA62tobringhiscasewithinthefour cornersofSection94IPC.ImaypointoutthatMehtabSinghtheAssistant in the office of DPEOYamuna Nagar had appeared before this court as PW27, but,A62didnotputhis storyto himin thecrossexamination. Accordingly,thispartofhistestimonythathewasbeatenupforthepurpose ofgettinghissignaturesisunworthyofcredence.Therefore,hiscasedoes notfallwithinfourcornersofSection94IPC,though,Iwouldsaythatthere aresufficientcircumstancestoshowthathewasputunderseverepressure tosigntheaforesaidlists.
Sh.AshokKumar,adv.hasreferredtoAfzalVsStateofHaryana, (1996)7SCC397andsubmitsthatSupremeCourtofIndiaacquittedone Ct.KrishanKumaronthegroundthathehadput/forgedthesignaturesof hisboss,onbeingpressurizedbyhim.IhaveperusedthiscaselawandI amoftheopinionthatTheSupremeCourtofIndiawasdealingwithacase whereonthedirectionoftheSP ,aconstablehadputhissignaturesonthe affidavittobefiledinSupremeCourtofIndia.Itwasspecificallyheldthat althoughthisconstablehadputsignaturesofhisboss,buthisintentionwas nottoforgehissignatures.Imaypointoutthatsituationwouldhavebeen different, had the said constable forged the signatures of his superior withouthisconsent. MoreovertheSupremeCourtofIndiawasdiscussing thequestionofcontemptandnotofforgeryinthisjudgment. Hencethis caselawisofnohelptotheseaccusedpersons. 99. PARITYWITHPW17? Ld.Counselsforaccusedpersonstakingthepleaofhavingsigned the Directorate lists under pressure have drawn my attention to the testimony of Brij Mohan (PW17) and have claimed parity with him. I would mention here that Brij Mohan was the member of District Level Selection CommitteeFaridabad and was cited as accused no. 19 in the presentchargesheet.However,hewasalsocitedasprosecutionwitnessno.
13inthelistofwitnessesfiledwiththechargesheet. Videmyorderon chargedated23.07.2011,Idealtwithhisargumentsanddischargedhim, while specifying that he must be treated as a prosecution witness. I reproducetherelevantpartoftheorderonchargeasunder:
55. First of all, I will take up the submissions of A-19 Brij Mohan. He was Block Education Officer, Palwal and was a member of the Selection Committee for District Faridabad. It is argued on behalf of this accused that the prosecution has cited him as a witness as well as accused. It is further argued that he was not a part of the criminal conspiracy and he has explained his circumstances clearly in his statement u/s 161 CrPC. It is argued that a great pressure was exercised upon him to sign the forged list (i.e. Directorate List) but he somehow managed to put the words U.P. under his signatures signifying Under Pressure. It is argued by the accused that he had retired on 31.08.2000 but on the very next date he was pressurized and forced to sign on the list. It is argued by him that neither he was a part of any conspiracy nor he put his signatures intentionally or voluntarily. I have perused the charge sheet as well as statements u/s 161 CrPC. As per the charge sheet, A-19 has been mentioned as a prosecution witness at serial no. '13'. I have perused his statement u/s 161 CrPC dt. 18.08.2004. In his statement, he identifies the Supreme Court List which bears his signatures on each paper and submits that range of interview marks given to candidates in this list is ranging between 7 to 19 out of 20. He further states u/s 161 CrPC that after seeing the other list (i.e. the Directorate List) of District Faridabad which is claimed to be forged list by the prosecution, this accused (also PW-13) identifies his signatures and he further states that range of interview marks given to the candidates in the Directorate List ranges between 3 to 5 (lower side) and 17 to 19.50 (higher side) out of 20 for General Category candidates. He further states that the range of interview marks of SC & OBC community is 2-3 (lower side) and 6-7 (higher side) out of 20. He further states that on the Directorate List, he had signed under the pressure and therefore he had written the word U.P. on few sheets under his signatures which means Under Pressure. 56. I have gone through the 'Supreme Court List' and the 'Directorate List'
of District Faridabad and I find that in the Directorate List the word U.P. have been written in very small letters which supports the submissions of A-19. I have put a question to Ld. Special Public Prosecutor as to what is the status of A-19. Whether the prosecution treats him as a witness or wants to prosecute him? Ld. Special Public Prosecutor submits that he leaves it for the court to decide as to whether this court treats him as a witness or as an accused. I find merit in the submissions of A-19. I am of the opinion that since CBI has charge sheeted him as an accused, it is to be seen as to whether prima facie a case against him is disclosed or not. It is true that signatures of A-19 find place on the Supreme Court List as well as on the Directorate List. Perusal of the Directorate List would show that upto 8 pages this accused has written word U.P. under his signatures justifying his statement that he had not signed the list voluntarily or intentionally. Putting of word U.P. i.e. Under Pressure is an indication that he was forced to sign the forged list. His testimony u/s 161 CrPC as PW-13 throws light as to how it is to be decided as to which list is the forged one. He has pointed out the forged list by the manner of the range of interview marks given as well as from the word U.P. written by him under his signatures. By signifying that he was signing under pressure, he clearly disassociated himself from the conspiracy. He has left his imprint of protest against all the doings of other accused persons while putting his signatures and thereby stood apart. These circumstances clearly show that A-19 was not part of the conspiracy and had not signed willingly rather he signed under protest. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prima facie case against A-19 is not disclosed. Hence, I discharge him. His bail bond and surety bond are cancelled. However, would remain an important witness on behalf of the prosecution and throw light on the entire transaction.
AccusedPushkarMalVermahadpreferredapetition(CRL.M.C.No. 2691/2011)inHighCourtofDelhiinwhichhehadclaimedparitywithBrij Mohan and prayed to be discharged. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Mehta dismissedhispetitionvideorderdt.01.06.2012observingthatthecaseof BrijMohanwasentirelydistinguishableinthathewascitedasawitnessby
theprosecutionaswellastheaccused.Infact,atthestageofcharge,itwas difficulttotakeadecisionaboutthestatusofBrijMohanandthereforethe prosecutionleftittothediscretionofthecourtastowhetherheshouldbe treated as a prosecution witness or as an accused. Faced with such situation,thisCourttookaviewfavourabletothataccusedespeciallyin view of the fact that not only that he put his dissent to the entire transactionbywriting'UP'andtherebystoodawayfromtheconspiracy,but also, he could have furnished authentic evidence as to which was the genuine list and which was the fake list. Therefore, the rest of the Chairpersonsandthememberscannotclaimanyparitywithhim,despite the fact that they have been able to convince this court that they had prepared/signed the forged award lists under pressure from the bureaucraticandpoliticalbosses. ItisrelevanttomentionherethatBrij MohanwaslateronexaminedasPW17bytheprosecution. Sh.SumitChaudhary,Adv.,Sh.AmitKumar,Adv.,Sh.R.L.Prasad Adv.,Sh.AshokKumarAdv.haverepeatedlydrawnmyattentiontothe statementofPW17whotestfiedinhiscrossexaminationdt.08.09.2011, at the time of signing the fake lists, it clicked to his mind that he should write 'UP' under his signatures so as to show that I was not willingtosign.Itiscorrectthatthequalityofpresenceofmindvaries
frompersontoperson. ItisarguedbyLd.Counselsthattheremaining Chairpersonsandthememberswerenotsoquickastodosomethinglike this to express their dissent. I would like to disagree here. PW17 has testified that pressure was built upon him about two days prior to his signingofthelists.Thistimewasenoughforhimtodevisesomemethodto expresshisdissent.Infact,histestimonyshowsthattheChairpersonwas interactingwithhimontelephonefrequentlypressurizinghim toputhis signatures.TheChairpersonsandtheMembersverywellknewastowhat wasbeingdone.Iamnotinclinedtobelievethattheywerenotinteracting inthisregardwitheachother.Therefore,theyhadanopportunitytorefuse toacceptthedirectionsfromthesuperiors.Evenasmallgestureofprotest wouldhavesavedthem.Imayheregiveanexamplefromthefactsofthis caseitself.HadPremPrashant(PW16)notstated,inthemeetingsheldin Haryana Niwas and at the residence of A1, that it was not possible to changetheawardlists,hewouldhavefoundhimselftobeinthearrayof theaccusedpersonsinthepresenttrial.Thisexamplehasbeengivenbyme becausealargenumberofaccusedpersons,duringhisevidenceaswellas duringthetrial,hadlevelledallegationsthathewasalsoanaccompliceto the offence. One sentence of protest by him has saved him from prosecution. Similarly, two letters of protest (i.e. UP) have saved Brij
Mohan from the trial and have placed him in the list of prosecution witnesses. 100. HowtheoriginallistslyinginAlmirahwerereplaced Whenitstandsprovedthatfakelists(Directorate)werepreparedby providingthephotocopiesoftheoriginallists(i.e.theSupremeCourtlists) tosomechairpersons/DPEOs,thequestionwouldariseastohowtheaward lists,whichwerelyinginasealedAlmirahintheofficeofDirectorPrimary Educationandweretakenoutandreplacedwiththenewlypreparedfake listsi.e.Directoratelists. Thedirectevidenceisnotforthcoming,though SanjivKumar(A3/DW9)hasstated(incrossexaminationdt.17.07.2012 byLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor)thatOmPrakashChautalathethenChief Ministergaveasuggestiontocutopenthealmirahfromthebacksideand then rear portion be rewelded and put against the wall. Therefore, prosecution is relying upon the circumstantial evidence. First of the circumstancesisthattheSupremeCourtlists(i.e.theoriginallists)were out in the month of August 2000. The prosecution hasrelied upon the testimony of Sardar Singh (PW31), Mohan Lal Gupta (A56) and Balram Yadav(PW58). PW31SardarSinghwastheSuperintendentintheofficeofDirector
PrimaryEducationHaryanaduringtherelevanttime. Hetestifiedthatin the month of May or June 2000, Rajni Shekri Sibal got the almirah containingthe awardlistssealedbywrappingin4metersofclothesafter lockingit. Sealingwasdonewiththesealwaxaffixingtheimpressionof onerupeecoinonit.Thereafter,sheputthekeysinanenvelopeandaffix thesealonthatenvelopeaswell.Shewastransferredon11.7.2000andthe chargeofDirectorPrimaryEducationwastakenoverbySanjivKumar(A3). HetestifiedthatonsecondandthirdweekofAugust2000,SanjivKumar (A3)calledhimandMohanLal(PW56)anddirectedhimtotaketwobags to Prerna Guest Huose, Panchkula to find out as to how many SC/BC candidateshavebeenselectedagainstgeneralcategory.Thereforehealong withMohalLalGuptawenttoPrernaGuestHouse,Panchkulaforchecking the award lists, which were lying in those two bags. Balram Yadav (Assistant) was called from the office to assist him (i.e. Sardar Singh). HowevertheycouldnotmakeoutastohowmanySC/BCcandidateswould come in the State Level Merit list. When informed about the difficulty, SanjivKumar(A3)calledSardarsinghforthwithandalsoinquiredasto whyhelpofBalramYadavwastaken.SanjivKumarwasnotsatisfiedwith hisexplanationandgotannoyed.He(ie.PW31SardarSingh)toldhimthe difficultyincompletingthejob,SanjivKumar(A3)angrilystatedthat3or4
dayshavebeenwastedandaskedhisPAMohanLaltobringthelistsfrom PrernaGuestHouse.PW31furthertestifiedthatatthedirectionsofSanjiv Kumar(A3),heandMohanLalGuptareachedHaryanaBhawan,Newdelhi on 1.9.2000, where all the DPEOsand their staffswere alreadypresent. SanjivKumaralsocameandgaveaspeechtoDPEOsstatingthatinthelists prepared by them, several SC/BC candidates are figuring against the generalvacanciesanddirectedtheDPEOsonlytocometohisroomonthe second floor of Haryana Bhawan, New delhi. After the meeting, Sanjiv Kumar(A3)directedthatifanyDPEOdoesnothavethecopyoftheaward listswithhim,thenthecopyofthelistsavailablewithhim(i.e.withthe Director)maybegiventosuchDPEOs.ThereafterPAgavethelistofdistrict JindtoRaviandAjitSinghSangwan,whoreturntheoriginalaftermaking thephotocopy. Hefurthertestifiedthaton16.9.2000theDirectorcalled thesixmembersofthecommitteeforthepurposeofcompilationofresultin his room where sealed almirah was lying. The event was being videographed. SanjivKumar(A3)askedthecommitteemembertocheck thesealonthealmirahandonbeingaskedtoldthatthesealwereintact,he gavethekeystohimforopeningthealmirah. Thereafter18listsof18 districts were taken out and handed over to Mukesh Bajaj (PW55) of HARTRON. ThelistsofinterviewofcandidateshavingB.Ed.qualification
wasinalmirahofPAtoSanjivKumar. Thislistwasalsohandedoverto MukeshBajaj(PW55)ofHARTRONandamemo Ex.PW31/A wasdrawn describingtheeventofopeningofalmirah,whichwassignedbythesix ResultCompilationCommitteeMembers. MohanLalGupta(A56)wasthePAtoDirectorPrimaryEducation. HetestifiesthatRajniShekriSibal(PW23)hadsealedthealmirahinwhich theoriginalawardlistswerekept.Thissealedalmirahwassmallsizedkept ina cornerbehindthewoodenscreenanditwasnotvisibletoeverybody, whoenteredtheroom.Hetestifiedthatin3rdand4thweekofAugust2000, atthedirectionsofSanjivKumar(A3),thethenDirectorPrimaryEducation, he called Sardar Singh, Superintendent, and both of them went in the chamberofSanjivKumar(A3),wheretheyfoundthatSanjivKumarwas seeingtheawardlistsbeforehim.He(i.e.A3)toldSardarSinghthatsome SC/BCcandidateswereoverlappingthegeneralcandidatesanddirected himtotakeawardlistsinthePrernaGuestHousesituatedatPanchkulafor thepurposeofcheckingastowhethertheSC/BCcandidatesareoccupying thespaceofgeneralcategory.Theseawardlistswereintwoleatherbags. InavehicleofDPEPdepartmentarrangedbytheDirector,he(i.e.PW56) accompanied Sardar Singh and reached Prerna Guest House, Panchkula. Sardarsinghwasunabletounderstandandwhatwastobedoneandhe
showedoneawardlist.PW56testifiedthathecouldnotunderstandasto howthejobgivenbyDirectorcouldbeimplemented.Immediatelyhecame toofficeandreportedthemattertoDirector.SardarSinghremainedfora few days in Prerna Guest House and had also called Balram Yadav for assistance. HetestifiedthatSanjivKumar(A3)toldthatprogressisvery slowandtheresultistobedeclaredatearliestanddirectedhimtoarrange atalkwithSardarSinghimmediately.He(PW56)connectedthetelephone of SanjivKumar to Sardar Singh. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) threatened Sardar Singh for the slow progress and asked him to come immediately. After sometimeSardarSinghcameandhe(PW56)alsoaccompaniedhiminthe chamberofSanjivKumar(A3).HoweverSanjivKumar(A3)askedhim(i.e. PW56)tostayout,whenSardarSinghcameout,hetoldthattheDirector wasangryandtheawardlistswerebroughtbackfromPrernaGuestHouse onthesamedayanddeliveredthesametotheDirector.Hetoldthatthe award lists, which had been seen in Prerna Guest House, were complete and all columns were filled in. He testified that at the directionsofSanjivKumar,healongwithSardarSinghreachedHaryana Bhawan,NewDelhiandfoundsomeDPEOspresentthere. SanjivKumar cameintheconferencehallofHaryanaBhawanandaddressedtoDPEO thatSC/BCcandidatesareoverlappingthegeneralvacancies.Healsotold
themthatifanybodydoesnothavethecopyofawardlists,hecanhaveit fromSardarSinghfromthebagalreadylyinginconferencehall. Healso instructedtoDPEOtocomeupstairsintheroomforthepurposeofgiving importantinstructionsinthisregard. SomeoftheDPEOsgotthexerox copypreparedfromthemarketandreturnedtheoriginaltoSuperintendent SardarSingh.Similarlyafterfewdays,he(i.e.PW56)wasdirectedtoreach GuestHouseofWaterSupply&Sanitation,DepartmentofPunjab,1257, Sector10, Chandigarh in a DPEP vehicle. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) had also reached there. Some DPEOs, who did not turn up at the meeting in HaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi,alsoreachedthere.ThesaidDPEOswerealso toldthatincasetheywerenothavinganyawardlist,theycouldtakeitfrom himbuteverybodywashavingthecopyofawardlists. Hetestifiedthat they were called by Sanjiv Kumar in a room in which some other personswerealsopresentandthesaidDPEOswerealsobriefed. He alsotestifiedthattheremainingDPEOs,whohadnotattendedtheaforesaid meeting,weredirectedtocollectthesamefromDPEoffice.On16.9.2000, theproceedingsofopeningthesealedalmirah,inwhichtheawardlistsof JBTteacherswerekept,werecarriedoutanddulysignedbythesemembers ofresultcompilationcommittee. ThirdwitnessrelieduponbytheprosecutionisPW58BalramYadav.
He was posted as Assistant in the office of Director Primary Education Haryanaattherelevanttime.Hetestifiedaboutthevacancystatusofeach districtinhisevidence. Healsoprovedthenote Ex.PW30/E statingthe selectionformula, whichwasapprovedbytheChiefMinister. Hetestified thatinAugust2000, SardarSingh,Superintendent,calledhimtoPrerna Guest House and where the exercise was to be made as to how many candidates of reserved categories were competing with the general categories.AccordinglyhewenttoPrernaGuestHouseandsawtheaward listsinthebagsandfoundthatSardarsinghwas doingthesaidexercise. Hetestifiedthattheseawardlistswerecompleteawardlistscontainingthe interview marks as well as grand total. The said award lists were also containing the signatures of chairpersons and members of District level SelectionCommittees.Althoughhedidnotseealltheawardlistsbut2or3 awardlistswereopenbeforeSardarSinghandtheytriedtocomparethe minimum marks obtained by general category candidates with the maximummarksobtainedbySC/BCcandidates.Buttheycouldnotreach toanyconclusion.Thisworkwascarriedoutfortwodays.Onthesecond day,SardarSinghreceivedatelephoniccall.ThereafterSardarSinghtold himthatthisworkhadbeendiscontinued. Byexaminingthesethreewitnesses,prosecutionwantstoshowthat
originalawardlistswerealreadyoutbefore16.9.2000whenthedramaof desealingthealmihrawasconductedbySanjivKumar(A3).Ontheother hand,SanjivKumar(A3)hasvehementlyassailedthetestimonyofallthe threewitnesses. ItisarguedthatSardarSingh,M.L.GuptaandBalram YadavaretestifyingfalselyatthebehestoftheCBI.Itisarguedthatthereis norecordofvehiclestoshowthatanyvehicleofDPEPhadtakenthemto PrernaGuestHouseandbroughbackthemfromthere.Thereisnorecord oftheirstayinthesaidguesthouse. Itisarguedthatinfactthereisno evidenceorlogbooktoshowthatanyGovernmentvehicleorvehicleof DPEP had taken them to SCERT Gurgaon and thereafter to Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi. Sanjiv Kumar (A3) has expiressed surprise that whereasM.L.GuptaandSardarSingh, thesubordinatestothedirector, wouldnotpickupthedakbags,theDirector,theSeniorIASofficerwould himselfcarrythesedakbagstoHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi.Similarlymy attentionhasbeendrawntothetestimonyofM.L.Gupta,whereinhehas testifiedthatthemeetingattheWaterSupplyGuestHousewithDPEOshad takenplaceafterthemeetingwithDPEOsatHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi. It is argued that some DPEOs pertaining to the district near Chandigarh were first called to Punjab Guest House (i.e. Water Supply & Sanitation GuestHousebelongingtoPunjabgovernment)togetherandthereafterthe
DPEOsofthedistrictsclosetoDelhiwerecalledatHaryanaBhawan,New Delhi. SanjivKumar(A3)hasdrawnmyattentiontothegatepassesof HARTRON,whichshowsthatascendinganddescendinglistsoftheaward listsweresentbyHARTRONtotheofficeofDirectorPrimaryEducationfor the purpose of checking the particulars on 25.8.2000. It is argued that SardarSinghandM.L.Guptaweregiventhejobtochecktheparticularsof the candidates, their academic qualifications etc. (minus the interview marksandgrandtotal)mentionedinthislistfromtheirapplicationforms. As per the gate pass Ex.PW55/DA (in file D59), it is clear that on 25.8.2000SardarSingh(Superintendent,DPE)hadtakenthedistrictwise descendinglistsofJBTandBalramYadav(AssistantintheofficeofDPE) hadtakentheascendinglistofJBTteachersvidegatepassEx.PW55/DB.It isarguedthatSardarSinghwasassignedthejobofcheckingtheHARTRON listsasmentionedinthegatepassEx.PW55/DAtakenoutbyHARTRONby SardarSinghon25.8.2000.SanjivKumar(A3)hasexaminedonewitness indefencenamelyRamjiTewari(A3/DW3)inhissupport.Hetestifiedthat intheyear2000,hewasworkinginHaryanaPrathamicShikshaParishadas assistant editor and was incharge of conducting workshops involving practisingteachersforthepurposeforcreatingthetextbook.Hetestified thatitwasacontinuousprocesswhereagroupof20or25teacherswould
be followed by another group and that these workshops were being conductedinPrernaGuestHouse,Panchkula.InAugust2000,twoofficials fromtheDirectorateofPrimaryEducationnamelyM.L.GuptaandSardar Singhhadcomewithonebag.Theydemandedaroombutsincetherooms werenotavailable,spaceinonecornerofthehallwasgiventothem.He testifiedthatM.L.Guptastayedbarelytherefor510minutes. Healso testifiedthatat5/6:00pm,SardarSinghleftforhishouseandleftthebag thereinPrernaGuestHousesayingthatthesewerenotveryconfidential documentsandthathewouldcomeagainonnextday. Onnextday,he cameagainatabout10/11:00amandtookawaythesaidbagfromPrerna GuestHouse. HetestifiedthatSardarSinghwascomparingthelistsfrom HARTRON with the forms. In cross examination by Sh. I. D. Vaid, Ld. SpecialPublicProsecutor,astohowhecametoknowthathewaschecking the HARTRON lists with the application forms, he testified that out of curiosityheaskedM.L.GuptaandSardarSinghaboutthoselistsandthey answeredthatthesewereHARTRONlistsbroughtforthepurposeofproof reading. InviewoftheexaminationoftheaforesaidwitnessbySanjivKumar (A3), I would say that the fact that M. L. Gupta and Sardar Singh had visitedPrerna Guest House in the month ofAugust 2000 standsproved,
thereforeifCBIhadnotcollectedanyrecordoftheirstayornotcollected therecordsofvehicleswhichcarriedthemtoPrernaGuestHouse,thesame wouldnotdenttheprosecutioncase. NowcourthastoseeastowhethertheM.L.GuptaandSardar SinghwerecheckingtheHARTRONlistswiththeapplicationsformsofthe candidateswithaviewtoverifytheirparticulars.Iwouldrefertothegate pases Ex.PW55/DA and Ex.PW55/DB. Both the gate pases are dated 25.8.2000. Ex.PW55/DA isthegatepass,whichpermitsSardarSinghto take the district wise descending list of 8192 JBT candidates from HARTRON to the DPE office. The gate pass Ex.PW55/DB authorizes Balram (the assistant)totake the ascendinglist of 8192 JBT candidates fromHARTRONtoDPEoffice.BoththesegatepassesareplacedinD59. Mukesh Bajaj (PW55) the then Assistant General Manager HARTRON testified that the job of compilation of JBT teachers in Haryana was entrustedtoHARTRONbyDirectorPrimaryEducation. Hetestifiedthat entire work of result compilation committee of JBT teachers was done underhissupervisionalongwithothercommitteemembersappointedby Director Primary Education. He testified that the applications forms of candidates,whohadappliedforthepostofJBTteachersinHaryanawere receivedbyHARTRONfromdepartmentsometimeinJuly2000. Onthe
basisofinformationi.e.namesofcandidates,parentageetc.giveninthe application forms, a data was fed in the computer pertaining to all the applicationforms.Then4or5daysfromthereceiptofapplicationforms, thisworkwascompleted.On15.9.2000,hewasdirectedbyhissuperiorto gototheofficeofDirectorPrimaryEducationHaryanaforcollectingthe awardlistsonthebasisofwhichtheresultwastobeappliedwith. He testified that on 16.9.2000, the almirah was desealed and envelops containingthe award lists were taken out and a memo Ex.PW31/A was preparedon16.9.2000,whichwassignedbyhimalongothermembersof the result compilation committee. He proved his signatures on all the awardlist(whicharetheDirectoratelists).Hetestifiedthaton30.9.2000 theworkofresultcompilationcommitteewascompleteandthedepartment was intimated. He testified that compiled result along with original documents were sent to Director Primary Education on 3.10.2000 through a gate pass Ex.PW31/DP. This testimony shows that the applicationsofthecandidatesweresenttoHARTRONforcompilationofthe particularsofthecandidatesinJuly2000.Theawardlistswerereceivedby Mukesh Bajaj on 16.9.2000 and thereafter all the records were sent by HARTRONtoDirectorPrimaryEducationon3.10.2000. Thegatepasses Ex.PW31/DP(placedinfileD59)mentionsthatS.S.Tanwar(i.e.Sardar
Singh)wasauthorizedtotaketheoriginalinterviewJBTrecordsandresult of sheets afterpreparation offinal result,toDirectorPrimaryEducation. Theothergatepassesi.e.Ex.PW55/DAandEx.PW55/DBmentionedabout the taking of the ascending and descending lists by Sardar Singh and Balramrespectivelybutdonotmentionthattheyarealsotakingtherecords i.e.applicationformsofthecandidatesfromHARTROntoDPE. Incross examinationPW55hasstatedthatapplicationformsofallthedistrictswere senttoHARTRONon31.7.2000.Itisfurtherstatedincrossexamination bythiswitnessthattwopersonsfromDPEofficecametoHARTRONfor the purpose of proof reading as well as taking away of all the application forms of JBT candidates sent from the district. This testimonyisnotinrespectofgatepases Ex.PW55/DA and Ex.PW55/DB because these refer to only the descending and ascending lists of JBT candidates.GatepassExt.PW55/DAmentionsDistrictwisedescendinglist ofJBTT.records8192.GatepassExt.PW55/DBmentionsAscendinglist ofJBTT.records8192.A3arguesthatitmeansthattotalrecordof8192 applicationsweretakenbySardarSinghandBalramYadavalongwiththe ascending and descending lists. I disagree with this submission. If this explanationofA3aboutthecontentsofgatepassesisaccepted,itwould mean that whereas Sardar Singh was taking 8192 application forms
alongwith descending list, Balram Yadav was also be taking 8192 application forms alongwith ascending lists. In such case, these applicationswouldbedoubletheactualnumber.Therefore,theonlylogical interpretationwouldbethatthesegatepassesonlyauthorizetheascending or descending lists of 8192 candidates. I may point out that in cross examination of PW55, Sanjiv Kumar nowhere suggests that even the applicationformsweresentoutofHARTRONforanypurposeduringthe periodJuly,2000till03.10.2000.Therefore,itstandsprovedthatitwasthe gatepassExt.PW31/DPdated3.10.2000throughwhichS.S.Tanwarhad taken away all the original records after preparation of the final result. Consequently,thestandsofA3thatSardarSinghandBalramYadavhad broughtouttheapplicationformsfromHARTRONon25.08.2000isproved tobefalse. Further,theproformaoftheawardlistswouldbedifferentfromthe proforma of the HARTRON lists. All the HARTRON lists would be computerized. Whereas in the award lists, prepared by District Level SelectionCommittee(exceptPanchkulalistswhicharecomputerized),the interviewmarksandgrandtotalhavebeenfilledinhandwriting.Further sincetheresulthadyetnotbeenpreparedon25.8.2000(becausetheaward lists were received by HARTRON on 16.9.2000 from the office of DPE),
thereforetheHARTRONlistswouldnotcontainanyinterviewmarksand grand total. Moreover, the award lists would be duly signed by Chairpersons and members of interview committees but HARTRON list wouldnothavesuchsignatures. Hence,HARTRONlistswouldbeclearly distinguishablefromtheactualawardlists. Inthisregard,IrefertothetestimonyofPW56MohanLalGupta. He had testified that the interviews for the posts of JBT teachers were conducted by various District Level Selection Committees during December1999whenR.P ChanderwasDirector. Theselistswerekeptin . thealmirahwhichwassituatedintheroomofDirectorPrimaryEducation. RajniShekriSibalsucceededR.P .Chanderandsealedthealmirahcontaining theawardlists. Hetestifiedthatin3rd or4th weekofAugust2000Sanjiv KumarcalledhiminhisofficeandhefoundthatSanjivKumarwasseeing the award lists which were before him and he stated that some SCBC candidateswereoverlappingthegeneralcandidates.Healsostatedthatat hisinstructionsheandSardarSinghwenttoPrernaGuestHouseandboth ofthemhadanopportunitytoseetheawardlists. Incrossexamination, SanjivKumarspecificallyaskedastohowheknewthatthelistsplacedon thetablebeforeSanjivKumarweretheDistrictSelectionListsandnotany other official document? PW56 Mohan Lal GuptaP to Sanjiv Kumar .A.
testifiedthathadstatedsobecausehewasawareoftheproformaofthe award lists and on this basis he could say that Sanjiv Kumar was perusingtheDistrictSelectionLists,thecolumnofwhichwerefilled. Healsoexplained(incrossexaminationdt.16.12.2011byA3)thatthis typeofproformawascommontoalltheselectionsoftheteachersi.e.of higher education, secondary education etc. and therefore he was aware aboutthis proforma. ImaypointoutthatitisnotthecaseofA3atthat time in the office of District Primary Education, the award lists of some otherpostswerealsolying.SardarSinghandMohanLalGupta,bothhave categoricallytestifiedthattheirjobwastocheckastohowmanyBC/SC candidateswereeatingthespaceofgeneralcandidates.Thisjobcouldhave beendoneifthegrandtotalmarksofcandidatesofallthecategorieswere availableonthoselists.ItisadmittedcaseofaccusedSanjivKumarthatthe HARTRON lists taken out from HARTRON on 25.08.2000 were not containing the interview marks and the grand total marks. It was not possible also because the award lists were received in HARTRON on 16.09.2000.Therefore,onthebasisofHARTRONlists,itwasnotpossible fortheseofficialsorforanyotherpersontogiveatleastaroughideaasto howmanypersonsofreservedcategorieswerelikelytoencroachthespace of general candidates. Therefore, the plea of Sanjiv Kumar that these
personswerecheckingtheHARTRONlistsstandsfalsified.Iwouldreferto theletterno.HARTRONAGM3475dt.09.08.2000Ext.PW31/D3inwhich the concerned officer of HARTRON has informed the Director Primary Educationthatthedataentryofalltheformswascompletedby04.09.2000 andproofreadingoftheformshastobecompletedwithintwodaysbythe staffoftheEducationDepartmentbuttilldatethishasnotbeencompleted. Therefore,itisclearthatproofreadingoftheresultswastobedonein HARTRONitselfbytheofficialsofDirectorPrimaryEducationandnotby takingtherecordsoutsideHARTRON. Imayaddherethatinfact,Sanjiv KumarhasputafollowingquestiontoPW56MohanLalGupta: Q AreyouawarethatitwasSardarSinghandBalramYadavwhohad takenoutthecomputerizedlistsfromHARTRONon25.08.2000forpurposeof proofreading? A Iamnotaware. In this question also, A3 did not suggest that Sardar Singh and BalramYadavhadalsobroughttheapplicationformsofthecandidatesfrom HARTRONalongwiththelists.Consequently,Idonotfindanysubstancein thepleaofA3thaton25.08.2000,SardarSinghandBalramYadavhad takentheapplicationsofthecandidatesfromHARTRONandthatinPrerna GuestHouse,theywerecheckingthecorrectnessoftheparticularsofthe
HARTRON list by comparing the same with the application forms of the candidates. EvenfromtheevidenceofRamjiTiwariA3/DW2,itisclearthat hehimselfhadnotseenthelistsbroughtbySardarSinghandMohanLal Gupta. Therefore, from his testimony the nature of the lists cannot be knownwhereasSardarSingh,BalramYadavandM.L.Guptahadseenthose lists. Theywereawareoftheproformaoftheawardlistssincetheywere involvedintheprocessoftheseselectionsalmostfromtheverybeginning. The next question would arise that if they had all seen that the awardlistshavebeentakenoutinthemonthofAugust2000andwerealso availablewithSanjivKumarinWaterSupplyGuestHouse,Chandigarhin the last week of August2000 and in Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi on 01.09.2000,then,whytheydidnotobjectorpointedoutthisfactwhenthe proceedings dt. 16.09.2000 were conducted in respect of desealing the almirah. I may point out that as per the proceedings dt. 16.09.2000 (Ext.PW16/A),SardarSinghisnotshownasamemberofthesixmember committee. However, his signatures are present on it alongwith the signaturesofmembersofthesixmembercommittee. In cross examination by Ashok Kumar, Adv. (dated 13.10.2011), PW31SardarSinghadmittedthatthedesealingofalmirahon16.09.2000
wasonlyaneyewashbecauseawardlistsof18districtshadbeenhanded overtohimbyDirectorinAugust2000. In cross examination by Amit Kumar, Adv. (dated 02.11.2011), PW31testifiedthathedidnotaskthethenDirectorastowhatwasthe purposeofdesealingthealmirahwhentheawardlistswerealreadyout becausehehadnoauthoritytoasksuchquestiontotheDirectorbecausehe is only a Superintendent. He also stated that he could not dare ask regardingthesaidproceedingsfromthethenDirectorashewasanordinary employee of low level. I am of the opinion that this testimony is true becauseasubordinatestaffwillnormallynotmeddlewithworkbeingdone byhisboss.Further,thereisnoevidencethatSardarSinghknewthatthe awardlistshadalreadybeenchangedinthealmirah. Thisfactshouldbe seeninthelightofthefactthathehasstatedthathefoundthealmirahto be in sealed condition on 16.09.2000. Therefore, his signing the proceedingsdt.16.09.2000appearstobeaninnocentact. Nowitistobeseenastoinwhatmannerthealmirahwassealed. PW23 Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal, Sardar Singh and M. L. Gupta have all testifiedthashehadsealedthealmirahbywrappingafourmeterscloth arounditandbyputtingasealimpressionofonerupeecoinonthelockof the almirah. The key was also sealed in similar fashion in an envelope.
PW31SardarSinghaswellasPW56M.L.Guptahadtestifiedthatalmirah was hidden behind a wooden screen in the room of Director Primary Education.Theproceedingsdated16.9.2000donotstatethatthealmirah wassealedwiththesealofonerupeecoin.Thistypeofsealcanbebroken openandbeeasilyresealed. Thealmirahwasinexclusivepossessionof SanjivKumar(A3)andsincehehadhandedovertheawardlistsinAugust 2000 to Sardar Singh and M. L. Gupta and thereafter had delivered the copies of the award lists of desirous chairperson of the District Level SelectionCommittees,itstandsprovedthattheoriginalawardlistswere alreadyoutbefore16.9.2000. Insuchcircumstances,theburdenisupon SanjivKumar(A3)showastowhyandinwhatcircumstancesthelistswere out. ThoughitistruethattheinvestigationissilentonthisaspectbutI have already stated that breaking of seals of the almirah and thereafter replacingnewsetofawardlistsinitwasnotadifficultjob.Iagreewiththe evidenceofSardarSinghthatthesewerethefakeproceedings. Infactit wasalsonotdifficulttodesealthealmirahandtakeouttheoriginallists andthereafterresealingitwithonerupeecoinimpression. Here,Iwould liketodiscussapointraisedbyDurgaDuttPradhan(A38).Itisarguedby him as to why Rajni Shekri Sibal sealed almirah with one rupee coin impression.Itwasarguedbyhimthatitwassoeasytobreakopenthisseal
andthereafterresealwithonerupeecoin'simpressionbecauseonerupee coinisavailableeverywhere.Thereisapointinthissubmission.However, PW23hasexplaineditinherexaminationinchief. Shetestifiesthatshe did it in this manner because she had earlier worked in Income Tax Department,wheresealingofimportantdocumentsisanormalprocess.It appearsthatatthattimeshewasapprehensive,lestsomeotherpersonmay notchangetheawardlistsduringhertenure. Further,sheneverthought thatanyIASofficer,whowouldbehersuccessor,wouldhimselfbecomethe partandparceloftheconspiracyforchangingtheawardlists. Sofarasthequestionofthesequenceofmeetingsatguesthouse Chandigarh and Haryan Bhawan, New Delhi, as testified by PW56 is concerned,Iwouldsaythataftersuchalapseoflongtime,suchconfusion mayarisebutitdoesnotmeanthatthewitnessisunworthyofcredence. Minor variations in the testimonies of Sardar Singh, Balram Yadav and MohanLalGuptahavetobeignoredbecausethepowerofremembering thingsdifferfrompersontoperson. Inthesecircumstancesfollowingfactsstandprovedbeyonddoubt: 1. AlmirahwasdulysealedbySmt.RajniShekriSibal,thethenDirector PrimaryEducation. 2. Thenalmirahwasplacedbehindawoodenscreeninthechamberof
successorDirectornamelySanjivKumr(A3)andwasconcealedfrom theviewofofficialsandvisitorsenteringhisroom. 3. SanjivKumar(A3)wasabletotakeouttheoriginalawardlistsfrom thealmirahinthemonthofAugust2000. 4. InthelastweekofAugustandon1.9.2000,theseoriginalaward lists were available with A3 when he met concerned DPEOs of different districts in Water Supply & Sanitation Department's Guest House,ChandirgarhandHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi. 101. Whether theLists areValuable Security, as definedu/s30of Valuable Security is defined as u/s 30 of the IPC which is reproducedasunder:
'Valuable security' The words valuable security denote a document whichis, orpurportstobe,adocumentwherebyanylegalrightiscreated,extended, transferred,restricted,extinguishedorreleased,orwherebyanyperson acknowledgesthatheliesunderlegalliability,orhasnotacertainlegal right.
IndianPenalCode.
AperusalofthisSectionwouldshowthatthedeterminingfactoras towhetheradocumentisavaluablesecurityornotisastowhethersuch document creates or extinguishes a legal right. In the present case, the SupremeCourtawardlistsaregenuineawardlistsandeachcandidatehas beengivencertainpercentageofmarksunderthe'grandtotal.'Thesemarks
havecreatedarightofacandidatetostandataparticularpositioninthe merit list. The fake list i.e. the Directorate List was prepared later on changing the interview marks of almost all the candidates and thereby changing the marks in their 'grand total.' thereby, the merit list (Ext.PW55/DW)whichwaspreparedonthebasisofthoseDirectorateLists, hadtheeffectofchangingthemeritwisepositionofeachcandidate. In earlierpartofmyjudgment,Ihaveshownthattherewerecandidateswho must have been selected, had the Supreme Court lists be implemented. However, due to reduction of their marks in the Directorate Lists, they failed.Consequently,thecandidateswhowouldhavefailedintheSupreme Court lists must have been shown successful because of getting higher interviewmarksintheDirectorateLists. Inthesecircumstances,thelegal rightofhavingbeenshownasasuccessfulcandidatehasbeenextinguished inrespectofmanycandidatesandthecandidateswhowouldhavefailedin SupremeCourtListshavemadeitinthelistofsuccessfulcandidatesinthe Directorate lists. In this manner, many successful candidates have got a legalrighttogetanappointmentwhentheappointmentsweregiven. On theotherhand,thecandidateswhowouldhavebeensuccessful,hadthe Supreme Court lists be implemented, were deprived of their rights, had theirrightsextinguishedforever.Therefore,Ihavenohesitationinholding
that not only the Supreme Court Lists are valuable security, but, the Directorate Lists (evenif the same are illegalbeingforged) are valuable security. Here,Iwouldliketorefertosomecaselaws. In RakeshKumar Chhabrav.State ofH.P 2012CRI.L.J.354, ., HimachalPradeshHighCourtwasdealingwithacasewherememberofa SelectionBoardawardedtheappellant'7'marksininterviewand'51'marks inwrittentestandtherebyhistotalscorewasindicatedtobe'58'.Onthe basisoftheoptionsexercisedbythecandidates,thedistrictswereallotedto thesuccessfulcandidatesandontheseparatelistoftheinterviewboard preparedforBilaspurDistrict,hisinterviewmarkswereshowntobe'13' and total marks written as '64' and thus he was included in the list of selectedcandidates. The legalquestiontobedecidedwasastowhether suchasecondlistiscoveredu/s467IPC,whichdealswiththeforgeryofa valuablesecurity? ItwasdecidedbytheHimachalPradeshHighCourtas under:
16.Now, if the defence plea is not probabilized and hence it is not acceptable, thereshouldbenodifficultyinendorsingthefindingofthetrial Courtthatscore of appellant Rakesh Kumar Chhabra has been shown to be higherthanthe actualscore,whilepreparingfinallistExt.PW3/K. However, thetrialCourthas falleninerrorinholdingappellantsSurinderMohanKatwal andDr.VidyaNath guiltyofoffences,fallinginthedefinitionofforgery.Theydid notforgeany documentassuch.However,theydidpreparefalserecord ofthefinal result,whichactoftheirsispunishable,underSection218of
theIndianPenal Code.Theiractalsofallsunderthedefinitionoffalsificationof record, punishableunderSection477AoftheIndianPenalCode.Also,theyhave committedtheoffenceofcriminalmisconduct,punishableunderSection 13(2) ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct,1988,becausebytheirillegalact,they got appellant Rakesh Kumar Chhabra appointed as Physical Education Teacherand thereby helped him obtain employment and resultantly, pecuniaryadvantage. All these acts could not have been committed by them withoutbeingapproached by appellant Rakesh Kumar Chhabra, directly or indirectly.Thus,allthreeof themareguiltyofoffenceofcriminalconspiracy, punishableunderSection120 B IPC. Their act also amounts to offence of cheating,becausebymaking recommendation to the Government for appointmentofappellantRakesh Kumar Chhabra, act of deceit was committedandtheconcerned departmentwasinducedtoappointappellant RakeshKumarChhabraas PhysicalEducationTeacher,thoughhehad,in fact,notbeenselected. 17.Fortheforegoingreasons,appealispartlyaccepted. Convictionof appellantsSurinderMohanKatwalandDr.VidyaNathforoffences,under Sections468&471IPCissetaside.However,theirconvictioninrespectof offences,underSections13(2)ofthePreventionofCorruptionActand Sections 420and120BIPCismaintained. Theyarealsoconvictedofoffences, under Sections218and477AIPC,inviewoftheaforesaiddiscussion.
A perusal of this case law would show that no second list was preparedbytheappellant. Onlyfalsemarksofonecandidatenamelythe appellant were increased in the another list prepared for allocation of districtstothecandidates.Further,thesecondlistinwhichthemarkswere enhanced was not the replication of the original list. Rather, it was a differentlistpreparedforthepurposesoftheallotmentofthedistrictsto suchcandidates.Therefore,itwasnotacaseofforgery,rather,itwasheld
that it was merely a case of falsification of the record and accordingly appellantwasconvictedu/s218andSection477AIPC. ItisnecessarytomentionherethatHimachalPradeshHighCourt hasdifferentiatedbetween'forgeryofadocument'and'falsificationofthe records'. However,thefactsofthiscaseshowthatafreshsetofawardlists whichfallsinthedefinitionof'falsedocument'wasprepared.Irefertothe definitionofmakinga'falsedocument',asdefinedu/s464IPC.Asperthis Section,whodishonestlyorfraudulentlymakes,signs,sealsorexecutes adocumentwiththeintentionofcausingittobebelievedthatsuch documentorpartofdocumentwasmade,signed,sealedorexecutedby or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knowsthatitwasnotmade,signed,sealedorexecuted. Inthepresentcase,A6toA62hadpreparedtheDirectorateLists and signed the same. Therefore, by signing the Directorate Lists, they causedittobebelievedthattheseawardlistswereactuallymadebythe ChairpersonsandthemembersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommittees, whichtheywerenotatthetimeofpreparationofthesecondsetofaward lists.Irefertotheexplanationu/s464IPCwhichshows: Aman'ssignatureofhisownnamemayamounttoforegry.
Illustration(a)tothisSectionisasunder: (a)Asignshisownnametoabillofexchange,intendingthatit maybebelievedthatthebillwasdrawnbyanotherpersonofthesame name.Ahascommittedforgery. Inthepresentcase,theaccusedpersonshavesignedthelistssothat it may be believed that the award lists were signed by them in December1999 when they were Chairpersons and the members of the DistrictLevelSelectionCommittees. Therefore,thesecondofawardlists i.e.theDirectorateListsclearlyfallsunderthedefinitionof'makingfalse documents'. IthasbeenarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselsforA6toA62 thattheseaccusedpersonshadnodishonestorfraudulentintention,rather they were extremelyhelplessandhad put theirsignatureson the severe pressurebythebureaucraticandpoliticalbosses.Itisarguedthattherewas nointentionofcausingwrongfulgainorwrongfullosstoanyotherperson. Similarly, the act was not done with intention to the fraud. I totally disagreewiththissubmission.Though,itistruethatthereisnoevidence thattheytookanybribefromanycandidatenorthereisanyevidenceto showthattheyfavouredanyofhisrelativesbutthereisenoughevidenceto showthattheirpoliticalandbureaucraticbossesintendedtocausewrongful gaintosomecandidatesandwrongfullosstotheothercandidates.A6to
A62joinedtheirintention.Whentheseaccusedpersonsagreedtoprepare andsigntheawardlists,theirintentionbecameonewiththeintentionof their superior bosses and thereby they cause wrongful gain to certain candidates and wrongful loss to the remaining. The intention of the bureaucraticandpoliticalbossesincreatinganewsetofawardlistswas alsotodefraudthemeritoriouscandidatesoftheearlierlistsaswellasthe StateofHaryana.Whilecreatingtheseawardlists,A6toA62ownedthe saidintentiontodefraud,whichhadpercolatedtothemfromtheirhigher ups.Further,IrefertoAIR1978SupremeCourt1548inwhichSupreme Courtupheldtheconvictionofapersonu/s467IPCagainstwhomitwas provedthathehadforgedaletterofauthoritypurportingtohavebeen signedbyP .A.toViceChancellorofKarnatakaUniversity,authorizing himtogettheembossingsealsinthenameofKarnatakaUniversity.It meansthatSupremeCourtofIndiaconsideredthisforgedauthorityletterto bea'valuablesecurity'becauseithascreatedarightinhisfavourtoget suchsealsprepared. Thisissuewasconsideredin RamKamalBezboruahv.Chandra NathKalitaandothers1971CRI.L.J.708(Vol.77,C.N.206)Assamand NagalandHighCourt.ThefactsinthiscasewerethattheGoverningBody of a college suspended the Principal. However, the Principal alongwith
manyothersthreatenedthemembersofthegoverningbodytoexecutea documentinwhichitwaswrittenthatsuspensionorderofthePrincipalhad beenunconditionallywithdrawn.TheissuebeforetheHighCourtwasasto whetherthedocumentvidewhichthesuspensionorderwaswithdrawnwas a'valuablesecurity'withinthemeaningofSection30oftheIPC. Itwas observedasunder:

thewords'valuablesecurity'denoteadocumentwhichisorpurportedtobea documentwherebyanylegalrightiscreated,extended,transferred,restricted, extinguishedorreleased,or,wherebyapersonacknowledgesthatheliesunder liability,orhasnotacertainlegalright.
legal
The facts clearly show that the accused Principalwas suspended bythe Ad hoc Governing Body. This order clearly directed suspension of all his legitimate functionsasaPrincipal. HewouldnotbeabletoexercisehisrightsasaPrincipalwhilethis suspensionorderwas inforce. Ifinthiscontextanorderisextortedfromcertainpersons underthreatand pressuretotheeffectthattheearliersuspensionorderisnonest.,itis suchadocument whichisavaluablesecuritywithinthemeaningofSection30ofthe IndianPenalCode. ThislaterdocumentgiveshimarighttofunctionasaPrincipalwhich righthadalready extinguishedor,atanyrate,suspendedbytheearliersuspensionorder. 6.Inviewwehavetakenofthisdocument,itisnotevennecessarytorefertothetwo decisions oftheMadrasandAllahabadHighCourts,respectively,citedattheBar.Thefirstdecision is reportedinAIR1918Mad150(G.S.RamasamiIyerv.Emperor)whereondifference between twoJudgesofthatcourt,Oldfield,J.heldthat evenifthedocumentatalaterstage during thecourseofjudicialproceedingisheldtobeinvalid,thatwouldnotmakethe document as being not a valuable security for th purpose of Section 30 of the Indian PenalCode.ThisviewseemstohavereceivedsupportinalaterdecisionintheAllahabad High Court,namelyAIR1926All57(RamHarakhPathakv.Emperor).Withoutanyfurther discussionofthequestion,wemaysaythatweareinrespectfulagreementwiththeviews expressedintheabovetwodecisions.Eventhoughthetwomemberstogethercouldnot legally andvalidlydecidefortheentireAdhocGoverningBody,thedocumentdoesnotforthat reason ceasetobeavaluablesecurityunderthelawasitisobtainedtocreatearightonthe accused Principaltoclaimtoberidofthesuspensionorder.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thestatusofSupremeCourtlistis thatofa'valuablesecurity'andIholdthatDirectorateListsaretheforged 'valuablesecurities'despiteitsbeingillegal.Atthecostofrepetition,Istate thatitisnotindisputethatonthebasisoftheseDirectorateLists,theState wisemeritlistwaspreparedandappointmentsweregiventothesuccessful candidates. Consequently,theoffenceofcreatingtheDirectorateListssquarely fallsundersection467IPC. 102. CHEATINGANDPECUNIARYADVANTAGE Ithasbeenarguedonbehalfofalltheaccusedpersonsastowho hasbeen'dishonestlyinduced'andwhatpropertyhasbeendeliveredtoany person.Accordingly,itisarguedthatnooffenceu/s420IPCisdisclosed. Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.hasarguedthatthereisnoevidencethatany money/bribe or property was delivered to any accused. Therefore, no offenceu/s420IPCisdisclosed. Idisagreewithhimthatnoevidenceof any delivery of property to accused is available. Hence the offence is reducedtoSection418IPC. Similarly,hehasalsoarguedthatwhatpecuniaryadvantangehas beengiventoanyperson?Itisarguedthatthesalarywhichsuchfavoured candidatesaregettingisnotapecuniaryadvantagetothem,rather,theyget
the salary in return of the work and duties performed by them during service. Accordingly,itisarguedthatnoevidenceu/s13(1)(d)PCActis disclosed. Ihavealreadyreproducedpara16of RakeshKumarChhabra Vs State of H.P (above). These questions have been considered by . HimachalPradeshHighCourtwithheldthattheactofincreasingmarksalso amounts to offence of cheating because by making recommendations to government for appointment of the appellant, the act of deceit was committed and the concerned department was induced to appoint the appellant,otherwisehewouldnothavebeenselected. Therefore,Iamof theopinionthatStateofHaryanahasbeendishonestlyinducedbysuchact offorgeryoftheawardlistsandbytheirimplementationduetowhichjobs weregiventoundeservingcandidatesanddeservingcandidatesfailedtoget the same. ImayaddherethattheStateGovernmentofHaryanamustbe distinguished from the persons manning it. A person occupying a constitutionalchairmaycomeandgo,but,the'State'andits'Government' continueforever. So far as the pecuniary advantage is concerned, in the Rakesh KumarChhabra's case, Himachal PradeshHigh Court hasansweredthis question also. It was held that ' by their illegal act, they got appellant RakeshKumarappointedasPhysicalEducationTeacherandtherebyhelped
himobtainingemploymentandresultantlypecuniaryadvantage. Here,I would add that had the Supreme Court lists been implemented, large number of the persons who have got appointment on the basis of DirectorateListswouldhavefailed.Salary,ofcourse,isgiveninlieuofthe performanceoftheduties,but,itmustbekeptinmindthatthegovernment joboffersoneofthefinestpecuniaryadvantagesintermsofsalary,stability andsecurity.Ifgovernmentjobisprovidedtoundeservingcandidates,itis a sure pecuniary advantage to him. Had Supreme Court lists been implemented,suchundeservingcandidateswouldneverhavegotthissalary. I may compare it to a situation where the government gives a mining contracttoapersonignoringthebetterbidders,thepersongettingsuch contractcannotbeallowedtosaythathewouldearnmoneybecauseofthe work he would be doing in the mines and that he has not gotten any pecuniaryadvantagefromthegovernment. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. had referred to AlpanaDass Vs CBI, 132 (2006)DLT85NewDelhi.Ihaveperusedthiscaselaw.Itwasheldthat nopecuniaryadvantagewasavailedbecausethechequeinquestioncould notbeofanybenefittotherespondenti.etheInsuranceCompany.Iamof theopinionthatthiscaselawisnotrelevantasthefactsinthecaseinhand areentirelydifferent.
Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattentiontotheorder dt.01.06.2012oftheHighCourtinPushkarMalVermVs.State(Crl.M.C. 2691/11) which is available on the judicial file. It is submitted by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that in this judgment, Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Mehtaopinedasunder:
thewords'pecuniaryadvantage'usedinSection13(1)(d)oftheP .CActareof wideamplitude. Itmaynoteverytimemeanandhavereferencetotakingofmoneyin physicalform.Providingemploymenttosomeonefavourablyagainstmerit,maybedueto relative ofothertangibleorintangibleconsideration,wouldalsobeacaseofpecuniary advantagetoboththeemployeeandalsothewrongdoer. Bothwouldinonewayorthe otherbemakingpecuniaryadvantage,tangibleorintangible.
TheaforesaidobservationsofDelhiHighCourtareaptanswerto thepointofpecuniaryadvantageasraisedbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the argumentsofLd.Counselsthattheingredientofpecuniaryadvantageas mentionedinSection13(1)(d)oftheP .C.Actismissinginthistrial.Rather, enoughevidenceisonrecordtoshowthatthescamwascommittedwith thisobjectinmind. 103. WhistleblowerorComradeincrime? SanjivKumar(A3)hadsteppedintothewitnessboxasA3/DW9. The long testimony and the cross examination of this witness can be
summedupinfollowingpoints: 1. ThathewaspostedasDirectorDPEPandaftertransferofSmt.Rajni Shekri Sibal, he was given additional charge of Director Primary Educationwithanunderstandingthatfreshlistsaretobesubstituted inplaceoftheoriginallistsofJBTcandidates. 2. ThathemetOm PrakashChautala(A4)on 10.7.2000 at9:00 am over break fast and Om Prakash Chautala, the then Chief Minister Haryana,askedhimthatsecondsetoflistswastobepreparedafresh atearliestbecausehisGovernmenthasgottheclearmajorityofhis ownandtherewasnonecessitytoobligetheMLAsoftheparties. VidyaDhar(A1)toldhimthatmandateforDPEOsisthatfreshlists weretobepreparedaccordinglytothelist,whichhe(VidyaDhar) wouldgivetohim,andtheroleofSanjivKumarwastoreplacethelist keptinthesealedAlmirahanddeclaretheresultsasperthesecond setofawardlists. 3. InthelastweekofAugust2000,SanjivKaushal,AdditionalPrincipal SecretarytoChiefMinisterdirectedhim(i.e.SanjivKumar)tomeet VidyaDhar,thethenOSDtoChiefMinister. Accordinglyhewentto thesaidguesthouse,whereVidyaDhar(A1),SherSinghBadshami (A2)andotherofficialswerepresentandimpresseduponhimasto
whythealmirahcannotbeopenedfromthebehindbyusingablow torch.Healsotestifiedthathesawinthesaidguesthouseahandful personsittinginthemainhall. 4. AttheinstructionofSanjivKauashal,hewenttoHaryanaBhawan, New Delhiwhere he foundahandful officialofPrimaryEducation Department. HemetSher Singh Badshami(A2) there. Sher Singh Badshami(A3)gavehimasheafofpapersrelatingtoappointmentsof variousJBTteacherpostsunderDPEPparticularlyinDistrictBhiwani and started interrogated him as to why recommendations sent in writingbyAjaySinghChautala,MemberofParliamentfromBhiwani, werenotbeingimplemented. 5. Sher Singh Badshami (A2) also made him to call up Ajay Singh Chautalaandexplainedastowhyhisrecommendeeshadnotbeen appointedunderDPEP .Healsotestifiedthathereceived4or5calls fromAjaySinghChautalaapprisingthefactthatitwasveryimportant toadjustatleast5ofthecandidatesrecommendedbyhim. 6. Hetookouttheoriginalawardlistsfromthealmirahon16.9.2000 andsentthesametoHARTRONfordeclarationofresults. HistestimonyhasbeenstronglyassailedbyVidyaDhar(A1),Sher
SinghBadshami(A2),AjaySinghChautala(A5)andOmPrakashChautala (A4),whereasprosecutionadmitssomefactstestifiedbySanjivKumar(A3) anddisputestheveracityoftheotherfacts.Firstofallthiscourtwillhave toseeastowhetherSanjivKumar(A3)iswhistleblower? AnswerisYes andNo. Yes,becausehadhenotfiledthewritpetitionbeforeSupreme CourtofIndiaandhadhenotproducedtheoriginalawardlists,thisscam wouldhavenevercometothelight.No,becauseSanjivKumar(A3)raised falsepleasnotonlyinSupremeCourtofIndiabutalsoateverystageduring thistrial.IhavealreadydiscussedthathisstandbeforeSupremeCourtof IndiaandhispleasbeforethecourtduringtheentiretrialthattheSupreme CourtlistsarethefakelistsandDirectoratelistsarethegenuinelistsstand falsified.RatherithasbeenprovedbeyonddoubtthatSupremeCourtlists, whichwereinhispossessionwerethegenuinelistsandDirectoratelistsare the fake lists. It also stands proved that result was declared and appointmentsweregivenonthebasisofthesefakeDirectoratelists. The grievanceofSanjivKumar(A3)duringtheentiretrialhadbeenthathad CBImadehimacomplainantandcitedhimasaprosecutionwitness,he would have explained all the facets of the conspiracy. But I find no substanceinthisgrievancebecauseduringinvestigation,hemaintainedthe Supreme Court lists to be the fake lists and Directorate lists to be the
genuine lists. Sh. R. K. Handoo and Sh. I. D. Vaid, Ld. Special Public ProsecutorsforCBIsubmittedthatduringinvestigation,CBIfoundhimto beacomradeincrime. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.hasassailedtestimonyofA3ontheground that this witness is testifying falsely and had filed the writ petition in SupremeCourtinretaliationtothecriminalcases/FIRanddepartmental inquiresinitiatedattheinstanceoftheGovernmentofHaryanaheadedby OmPrakashChautala.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothe testimonyofCt.JogenderSingh(A4/DW1),whotestifiedthatanFIRNo. 293 was registered on 3.6.2003 at police station Sector17, Chandigarh againstSanjivKumar(A3)onthecomplaintofonePaleyRam,DeputyS.P ., HaryanaVigilanceBureau,underPreventionofCorruptionAct. ThisFIR hasbeenexhibitedasEx.A9/DW1/1.ThiswitnessprovedanotherFIRno. 312registeredon4.6.2002atthispolicestationagainstSanjivKumar(A3) on the complaint of Paley Ram under Section 406/409/467/468/471/477A/120 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of PreventionofCorruptionAct.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.submitsthatfacedwith lodgingofFIRagainsthim,SanjivKumar(A3)cookedupacockandbull storywithaviewtofalselyimplicateOmPrakashChautala.Ld.Counselhas drawnmyattentionthattheevidenceofSanjivKumar(A3)isnotonlyin
contradictiontohiswritpetitiononmaterialfactsbutalsoisunworthyof credenceinallrespect. Sh.D.S.Kohli,adv.forA1andSh.S.K.Saxena, adv.forA2,A4andA5havedrawnmyattentiontothecrossexaminationof A3/DW9dated25.7.2012whereinSanjivKumar(A3)wasconfrontedwith thecontentsofwritpetitionno.93/2003.Inthiscrossexamination,Sanjiv Kumar(A3)hasadmittedthathedidnotspecificallyimpleadVidyaDhar (A1), Sher Singh Badshami (A2) and Ajay singh Chautala (A4) as respondentsinthesaidwritpetition.Incrossexaminationdated31.7.2012, SanjivKumarwasconfrontedwiththefactthatinwritpetitionthedatesof eventsgivenbyhimareallfalseandthatinthiscourtSanjivKumar(A3) hasgivendifferentdatesoftheevents.Forexample,itispointedoutbySh. S.K.Saxena,adv.thatinhiswritpetitionhehadmentionedthatthefresh select lists were handed over to him on 28.9.2000 by Vidya Dhar (A1). WhereasSanjivKumr(A1)hastestifiedbeforethiscourtthaton16.9.2000 the lists were taken out from the almirah and sent to HARTRON for compilationoftheresults.Inhiswritpetition,SanjivKumar(A3)mentions that he has stated that the almirah was opened on 7.10.2000, which is contrary to the record as well as his own testimony in which desealing proceedingsarestatedtohavetakenplaceon16.9.2000.Myattentionhas beendrawntothecrossexaminationofSanjivKumar(A3)dated1.8.2012
inwhichitwaspointedouttoSanjivKumar(A3)thatthereisnomention ofbreakfastmeetingwithOmPrakashChautala.Itisarguedthatthisisa veryseriouscontradictionbecauseforthefirsttimebeforethiscourtSanjiv Kumar (A3) is coming out with the story of break fast meeting. It is arguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv.thatSanjivKumar(A3),whoisthearch rivalofOmPrakashChautalahasnotspokenanythingagainstOmPrakash Chautalainhisexaminationinchief.Theaforesaidbreakfastmeetingis testified only in cross examination by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. Accordingly,itisarguedthattheversionofbreakfastmeetingwithOm PrakashChautalastandsdiscreditedanditshouldnotbereadagainsthim. Further,SanjivKumar(A3)inhisdefenceevidencehasabsolvedAjaySingh Chautala (A5) and has not imputed him any role. Ld. Counsel has remindedthiscourtofthefactthatSanjivKumar(A3)inhisevidenceis onlytestifyingthatAjaySinghChautala(A5)hadtalkedtohimon1.9.2000 andonotheroccasionspressurizinghimforselectingcertainJBTcandidates forDPEPandnotfortheJBTcandidatesinvolvedinthepresentcase.Itis pointed out that JBT teachers under DPEP are appointed on contractual basisunderWorldBankProject,whichhavenoconcernwiththepresent selection.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.submitsthatalthoughAjaySinghChautala (A5)doesnotadmiteventhisallegationmadebySanjivKumar(A3)inhis
evidence,butevenifthisversionofSanjivKumar(A3)istreatedtobetrue, Ajay singh Chautala (A5) is in no manner stands connected with the offence/actsbeingdoneinWatersupplyGuestHouseinChandigarhinlast weekofAugust2000andinHaryanaBhawanon1.9.2000. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.arguesthatifthetestimonyofSanjivKumar (A3/DW9) is read carefully, it would become very clear that he has not stated anything incriminating against Sher Singh Badshami (A2). Ld. CounselhastakenmethroughthetestimonyofSanjivKumar(A3)before thiscourt. Inhisexaminationinchief,hetestifiesthatVidyaDhar(A1), SherSinghBadshami(A2)andotherofficialswerepresentinPunjabGuest House (i.e. Guest House of Water Supply and Sanitation pertaining to PunjabGovernment),whenSanjivKumarreachedthere.Hedoesnotallege anythingagainstSherSinghBadshami,ratherheonlytestifiesthatsomeone statedastowhythealmirahcouldnotbebrokenopenfrombehindbyusing a blow torch. He does not testify that Sher Singh Badshami (A2) had pressurizedSanjivKumartochangetheawardlistsinthismeeting.Sh.S. K.Saxena,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothefurthertestimonyofSanjiv Kumar(A3)inrespectofthemeetinginHaryanaBhawan,Newdelhi.He testifiedthathecametotheOldWingofHaryanaBhawanfirstandwas takentotheroomofSherSinghBadshami(A2). SherSinghBadshami
(A2), who gave him a sheaf of papers relating to appointments of various JBTteacherstothepostsunderDPEP ,particularlyinDistrict Bhiwani and also interrogated him as to why the candidates recommended by Ajay Singh Chautala (A5) were not being selected againstthepostsunderDPEP.ThereforetheroleascribedtoSherSingh Badshami (A2) by Sanjiv Kumar (A3) is only limited to his advice for appointing teachers in DPEP and nowhere it is alleged that Sher Singh Badshami (A2) was involved in creation of second set of award lists of regularJBTpostsorhadinanymannerpressurizedSanjivKumar(A3)even inthismeetingforchangingtheawardlistsoftheregularJBTcandidates. SummingupSh.S.K.Saxena,adv.submitsthatthebriefevidence ofSanjivKumar(A3)regardinghisbreakfastmeetingwithChiefMinister is unworthy of credence and that the testimony of Sanjiv Kumr (A3) in respectofAjaySinghChautala(A5)andSherSinghBadshami(A2)does notconnectthemwiththepresentcrime. Sh. D. S. Kohli, adv. for accused Vidya Dhar (A1) has strongly assailedthetestimonyofSanjivKumar(A3).Myattentionhasbeendrawn by Ld. Counsel to the testimony of A9/DW11 namely Subhash Chander, examinedbySanjivKumar(A3)asadefencewitness,whohastestifiedthat a fakelist wastakenbyhimfromAjitSingh SangwanDPEO Jind inan
envelopeandhaddeliveredthesametoVidyaDhar(A1)athisresidencein Chandigarh. Ld. Counsel has addressed detailed arguments on the trustworthinessofthiswitnesstowhichIfullyagreeforthereasonswhich havealreadybeenstatedinearlierpartofthisjudgement. Sh. D. S. Kohli, adv. has drawn my attention to the cross examination of A3/DW9 (dated 16.8.2012) in which Sanjiv Kumar has admittedthatthefactthathewasunawareofwhatwassoughttobedone in Punjab Guest House (i.e. Water Supply and Sanitation Guest House belongingtoPunjabGovernment)doesnotfindmentioninhiswritpetition. Myattentionhasbeendrawntothefactthathedidnotmentionin hisWritPetitionthatS.Y.Quraishi,thethenPrincipalSecretaryoftheChief Minister had asked him to cooperate in the matter of implementing the secondsetofawardlists.Headmittedthathedidnotstatethefactthaton receivingthemessagefromSanjeevKaushal,hemetVidyaDharthethen OSD to Chief Minister at Guest House of Water Supply & Sanitation Department,Punjab. Myattentionhasbeendrawntothefactthatinhis writpetition,hehasnotmentionedthatatthedirectionsofSanjeevKaushal on his mobile phone, he met Sher Singh Badshami in Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi. Further, there is no reference of other persons namely DharamvirorJagtarinhiswritpetition.ItissubmittedbycounselforA1
that attention of A3/DW9 was drawn to his statement u/s 161 CrPC recordedon21.07.2005inwhichhehadstatedthatAbhaySinghChautala hadgivenhimthoselistswhereasbeforethiscourthetestifiedthatbagof listwashandedoverbyoneDharamvirSihag.ItisarguedbyLd.Counsel forA1thatinCM'sSecretariat,A1wasassignedthechargeofPrinting& StationaryDepartmentandthatoninquirybytheVigilanceDepartment,it wasfoundthatA3hadcommittedvariousirregularitiesandeventuallythe casewasregisteredagainstA3.ItisarguedthatthisisthereasonthatA3 hadagrievanceagainstVidyaDharandaccordinglynameofVidyaDhar wasmentionedbySanjivKumarinhiswritpetitionasthepersonwhowas actively involved in changing of the award lists. It is argued that the testimonyofthiswitnessisunworthyofcredencesofarasroleofVidya Dharisconcerned. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. and Sh. D.S. Kohli, Adv. have drawn my attentiontothetestimonyofSanjivKumarwhereinhetestifiedthatinthe lastweekofAugust2000,hewascalledbyVishnuBhagwanandPrem Prashant and told that despite proposal to employ all available JBT teachersunderDPEP ,thegovernmentstillwantedtochangetheaward lists sinceappointmentthrough State GovernmentofJBT candidates wouldbeonregularbasiswhileemploymentunderDPEPwasmerely
contractualforalimitedperiod,aspertheWorldBankGuidelines.He testifiedthatbothofthemtoldhimincleartermsthathebeinganofficerof 1985batchwasdueforpromotionforSupertimescaleinthemonthof January,2001.HealsotestifiedthathewasalsocalledbyS.Y.Quraishi,the PrincipalSecretarytotheChiefMinisterwhoaskedhimtocooperateinthe matter of implementing the second set of award lists. A3 testifies that otherwise he was told about the consequences in terms of denial of promotionsetc.Ld.CounselssubmitthatwhenPremPrashantIAStestified beforethiscourtasPW16,SanjivKumardidnotputthesuggestiontothat effect. Ld.CounselsfurthersubmitthatVishnuBhagwanwasexaminedas defencewitnessbyAjaySinghChautala(A5). Thiswitness(A5/DW1) testified that he was an IAS Officer of 1965 batch and was Principal SecretarytotheCM(i.e.OmPrakashChautala)andSanjivKumarnever madeanycomplainttohimthathewasbeingpressurizedtochangetheJBT award lists nor it came to his knowledge that there was any move or attemptforgettingtheawardlistschanged. Ld.Counselshavedrawnmy attentiontothecrossexaminationonA3.SanjivKumardidnotsuggestit toVishnuBhagwanthatheorS.Y.Quraishihadevercalledhimandasked himtochangetheawardlists. Insuchascenario,itisarguedthatthe
testimonyofSanjivKumarthatVishnuBhagwanIASandPremPrashantIAS had informed Sanjiv Kumar about the intention of the government to changetheawardlistsisfalse. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels and to some extentIagreewiththeirsubmissions. First,Iwouldliketodiscussastowhatistheevidentiaryvalueof theevidenceofanaccusedwhotestifiesonoathinhisdefence? 104. EVIDENTIARYVALUEOFTHEEVIDENCEOFANACCUSED WHOTESTIFIESASAWITNESS Inthiscase,accusedSanjivKumar(A3)hasexaminedhimself asadefencewitnessasA3/DW9.Inhisevidence,hehasgivenhisversion of the events in detail. Accused Sher Singh has examined himself as a defence witness as A23/DW1. Accused Darshan Dayal Verma has examinedhimselfasdefencewitnessA50/DW1. AccusedSarwanKumar ChawlahasexaminedhimselfasA60/DW1.AccusedSmt.UrmilSharma has examined herself as A61/DW1 & accused Jogender Lal examined himselfasA62/DW1. Therefore,inallsixaccusedpersonsthemselvesstoodasdefence witnesses. Theprosecutionaswellasalltheaccusedpersonswereduly givenopportunitytocrossexaminethesewitnesses.Whileappreciatingand
assessingtheevidenceoftheseaccusedpersons,itisnecessarytokeepin mindthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinTribhuvanNathVsThe StateofMaharashtra,AIR1973SupremeCourt450. Ireproducepara no.29&30ofthejudgmentasunderwhichsumsupthelawonthispoint.

29.Thefirstquestionis,whetherthetrialJudgewasrightinusing theevidencegivenbyaccused3whichhegaveasawitnessinhis defence?Thepositionwithregardtosuchevidenceisthat whenaperson,accusedalongwithothers,voluntarilystepsin thewitnessboxasawitnessindefence,heisinthesamepositionasan ordinarywitness,(seePeoples'InsuranceCo.Ltd. v. Sardar Sardul, AIR 1962Punjab101andJibachhShahv.TheState, AIR1965Pat331)andis thereforesubjecttocross examinationbytheprosecutioncounseland evidence brought outinsuch crossexaminationcanbeused against hisco accused. (SeeTheKingv.JamesPaul,19202K.B.183atp.185). If sucha witness incriminates his coaccused the otheraccused,jointlytriedwithhim, has the right to cross examinehimifhewantssotodo.(Rexv.Hadwen 19021K.B.882atpp887888).ThishasbeenthepositioninEngland after 1898whenaccusedpersonsweremadecompetent witnesses.The same consequences must also flow afteraccusedpersonshavebeenmadecompetent witnessesfor thedefenceunderSection342AofthecodeofCriminalProcedure. Ascounselfortheappellantinformedus,sinceaccused3volunteeredto enterthe witnessboxasawitnessinhisdefencehewasinfact crossexaminednotonlyby the prosecution but also by counselfortheotheraccused.Ofcourse,anaccused person cannotbecompelledtogiveevidenceasaprosecutionwitnessinviewof theexpressionindisproof ofthechargesinSection342A.Butoncehis evidenceasawitnessforthedefenceisonrecord,underSection10of Evidence Act,1872,evidence,asthecommunications betweenoneconspiratorandthe other during the time thattheconspiracyisgoingonandrelatingto implementingthatconspiracy,isrelevantevidence.Thestatementsby
one accusedtoanotherandtheevidenceastotheactsdone byhimdisclosing participationbytheotheraccusedin theconspiracyarealsorelevant.Asto whether they merit relianceornotisanotherquestiondependingupontheir credibility. 30.Asaforesaid,theevidenceofPuransingh,ElaviaandMosin Burmawalla was held by the Trial Judge as accomplice evidenceinthateachofthemhadin one way or the otherhelpedtheaccusedinfurtheringtheirobjectives.Insuch acasethedutyofthecourtappraisingtheevidenceclearlyistoapplythe doubletestaslaiddowninSarwanSinghv.StateofPunjab,1957SCR 953= (AIR1957SC637).TheCourt,therefore,hasfirstto seewhethertheevidence of an accomplice is reliable, andsecondly,evenifitisso,whetheritis corroboratedinmaterialparticularsbyotherindependentevidence, direct orcircumstantial.AsSarwanSingh'scase1957SCR 953=(AIR1957SC637) pointsoutthetestofreliabilityis thesameastheoneappliedtoallwitnesses. Therefore,it doesnotmeanthatanaccomplice'sevidencecannotberelied uponunlessitistotallyandabsolutelyblemishless.Inmajorityofcases such isnotthecaseandinspiteofsomediscrepanciesand othersuchinfirmities courtshaveoftenfounditsafeto actontheevidenceofsuchwitnesses.Acase illustrating thispropositionistobefoundinSaravanabhavanv.Stateof Madras,AIR1966SC1273wheretheevidenceoftheapprovercontained certaindiscrepanciesand wasalsocontradictedbythetestimonyof another witnessandyetthatevidencewasheldto passthetestofbeingcredibleand wasacceptedasit wasalsocorroboratedbyotherevidence.Regardingthe secondtest,thatis,ofthenecessityofcorroboration,such corroboration neednot,ontheonehand,beofevery particulargivenbyanaccomplice, and on the other hand,ofonlyminorparticulars.Thecorroborationmust beadequateenough toaffordthenecessaryassurancethat themain story testifiedbytheaccomplicecanbereasonablyand safelyacceptedastrue. (Ramanlal v. State of
215 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Bombay,AIR1960SC961). Judgment dt. 16.01.2013
In K.HashimvsStateofTamilNadu,Appeal(crl.) 185of 2004 decided on 17th November, 2004, Hon'ble Supreme Court again relied upon Tribhuvan Nath Vs The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SupremeCourt450andobservedasunder:
AlthoughSection114illustration(b)providesthattheCourtmay presumethattheevidenceofanaccompliceisunworthyofcredit unlesscorroborated,mayisnotmustandnodecisionof Court canmakeitmust. Thecourtisnotobligedtohold thatheisunworthyof credit.Itultimatelydependsuponthe Court'sviewastothecredibilityof evidence tendered by an accomplice.
However, it was held that it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance, nor it is a requirement of law to seek corroboration to every detail. All that is required is that there must be additional evidence rendering it probablethatthestoryofaccompliceistrueandthatitisreasonably safetoactuponit. Onthetouchstoneoftheaforesaidlaw,itistobeseenasuptowhat extentthetestimonyofA3shouldbeacceptedanduptowhatextentthe testimonyshouldbediscarded.IwouldmentionherethatSanjivKumaris theonlypersoninthiscasewhoisawareofeachandeveryfactastohow
thescamtookplace.Theotheraccusedpersonsmaynotknoweverything e.g.A6toA62maynotknowastohowtheawardlistsweretakenout fromthealmirah. SanjivKumar istheonlypersonwhocantellastoon whosebehalfheconductedsuchabigexerciseandinwhatmanneritwas executed involving the Chairpersons and the members of the 18 District LevelSelectionCommittees. Therefore,throwinghistestimonyaltogether wouldamounttothrowingbabyoutwithbathwater.Atthesametime,he isanaccompliceandthereforehistestimonyhastobeappreciatedinan extremelycarefulmannerandonlythoseportionsofhisevidenceshouldbe accepted which are corroborated from the evidence and circumstances proved on record. As discussed in Tribhuvan Nath Vs The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 450, it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every material circumstance nor it is requirement of law to seek corroboration of everydetail.Allthatisrequiredissomeadditionalevidencerendering thetestimonyofSanjivKumartobeprobable.Inthesecircumstances,I woulddiscussthetestimonyofSanjivKumarpointwise. 1. BreakfastmeetingwiththeChiefMinister: IncrossexaminationbyLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor,SanjivKumar
admittedthathereceivedacallfromtheofficeofChiefMinsitertometOm PrakashChautala,thethenChiefMinisterimmediatelyoverabreakfast.He admitted that he met Om Prakash Chautala over breakfast and that this meeting took place when he took over the charge as DirectorPrimary Educationorthereafter.HeadmittedthatOmPrakashChautalahadmade clearinthismeetingthatthesecondsetoflistswastobepreparedafreshat theearliestbecauseafterelectionshisgovernmenthadtheclearmajorityon hisownandtherewasnonecessitytoobligetheMLAsofotherparties.He admittedthecaseoftheprosecutionthatVidyaDhar(A1)toldhimthe mandatefortheDirectorPrimaryEducationwasthatfreshlistsweretobe preparedaccordingtothelistwhichhewouldbegivingandtheroleofA3 wastoreplacethelistkeptinthesealedalmirah. Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.specificallyaskedaquestionastowhetherhe had mentioned in his writ petition that he had met O.P Chautala on . 10.07.2000overabreakfastmeeting. SanjivKumarwasveryemphaticin theanswerandstatedthatthedate10.07.2000mayormaynotbecorrect becauseitisdifficulttorememberthedateaftersuchalongtime.Incross examinationdt.01.08.2012,SanjivKumarwasspecificallyaskedtoseethe copyoftheWritPetitionno.93/2003Ext.Pw63/B1andtoanswerasto whetherthefactofdiscussionwithO.P .Chautalaaboutthepreparationof
the second list has been mentioned in this writ petition. Sanjiv Kumar answeredemphaticallythatthisfacthasbeenmentionedinpara3ofthe petition(D64)whereitismentionedthataftertakingtheadditionalcharge ofDirectorPrimaryEducation,petitioner(i.e.A3)wascalledbyrespondent no.2(i.e.OmPrakashChautala)athisresidenceandwasdirectedtocall themembersofDistrictLevelSelectionCommittees,prepareduplicatelists inaccordancewiththelistofnewnamestobefurnishedbyVidyaDhar OSD(i.e.A1)andtofinallyreplacethefakelistssopreparedatthebehest of O.P Chautala with the original lists sealed in the godrej almirah. . Although,theword'breakfastmeeting'hadnotbeenspecificallyusedinthe writpetitionofA3,but,A3inhiswritpetitionhadmentionedaboutthis meetingwithO.P .Chautalaathisresidenceandthediscussionwhichtook place with the Chief Minister at that time. Therefore, there is no contradictioninthesubmissionsofSanjivKumarinhiswritpetitionandhis testimonybeforethiscourt.Iwouldliketoseewhetheranycorroboration to the fact that the entire scam was done at the instance of the Chief Minister,isforthcoming.However,thataspectwouldbeconsideredbyme whiledealingwiththeroleofOmPrakashChautala(A4). FactofgivingthelistsbyVidyaDharOSDtoSanjivKumar. SanjivKumar(A3/DW9)inhiscrossexaminationdt.16.07.2012
by Ld. SpecialPublic Prosecutor hastestifiedthathegot theaward lists fromChiefMinister'sresidenceatChandigarh. Oneofficialwasholdinga sacfulloflistsintheporchoftheCM'sresidenceandthisbagwashanded overtohimwiththedirectiontoimplementthesaidlists.Hetestifiedthat thiswasdonebythesaidofficial(namelyDharamveerSihag)inpresenceof A1. In his writ petition (Para3), A3 has averred that Chief Minister asked him to call the members of the District Level Selection Committeesandprepareduplicatelistsinaccordancewiththelistof newnamestobefurnishedbyVidyaDharOSDto CM. Howeverthe prosecution has proved that the false lists were prepared by active involvementofA3. Therefore,onethingisclearthatVidyaDhardidnot supplythealreadypreparedfakeawardliststoA3atCM'sresidence,as testified by him in his evidence before this court. Therefore, I am not inclinedtoacceptthatVidyaDharhadsuppliedthealreadypreparedliststo A3. Meeting at Guest House of Water Supply & Sanitation Departmentof Punjab: A3hastestifiedthatinthisguesthouse,VidyaDhar(A1)andSher SinghBadshami(A2)werealongwithotherofficialsnamelyJagtarSingh andDharamveeretc.Hetestifiedthatsomepersonsweresittinginthehall
oftheGuestHouse.Inthismeeting,adiscussionstartedastowhyitwas difficulttotakeouttheawardlistsandwhythealmirahcouldnotbebroken openfrombehindwiththehelpofablowtorch? PerusaloftheWritPetitionExt.PW63/B1(D64)showsthatA3 has mentioned that on one occasion, sometime in the month of August/SeptemberatPanchkulaandHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhiallthe membersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeswerecalledandwere directedtopreparefreshselectionlistsof19districtsasperthewishesof OmPrakashChautalaandhiscolleagues.TheseChairpersonsandmembers oftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesweremadetosignonthefresh selectionlistsandthesefreshlistswerehandedovertoA3on28.09.2000 byA1withadirectiontosubstitute/replacetheoriginallistswiththefake lists. ThefactthattheDPEOsandthememberswerecalledattheGuest House of Water Supply & SanitationDepartment of Punjab stand fully proved by the evidence of the prosecution, which has already been discussed. However, his reference that this guest house was situated in Panchkulaisincorrect. Infact,sufficientevidencehascomeonrecordin the testimony of Mohan Lal (PW56) that it is situated in Chandigarh. Therefore, only the fact of meeting with Vidya Dhar and Sher Singh BadshamiatPunjabGuestHousecanbesafelyreliedupon.
His testimony regarding meeting at Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi. Sanjiv Kumar testified that Sanjiv KaushalAddl. PS to Chief MinisterhadaskedhimtomeetSherSinghBadshamiinHaryanaBhawan, NewDelhi.Therefore,hewentthereandmethim.Hetestifiedthathemet SherSinghBadshamiinHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhiandalsofoundthat some District Level officials of primary education were also there. Sher SinghBadshamigavehimasheafofpapersrelatingtotheappointmentsof JBTteacherstothepostsunderDPEP ,particularlyinDistrictofBhiwani.I have already discussed that the testimony of Darshan Dayal Verma (A50/DW1)hasprovedthatSanjivKumarandSherSinghBadshamihad askedhimtoprepareasecondawardlistsoftheregularJBTcandidates. Therefore,histestimonythatSherSinghBadshamiaskedhimtoappoint JBTteachersiscorrect,but,byaclevertwist,hehasstatedthatdiscussion ofSherSinghBadshamiwasinrespectofappointmentoftheJBTteachers inDPEP ThisadditionofDPEPshouldbeexcludedfromhistestimonyin . viewofthetestimonyofA50/DW1. Therefore,bydeletingthistwisted portionofthisevidence,itstandsprovedthatA2&A3hadcollectedthere for executing the conspiracy to create new award lists of candidates for regularvacanciesofJBTteachers.
HistestimonyinrespectofAjaySinghChautala Regarding the telephonic calls with Ajay Singh Chautala on and around the period when the aforesaid meetings were held has not been controvertedbyA5inhiscrossexamination.Therefore,thesamehastobe acceptedtobetrue. Sanjiv Kumar has testified that in Haryana Bhawan he had telephonic conversation with Ajay Singh Chautala. He testified that he receivedatleast45callsfromAjaySinghChautalastressingthefactthatit wasveryimportantto adjustatleas5ofthecandidatesrecommendedby him for contractual teachers in DPEP since they were very important , membersofhispoliticalparty.Imaypointoutthathereagainhehasgiven aclevertwisttothefacts. Theprofuseevidenceonrecordshowsthatin HaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi,theDPEOsetc.werebeingcalledtocreate freshawardlistsofregularJBTcandidatesandnotofthecontractualJBT teachers under DPEP Therefore, the circumstances show that discussion . betweenAjaySinghChautalaandSanjivKumarcouldbeonlyinrespectof thecreationofthefakeawardlistsofregularJBTteachers.Inearlierpart of the judgment, I have already shown as to how the candidates from District Bhiwani, from where Ajay Singh Chautala was Member of Parliament,werefavoured.
Ihavealreadydiscussedthathistestimonyinrespectofthefactas to which set of lists is genuine has proved to be false. Therefore, his strenuouseffortduringtheentiretrialaswellasinhistestimonytoprove that he was only called at the guest house at Chandigarh and Haryana Bhawan,NewDelhibuthehadnoroleincreationoftheawardlistsarea futileexercise. Falsityofhisdefenceleadstoonlyoneconclusionthathe wasfullyhandinglovewiththeotheraccusedpersonsincreationoffake awardlists.Howevertherearesomenuggetsoftruthinhistestimony.If his writ petition and his defence evidence are perused carefully and compared with the overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution on variousaspects,Ifindthatalthoughhehasadmittedallthemajorevents whichtookplaceduringhecontinuationoftheconspiracye.g.Presenceof Vidya DharandSherSinghBadshamiattheguesthouseinChandigarh, presence of Sher Singh Badshami in Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi, his discussionwithSherSinghBadshamiandhistelephonicconversationwith AjaySinghChautala,but,hehasverycleverlytwistedthefactssothathe couldshowtothecourtthathewasnotinvolvedintheprocessofcreating second award lists. It must be kept in mind that Sanjiv Kumar is an extremelyintelligentpersonandhehasverysmartlytriedtotwistthefacts butunfortunatelyhegotexposedduringthetrial. Atthesametime,the
nuggetsoftruthgleanedfromhistestimonycannotbelostsightof. The abovementionedtruthfulfactswouldbeconsideredwhiledealingwiththe roleofeachaccused. 105. ISRAJNISHEKRISIBALACOMPULSIVELIAR? Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.forA2,A4&A5andSh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.for A1haveledfrontalattackonRajniShekriSibal.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.has drawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPW23whereinsheadmittedthat sheisarelativeofKapilSibal,aprominentleaderinCongresspartyand nowaCabinetMinisterinGovernmentofIndia. Myattentionhasbeen drawntohertestimonyinwhichshestatesthatKapilSibalisherdistant relative.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.submitsthatthisisafalseevidencegivenby herasinhertestimonyshehasadmittedthatherfatherinlawandthe fatherofKapilSibalarerealbrothers. Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.submitsthat stillshetestifiesthatKapilSibalisherdistantrelative. Idonotfind any substanceinthisargument.Itisonlyanindividualviewastowhetherone considersarelationtobedistantorimmediate. Normally,theimmediate familyisthespouse,childrenandparentsinthesefastchangingmodern times. Hence, I do not find that she is testifying falsely here. Sh. S.K. Saxena,Adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontoherevidenceinwhichsheadmits that O.P Chautala was succeeded by Bhupinder Singh Hooda as Chief .
MinisterofHaryana.Myattentionhasbeendrawntohertestimonywhere she testifies that her cousin brother namely Ashwani Shekri belongs to CongresspartyinPunjab.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.hasdrawnmyattentionto her testimony in which she admits that her brother has a factory which manufacturesbulbsinHimachalPradesh. However,sheevadestoanswer thespecificsuggestionthathewasallotedanagencybythepresentCentral GovernmentofCongressfordealinginpetroleumproducts. Itisargued thatherfamilybackgroundshowshercloselinkswithCongresspartyand that is why she is playing in the hands of Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the present Chief Minister and also the political rival of O.P Chautala. It is . submittedthatduetothisreason,shehastestifiedfalselybeforethisCourt. IhaveconsideredthesesubmissionsandIdisagree.Hadshebeen playinginthehandsofCongressleaders,nothingstoppedherfromdirectly implicatingtheCM.Shewasanofficerseniorenoughhavinganopportunity to meet the CM off and on. Had her intention been to implicate O.P . Chautala,shecouldhaveverywelltestifiedaboutthetwomeetingshaving been headed by O.P Chautala himself but that was not the case. . Furthermore,thewitnessisnoteagertofalselyimplicateanyone. Infact, shedoesnothaveanythingagainstAjaySinghChautalaexceptthefactthat hewaspresentinboththemeetings. Acompletetoneofhertestimony
wouldshowthatshewasnotevenanxioustoimplicateAjaySinghChautala by ascribing any role to him except his presence in those two meetings. Therefore,theallegationagainstherthatsheisplayinginthehandsofthe CongressleadersnamelyBhupinderSinghHoodaandKapilSibaldoesnot hold.Somecontradictionshavebeenpointedoutinhertestimonywhichas perSh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.andSh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.discreditherevidence.I haveperusedhertestimonyandIfindthatshehasbeenconfrontedwith her previous statements namely the statement Ext.PW23/DC recorded during preliminary inquiry and the statements Ext.PW23/DD and Ext.PW23/DE recorded u/s 161 CrPC during the investigation. My attentionhasbeendrawntothecrossexaminationdt.27.09.2011bySh. D.S. Kohli, Adv. for A1 in which she had stated that she had told the investigatingofficeraboutthesequencesanddatesandthatshehadstated thedateofsealingas02.05.2000or25.05.2000. Myattentionhasbeen drawn by Ld. Counsel to the aforesaid statements (i.e. Ext.PW23/DD & Ext.PW23/DE)inwhichnodateismentioned.Myattentionisdrawntothe factthatshehadnotevenstatedtotheCBIthatshehassealedthealmirah withtheimpressionofcoinofRe.1.Myattentionhasbeendrawnthatshe wasconfrontedwiththeaforesaidstatementsu/s161CrPcinwhichshehas notstatedthatPremPrashanthadtoldherthatPremPrashanthadtoldher
thatthetwomeetingswereconvenedbytheChiefMinister. Ld.Counsels havedrawnmyattentiontotheQuestionNo.10instatementExt.PW23/DD u/s161CrPCwheretheInvestigatingOfficerhadspecificallyaskedasto whocalledherandtoldhertomakethechangesintheinterviewlists? Myattentionhasbeendrawnthatbeforethiscourtshetestifiedthat the meeting at Haryana Niwas ended with the decision that Primary EducationDirectorateandSecondaryEducationDirectoratewouldsendlist ofnamesofthemembersofDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesandtheroll numbersassignedtoeachdistrict.However,inthestatementu/s161CrPC, thereisnomentionofthisfact. Myattentionhasbeendrawntothefact thatinherstatementu/s161CrPC,shehasnotstatedthatthealmirahwas sealedsoonafterthefistmeeting.Itispointedoutthatinherstatement u/s 161 CrPC, she does not state that the next morning afterthe first meeting,shemetVishnuBhagwanandtoldhimaboutwhathappened andrequestedforhertransfer. Itisarguedthatbeforethiscourtshe testifies that one Nawab Singh was also present in the second meeting. However,nameofNawabSinghhasnotbeenreferredtoinherstatement u/s 161 CrPC. Ld. Counsels have drawn my attention to her testimony beforethiscourtinwhichshetestifiedthatinthesecondmeetingshewas undermisunderstandingthatherpointofviewwhichshehastoldtoVishnu
BhagwanhadbeenconveyedandPremPrashanthadalsoagreedinVishnu Bhagwan'sofficethatthesethingstheyshouldnotbedoingandthatshe assumedthatthiswasnolongertheissue. Ld.Counselspointedoutthat this fact is also not mentioned in her statement u/s 161 CrPC. It is submittedthathertestimonybeforethiscourtthatitcameasasurprise whenshewasaskedabouttheprogressoftheworkinrespectofchanging thelistsdoesnotfindmentioninherstatementu/s161CrPC. Shealso testifiedbeforethiscourtthatpossiblythenewlistswerepresentinthesaid meetingbutthisfactdoesnotfindmentioninstatementu/s161CrPC.Itis submittedthatnowhereinthesaidstatementu/s161CrPC,itismentioned thatthemeetingsendedupbyherstatingthatshewouldnotdosomething likethis.Ld.Counselsarguedthatshetestifiedbeforethiscourtthatinthe secondmeetingshestatedthattherewouldcertainlybethephotocopiesof theactuallistswiththemembersoftheselectioncommittees.Itisargued byLd.Counselsthatmostoftheportionofhertestimonyiscomingbefore thiscourtforthefirsttimetowhichthereisnocorroboration.Itisargued thatinherstatementu/s161CrPC,shedoesnotnameAjaySinghChautala andonlyreferstooneBhaiSahab.Itisarguedthatinsuchasituation, when the witness is improving upon her previous statements and even testifying in contradictions to some aspects, how it is possible to place
relianceonhertestimony.ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.thatPW23 hasspecificallytestifiedthatontheverynextdayofthefirstmeetingitself in Haryana Niwas, she met Vishnu Bhagwan and told him about what happenedandrequestedforhertransfer. ItisarguedbyLd.Counselthat VishnuBhagwanhasbeencitedasaprosecutionwitness,but,wasgivenup bytheprosecution.Despitethisfact,AjaySinghChautala(A5)examined himinhisdefenceasA5/DW1.Myattentionhasbeendrawntothecross examination of Rajni Shekri Sibal (PW23) dt. 27.09.2011 in which she statesthatshecouldnameVishnuBhagwanasoneofhermentors. Ld. Counsel argues that in view of this testimony, the evidence of Vishnu Bhagwanbecomesofgreatimportance.ItispertinenttonotethatVishnu BhagwananIASofficerof1965batchwasPrincipalSecretarytotheChief Ministerattherelevanttime. Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.hasarguedthatforthepurposeoffilingreply to the writ petition no. 93/2003 of A3, a notice was issued by the governmenttoallthepersonsconcernedincludingtheChairpersonsandthe membersoftheDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesaswellasRajniShekri Sibal.However,shesentacrypticreply(Ext.PW46/54)mentioningthatthe official records may be referred available in the office pertaining to this period,withoutdisclosinganythingaboutthesemeetings.Itisarguedthat
itwasthefirstopportunityforRajniShekriSibaltostateherentireversion but she does not do so. It is submitted that this shows that her entire testimony before this court is a cock & bull story. I disagree with his submissions. Sheknewthatduringherowntime,effortsofchangingthe award lists had started. Therefore, she had no confidence in the functionariesoftheerstwhilegovernmentheadedbyOmPrakashChautala. Thisisthereasonthatinanyofhernotingsshehasnotreferredaboutsuch efforts.Inhercrossexaminationdated27.9.2011,sherepliedthatshehad noclueastowhomsheshouldwriteto,sinceherhigherupswerepresent inthesaidmeeting.Thisexplainsastowhysheevadedtogiveherversion. Furthermore,theeventsmentionedinthesaidwritpetitiondidnotpertain toherowntenureasDirector,PrimaryEducation.Therefore,therewasno needforhertonarrateherownexperienceinthereply.Furthermore,had shedoneso,shewouldhavefurtherantagonizedthepoliticiansrunningthe governmentoftheday. NowletmeseethetestimonyofVishnuBhagwan(A5/DW1). HetestifiedthatSmt.RajniShekriSibalwasappointedasDirectorPrimary Educationandanotedated20.6.2000(Ex.PW16/J)signedbySmt.Rajni ShekriSibalwassentthroughPremPrashanttoMinisterofEducation.The samewasputbeforeChiefMinisterandtheChiefMinisterhadapprovedthe
further action, as suggested for preparation of the results through HARTRON. HetestifiedthatthefilewaspersonallycarriedoutbyPrem PrashantansSmt.RajiShekriSibalonthatdatetohimandthathecleared itafterconsultingtheChiefMinister.Hefurthertestifiedthatafterclearing this file, Smt. RajniShekri Sibalstayedback andstatedtohim that she wouldliketobetransferredfromthispost(i.e.thepostofDirectorPrimary Education).Hefurthertestifiedthatshedidnottellanyreasonforit.He toldherthatthisrequestwouldbeaccededto.Afterthus,shewasordered tobetransferred,heproposedthenameofaccusedSanjivKumar(A3)to theChiefMinsitertobepostedinplaceofSmt.RajniShekriSibalsincehe hadbeenworkinginDPEPprojectandwasawareof functioningofthe PrimaryEducationDepartment. OnclarificationbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv, heexplainedthatPremPrashantandSmt.RajniShekriSibalmighthave comeearlierto11.7.2000andmadesucharequestandthatthefilewas cleared later on i.e. on 16.7.2000. He further testified that Smt. Rajni Shekrisibaldidnotcomplainregardinganyharassmentofthreattoheror aboutbeingpressurizedtochangetheJBTawardlists. Sh.S.K.Saxena, adv. argues that it must not be forgotten that this is the evidence of a person, who has been mentioned as her mentor by Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal.Thusitisarguedthathertestimonystandsfalsifiedthatsoonafter
thefirstmeetingatHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarh,shenarratedtheincident ofVishnuBhagtwa,IAS,thePrincipalSecretarytotheChiefMinisterwhile seeking her transfer. It is argued that Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal did not mentionorevenindicateanythingaboutthispressureinanyhernotingin departmental file i.e. D40. She had in fact not even mentioned in her notingEx.PW16/Jdated20.6.2000thatthealmirahhadbeenenclosedor wrapping in 4 meters of cloths around it. In these circumstances, it is arguedthatnotonlyshemadesubsequentimprovementsinhertestimony beforethiscourt,butalsohastestifiedvariousfactsincontradictiontoher earlierstatement. However,her testimonydoesnotgetanysupportfrom anynoting.ItisarguedthatVishnuBhagwan,IAS(A5/DW1)hastestified thatgenerallyanoteissenttoahigherauthorityforcomplianceofanoral orderifany.HistestimonyalsoprovesthatneitherSmt.RajniShekriSibal norPremPrashantnorSanjivKumarhavebroughtittohisnoticethatany pressure was being exerted for changing the award lists. In such circumstances,itisarguedthattheentiretestimonyshouldbethrownaway beingunworthyofcredence.ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv.thather evidenceisapoliticallymotivatedevidence.Itisarguedthatnoreference hasbeengivenabouttheanonymouscallreceivedbyherorofferingofthe 5% of the bribe money in her statement recorded during preliminary
enquiry.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothefactthatshe had read her statement under Section 161 CrPC before testifying in the court. Itisarguedthatitmustberememberedthatherstatementunder Section 161 CrPC recorded during preliminary enquiry had been duly signedbyher Ex.PW23/DC andthereforeshefeltherselfboundtotestify onthesamelines.Itisarguedthatthisisanotherreasonduetowhichher statementshouldbereadwithgreatcareandcaution,becauseitcreatesa seriousdoubtsintheveracityofhertestimony.Ld.Counselhasdrawnmy attention to Nathu Vs. State of Gujrat 1978 Crl.L.J. 448 in which full bench of Gujrat High Court criticizedthe practice ofreadingoverpolice statementstowitnessesbeforetheyenterthebox.Howeveritwasheldthat wheneversuchpracticeisresorted,thejudgesshouldcarefullyconsiderthe evidencegivenbythewitnessanddecideuponitsprobativevalueinviewof such facts and circumstances of each case. I have considered this submissionandIagreethatinsuchasituationthecourtmustcautiously andcriticallyexaminedworthofthewitness.Butatthesametimeitmust bekeptinmindthatsheisahighlyplacedofficerandtobelievethatshe would succumb to the pressure of CBI while testifying before this court would not be a correct position. So far as the improvements and contradictionspointedoutbyLd.DefenceCounselareconcerned,Imaysay
thatnoneofthemismaterialimprovementorcontradiction.Ananswerofa personsdependsuponastoinwhatmannerheisbeingquestioned.Imay pointoutthatshewastheperson,whowasdirectlyaffectedbyproposals forchangingtheawardlistsintwomeetings.Naturallyshewouldbemore sensitive and more concerned about the entire happenings, hence her memoryinrespectofthepersonsinvolvedandtheconversationsheldin thesemeetingsmustbeveryclearevenafterlapseofsuchalongtime.In her cross examination PW23 confidently stated that she possess ikonic memory. On clarification by this court, she explained that an ikonic memoryisonewhereapersonremembersincidentsandeventswhich actuallyhappenedintruerealityandthatsheremembereventothe extentastowhatclotheswerewornbywhichperson,ifsheputsher mindstothatincident.Experienceshowsthatthistypeofmemoryisnot uncommon. Therefore when she testifies about the events, her memory cannot faulter. Sh. S. K. Saxena, adv. argues that it is strange that her memoryof theeventsisnotasclearwhenshemadeastatementunder Section161CrPCinpreliminaryenquirybutitbecomesmoreclearandshe gave more facts when she makes a statement under Section 161 CrPC duringregularinvestigationandwhensheappearsbeforethiscourt,her memory further enhances and she testifies many more facts before this
court. Idisagreewiththissubmission. Sheherselftestifiesinhercross examination that her answers depended upon the way in which the questions were asked by the Investigating Officer and thereafter in this court.IagreewithherstatementandIwouldpointoutthatinexamination inchief,sheclearlystatethatPremprashanthadtoldherthatthemeetings wereconvenedbyChiefMinister.DuringhercrossexaminationbySh.D.S. Kohli,adv.forA1askedaspecificquestionastowhethershecouldgive thetopographyofthelocationofthehousewheresecondmeetingwas held.SheansweredthatshewasperplexedastowhyhervehicleandP . K.MahapatrawasaskednottofollowthevehicleofPremPrashant, whichisnotanorm.ShewasperplexedandsheaskedPremPrashant where he was taking them. This answer has come when a specific questionwasputtoherindefence. SinceLd.PublicProsecutorhadnot askedthisquestion,thisversionhasnotcomeinexaminationinchief. In viewofthisanswer,thiscourtputaquestiontoherasto,whatreplyPrem Prashantgavetoher. Inanswertothisquestionshestated hesaidit wastomeettheCM.Thisshowsthatapersonrespondstothemannerin whichaparticularquestionisasked.Ifsuchaquestionisnotaskedduring investigationorduringexaminationinchief,theanswerwouldnotcome. Therefore it cannot be said that all these statements are deliberate
improvements. Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal was directly affected by the proposaltochangetheawardlists. Sensitivitytoaneventandsenseof responsibilitydiffersfrompersontoperson. Smt.RajniShekriSibalwas justifiablyalarmedatsuchaproposalintwomeetingsandthereforeshe possesses better memory of the events than the other persons. Minor differencesinthestatementsaboutminorfactsdonotmakeherevidence beforethiscourtdoubtful.RegardingthefactastowhatPremPrashanthad toldheraboutthe persons,whoconvenedthemeeting, Iwouldsaythat thisisanaturalquestion,whichmusthavebeenaskedbySmt.RajniShekri SibalwhenhissuperiorofficernamelyPremPrashantwastakinghertothe twomeetings.NowletmeseewhatPremPrashant(PW16)testifiesinthis regard.Inexaminationinchief,heissilentastowhohadcalledthesetwo meetings. HowevercrossexaminationbyDurgaDuttpradhan(A38),he testifiedthatnormallysuchmeetingsarenotheldattheresidenceofVidya Dhar(A1). HoweverhewenttherealongwiththeDirectorsashemust have been informed on telephone by either house owner Vidya Dhar or somebodyelse.Furtherhetestifiedthatthemessageconveyedtohimwas thatAjaySinghChautala(A5)wouldattendthismeeting.Sh.S.K.Saxena, adv. specifically askedin his crossexamination dated13.12.2011 that at whoseinstance/ordershehadattendedthesaidmeetings. PW16testifies
thatasfarasherecall,someoneinCM'sofficehadinformedaboutthe meetings.TheseanswersshowthatPW16isbitevasiveinansweringthese questionsperhapsduetothelapseofmemorybutonethingisclearfrom histestimonythattheinstructionshadcometohimfromCM'soffice.The onlyinferencecanbedrawnfromthereplyisthatthesemeetingswereheld attheinstanceofChiefMinister.Insuchcircumstances,Smt.RajniShekri Sibal, who has all the reasons to have a specific memory about all the incidentsistestifyingtruthfullyastowhatPremPrashanthadtoldherasto whomtheyaregoingtomeetinthemeetings. Regarding Bhai Saheb, who has been stated by her in her statementunderSection161CrPChavingattendedthetwomeetings,she testifiedthatnowshecouldtellthathewasAjayChautala. Sheclarified thatatthattime,shedidnotknowthenameofsaidBhaiSaheb. This explainsastowhyinher statementunderSection161CrPC,AjaySingh ChautalawasreferredtoasBhaiSaheb. Imaymentionherethatshe cannot forget the imposing presence of Ajay Singh Chautala in the said meetings,whobysheerpresence,withoutspeakinganythinginthosetwo meetings,conveyedincleartermsastowhomhewasrepresenting. In fact the testimony of Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal stands fully corroborated by the evidence of PW16 Prem Prashant and PW26 P K. .
Mahapatra. ThereforetheallegationagainstherbyLd.DefenceCounsels that she is compulsive lier is totally baseless. To be fare with Sh. S. K. Saxena,adv.,Iwouldsaythathemadeitclearduringargumentsthatitis nothispersonalopinionaboutherratherhehasreachedtothisconclusion afterperusingthetestimonyofthiswitness. RegardingtheevidenceofVishnuBhagwan(A5/DW1),Iwouldsay thatheisclearlyconcealingsomematerialfactsfromthiscourt.Smt.Rajni Shekri Sibal took over the charge as Director Primary Education on 27.4.2000. She testified that when she was asked for the first time to changetheawardlistsinHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhandtheverynextday shemetVishnuBhagwanandtoldhimastowhathappenedandrequested for her transfer. She was transferred on 11.7.2000. This means she remainedpostedonlyforabout2andhalfmonths. Asperhertestimony shemaderequestfortransferjustafterthefirstmeetinginHaryanaNiwas, Chandigarh. VishnuBhagwan(A5/DW1)admitsthisfactthatSmt.Rajni ShekriSibalhadcometoherandmadearequestforhertransfer.Insuch circumstances,itwouldhavebeennormalforVishnuBhagwantoinquire fromSmt.RajniShekriSibalastowhysheisseekingaftersuchaveryshort tenure.ItisthereforebelievablethatSmt.RajniShekriSibalmusthavetold VishnuBhagwan,thePStoCM,thereasonsastowhysheisseekingtransfer
despitethefactthatshehadjoinedveryrecently. Thereforetestimonyof Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal that she had narrated the incident to Vishnu Bhagwanwhilemakingtherequestforatransferisreliableandatruthful version,whereasVishnuBhagwanisdefinitelyconcealingthisfactfromthe court.ThereasonsareverymuchavailableincrossexaminationofVishnu Bhagwan.HetestifiedincrossexaminationbySanjivKumar(A3)thatafter he retired, he was appointed Chairman, Haryana Bureau of Public EnterprisesandthereafterViceChancellorofGuruJambheshwarUniversity. Healsotestifiedthathewasonthesepostsforalittlemorethanfouryears afterhisretirement. SanjivKumr(A3)arguesthatthesepostretirements benefits come to Vishnu Bhagwan by the Government headed by Om Prakash Chautala, which is the reason that he is burdened with the obligations,whichhehadtakenfromOmPrakashChautala(A4). Imay point out here that a few accused persons had made serious efforts to implicateVishnuBhagwanasanaccusedinthiscasealleginghimtobeone ofthemaincoconspirator.Suchrequests/applicationsweredisallowedby this court because a lack of evidence. However the way he concealed materialfactastowhySmt.RajniShekriSibalhadsoughthertransfergives credencetotheallegationslevelledagainsthimbyafewaccusedpersons. Nonetheless the testimony of Vishnu Bhagtwan that he was not
awareofthescaminquestionandhistestimonythatSmt.RajniShekrisibal hadnotstatedthereasonsforhertransferisunworthyofrelianceandhas toberejected. Consequentlytheattemptofthedefencetoshakethecredibilityof Smt. Rajni Shekri sibal by putting Vishnu Bhagwan in their defence has miserablyfailed.Iamoftheopinionthatsheisnotonlyatruthfulwitness but I find that she was the only person, who had enough courage to withstand the political pressures exerted upon them. Rest of the bureaucratsclosedtheireyes,turnedtheirfaces,crawledbeforethepolitical bossesandmanycooperatedandaidedinexecutionoftheconspiracy. 106. PremPrashantandP .K.Mahapatra Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.forA2,A4andA5andSh.D.S.Kohli,adv.for A1wereatpainstoshowthatthetestimoniesofPremPrashant(PW16)and P K. Mahapatra (A26) are unworthy credence. Both the witnesses have . beenconfrontedwiththeirstatementsunderSection161CrPC. Sh.D.S. Kohli,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothestatementunderSection161CrPC Ex.PW26/DAofPremPrashantandsubmitsthatthepagesinwhichthereis referencetothetwomeetingsatHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhandatthe residenceofVidyaDhar(A1)havedifferentfontthantheremainingpages. Itispointedoutthatthequalityofthesetwopagesisalsodifferentfromthe
otherpages.Ihaveperusedthisstatementandfindthatpageno.4and5of thestatementEx.PW26/DAareindifferentfontthanotherpages.Further thesetwopagesareabityellowish.Howeveritdoesnotmeanthatthese yellowishpageshavebeeninsertedbyremovingtheoriginalpages.Perusal ofallthepageswouldshowthatpaperandqualityofallthesepapersare sameexceptthattwopagestobityellowish. FurtherIalsodonotfind substanceinthesubmissionsofLd.CounselforVidyaDhar(A1)thatthese twopageswerechangedandthatinthenewpages,thereferenceoftwo meetingsatHaryanaNiwas,ChandigarhandattheresidenceofVidyaDhar (A1)hasbeeninserted. Itisarguedthatitshouldbepresumedthatin original pages (which as perLd. Counselfor VidyaDharwere removed) therewasnoreferenceofthesetwomeetings.Idisagreewiththisinference drawn by Ld. Counsel for A1. Had CBI indulged in this type of manipulation,theycouldhaveverywellinsertedthenameofAjaySingh ChautalainthemeetingheldinHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarh. Theycould havealsoascribedsomeroletoVidyaDhar(A1)inboththesetwomeetings buttheroleascribedtoVidyaDhar(A1)inthesetwomeetingsisonlythat ofhisattendanceinthemeetingathisresidence. Ld.CounselshavedrawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPW26 and submits that as per him, first meeting at the house of Vidya Dhar
(A1)washeldandtherafterthemeetingatHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhwas held. IdisagreewithhissubmissionofLd.Counsels. InfactPW26has testifiedthathedidnothavespecificcollectionofsuchmeetingbecausea numberofmeetingsareheldinHaryanaNiwasChandigarh. However hestatedthattherewasanotheroccasionwhereSherSinghBadshami(A2) triedtomakeasuchmisadventureinanofficermeetingandalltheofficers hadtoldhimcategoricallythatnothingwronginselectionprocesswouldbe permitted.Thereforethistestimonyshowsthathehadthefaintrecollection ofthismeeting. Hehasnotstatedspecificallythatthismeetingwasheld aftertheincidentatthehouseofVidyaDhar(A1).SicnePW26hadafaint memoryofthemeetingatHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarh,hewasnotableto tellastowhetherotherpersonslikeAjaySinghChautalaandVidyaDhar werepresentthereornot.IncrossexaminationbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv., hecouldnotrecallastowhatwastimegapbetweenthetwomeetings.He statedthathewasunabletostatesobecausealongtimehaspassed. Prem Prashant (PW16) and P K. Mahapatra (PW26) were . confronted with theirstatements underSection 161 CrPC on veryminor points for example Sh. D. S. Kohli, adv. has confronted PW26 with his statementunderSection161CrPCinwhichhehasnotstatedthat one person joined the meeting within 5 minutes inside that house, his
identityIwouldsaynotawareatthatpointoftime.NowIunderstand thatpersonwasMr.AjaySinghChautala.ItwasalsostatedbyPW26in crossexaminationthathehadnotstatedinhisstatementunderSection161 CrPCthatafterInvestigatingOfficercalledhimquitesomeyearsback, Ihadtriedtorecallmymemory. Ihaddiscussedthematterwiththe officerspresentwithmeinthatmeeting.Ihadsubsequentlyseenthe photographs and names in various newspapers and TV and my understandingisbasedonthis.Imaypointoutthatinhisstatement before this court this witness has specifically mentioned that Ajay Singh ChautalahadattendedthemeetingheldatthehouseofVidyaDhar(A1). Inthatreferencehetestifiedthatonepersonjoinedthesaidmeetingwithin 5minutesfrominsidethathouse,buthewasnotawareofhisidentityat thatpoint. Thereafterhetestifiedthat nowIunderstandthatperson wasMr.AjaySinghChautala.Thiscourtclarifiedastowhathemeantby nowunderstandusedbyhiminhistestimony.Inanswertothisquestion hestatedthatafterInvestigatingOfficercalledhim,hetriedtorefreshhis memoryandhaddiscussedthematterwithofficerspresentwithhiminthat meeting. He had even seen the photographs of this person in various newspapersandTVandthathisunderstandingisbasedonthis.Therefore any details or explanation of a fact in examination in chief would not
amount to improvement even if it isnot written in the statement under Section 161 CrPC. Improvement meansthata personistrying to add something which is afterthought. Improvement would not include those thingswhichawitnessanswersinresponsetoaquestionisaskedtohim.In theevidencebeforethiscourtawitnesscangivemoredetailsandcangive explanationswheneveraskedbyLd.PublicProsecutor,Ld.DefenceCounsel andtheCourt.Suchfurtherdetailsoftheincidentsarenotcontradictions. Moreover non mentioning of such details or explanations in statement underSection161CrPCwouldnotamounttomaterialomission. One of the main point of assailing the testimony of PW26 P .K. Mahapatra that in his statement u/s 161 CrPC he does not mention the nameofAjaySinghChautalawhereaswhenhetestifiesbeforethiscourt,he specificallymentionshispresenceinthemeetingatthehouseofVidyaDhar (A1).Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.hasconfrontedPW26withhisstatementu/s 161CrPCinthecrossexaminationdt.15.11.2011.P .K.Mahaptra(PW26) hasadmittedthathehasnotnamedAjaySinghChautalahavingattended thesaidmeeting.However,inhisexaminationinchiefhehadmadeitclear that he had specifically seen the photographs and names in various newspapers,T.V .etc.andthatiswhyhewastestifyingthepresenceofAjay SinghChautalainthesaidmeeting.Imaypointoutthatinhisstatement
u/s 161 CrPC (Ext.PW26/DA), he has stated that in this meeting Vidya Dhar,thethenOSDtotheChiefMinister;SherSinghBadshamithethen PoliticalAdvisortotheChiefMinister,Haryanaand23otherpeoplewere alsopresenttowhomhedidnotrecognize.Thismeansthattillthetime ofrecordingofhisstatementu/s161CrPC,hedidnotknowaboutAjay SinghChautala,however,lateron,afterdiscussingthematterwiththeother officers present with him in the said meeting and also having seen the photographsandhisnameinvariousnewspapers,T.V .etc.,hewasableto pinpointtheidentityofAjaySinghChautalaasoneofthosepersonswho hadattendedthesaidmeeting.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.arguesthatthepower of observation of PW26 should have been tested by way of Test Identification Parade of Ajay Singh Chautala. I disagree with the submissionsofLd.DefenceCounsel. ThemeetingatthehouseofVidya Dharwasheld,ofwhichPW26hadaveryclearmemory,itwasnotdifficult forhimtoidentifyAjaySinghChautalaasthesamepersononseeinghis photographsinnewspapersandT.V .Furthermore,heconfirmeditfromthe otherofficerswhohadattendedthesaidmeeting. TheTestIdentification Parade would be required when a person had fleeting glimpses of an offender which was not the case here. Therefore, the testimony of this witnessstatingthatAjaySinghChautalawasoneofthepersonspresentin
thesaidmeetingistruthfulanditisalsobelievablethatthenameofAjay Singh Chautala does not find mention in his statement u/s 161 CrPC becausePW26cametoknowhisnamethereafter. ItisarguedthatthetestimonyofPW16PremPrashanthasbeen assailed by Sh. D.S. Kohli, Adv. stating that his statement u/s 161 CrPC (Ext.PW16/DA)wouldshowthat2pagesi.e.4&5havebeenchanged.Itis submittedthatthereisreferencetothesetwomeetingsinthesetwopages. ItisarguedthatitappearsthatPW16foundhimselfboundbyhisstatement u/s161CrPCwhichwasshowntohimbeforestartofhisevidencebythe Investigating Officer and therefore testimony of PW16 should be disbelieved. I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. PW16 Prem PrashantIAS has testified that he had retired as Chief Secretary, GovernmentofHaryanaon31.08.2007.Therefore,whenhetestifiedbefore thiscourt,hewasnotundergovernmentcontrol.Infact,hewasnoteven residing in State of Haryana because in his testimony he has given his addresstobethatofDayalBagh,Agra.Therefore,tosaythathewouldbe havingafearofsecuritytohisjobwhiletestifyingbeforethiscourtwould notbecorrect. IncrossexaminationbySh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.,hisattention wasdrawntothefactthatthepageno.4&5ofhisstatementu/s161CrPC
is having font different from the remaining portion of the statement. However,PW16deniedthatthesetwopageshavebeeninterpolatedbythe CBI.IhavealreadystatedthatPremPrashantisaretiredIASOfficerandis freefromanygovernmentpressure.Thereisnoreasonwhyhewouldnot pointouttothecourt,ifthereisanyinterpolationinthestatementu/s161 CrPC.HadtheInvestigatingOfficerwantedtomanipulate,nothingstopped himfrommentioningthenameofAjaySinghChautalahavingattendedthe firstmeetingatHaryanaNiwasChandigarhinthestatementu/s161CrPC ofPW16. In nutshell, except minor variations, the testimonies of Prem PrashantandP .K.Mahapatraaresameasfoundintheirstatementsu/s161 CrPC.MentioningofthenameofAjaySinghChautalabyP .K.Mahapatrain hisexaminationinchiefhasbeenexplainedbymeasabove,despitethefact that PW26 does not mention the name of Ajay Singh Chautala in his statement u/s 161 CrPC. I would like to mention here that minor contradictions, improvements or discrepancies in the statements of witnesses are natural. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat,AIR1983SupremeCourt753(1),theSupremeCourttracedthe reasonsforsuchcontradictionsetc.Thesamearereproducedasunder:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographicmemoryandtorecallthedetailsofanincident.Itisnotasifavideotape
isreplayedonthementalscreen. (2)Ordinarilyitsohappensthatawitnessisovertakenbyevents. Thewitnesscouldnothaveanticipatedtheoccurrencewhichsooftenhasanelementof surprise.Thementalfacultiesthereforecannotbeexpectedtobeattunedtoabsorbthe details. (3)Thepowersofobservationdifferfrompersontoperson.What onemaynotice,anothermaynot.Anobjectormovementmightembossitsimageon oneperson'smind,whereasitmightgounnoticedonthepartofanother. (4) Byandlargepeoplecannotaccuratelyrecallaconversation andreproducetheverywordsusedbythemorheardbythem.Theycanonlyrecallthe mainpurportoftheconversation.Itisunrealistictoexpectawitnesstobeahuman taperecorder. (5) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guesswork on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very preciseorreliableestimatesinsuchmatters. Again,itdependsonthetimesenseof individualswhichvariesfrompersontoperson. (6) Ordinarily,awitnesscannotbeexpectedtorecallaccuratelythe sequenceofevents whichtakeplaceinrapidsuccessionorinashorttimespan. A witnessisliabletogetconfused,ormixedupwheninterrogatedlateron. (7) Awitness,thoughwhollytruthful,isliabletobe overawedbythe Courtatmosphereandthepiercingcrossexaminationmadebycounselandoutof nervousnessmixupfacts,getconfusedregardingsequenceofevents,orfillupdetails fromimaginationonthespurofthemoment.Thesubconsciousmindofthewitness sometimessooperatesonaccount ofthefearoflookingfoolishorbeingdisbelieved thoughthewitnessisgivingatruthfulandhonestaccountoftheoccurrencewitnessed byhimperhapsitisasortofapsychologicaldefencemechanismactivatedonthespur ofthemoment.
The Supreme Court in this judgment further held that discrepancieswhichdonotgototherootofthematterandshakethebasic versionofthewitnesses,cannotbeattachedwithundueimportance.More so when the all important probabilitiesfactor echoes in favour of the
versionnarratedbythewitnesses. InTeshsildarSingh&anotherv.StateofU.P .AIR1959Supreme Court1012,itwasobservedthatnormallytheInvestigatingOfficersrecord gist of the witnesses under section 161 CrPC which are sometimes perfunctory.Thisisanotherreasonthatallthedetailsoffacts/eventsdonot appearinthestatementsu/s161CrPC. I would add another reason in this regard. The answer of a witnessdependsuponastoinwhatmannerthequestionhasbeenputto him by the Investigating Officer or by the Public Prosecutor or by the DefenceCounsel. Themethodandformofsuchquestionnaturallydiffers fromInvestigatingOfficertoPublicProsecutorandtotheDefenceCounsel. Thequestionaskedonthesamefactwouldelicitadditionaldetailsifsuch questionisputinadifferentform. Invariably,thedetailsoftheanswer wouldchangewithaviewthataparticularquestionissuitablyansweredby suchwitness.Thecourtcannotbeobliviousofthepsychologicalcondition ofthewitnesswhoisbeingexaminedandcrossexaminedinthecourtof law,bywhichhefeelsaresponsibilitytocomecleanonthetouchstoneof theexaminationandcrossexaminationespeciallywhenbarbedquestions arebeingshotathimchallengingnotonlyhisveracityandtrustworthiness butalsodirectlyandindirectlyallegingthatsuchwitnesswaseithermixed
upwithsomeinterestedpersons/vestedinterestsorwiththeallegationthat such witness was actually involved in commission of the offence as accomplice. Inthepresentcase,afewthingsmustbekeptinmind.First,these witnessesweretotestifyagainstthepowerfulpersonswhoarefromoneof the most important parties in the State of Haryana having formed its governmentwhentheoffencewascommittedandthereafteritwasthemain oppositionwhichmaycometopoweranytime. Though,PremPrashant (PW16)hadalreadyretiredintheyear2007andhadsettledinAgra,U.P ., but,RajniShekriSibalandP .K.Mahapatrawerestillhavingalongtimeto serveinHaryanaCadre. Insuchasituation,itcannotbepresumedthat they would testify before this court falsely simply at the instance of Congressparty.Furthermore,itdoesnotappealtomymindthattheywill falselytestifybeforethiscourtsimplybecausetheyfoundthemselvestobe boundbytheirpreviousstatements. Ihaveyettoseeawitnesswhohad foundhimselftobe boundbyhisstatementu/s161CrPC. Inthiscase itself,SanjeevKaushalIAS(PW1)turnedhostileonaverymaterialpoint despitethefactthathewasconfrontedwithhisstatementu/s161CrPC.I maypointoutthatSanjeevKaushalonthedateofhisexaminationinchief beforethiscourtwasworkingasChairman&ManagingDirector,Haryana
PowerGenerationCorporationLtd.inHaryana.Ifthiswitnesshadturned hostile,ithaveonlyonemeaningthattherewasnopressureuponhimfrom theGovernmentofHaryanaorBhupinderSinghHooda,thepresentChief Minister of Haryana, who has been stated to be the main rival of Om PrakashChautala. Ifurtherpointoutthatnoneofthesewitnesseshave testifiedagainstOmPrakashChautala,thethenChiefMinisternoranyof them had made any statement u/s 161 CrPC ascribing him any role. Therefore,tosaythatthesewitnessesareplayinginthehandsofCongress leaders to demolish his political careers, is an argument which is not substantiated. 107. RoleofVidyaDhar(A1) ProsecutionhasallegedthatVidyaDhar(A1)wasOSDtotheChief Ministerattherelevanttime.PW16PremPrashantIASwhowasFinancial CommissionerEducationandLanguagesattherelevanttimetestifiedthat onemeetingwasheldatHaryanaNiwasChandigarhwhichwasattendedby himand probablybyVishnuBhagwanPStoCM,VidyaDharOSDtoCM and Sher Singh BadshamiPolitical Advisor to CM. Rajni Shekri Sibal Director Primary Education was also present in the said meeting and a suggestion was made to change or replace the interview lists of JBT
candidates. However,itwascategoricallystatedbyhimandRajniShekri Sibalthattheresultswereinsealedcoverandunderlock&keyandthatit wasneitherlegalnorethicaltoconsiderthoseoptions.Hefurthertestified thatsecondmeetingwasheldattheresidenceofVidyaDharOSDtoCM and it was attended by him, Rajni Shekri Sibal (PW23), Sher Singh Badshami (A2), Ajay Singh Chautala (A5) and the same subject was broughtupthatsomecandidateshadnotbeengivengoodmarksandifthe resultscouldbechanged. Hetestifiedthatitwascategoricallystatedby RajniShekriSibalaswellasbyhimthatitwasnotpossible.PW23Rajni ShekriSibalwhowastheDirectorPrimaryEducationatthattimetestified that in first meeting which held on 02.05.2000 in Haryana Niwas, Chandigarh which was attended by Prem Prashant, P Mahapatra, Sher .K. SinghBadshamiandAjaySinghChautala. Inthesaidmeeting,theissue regarding the changing of award lists was discussed by Sher Singh BadshamiatlengthinpresentofAjaySinghChautala. However,sheand P Mahapatra told that it was not possible as the results were lying in .K. sealedenvelopesandunderlock&key.Insecondmeeting,alsoattendedby AjaySinghChautala,theymetSherSinghBadshamiattheresidenceofA1, shewasaskedtochangethelists.P .K.Mahapatra(PW26)isanIASOfficer andwaspostedasDirectorSecondaryEducation,Haryana.Hetestifiedthat
onedayPremPrashanttookhimandRajniShekriSibalinhiscartoahouse in Sector7, Chandigarh and in that house Sher Singh Badshami, Vidya Dharand3or4personswerepresent.Inthesaidmeeting,PremPrashant explainedtheselectionofJBTteachersandthepositionofselectionsonthat day.SherSinghBadshamihadraisedquestionsandstatedthatsomepeople havegotlessmarksininterviewsandaskedastowhethertheinterview marksofthosepersonscouldbeincreased. HeaswellasPremPrashant andRajniShekriSibalcategoricallytoldSherSinghBadshamithatthiswas anoffenceandnochangeininterviewmarkscanbeeffectedorpermitted. He also testified that this meeting was also attended by Ajay Singh Chautala. PW26 further testified that on another occasion, Sher Singh Badshamihadtriedtomakesuchamisadventureinofficer'smeetingand officers present had told him categorically that nothing wrong in the selectionprocesscouldbepermitted. ItisarguedbySh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.thatPW26P .K.Mahapatradoes notstatethatVidyaDhar(A1)waspresentinfirstmeetingheldatHaryana Niwas.Similarly,RajniShekriSibal(PW23)hasnotstatedthatVidyaDhar was present in the first meeting held at Haryana Niwas, Chandigarh. Therefore,itisarguedthattestimonyofPremPrashant(PW16)thatVidya DharwaspresentinthemeetingatHaryanaNiwasshouldbedisbelieved.
Sh.D.S.KohliAdv.haddrawnattentionofPW16tohisstatementu/s161 CrPC. On seeing his statement u/s 161 CrPC, he admitted that in his statement,thenameofVidyaDhardoesnotappearwithrespecttofirst meeting. IhaveconsideredthesubmissionsofSh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.andIam oftheopinionthatasafercoursewouldbetoacceptthepleaofVidyaDhar thathewasnotpresentinthefirstmeeting. Inrespectofthesecondmeetingwhichwasheldatthehouseof VidyaDhar,Sh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.hasstronglydeniedthisfact.However,he arguesthatevenforasakeofargumentsitispresumedthatthismeeting washeldathishouse,thereisnoevidencethathemadeanysuggestionof any type regarding the changing of the award lists. He has taken me throughthetestimoniesofPW16,PW23&PW26andsubmitthatnoneof thewitnesseshasspokenawordagainstVidyaDhar.Therefore,hecannot betreatedtobeapartoftheconspiracy.SofarasthetestimonyofSanjiv Kumar(A3/DW9)isconcerned,itisclearthathehasnamedVidyaDharin thewritpetitionandhastestifiedagainsthimbeforethiscourtbecausehe wasaggrievedonaccountofthereasonthatVidyaDharwasalsodealing withtheDepartmentofPrinting&Stationaryandduetotheirregularities committed by A3 in the department, departmental action as well as
criminal cases was initiated against him. Furthermore, it is argued that even if the testimony of Sanjiv Kumar is believed to be true and it is presumedthatVidyaDharwaspresentintheGuestHouseatChandigarh, still,A3doesnotspeakevenasinglewordagainsthim. Innutshell,itis arguedbyLd.DefenceCounselsthatthoughA1doesnotadmitbeingthe party of any meeting held at his residence or at the guest house at Chandigarh,but,evenifthesameistreatedtobetrue,thisevidencedoes notimplicateA1inthepresentcrime.Sh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.hasdrawnmy attentiontothetestimonyofthe defencewitnessSatbir(A1/DW1)and submitsthatevenhiscloserelativesnamelySatbir,ShardaDevi,Pradeep KumarandGhanshamwerenotselected.ItisarguedthathadVidyaDhar been a part of the conspiracy and were involved in creation of the fake awardlists,hemusthaveensuredthathisownrelativesareselected. Ld. Counsels for A1 have has taken me through the relevant paragraphsofStateVsNalini&Others(1999)5SCC253;AjayAggarwal VsUnionofIndiaandOthers(1993)3SCC609;KeharSinghandOther Vs State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609; Sardul Singh CaveesharVsStateofBombayAIR1957SC747&SardarSardulSingh CaveesharVsStateofMaharashtra[1964]Vol.2SupremeCourtReport 378 andarguedthatwhileascertainingtheroleofA1,followingpoints
shouldbekeptinmind: 1. Thosewhoformintentbecomeconspirators. 2. Thosewhodonotformintentanddropoutarenotconspirators. 3. Mereknowledgeofconspiracydoesnotmakeapersonaconspirator. 4. Criminalconspiracycannotbeinferredfrommereofficialdiscussion orfromsimplemeetingoftwopersons. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Counsels and I do not agreewiththemthatPW16,PW23&PW26areunreliablesimplybecause there are some minor variations in their testimonies. In fact their testimonies are not only truthful but worthy of credence, though their testimoniesmaysufferfromlapseoftime.Itmustbekeptinmindthatthe incidenthadtakenplaceintheyear2000andinvestigationsstartedafter threeyears. Thesewitnessescametotestifybeforethiscourtaftermore thantenyearsoftheincident.Thesethreewitnessesaresureaboutthese twomeetings. Howeverasanabundantcaution,Irejectthetestimonyof PW16regardingthepresenceofA1inthefirstmeeting.Outofthesethree witnesses,Iwouldsaythatthememoryoftheseincidentswereveryfreshin themindofSmt.RajniShekriSibal.Reasonsissimple.Itwasshe,whowas askedtoreplacetheawardlists.Shewasmoresensitivetotheissueand this is the reason that after the very first meeting at Haryana Niwas,
Chandigarh,sheenclosedthealmirahcontainingawardlistswith4meters ofclothandputasealonit.TheconductofVidyaDhar(A1)inthewhole affairs,evenifheissilentinthesecondmeetingathishousehastobe considered in backdrop of all circumstances. First of all a meeting had takenplaceatHaryanaNiwas,NewDelhiinwhichpoliticaladvisortothe ChiefMinisterhadaskedSmt.RajniShekriSibaltochangetheawardlists. Smt. Rajni Shekeri Sibal (PW23) has testified in her cross examination dated14.9.2011thatPremPrashantonboththeoccasions(i.e.whenfirst meetinginHaryanNiwas,Chandigarhandsecondmeetingattheresidence ofVidyaDharwasheld)statedthatChiefMinisterHaryanahadconvened thesemeetings.IncrossexaminationbySh.D.S.Kohli,adv.forVidyaDhar (A1), she testified that they commuted in the official vehicle of Prem PrashantonwardsSector7,(i.e.theaddressofVidyaDhar)andthattheir vehicles wee asked not to follow. She also testified that she was perplexed as to why her vehicle and P K. Mahapatra's vehicle were not . askedtofollowthevehicleofPremPrashant,whichisnotanorm.Shewas perplexedandsheaskedtoPremPrashantastowherehewastakingthem. Oncourtquestion,sheansweredthathe(i.e.premPrashant)toldthatit wastomeettheChiefMinister.ImaypointoutthatroleofVidyaDhar(A1) shouldbeseeninthelightofthefactthatalthoughtheChiefMinisterwas
notpresentinthismeetingbuthisOSD(i.e.VidyaDhar)waspresentand thismeetingwasheldatthehouseofVidyaDhar(A1).Anyofficialmeeting attheresidenceofapublicservantarenotthenorm.Imaypointoutthat Smt.RajniShekriSibalwasconfrontedwithherstatementunderSection 161CrPC,whereinshehadnotstatedthatPremPrashanthadtoldherthat themeetingwasconvenedbytheChiefMinister.Howeveritdoesnotmake anydifference becauseanswerswouldcomeinthemannerthequestions are asked. I may point out that PW16 Prem Prashant, in his cross examination (dated 20.10.2011) by Vidya Dhar (A1), has testified Smt. RajniShekriSibalhadtravelledinhisofficialcar(i.e.ofPremPrashant)to theresidenceofVidyaDhar(A1).Answeringaquestionaskedbyaccused Durga DuttPradhan(A38), PW16testifiedthatVidyaDhar(A1)wasan HCSofficermuchjuniortohim(i.e.PW16)butsincethestaffoftheChief Minister calls the meetings on behalf ofChief Minister, therefore even if OSDisjuniortohim,hecancallsuchmeetings. Healsostatedthatthe meetingiscalledbyPrincipalSecretarytoCMorOSDtoCM.Inhiscross examination dated 19.10.2011, PW16 testified that in normal course no meetingshouldtakeplaceatthehouseofVidyaDhar(A1).Thereforethe factthatVidyaDhar(A1)wastheOSDtotheChiefMinisterandsucha meetingaskingforchangingtheawardlistswasheldathisresidence,which
wasalsoattendedbySherSinghBadshami(A2),thepoliticaladvisortothe ChiefMinisteraswellasbyAjaySinghChautala(A5)speaksvolumeabout theroleofVidyaDhar(A1).Hedidnotspeakbuthestoodasthereminder of the fact to all the concerned that he represents the Chief Minister. Silencecan be sometimes more potent than the 'words'. An 'omission' sometimes is more lethal than 'the act'. PW16, PW23 and PW26 have testifiedthattheymadeitclearthatchangingtheawardlistsisillegalbut what Vidya Dhar (A1) did. Did he oppose such a proposal like Prem Prashant, Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal and P K. Mahapatra? Further such a . seniorofficersarecomingtohisresidencedespitehisbeingajuniorofficer and in his presence the discussions of changing the award lists is being carriedcoupledwiththefactthatthevehiclesofSmt.RajniShekriSibaland Prem Prashant are asked not to follow the vehicle, of Prem Prashant in whichallofthemweretravelling,smellofaconspiracy,whichwasinthe processofexecution.HereImayrefertothetestimonyofSmt.RajniShekri Sibal(PW23),whotestifiedthatwhentheywerereturningfromthehouse of Vidya Dhar (A1) in the official vehicle of Prem Prashant, there was totalsilence.Thiswastheimpactofthemeetingheldattheresidenceof VidyaDhar(A1).VidyaDhar(A1)hasnotexplainedastowhythismeeting washeldathisresidenceandwhathadtranspiredbehindthescenejust
priortoholdingofthismeetinginwhichtheofficers,whoweremuchsenior tohim,werecalledathisresidence.IthasbeenarguedbyLd.Counselsfor Vidyadhar(A1)thatafterthismeetingVidyaDhar(A1)hadnoroletoplay andthattheevidenceofSanjivKumar(A3/DW9)inthisrespectisfalse.I may point out that the name of Vidya Dhar (A1) has been mentioned prominentlyinthewritpetitionbySanjivKumar(A3). Thoughtherole attributedtoVidyaDhar(A1)bySanjivKumar(A3)thathehaddelivered thealreadypreparedliststoSanjivKumar(A3)hasbeenheldtobefalsebut IwouldsaythatfromhistestimonyitstandsprovedthatVidyaDhar(A1) remainedactivelyinvolvedevenafterthemeetingheldathishouse.Sanjiv Kumar(A3)inhisevidencehastestifiedthatwhenhewascalledinPunjab GuestHouse,VidyaDhar(A1),SherSinghBadshami(A2)werealsopresent along with the other persons in a room and were having tea. In this meetingalsotherewasadiscussionaboutchangingthelists.Healsosawa handfulpersonsweresittinginthemainhall. Thistestimonyaboutthe presenceofVidyaDhar(A1)intheguesthouseatChandigarhisworthyof credence.InfactLd.CounselforA6,A7andA8havestronglyarguedthat theseaccusedpersonswerecalledtotheguesthouseandthatSanjivKumar (A3),VidyaDhar(A1)andSherSinghBadshami(A2)hadaskedthemto prepare a second award lists and gave instructions as to how these lists
weretobeprepared. MyattentionhasbeendrawnbyLd.Counseltothe statementunderSection313(5)CrPCofSmt.PremBahl,whohasstated thatallthethreeweresittinginthesameroomandtheycouldsuccessfully createanatmosphereofintimidationandthatSanjivKumargaveheralist ofrollnumbersofallthecategorieshandwrittenonanarrowstripofpaper and instructed him verbally reallot the interview marks to those roll numbers.IwouldpointoutherethatsubmissionsofLd.CounselforA6to A8cannotbeconsideredagainstanyotheraccusedpersonsbecausethese factswerenotputbythemincrossexaminationofA3/DW9.Butthefact thattheSanjivKumar(A3)hadattendedthesaidmeetingstandsproved fromthetestimonyofM.L.Gupta(PW56),whohastestifiedthatSanjiv Kumar(A3)hadgonetotheWaterSupplyGuestHouse,1256,Sector8, ChandigarhandsomeDPEOshadalsoattendedthesaidmeeting. Those DPEOsweretoldthatincasetheywerenothavingawardlists,theycould takefromhimbuteverybodywashavingthecopyofawardlists. PW56 furthertestifiedthattheywerecalledbySanjivKumarinaroom,inwhich someotherpersonswerealsopresentandthesaidDPEOswerebriefed. ThusthetestimonyofSanjivKumar(A3)astowhowerepresentinthis meetinghastobebelieved.Noneofthechairpersonsandthemembersof theDistrictLevelSelectionCommittee,whohadattendedthesaidmeeting
had denied in cross examination the testimony of Sanjiv Kumar (A3) regardinghispresenceandthepresenceofSherSinghBadshami(A2)as wellasVidyaDharOSD.ThereforenoncrossexaminationofA3/DW9on this point by the concerned DPEOs and the members is sufficient corroborationtothetruthfulnessofSanjivKumaronthispoint.Thereforeit standsprovedthatVidyaDhar(A1)wasinvolvedinthepresentconspiracy fromtheverybeginningandwasnotonlyinstrumentalinpressurizingSmt. RajniShekriSibaltochangetheawardlistsathisresidencebutalsoactively participated in the meeting where many chairpersons and the members werecalledatWaterSupplyGuestHouse,Chandigarhandweredirectedto preparedasecondawardlists. Iwouldcite KeharSinghVs.StateAIR 1988SC1883,wheretheevidenceagainstKeharSinghthattheywere talkingontheroofafewdaybeforetheassassinationofMrs.Gandhi. KeharSinghcametoherhouseandwasclosetwithBeantSinghonthe roofforabout18/15minutes. Therewashushtalksbetweenthem, whichcouldnotbeoverheardbySmt.BimlaKhalsa(theprosecution witness)asshewasinthekitchen.Thisevidencewasconsideredtobea verystrongevidenceagainstKeharSinghwhoseconvictionwasupheldby the Supreme Court of India. In the present case, although there is no evidencethatVidyaDhar(A1)wassecretlydiscussingthematterwithother
persons but there is direct evidence of his involvement in the meetings wheresucheffortstoreplaceawardlistswerebeingmade.Inferencecanbe drawnthatVidyaDhar(A1)hadsomeconversionsanddiscussionspriorto boththesemeetingsnamelyathisresidencewithSmt.RajniShekriSibal andthereafterattheWatersupplyGuestHouse. Whyhewaspresentin thosemeetingscanbeexplainedbyonlyoneansweri.e.hewasoneofthem mainconspiratorinvolvedinthepresentconspiracy. Imayaddherethat VidyaDharwasinfactinvolvedinthisconspiracysoonafterthetakingof vacanciesofJBTteachersoutofthepurviewofStaffSelectionCommission. Thisaspectwould,however,bediscussedseparately. 108. SherSinghBadshami(A2) Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.forthisaccusedhasarguedthatonlyevidence againstSherSinghBadshami(A2)isthetestimoniesofPW16,PW23and PW26.Apartfromit,anentryinvisitorsregistershowinghispresencein HaryanaBhawanon1.9.2000havebeenledbytheprosecution.Evidence ofDarshanDayalVerma(A50),whosteppedintowitnessboxinhisdefence as A50/DW1 has also testified that he was instructed to visit Haryana Bhawan,NewDelhion1.9.2000,whereSanjivKumr(A3)andSherSingh Badshami (A2) had asked him and pressurize him to prepare a second awardlist. MoreoverSanjivKumar(A3/DW9)hasalsotestifiedthatSher
Singh Badshami (A2) was present in Haryan Bhawan, New Delhi. It is argued by Sh. S. K. Saxena, adv. that although he does not admit the testimoniesoftheaforesaidwitnesses.Howeverevenifitispresumedtobe true, no offence is disclosed against him. It is argued that Sher Singh Badshami(A2)isalaypoliticiananddoesnothavemuchunderstandingof official and legal matters. His only job as political advisor to the Chief MinisteristoinformtheChiefMinisteraboutthefeelingsanddemandsof thepublic.ItisarguedthatSherSinghBadshami(A2)wasonlyexpressing agenuineconcerntoSmt.RajniShekriSibalthatsomecandidateshavenot beenabletogetgoodmarksdespitetheirgoodqualificationsandwhether somefavourcouldbedonetothembytheDirectorPrimaryEducation.Itis arguedthatitwasaplainandsimplerequest,whichdoesnothaveany conspiratorialtonenoritmeansthathepressurizedthemtodothatact.As soonasPremPrashant,Smt.RajniShekrisibalandP .K.Mahapatrastated thatitcouldnotbedone,matterendedthere.ItisarguedthatSherSingh Badshami(A2)hadexaminedonedefencewitnessnamelyMukeshKukmar Sethi(A2/DW1)whohastestifiedthattheroomwasbookedinthename ofSherSinghBadshamibuthe(i.e.thewitness)alongwithhisonefriend namelySwarnjeet@Sammyhadstayedinthenightof31.8.2000.Sh.Anil Rathi, adv., who isassistingSh. S. K. Saxena,adv.,added here that this
witness has testified that even in the visitors register the friend of this witnesshadputhissignature,whichdonottallywiththesignaturesofSher Singh Badshami (A2) and had requested this court to compare the signaturesofSherSinghBadshami(A2)onhisstatementunderSection313 CrPC and the signatures in the visitors register. I have acceeded to this request and has compared both the signatures. I find that there is no differenceinbothofthemexceptthatthesignaturesonthevisitorregister are just initials but formation of S and m are similar to each other. ThereforeIamnotinclinedtoacceptthetestimonyofthiswitnessthathe hadstayedalongwithMr.Sammyinthisguesthouseonthesaidday.Even ifthistestimonyisbelieved,thewitnesstestifiedthathehadvacatedthe houseatabout8:30aminthemorningon1.9.2000. Themeetingatthe HaryanaBhawanshouldhavestartedatabout10:00ambecausetheDPEOs andthemembershadtocomefromHaryanaandaftervacationoftheroom bythiswitness,SherSinghBadshami(A2)couldhaveusedthisroom.The evidenceofdefencewitnessnamelyMukeshKumarSethi(A2/DW1)does not come to the rescue of Sher Singh Badshami (A2) because in cross examinationbySh.I.D.Vaid,Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutor,heleftHaryana Bhawan, New Delhi around8:30 amon next day i.e. 1.9.2000. On the otherhand,theentryinthevisitorregisterofHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi
provestheprosecutioncasethatSherSinghBadshami(A2)hadstayedin HaryanaBhawan,NewDelhion1.9.2000. Thisentryhasbeenprovedby clerkspostedinHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhinamelyKishanChand(PW25) andSatbirsingh(PW45). Further,thereisdirectevidenceofD.D.Verma (A50/DW1). He was posted as District Primary Education, Rewari in December 1999 and was the Chairman of District Level Selection CommitteealongwithothermembersnamelySarojSharma(A51)andTulsi Ram (A52) and had conducted the interview of JBT candidates from 1.12.1999to3.12.1999fordistrictRewarionlyforthreedays.On1.9.2000 hereachedatHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhiincompliancetoatelephonic messagereceivedfromShadiLalKapoorPStoSanjivKaushal,Additional Principal Secretary to CM through DEO Fatehabad. He testified that he reached Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi at about 2:00 pm and met Sanjiv Kumar(A3),whotoldhim(D.D.Verma)thathewaslateandnecessary instructions had been given to DPEO, Rewari, who had already left, regarding the preparation of second set of award lists. This accused testifiedthatwhenheshowedhesitationtoprepareasecondsetofaward lists,SanjivKumar(A3)threatenedhimofdireconsequencesandtookhim toaroomwhereSherSinghBadshami(A2)wassitting. Hetestifiedthat bothofthemsaidthattheseweretheorderofStateGovernmentofHaryana
andthathehadnooptiontodefythesameotherwisehewouldhavetoface theconsequences.Thiswitnesswasthoroughlycrossexaminedbysh.S.K. Saxena,adv. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothecross examination on behalf of Sher Singh Badshami (A2), wherein A50/DW1 testifiedthatheneverknewSherSinghBadshami(A2)priortothevisitto HaryanaBhawan,NewdelhiandthatSanjivKumarhadtoldhimthename of the said person as Sher Singh Badshami (A2). It is argued that this witnessisnotsureastowhetherthepersonsittingintheHaryanaBhawan, NewDelhiwasSherSinghBadshami(A2)himselfornot. Idisagreewith this submission of Ld. Counsel. I may point out that I had sought clarificationsfromthiswitnessonthispointonwhichheclearlyidentified SherSinghBadshami(A2)presentinthecourtonthatdateasthesame person,whohehadmetinHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi.Ihavecarefully perusedthetestimonyofthiswitness.Ihavealreadystatedthatthoughhe isanaccomplice,buthehascometothecourtveryfairlyandtruthfullyand hasnottriedtoshifthisblameonanyotherpersonandhasnotexaggerated theroleofotheraccusedpersons. Ihavealreadystatedthatprosecution hasledsufficientevidencetoprovethattheChairpersonsandthemembers hadbeencalledtoHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhion1.9.2000andSherSingh Badshami(A2)andSanjivKumar(A3)wereverymuchpresentinthesaid
meeting.Theevidenceofthisaccusedfurthergetscorroborationfromthe testimonyofSanjivKumar(A3/DW9)himself,whohastestifiedthathehad visitedHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhiandmetSherSinghBadshami(A2). The cumulative effect of all these evidence is that Sher Singh Badshami (A2) had first tried to pressure Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal in a meetingheldinHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhtochangetheawardlists. A secondattemptwasmadebyhimattheresidenceofVidyaDhar(A1)by pressurizingSmt.RajniShekriSibaltochangetheawardlists. Lateron SanjivKumar(A3)wasabletotakeouttheoriginalawardlistsfromthe almirah. Testimony of Sanjiv Kumar (A3/DW9) prove that Sher Singh Badshami(A2)waspresentalongwith(A1)and(A3)intheguesthouseof WaterSupplyandSanitationDepartmentofPunjabatChandigarh,whereas perM.L.Gupta(PW56)someChairpersonsandthememberswereaskedto takethecopyofawardlists.SherSinghBadshami(A2)tookactiveinterest inpressurizingandthreateningtheotherchairpersonsandthemembersof theDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteeson1.9.2000inHaryanaBhawan, NewDelhi,asperA50/DW1. Thereforeacompletechainofevidenceis available on record about his main and active participant in the entire conspiracyfrombeginningtotheend.Imayaddherethatinfacthewas involved in the process of selection from the very beginning when the
vacancies of JBT teachers were taken out from the purview of Staff SelectionCommission.HoweverIwilldealthisaspectlateron. 109. AjaySinghChautala(A5) Ihavealreadydiscussed thatRajniShekriSibal, P K. Mahapatra . andPremPrashantaretruthfulwitnessesandworthyofcredence.Sh.S.K. Saxena,adv.foraccusedAjaySinghChautala(A5)arguesthatSmt.Rajni ShekriSibal(A23)hastestifiedthatinthefirstmeetingheldon2.5.2000in HaryanaNiwas,Chandigarh,PremPrashant.P .K.Mahapatra,SherSingh Badshamiandagentlemancalled (BhaiSahabi.e.AjaySinghChautala) werepresentinthesaidmeetingandtheissueregardingthechangingof awardlistswasdiscussedbySherSinghBadshami(A2)andPremPrashant initiallyandAjaySinghChautala(A5)camelateronafter1520minutes andtheissuekeptbeingdiscussedatlength. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.has drawnmyattentiontothetestimonyofPw16PremPrashant,whotestified in his examination in chief that a meeting was held at Haryana Niwas, Chandigarh,whichwasattendedbyhimandprobablybyVishnuBhagwan PStoCM.VidyaDharOSDandSherSinghBadshamithepoliticaladvisorto theChiefMinister.Smt.RajniShekriSibal,DirectorPrimaryEducationwas alsointhesaidmeeting.ItissubmittedthatPW16PremPrashantdoesnot statethatAjaySinghChautala(A5)wasalsopresentinthismeeting.Sh.S.
K.Saxena,adv.hasalsotakenmethroughthetestimonyofP .K.Mahapatra, IAS(PW26),whotestifiedthatinanothermeetingheldatHaryanaNiwas, Chandigarh, Sher Singh Badshami (A2) had tried to make such a misadventureintheofficersmeeting. Itisarguedthathealsodoesnot mention the name of Ajay Singh Chautala (A5) having attend the said meeting.ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv.thatthereforethetestimony ofRajniShekriSibalaboutthepresenceofAjaySinghChautala(A5)inthe firstmeetingatHaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhstandsuncorroboratedbyany oral or documentary evidence and therefore should be disbelieved. The second leg of arguments of Sh. S. K. Saxena, adv. is that even if it is presumedthatAjaySinghChautala(A5)waspresentinthefirstmeetingat HaryanaNiwas,Chandigarhaswellasinthesecondmeetingheldatthe residenceofVidyaDhar(A1),noneofthewitnessesincludingRajniShekri sibalhastestifiedthathemadeanysuggestionforchangingawardlists. ThereisnoallegationsthatAjaySinghChautala(A5)pressurizedherto changeit. Infact hehasnotevenparticipatedinthediscussions. Itis arguedthataspertheevidenceobtainingonrecord,AjaySinghChautala (A5) remained totally aloof from the discussions, which were being conversed between Sher Singh Badshami (A2), Prem Prashant and Rajni ShekriSibal. RegardingtelephoniccallsbetweenSanjivKumar(A3)and
AjaySinghChautala(A5),Sh.S.K.Saxena,hasdrawnmyattentiontothe factthatwhileprovingthesetelephonerecords,nocomplianceofSection 65BoftheIndianEvidenceActhasbeenmade.Itisfurtherarguedthatthe official,whohadtakenouttheprintoutsfromthecomputer,hasnotbeen examinedratheranaccountsofficerhasbeenexaminedtoprovethecall details. Furtherthesecalldetailsdonotbearthesignatureofanyofthe official, who had taken out or handed over the print outs to the InvestigatingOfficer,thereforetheseprintoutscanbechangedatanytime andthereisnoguaranteeoftheircorrectness.Itistruethatthecertificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is not attached with the telephonic records.However,thisisnottheonlywaytoprovethetelephonicrecords. Infact,similarcontentionswereadvancedbeforeaDivisionBenchofthe HighCourtin Statev.Mohd.Afzal&Ors.2003VIIAD(Delhi)1, which observedasunder:
276.Thenormalruleofleadingdocumentaryevidenceistheproduction and proofoftheoriginaldocumentitself.Secondaryevidenceofthecontentsof a documentcanalsobeledunderSection65oftheEvidenceAct. Under Sub clause'd'ofSection65,secondaryevidenceofthecontentsofadocument canbe ledwhentheoriginalisofsuchanatureasnottobeeasilymovable. Computerizedoperatingsystemsandsupportsystemsinindustrycannot be moved to the court. The information is stored in these computers on magnetic tapes(harddisc).Electronicrecordproducedtherefromhastobetakenin the form of a print out. Subsection (1) of Section 65B makes admissible without furtherproof,inevidence,printoutofaelectronicrecordcontainedona
magnetic mediasubjecttothesatisfactionoftheconditionsmentionedinthesection. The conditionsarementionedinSubsection(2). ThuscompliancewithSub section (1) and (2) of Section 65B is enough to make admissible and prove electronic records. Thisconclusionflowsout,evenfromthelanguageof SubSection(4). Subsection(4)allowstheproofoftheconditionssetoutinSub section(2)by meansofacertificateissuedbythepersondescribedinSub section4and certifyingcontentsinthemannersetoutinthesubsection.The subsection makesadmissibleanelectronicrecordwhencertifiedthatthe contentsofa computerprintoutaregeneratedbyacomputersatisfyingthe conditionsofSub Section1,thecertificatebeingsignedbythepersondescribed therein.Thus,Sub section (4) provides for an alternative method to prove electronicrecordandnot theonlymethodtoproveelectronicrecord.
Inthedecisionreportedas StatevNavjotSandhu@AfsanGuru(2005) 11SCC600theSupremeCourtaffirmedtheaforenotedviewofthisCourt inthefollowingterms:

...Itmaybethatthecertificatecontainingthedetailsinsubsection(4)of Section 65Bisnotfiledintheinstantcase,butthatdoesnotmeanthatsecondary evidencecannotbegivenevenifthelawpermitssuchevidencetobegiven inthe circumstances mentioned in the relevant provisions, namely sections 63 and65.
Therefore,tosaythatwithoutcertificateu/s65BofIndianEvidence Act,thecalldetailscannotbereadwouldnotbeacorrectpropositionof law. In the present case, the call details have been proved by the prosecution by examining PW60 Savita RattanAssistant Chief Accounts Officer(ComputerCell),ChandigarhandPW61SoravSingh,anexecutive
in Spice Telecom, Mohali, Chandigarh. The testimonies of both these witnesseshavenotbeencontrovertedbyanyaccused. Thedetailsstands provedbytheprosecutionareasunder: Phonecallsdetailofphoneno.708581installedintheofficeofH.P .S.PP Chandigarh(Sh.SanjivKumar,Director)forthemonthofAugust2000. DATE 30.08.2000 TIME 1334 PHONENO. DURATION UNIT 41 0113782650 202 (Ajay Chautala) 0113782650 215 (Ajay Chautala)
30.08.2000
1341
43
Phone calls detail of phone no. 01722704340 (DPE Officer Chandigarh)toSh.AjayChautala,18JanpathNewDelhi DATE 27.07.2000 27.07.2000 TIME 1411 14311502 PHONENO. DURATION UNIT 26 0113782650 129 0113782180 EightCalls
Thecalldetailsregardingtelephoneno.0113782180ofAjaySingh Chautalainstalledat18Janpath,NewDelhihavebeenassailedbySh.S.K.
Saxena,Adv.ProsecutionhasexaminedPW65/1namelyMahipalSinghto provethesecalldetails.ThiswitnessistheChiefAccountsOfficer,Central MTNL,CGOComplexNewDelhi.Hetestifiedthathereceivedaletterdt. 16.09.2005 regarding supply of STD/ISD call details of telephone no. 23782180and23782650fortheperiodfromJuly,2000toOctober,2000. Accordingly,hedirectedIncharge(Systems)andobtainedfromthesystem call details pertaining to these telephone numbers. He proved the call detailsoftelephoneno.23782180on49sheets. Hetestifiedthatonhis instructions, the Incharge obtained the said prints from the system and these call details were collectively marked as Ext.PW65/1/B. He also testified that this is an automatic electronic system in which details are automaticallyfedincomputer.Hewasoverallinchargeofthissystemand thesystemgenerallyneverfails.Ifthesystemfails,itshowsthebreakinthe generatingofcalldetailsandsincethereisnosuchbreakassuchtherefore nodefectisappearinginthecalldetails.HeprovedthesignaturesofJ.H.P . VermathethenAVO(Central)ontheletterdt.28.09.2005addressedtoSh. R.N.Azad,Addl.SPforwardinghisletteraswellasthecomputerprintsto him. Incrossexamination,hestatedthatthemainserverisinstalledin KidwaiBhawan,NewDelhiandhedidknowastowhowastheInchargeof
theserver. Hetestifiedthatthesystemissoprogrammedthatautomatic segregationofcallstakesplaceasandwhenthecommandisgiven. He testified that the concerned Accounts Officer (Customer Services and ManagementServices)hadtakenouttheprintoutinKidwaiBhawan,New Delhiandprintoutdonotbearanysignatures.Insuchcircumstances,itis arguedthatthereisnocertaintyaboutthecorrectnessofthecalldetails.I amoftheopinionthatagovernmentdepartmenthasmanylayers. Ifany investigatingagencywantsthecalldetails,itisnaturalhewouldsenda writtenrequesttotheconcernedofficer. Thesecalldetailshavealsobeen sent vide a letter addressed to R.N. Azad by JHP Verma, the then AVO(Central). Since he has died, therefore, the prosecution examined MahipalSinghasaprosecutionwitness. Itiscorrectthattheconcerned officialsofMTNLorthepersonwhohadtakentheprintoutsshouldhave signedeachandeverypageofthecalldetailsbutnonethelessitdoesnot meanthatthesamewouldbemanipulatedbytheInvestigatingOfficer.The fact that the person who had taken out the print outs or his immediate official had not put his signatures on those pages does not lead to the presumptionthatthesamearemanipulated. Imaypointoutthatthese printoutsareannexedwiththeletteraddressedbytheconcernedofficer namelyJHPVerma,thethenAVO(Central).Hence,thesecalldetailsarethe
same which were officially taken out from the server and sent to the InvestigatingOfficer. Alltheseactshavebeendoneindischargeoftheir officialdutiesinnormalcourseandtovieweveryofficialactwithdoubtis notthemandateoflaw.Inthesecircumstances,Idonotfindanysubstance in the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel. Now reproduce the chart relevanttothecalldetailsasunder: Phonecalldetailsoftheno.01123782180ofAjayChautalainstalledat 18JanpathNewDelhi(letterdated26.09.2005ofChiefAccountOfficer (RT)Central1MTNL,DoorSancharSadan,CGOComplex,NewDelhi alongwithenclosures) Date 30.08.2000 Time 11201353 Sixcalls CalledNo. 0172708581 CalledNo.of Sanjiv Kumar HPSPP Chandigarh
30.08.2000 1306 09814004886 Sh.SanjivKumar Imaypointoutthattheusersoftheabovestatedphonenumbers havebeendulyprovedbyPW8,PW60andPW61. These call details clearly show that Ajay Singh Chautala was in constanttouchwithSanjivKumaron30.08.2000.Infact,SanjivKumarhas alsotestifiedthathehadtelephonicallytalkedtoAjaySinghChautalaon 01.09.2000. Although, no call details have been available in respect of
01.09.2000 but the fact that this portion of evidence of Sanjiv Kumar A3/DW9hadnotbeencontrovertedincrossexaminationbyA5,hence,it hastobetakentobetrue.Accordingly,bythecalldetailsandthestatement of Sanjiv Kumar, I am left in no doubt that on 30.08.2000 and on 01.09.2000,A3&A5wereinteractingwitheachother. Whytheywere interactinghasbeenprovedbythecircumstanceswhichhavebeenalready discussed. Although, Ajay Singh Chautala did not speak a word in the two meetingswithRajniShekriSibal,but,hemustexplainastowhyhewas presentinthosemeetingswhereRajniShekriSibalwascalledandaskedby SherSinghBadshamitochangethelists.Thepurposeisobvious.Hisrole didnotendhere.HeremainsintouchwithSanjivKumarontelephoneon 30.08.2000 and 01.09.2000 which is the period during which the fake awardlistswerebeingprepared. AjaySinghChautalahadastakeinthe parliamentaryconstituencyofdistrict Bhiwaniand the finalresult shows that the candidates selected from District Bhiwani far exceeded the vacanciesofthatdistrict.Thus,AjaySinghChautalastandsfullyprovedto beconspiringinthisscam. WhyA3doesnottestifyagainstAjaySinghChautala? Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.arguesthatA3hasgivenacleanchittoAjay
SinghChautalaandthereforebenefitofdoubtshouldbegiventohim. I disagreewithhim. Infact,A3hastwistedhisversioninrespect ofhis interactionwithAjaySinghChautalabystatingthathehadaskedhimto appointJBTteachersinDPEP .ThiswasaployofA3towriggleoutofthe callrecordsshowinginteractionbetweenhimandA3. 110. marks. Ireproducepara6ofthechargesheetasunder: Investigation disclosed that till 1999, recruitmentofJBTteacherswasbeingconductedby Haryana Staff Selection Commission, Chandigarh. Sh.OmPrakashChautala,ChiefMinisterofHaryana wasalsoholdingtheportfolioofEducationMinister, HaryanainSeptember,1999.Adecisionwastaken inthemeetingofCabinetofMinistersofHaryanaon 8.9.1999bywhichtheJBTteachersrecruitmentwas takenawayfromthepurviewoftheHaryanaStaff Selection Commission and was entrusted to the Directorate of Primary Education Haryana. This proposalwasnotinthelistofAgendaitemsbutwas consideredwiththepermissionofSh.OmPrakash Chautala,thethenChiefMinister,Haryanawiththe ulterior motive to bring the recruitment under his executivecontrolonthepretextofacuteshortageof teachersinGovernmentSchools. Incomplianceof the Cabinet decision, letter of O/o Directorate of The Cabinet Decision and decision of enhancing interview
Primary Education dated 23.7.1999 addressed to Haryana Staff Selection Commission for advertisementandrecruitmentof3213postsofJBT teachers in Haryana was withdrawn in October 1999. The Director of Primary Education was entrustedwiththerecruitmentoftheJBTteachers in Haryana through District Level Selection Committees (DLSCs). The Staff Selection Commission was reconstituted only in Jan. 2000, when the interviews for JBT teachers recruitment were completed by the District Level Selection Committees. Sh.I.D.Vaid,Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhasdrawnmyattention to the testimony of PW31 Sardar Singh, Superintendent in the office of DirectorPrimaryEducationaswellastestimonyofPW38andsubmitsinthe meetingofCouncilsofMinisters,theissueoftakingoutselectionofJBT teachersoutofthepurviewofStaffSelectionCommissionwasnotinthe agendaofthemeeting. Itisarguedthatproceedings Ex.PW38/DE show thatthisissuewasraisedwiththepermissionoftheChiefMinisterandwas approved immediately. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor argues that such a haste in taking out this decision out of purview of the Staff Selection CommissionshowsthemalafidesofChiefMinister.Ontheotherhand,Sh. S. K. Saxena, adv. has drawn my attention to the testimony of Prem
PrashantaswellastothetestimonyofVishnuBhagwan,IASthattherewas acuteshortageoftheJBTteachersintheDistrictsandthestudiesofthe studentswerejeopardizedduetothisshortage. Duetothisreason,this decision was taken in the Cabinet. It is argued that the Cabinet is not boundbytheagendaanditwaswithintheConstitutionalpowersofthe CouncilofMinisterstotakeupanyissueandtakeapolicydecisiononitin view of thedemandsof thepublic. It issubmittedthattheprosecution witnesseshavestatedthatifthesevacanciesweretobefilledthroughStaff Selection Commission, the same would have taken more than one year. Thereforetheeasiestcourseforexpeditiousselectionwastofillupthese vacanciesthroughDistrictLevelSelectionCommitteesaswasdoneinthe present case. It is argued by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that further malafideintentionscanbeseenthatalthoughearliertheinterviewmarks were fixed to be 12.5% and 87.5% were allotted to the educational qualificationetc. Videadecisiondated11.11.1999,theinterviewmarks wereenhancesto20%.Itissubmittedthatboththesedecisionweretaken inameetingpresidedoverbyOmPrakashChautala.ItissubmittedbyLd. Special Public Prosecutor that in this meeting headed by Om Prakash Chautala,thethenCM,SherSinghBadshami,thepoliticaladvisortoCM andVidyaDharOSDhadalsoparticipated.
Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.hasdrawnmyattentiontothestatements under Section 313 CrPC of Om Prakash Chaualta (A5) and Sher Singh Badshami(A2)inwhichtheyhadspecificallydeniedthismeetinginwhich the marks were enhanced. I have considered these submissions. R. P . Chandra, IAS (PW38) was the Director Primary Education when the decisiontotakeoutthevacanciesofJBTteacherswastakenbytheCabinet. HoweverhewasnotpresentinthisCabinetmeetingdated8.9.1999. In crossexaminationbyDurgaDuttPradhan(A38),thiswitnesstestifiesthata selection criteria was decided wherein the marks for educational qualificationwerefixedat87.5%andthemarksforinterviewwerefixedat 12.5%, which was decided as per the various decision/judgement of SupremeCourtofIndiaaswellasHighCourtofPunjabandHaryana.This witness referred to this criteria placed at page no. 105 of Ex.PW38/DD (D40VolumeI)andstatedthatthiscriteriawasapprovedbythethenChief Ministeron12.10.1999. Incrossexamination,healsoadmittedthatvide Ex.PW38/E,theinterviewmarkswerefixedat20%insteadof12.5%and that this decision was approved by the Chief Minister on 10.11.1999. HoweverPW38wasunabletorecallastowhatwasthereasonforsuch enhancement of the interviewmarks. In crossexamination by Sh. S. K. Saxena,adv.,PW38testifiedthat Ex.PW38/E arenotminutesofmeeting
but it is a note put by the assistant referring to that meeting wherein selectioncriteriawasapprovedbytheChiefMinister.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv. hasdrawnmyattentiontoEx.PW38/Eandsubmitsthatthisnotedoesnot bearthesignatureofFinancialMinister,StateEducationMinister,Advocate General,PrincipalSecretarytoCM.AdditionalPrincipaltoCMI,Additional Principal Secretary to CMII, Director Secondary Education, Legal Remembrance, Sher Singh Badshami, political advisor. However PW38 testifiedthatthisnotecontainshissignaturesasDirectorPrimaryEducation andthatofFCELPremPrashant.ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,adv.that prosecutionhasnotproducedanyminutesofmeetingtoshowthatallthe aforesaidpersonshadattendedthesaidmeeting. Thereforeitisargued that Om Prakash Chautala (A4), Sher Singh Badshami (A2), political advisorandVidyaDharOSDcannotowntheresponsibilityofthisnoting.It isarguedthatSherSinghBadshami(A2)andOmPrakashChautala(A4) havespecificallydeniedhavingattendedthismeetingorhavingtakenthis decision.IhaveconsideredthesubmissionsofLd.SpecialPublicProsecutor aswellasSh.S.K.Saxena,adv. Iagreethatminutesofmeetingarenot availableonjudicialfile.Butalltheofficialfunctionsarepresumedtohave beendoneproperlyandtheofficialrecordshavetobetreatedtobethetrue reflection of the proceedings, unless proved otherwise. Balram Yadav
(PW58)wastheAssistantintheofficeofDirectorPrimaryEducation. He testifiedthatthenoteEx.PW38/E,whichcontainedhissignaturesatpoint Dwithdated11.11.1999wasinitiatedbyhimandwhichwasapprovedby Sardar Singh, Superintendent, who has signed at point E, C. S. Kataria RegistrarEducation,whohassignedatpointF,J.S.SahuDeputyDirector (Education), whohas signed at point G, andthisR. P .ChandraDirector Primary Education had forwarded to FCEL for approval by making endorsementandsigningatpoint A andthishasbeenapprovedbyPrem Prashantbysigningatpoint B. Hetestifiedthatthemeeting,whichhad beenmentionedatpage22ofD40i.ethenoteEx.PW38/E,wasattended bytheChiefMinister,AdditionalPrincipalSecretarytoCMIandII,Finance Minister,StateEducationMinister,AdvocateGeneral,PrincipalSecretaryto CM,FCEL,DirectorSecondaryEducation,DirectorPrimaryEducation,LR Haryana,SherSingh Badshami,politicaladvisortoCMandOSDtoCM. ThisapprovalwasforthedirectrecruitmentofJBTteacherswithselection formula:70marksofacademicqualification,interview20%,experience5% etc.Hetestifiedthatalthoughfinalapprovalforthisformulawasgivenby FCELon11.11.1999,butitwasdiscussedinthemeetingon10.11.1999, which was headed by the Chief Minister. In cross examination this testimony has not been controverted by Sh. S. K. Saxena, adv. for Sher
SinghBadshami(A2)andOmPrakashChautala(A4)norbyVidyaDhar (A1). The testimony of Balram Yadav (PW58) as well as the note Ex.PW38/E shows that the Director Primary Education was very much presentinthismeeting. R.P .Chandra,IAS(PW38)wasDirectorPrimary EducationatthattimeandhehastestifiedincrossexaminationbyDurga DuttPradhan(A38)thattheinterviewmarksforJBTcandidateswerefixed at 20% instead of 12.5% and the decision was approved by the Chief Ministeron10.11.1999.AlthoughS.K.Saxena,adv.wasabletoshowthat thesignaturesofChiefMinister,hispoliticaladvisorandhisOSDarenot available on this noting Ex.PW38/E nor there are any minutes of this meetingbearingthesignaturesofthesepersonsnorthesignaturesofany official,whohadattendedthismeeting. Butatthesametimeitmustbe keptinmindthatR.P .Chandra,IAS,thethenDirectorPrimaryEducation wasoneofthosepersons,whohadattendedthismeetinginwhich20marks werefixedforinterview. Although in statement under Section 313 CrPC, A2 and A4 had deniedthisfactbutitisinterestingtonotetheconductofVidyaDhar(A1). InrespectofthenotesheetEx.PW38/Eandquestionno.277and301were askedbythiscourttowhichheanswerasunder: IreservemyansweronthispointasIwouldliketoansweritafter
consideringtherecords.IwouldliketofilewrittenstatementunderSection 313(5)CrPCinwhichIwouldclarifythisissue. The statement of Sher Singh Badshami (A2) was recorded on 22.5.2012andstatementunderSection313CrPCofOmPrakashChautala (A4)wasrecordedon23.5.2012.Boththeseaccusedpersonsinresponseto questionno.278andquestionno.302statedthatnosuchmeetingdated 10.11.1999 as referred in Ex.PW38/E was convened by them or attendedbythem. Aftergettingto know the answer ofboth these accusedpersons, VidyaDhar(A1)filedreplytothesetwoquestionon25.5.2012inwhichhe testifiedthathedoesnotrecollecthavingparticipatedinanysuchmeeting norhewasinstrumentalinincreasingtheinterviewmarks. Iamofthe opinionthatallofthemaretakingfalsestandsinrespectofthemeeting mentionedin Ex.PW38/E inwhichinterviewmarkswereenhancedto20 outof100.Thisactofenhancinginterviewmarkswithoutanyjustification from12.5%to20%isindicatorofthemalafideintentionsdeveloping. In fact Ex.PW38/E proves the meeting of mind of A1, A2 and A3. This meeting will cost its shadow on the subsequent events. One leg of argumentsofSh.S.K.Saxena,adv.wasthatifthisnoteispresumedtobe anevidenceofmeetingofminds,thenalltheotherofficersmentionedin
this note should also be treated as coconspirator. I disagree with this submissionofLd.DefenceCounsel.Allotherofficersmaynotevenknowas to with what intention these interview marks are being enhanced and thereforenofurtherparticipationofanyotherperson,whoattendedthis meetingexceptA1,A2andA4iscomingonrecordintheconspiracy.This evidence proves that execution ofthe conspiracy in question had started withtakingthevacanciesoutofthepurviewofStaffSelectionCommission. But it appears that effective steps to give effect to this conspiracy were stalled by the political situation as testified by Sanjiv Kumar (A3/DW9) alreadydiscussedabove.ItappearsthatwhentheIndianNationalLokDal got full majority in elections and formed the Government in Haryana in February/March2000,theyfoundopportunitytoimplementtheirplansand thefirststepinthatdirectionwastransferofR.P .Chandra. PW38R.P . Chandrahasprovednotedated24.4.2000inwhichherecommendedthat resultmaybecomputerizedandfinalresultsmaybepreparedandthatthe workmaybeassignedtoHARTRON. IncrossexaminationbyDurgaDutt Prashand (A38), he admitted that he was transferred on 26.4.2000. Although PW38 testified that he does not think that he was transferred becausehemaderecommendationsforcompilationoftheresults,butthis circumstance is a fact, which shows that persons spear heading the
conspiracywasnotcomfortablewiththisactofR.P .Chandra(A38)and therefore as soon as he made recommendations for preparation of the results,hewastransferred. 111. TheroleofOmPrakashChautala Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.arguesthatthereisnoevidenceagainstOm Prakash Chautala (A4) except the evidence of Sanjiv Kumar (A3/DW9), whohadtestifiedthathewaspostedwithaspecificmandateofreplacing theoriginalawardlistswiththefakeawardlistsandthatinthebreakfast meeting,OmPrakashChautalagavehimsuchdirections.Itisarguedthat SanjivKumar(A3)issuchanuntrustworthywitnessthatonhistestimony OmPrakashChautalashouldnotbeconvicted. Ihavealreadydiscussed thatSanjivKumarisacompetentwitness. Butsinceheisanaccomplice, onlythosepartofhistestimonyshouldberelied,whicharecorroborated fromotherevidence. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.submitsthattheprosecution intendstoconnectOmPrakashChautala(A4)fromthefactthathisson,his OSDandhispoliticaladvisorhadaskedtoSmt.RajniShekriSibaltochange theawardlists.Itisarguedthatthecourtwouldbewithinitsrightunder Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act to draw a presumption but raising furtherpresumptiononsuchapresumptionisnotthemandateoflaw.Itis arguedthatatthemostthiscourtcanpresumethatAjaySinghChautala
(A5) Sher Singh Badshami (A2) and Vidya Dhar (A1) were part of the conspiracybutafterraisingthispresumption,itwouldnotbepermissibleto raiseanotherpresumptionthattheywereactingonbehalfofOmPrakash Chautala(A4). ThesubmissionsofLd.DefenceCounsel,tomymind,donothave anymerit. Thelawpermitsthatfromone provedfact morethanone presumptionsmayberaised.Forexamplerecoveryofapurseofaperson, whohasbeenmurdered,mayleadtotwoinferencessimultaneously.One, that the accusedhas committed the offence ofrobbery. Second, he had committedthemurderofsuchpersonwhilecommittingsuchrobbery. In fact every case has to be judged in view of its own pecuniary facts and circumstances. IhavealreadydiscussedthatwhenR.P .Chandra(PW38) proposedtosendanotefordeclarationoftheresultson24.4.2000,hewas transferredon26.4.2000. ThereafterSmt.RajniShekriSibalwasposted, attemptsweremadetoinfluencehertocooperateinchangingtheaward listsbutshedidnotagree. Rathershesealedthealmirahandthereafter wrote a note dated 20.6.2000 recommending a formation of result compilation committee of six members and for getting it fed in the computer and for compiling the final merit lists for declaration of final result.ThisnotesheetisEx.PW16/JandwassignedbySmt.RajniShekri
Sibalon20.6.2000. Thepage70ofD40showsthatitwassenttothe Minister Education and thereafter to the Chief Minister. The Chief Ministeron16.7.2000hadapprovedthatfurtheractiontocompilethe resultmaybetakenimmediately. Howeveritisinterestingtonotethat betweenthisperiodi.e.20.6.200to16.7.2000,Smt.RajniShekrisibalwas transferred and Sanjiv Kumar (A3) was brought as Director Primary Education. Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.arguesthattheapprovalofthenoteof Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibal dated 20.6.2000by the Chief Minister is the antithesisoftheallegationsofconspiracy.Sh.S.K.Saxena,adv.arguesthat itwasSmt.RajniShekriSibalherself,whohassoughthertransferandthat iswhyshewastransferred. Itisarguedthatprosecutionislevellingfalse allegations that she was transferred because she was not amenable. I disagreewithhissubmission.Smt.RajniShekriSibalhastestifiedthatafter veryfistmeetinginHaryanaNiwas,Chamdigarh,shehadrequestedVishnu Bhagwa for her transfer. As per her testimony, this incident took place shortly after her transfer as Director Primary Education (where she took charge on 27.4.2000). She testified that first meeting took place on 2.5.2000.Thedatemaynotbecorrectbutitisclearthatfirstmeetingwas heldshortlythereafter.Despiteherrequest,shewasnottransferredrather anothereffortwasmadetopressurizehertochangethelists.InsteadSmt.
RajniShekriSibalsentaproposalfordeclarationofresultson20.6.2000. Ex.PW16/J would show that the file was reached in the office of Chief Ministeron22.6.2000i.e.justaftertwodays.Itremainedintheofficeof Chief Minister upto 16.7.2000 and during this period Smt. Rajni Shekri Sibalwastransferred. Itmeansthathadtheapprovalbeengivenbythe ChiefMinistertothisnotingbeforetransferringSmt.RajniShekriSibal,she wouldhavereleasedtheactuallistsfordeclarationoftheresult. Inthis background, it is clear that transfer of Smit Rajni Shekri Sibal was not account of her own request, which he made in first week of May 2000, ratheritwasinviewofthefailureofthesecondattemptmadebySher Singh Badshami (A2), Vidya Dhar (A1) and Ajay Singh Chautala (A5). ThesecircumstanceslendcredencetothetestimonyofSanjivKumarthathe wascalledbytheChiefMinisterandwasaskedbyOmPrakashChautalato replacetheawardlists.Ihavealreadydiscussedthatsoonaftertakingthe JBT selection out of the purview of Staff Selection Commission, the interview marks were increased byOm Prakash Chautala from 12.5%to 20%. Buttheirplanscouldnotsucceedbecauseoftheprevalentpolitical situationaswellasperhapsduetothereasonthatR.P .Chandrawasnot comfortablepersonforthem. ImayrefertothetestimonyofPW1Sanjiv Kaushal, Additional Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister during the
relevantperiod.HetestifiedthatthetelephonicmessagecontainedinD99 wassentbyhisPAnamelyShadiLalKapoortoDirectorPrimaryEducation, Jind.Thismessagewasrecordedinthetelephonebookmaintainedinthe officeofDPEO,Jind. PW14DhupSingh,DeputySuperintendent,inthe officeofDPEO,Jindhasprovedthismessage. InthismessagetheDPEO wasdirectedtoreachHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhion1.9.2000forurgent work. As per prosecution, on instructed by the Chief Minister, Sanjiv Kaushal has instructed his PA Shadi Lal Kapoor to send this message to DPEO,Jind.SanjivKaushal,however,turnedhostileonthepointthatany directionwasgivenbytheChiefMinistertohim.Incrossexaminationby Sh.I.D.Vaid,Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutor,headmittedthatordinarily,only he could direct Shadi Lal Kapoor to send such message, however he clarified that in Chief Minister's office, anybody senior to him could alsosendsuchdirections.IncrossexaminationbySanjivKumar(A3),he testifiedthatPrincipalSecretarytotheChiefMinisterwastheseniormost officer in Chief Minister's officer. Vishnu Bhagwan was examined as A5/DW1. It is no one's case nor it was put to him if he had sent this message through Sanjiv Kumar. Similarly the another officer in Chief Minister'sofficewasMr.D.S.Dhesi(PW59),whowasAdditionalPrincipal SecretaryItotheChiefMinisterHaryanaatthattime. Itisnoone'scase
that Sanjiv Kaushal has sent this message at the instance of PW59. ThereforeIagreewithLd.SpecialPublicProsecutorthatSanjivKaushalis concealingaverymaterialinformationfromthecourtastowhohadasked himtosendthismessage.Thiswitness,inhiscrossexamination,hastried toexplainthatsomeotherseniorofficermighthavecometohisofficeand mighthavesuggestedtohimthatsuchamessageneedstobepassedwhile sittinginhisoffice.HoweverShadiLalKapoor(PW9)isveryemphaticin testifyingthathehassentthismessagetoDPEO,Jindattheinstructionsof SanjivKaushal, Additional PS to Chief Minister. In these facts and circumstances, itstandsprovedthatmessagehasdirectlycomefromthe ChiefMinister'sofficetoDPEO,JindtoreachHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi on1.9.2000. Thereforeprofuseevidenceisavailableonrecordtoshowthatit wasOmPrakashChautala,whowasmanagingthewholeaffairs. Firsthe took out the JBT vacancies out of the purview of Staff Selection Commission,thenheincreasedtheinterviewmarksfrom12.5%to20%. Howeverhecouldnotmaterializedhisintentionsduetoprevailingpolitical situationwherehewasrunningacoalitiongovernment. Assoonasthe IndianNationalLokDalgotfullmajorityofitsownintheelectionsheldin FebruaryMarch, 2000, the opportunity to execute the conspiracy was
available. When R.P ChanderIAS (PW38), the then Director Primary . Educationmovedtheproposaltodeclaretheresultson24.04.2000,hewas transferredon26.04.2000.Thereafter,RajniShekriSibalIAS(PW23)was broughtinasDirectorPrimaryEducation. Thefactthatshewasaskedto change the award lists by Sher Singh Badshami(A2)Political Advisor to ChiefMinisterinpresenceofVidyaDhar(A1)OfficeronSpecialDutyto theChiefMinisteraswellasinthepresenceofAjaySinghChautala(A5), thesonoftheChiefMinister,leavesmeinnodoubtthatallofthemwere actingunderthedirectionsandwishesofOmPrakashChautalathethen ChiefMinister. WhenRajniShekriSibalrecommendedforcompilationof theresultvidehernotesheetdt.20.06.2000,shewasalsotransferredwef 11.07.2000andSanjivKumarwasappointedinherplace. Testimonyof SanjivKumarhasprovedthathewasgiventhechargeofDirectorPrimary Educationwithaspecificmandateofchangingtheawardlists.Thisisthe reason that approval for compilation of the result by Result Compilation Committee was given by the Chief Minister on 16.07.2000 i.e. after the transferofRajniShekriSibal. Thisisacompletechainofcircumstances whichpindownaccusedOmPrakashChautalaasthemainconspirator. I maypointoutthatthenotingsfilewouldshowthatalmostateachand every stage, the note sheets have gone upto the Chief Minister for his
approval.FromthisaninferencecanbedrawnthatOmPrakashChautala was kept apprised of each and every development in these selections. Further,themannerinwhichVidyaDhar(A1),SherSinghBadshami(A2) andAjaySinghChautala(A5)hadbeenmeetingnotonlywithRajniShekri Sibalbutalsowithotherofficersshowsthattheyhadnoapprehensionof suchproposalsbeingleakedtotheChiefMinister.Hadthesepersonsbeen actingwithoutconsentandwithouttheblessingsofOmPrakashChautala, theseaccusedpersonswouldhavebeenextremelycircumspectandwould havenotenteredintosuchdiscussionsinpresenceofsomanypersons.This isanotherreasontobelievetheprosecutioncasethatitwasOmPrakash Chautalaonwhosebehalfthesepersonswereexecutingthisscam.Inview oftheseoverallcircumstances,thetestimonyofSanjivKumar(A3/DW9)is worthyofcredencethataroundthetimewhenhewaspostedasDirector PrimaryEducation,OmPrakashChautalahadcalledhimandhaddirected him to change the award lists with fresh award lists because now his government had got full majority and there was no need for him to accommodatetheMLAsofotherparties. 112. CONSPIRACY Sh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.;Sh.R.K.Sharma,Adv.;Sh.SumitChaudhary, Adv.;Sh.D.K.Sharma,Adv.;Sh.R.L.Prasad,Adv.;Sh.HarishBhardwaj,
adv.;sh.P .K.Sharma,adv.;Sh.HaritChhabra,Adv.,Sh.S.C.Chawla,Adv.; Sh.ManoharLal,Adv.;Sh.RakeshMehta,Adv.;Sh.SudershanKumar,Adv.; Sh. Arvind Chaudhary, Adv. have assailed the prosecution case on the groundthatA6toA62werenotthepartofdesealingthealmirah.They hadonlyactedundercompulsion. Thereisnoevidencethattheygotany bribenorthereisanyevidencethattheygotanyoftheirrelativesselected. Itisarguedastohowtheseaccusedpersonscanbetermedas'conspirators' especiallywhenthereisnoevidenceofany'agreement'betweenthem.A plethoraofcaselawshavebeencitedonthequestionofconspiracywhich containmoreorlessthesamequestionofconspiracy.Iamnotinclinedto mentioneveryauthoritybecauseinallthesecaselaws,thebasicprincipleof lawonconspiracyhavebeendiscussed.However,Iwouldrefertoonecase lawcitedbySh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.whichis P .Sirajuddinetc.v.Stateof MadrasAIR1971SupremeCourt520.Thefactsinthiscasewerethatin 1964theChiefMinisterhadorderedholdingofenquiriesonthecomplaints ofcorruptionagainsttheaccusedwhowasHeadoftheDepartment.Itwas alleged against him that he was actively responsible for directing the commissionofoffencebyhissubordinatesinaparticularmanner. His plea before the SupremeCourt wasthat his subordinatesshould also be joined as coaccused with him. As per the evidence on record, such
subordinatesoftheaccusedhadindulgedinfalsificationoftheaccountsand forgeryofpublicrecords.Sh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.submitsthattheSupreme Courtheldtheaccusedresponsibleforalltheseactsanddidnotaccepthis pleathathissubordinates,whowereshownaswitnessesbytheprosecution, shouldbeimpleadedasaccusedpersons. Sh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.submits that the prosecution should also have adopted thisapproach and should havemadeA6toA62asprosecutionwitnessessothattheycouldhave disclosedeveryfact ofthecase. It isfurther submittedthat the various lacunaeinthiscaseareonaccountofthereasonthattheydidnotimplead A6toA62asprosecutionwitnesses. However,itisarguedthatduring investigation, these accused persons were given impression by the Investigating Officer and in fact such a proposal was initiated by the Investigating Officer that A6 to A62 should be made prosecution witnesses. ItisarguedthatitwasveryappropriateforthisCourttotreat A19asaprosecutionwitnessinsteadoftheaccused.Itisfurtherarguedby Sh. N.K. Sharma, Adv. that this Court was prevented to take the similar approachinrespectoftheotherChairpersonsandmembersbecauseatthat timetherewasnoevidenceoftheirhavingactedunderpressure.Therefore, atthestageofchargeaprimafaciecaseoftheirhavingbeenconspiratorsin thiscasewasdisclosedandchargeswereframed.However,itisarguedby
Sh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.thatwheninthistrialampleevidenceisavailableon recordatthisfinalstagethatA6toA62hadactedunderpressure,they should not be treated as the coconspirators and that they should be acquitted. I disagree with these submissions of Ld. Defence counsel. A perusalofthecaselawcitedbySh.N.K.Sharma,Adv.wouldshowthatitis ajudgmentonorderofchargeandtheCourtwasdealingwiththepleaof theaccused,whowastheHeadoftheDepartment,thathissubordinates shouldalsobemadethecoaccusedpersonsbecausehissubordinateswere citedastheprosecutionwitnesses.Suchtypeofeffortwasmadeinthistrial alsowhereinapetitionwasmovedtosummonsomeofthewitnessesas accusedpersons.ThisCourthaddismissedthatpetition.However,inthis petition also the submissions of the petitioners were similar to the pleas raisedintheabovestatedcaselaw.Thefactsandcircumstancesofthecase areabsolutelydifferentandareofnohelptoA6toA62. Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.;Sh.D.P .Singh,Adv.andSh.D.S.Kohli,Adv. havereferredtothecaselawsStateVsNalini&Others(1999)5SCC253; AjayAggarwalVsUnionofIndiaandOthers(1993)3SCC609;Kehar Singh and Other Vs State (Delhi Administration) (1988) 3 SCC 609; SardulSinghCaveesharVsStateofBombayAIR1957SC747&Sardar SardulSinghCaveesharVsStateofMaharashtra[1964]Vol.2Supreme
CourtReport378. ItwasfurtherarguedbyLd.DefenceCounselsthatthiscaseshould beseeninthreestages.FirstistheCabinetDecisionandholdingofactual interviews. Second stage is concerning holding of meetings with Rajni ShekriSibalandthirdstageiscreationoffalselistsbySanjivKumarby holdingmeetingswithA6toA62intheGuestHouseofWaterSupply& Sanitation, Department of PunjabChandigarh in the last week of August2000andinHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhion01.09.2000. ItisarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.andSh.D.S.Kohli,Adv.that for a cabinet decision, the Council of Ministers was responsible. It is submittedthatthisdecisionwasnottakenbyOmPrakashChautala,rather, itwasthedecisionoftheCouncilofMinisters.Itisfurthersubmittedthat apart from Om Prakash Chautala,therole ofSherSingBadshami(A2), SanjivKumar(A3)andAjaySinghChautala(A5)isnotseenatthefirst stage. Regarding the second stage, the role of A1, A2 & A5 comes. However,as soonas Rajni Shekri Sibalstates that thisproposal wasnot legalandcannotbegiveneffectto,theroleofthesepersonsends.Sh.S.K. Saxena,Adv.arguesthattheroleofSanjivKumar(A3)comesinthethird stagewhenthefakelistswerepreparedandappointmentsweremadeon thebasisofthefakelists. ItisarguedthatVidyaDhar(A1),SherSingh
Badshami(A2),OmPrakashChautala(A4)&AjaySinghChautala(A5) hadnoroleinit.Idisagreewiththesesubmissions.Although,theCabinet DecisionwastakenbytheCouncilofMinisters,but,itmustberemembered thatitwasdonewiththepermissionofOmPrakashChautalawhowasthe ChiefMinisteratthattimedespitethefactthattheitemwasnotinthe agenda.IfullyagreewiththesubmissionsofSh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.thatthe CouncilofMinistersisfreetotakeanydecisionwhetheritismentionedin agendaornot.However,Imaypointoutthattheterm'abuseofposition'as mentionedinSection13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruptionActpresupposes thatapersonwashavingalegalauthoritytotakeadecisionbutheabused thesame.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.arguesthatsincethedecisionwastakenby theCouncilofMinisters,inthatcasealltheMinisterswhohadattendedthe saidmeetingshouldbeimpleadedasaccusedpersons.Idisagreewiththis submission.Itisthedutyofthecourttofindouttowhichpersonsoutof these persons was responsible for a decision which was taken with a malafideintention.Truethattherewasacuteshortageofteachersandtrue thatlegallythisdecisionwasjustified,but,subsequenteventswouldprove thatthisdecisionwastakenwithaparticularpurpose,whichwasillegalin theeyesoflaw. SoonafterthisCabinetDecision,A1andA2joinedOm PrakashChautalainenhancingtheinterviewmarksfrom12.5%to20%.
Therefore,theriverwhichstartedfromtheHeadoftheGovernmentwas joinedbyotherrivuletsfromtimetotime.ItwasarguedbySh.S.K.Saxena, Adv.thatChiefMinistercannotbeimputedwiththeintentionofincreasing theinterviewmarksbecausethenotehadstartedfrombelow. Idisagree with this submission. PW3 Rajpal Singh, Superintendent Services (II) BranchHaryanaCivilSecretariathadexplainedthattheformalorderscome fromChiefMinisterandconveyeddownwards.Althoughhewastestifying inrespectofhisownbranch,but,thesamesystemwouldalsobeapplicable tootherdepartments. PW4PawanSharma,SuperintendentinServicesII Branch in Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh had explained that the orders of the Chief Minister (oral or written) used to be received upon whichanoteusedtobeinitiatedbytheAssistant.Theconspiracydidnot end here. R.P ChanderIAS the then Director Primary Education was . transferredassoonasherecommendedthecompilationoftheresultsand RajniShekriSibalwasbroughtin.ShewaspressurizedbySherSingh(A2) inpresenceofVidyaDhar(A1)andAjaySinghChautala(A5)butwhen sherefusedtocomplyandratherwroteanoteforpreparationoftheresults, shewasalsotransferred.However,shehadalreadyenclosedthealmirahin whichawardlistsofalltheJBTteacherswerelyingwithfourmetersof clothwrappedonit.Afterhertransfer,SanjivKumarwasgiventhecharge
ofDirectorPrimaryEducation. OmPrakashChautalacalledhimandtold himthatmandateforhimwastochangetheawardlistsofJBTcandidates withfreshawardlistsinwhichthecandidatesfavourabletohim/hisparty shouldbefavoured.SanjivKumarsomehowhadtakenouttheawardlists from the said almirah and thereafter called the Chairpersons and the members(i.e.A6toA62)attheGuestHouseinChandigarhinlastweekof August2000 and at Haryana Bhawan, New Delhi on 01.09.2000, gave photocopies of some of the award lists to them and instructed them to prepared fresh award lists with a new pattern of marks and by giving specific roll numbers and the marks to be awarded to them. It stands provedthatVidyaDharandSherSinghBadshamialongwithSanjivKumar had attended the meeting held at the Guest House of Water Supply & Sanitation, Department of Punjab and that Sher Singh Badshami had attendedthemeetingwiththeChairpersonsoftheDistrictLevelSelection CommitteesinHaryanaBhawan,NewDelhi.ItalsostandsprovedthatAjay SinghChautalawashavingtelephonicconversationswithSanjivKumaron oraroundthesedates. Thefinalresultpreparedonthebasisofthefake awardlistshadservedthreepurposes. First,aformulawaseffectedvide whichthefavourablecandidatesweregiven17ormoremarksirrespective ofcasteandcategorysoastoensuretheirsuccessinthejointmeritlist.In
order to achieve this object, rest of the candidates were given very low marks in the Directorate lists. The second object was that the reserved categories which were encroaching the space for General candidates in greatpropositionsarereducedinsuchamannerthatminimumvacanciesof Generalcandidatesareoccupiedbythem.Thirdpurposewastofavourthe candidatesofsomedistrictslikeBhiwani.RajniShekriSibalhastestified thatshereceivedatelephoniccalloffering5%ofthetotalbribemoney,but, itcouldnotbesubstantiatedastowhomadethiscall. IhavealreadydiscussedastohowA6toA62preparedandsigned the fake award lists upon which the result was declared and thereafter successfulcandidatesweregivenappointments. Thus,theconspiracywhichstartedfromtakingoutthevacanciesof JBT teachers out of the purview of the Staff Selection Commission vide cabinetdecisiondt.08.09.1999wasfullyexecutedandsuccessfullyended when the successful candidates based on the fake lists were given appointments in October, 2000. Hence, a complete chain of events involving all the accused persons in commission of this offence stands provedbeyondreasonabledoubt.
113.
SANCTION It is argued by Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. for A2, A4 & A5 that
sanction u/s 197 CrPC was necessary to be taken because Om Prakash Chautalawaspublicservantattherelevanttime.Itisarguedthattheiracts were done in their discharge of official duties. I disagree with this submission.TheprotectionofSection197CrPCwouldavailableonlyifall the acts are done in the exercise of their official duties. However, the official acts which are imputedOmPrakashChautalaare his role inthe cabinetdecisionandthereafterenhancementoftheinterviewmarks. Rest oftheactsaretotallybeyondthedischargeoftheirofficialdutiesandthe aforesaid act i.e. Cabinet Decision of enhancement of marks have been takenbythisCourttoascertaintheirintentionswhichweremalafidefrom theverybeginning. Ld.Counselhasreferredto R.BalakrishnaPillaiv. StateofKeralaAIR1996SupremeCourt901inhissupport.Inthiscase, aMinisterwaschargedforabusinghispowersinsellingtheelectricityto thecompanywithouttheconsentofthegovernmentofKerala.Itwasheld bytheSupremeCourtthatsincetheMinisterhadactedindischargeofhis official duty, it was must for the prosecution to obtain sanction u/s 197 CrPCforprosecutingtheminister.However,thiscaselawisnotapplicable inthiscasebecausetheroleofaccusedpersonsgoesmuchbeyondtheir
officialdutiesandtheconspiracyinquestionwaslateronexecutedona largescale. Thetenaclesofconspiracyandoffencearecomingoutofthe limitsofthecloakofofficialdischargeofthedutiesandarereachingoutto all the Chairpersons and members of the District Level Selection Committees.Insuchcase,sanctionu/s197CrPCwasnotrequired. NowItakeupthequestionofSanctionu/s19ofthePrevention ofCorruptionAct. ProsecutionhasexaminedPW29VijayKumartoprovethesanction to prosecute Sanjiv Kumar and Vidya Dhar u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide sanction order Ext. PW29/A and Ext.PW29/B respectively. ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW54RajanGuptatoprove sanctionordersinrespectofA13,A24,A28,A36,A39,A54andA59. Restoftheaccusedpersonshadretiredandthereaftersanctionu/s19ofthe PreventionofCorruptionActwasnotrequiredtoprosecutethem.Sanction u/s19ofthePreventionofCorruptionActwasnotrequiredagainstOm PrakashChautalabecausewhenthechargesheetwasfiled,hewasnotthe ChiefMinister.AjaySinghChautalawasMemberofParliamentatthattime but he had no officialpowersin the matter ofJBT selections, therefore, sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act was not required to prosecutehim. ItisanadmittedcaseoftheprosecutionthatSherSingh
Badshami is not a public servant, therefore, no sanction u/s 19 of PreventionofCorruptionActwasrequiredtoprosecutehim. 114. Whethertheinvestigationswerebiased? CBIhasfacedcriticismfromalltheaccusedpersonsandithasbeen allegedthatinvestigationwasnotfair.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.arguesthatin FIRthereisnomentionofOmPrakashChautala. Itissubmittedthatit means that prosecution did not find anything in the preliminary enquiry againstOmPrakashChautala.Ontheotherhand,SanjivKumararguesthat theinvestigationbyCBItookaturnagainsthimbecausesomeofficersof CBIdemandedbribefromhimtomakehimprosecutionwitness,but,when he(i.e.A3)refused,CBImixedupwithOmPrakashChautala.Thatiswhy thenameofOmPrakashChautalahasnotbeenwrittenintheFIRdespite definite evidence given by him (i.e. A3) to CBI against Om Prakash Chautala in the Writ Petition. A6 to A62 have alleged that they fully cooperated with the investigating officer and investigating officer had assured them that they would be made witnesses in this case. It is submittedbytheLd.DefenceCounselsthatdespitethefactthattheyhad informedtheinvestigatingofficerastowhattypeofpressurewasexerted uponthem,CBIstillprosecutedthemasaccused.Sh.S.K.Saxena,Adv.has drawnmyattentiontothetestimoniesofPW16,PW23&PW26which
show that CBI had shown their statements u/s 161 CrPC before they entered the witness box. I disagree with this submission because truthfulnessofthesewitnesseshaspurgedthisdefect. Itis,therefore,arguedthattheaccusedpersonsinthiscasehave beenprejudicedintheirdefenceevenduringthetrial. Idisagreewiththesesubmissions.FIRisnotanevidence,rather,it is a starting point of the investigation. It appears name of Om Prakash ChautalawasnotwrittenintheFIRbecausehewasarespectablepolitical leaderholdingthehighestpostintheStateofHaryanaanditappearsthat at that stage the story of Sanjiv Kumar about the involvement of Chief MinisterinthescammighthavebeentakenbytheCBIwithapinchofsalt. However, further investigation revealed the involvement of Om Prakash Chautalatobetrue.Similarly,SanjivKumarwaspetitionerinhisWritand haspresenthimselftobeavictimandhadcalledhimselfawhistleblower. This appears to be a reason that his name did not figure in the list of accused persons. Any how, FIR has no evidentiary value and no such conclusionscanbedrawnthatthenonmentioningofnameofOmPrakash Chautala andSanjivKumarimplies that they were foundtobe innocent duringpreliminaryenquiry.Though,IagreethatitappearsthatA6toA62 weregiventheimpressionthattheywouldbemadewitnessesinthiscase,
but,investigationandcircumstancesprovedotherwiseandthereforethey hadtobeimplicatedastheaccusedpersons.Inthiscase,theinvestigating officermighthavecommittedsomemistakesoratsomepointstheremaybe somedeficiencyintheinvestigation,but,whenacaseisinvestigatedafter threeyearsoftheincident,theinvestigatingofficerhastoworkundermany limitations. However,atthesametimeIwouldsaythattheinvestigation wasfairandthereisnothingonrecordthatitwasbiasedagainstanyofthe accusedpersonsforanyreasonsincludingthepoliticalone. 115. OFFENCESPROVED In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecutionhasbeenabletoproveitscasebeyondreasonabledoubtagainst O.P .Chautala(A4)andSanjivKumar(A3)u/s13(2)r/w13(1)(d)of PreventionofCorruptionAct. Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt u/s13(2)r/w13(1)(d)ofPreventionofCorruptionActagainst accusedA6toA62{exceptaccusedSherSingh(A23),DilbaghSingh (A35),RamSingh(A41)andJogenderLal(A62)astheyhadretired whenthesecondsetofawardlistswaspreparedandexceptA14,A18, A34,A42,A53&A58whohavealreadyexpiredandexceptA19who hadalreadybeendischarged.}
Theseaccusedpersonsnamely A6toA62(exceptwhodiedor weredischarged)alsostandsconvictedu/s418IPC. A6toA62(exceptaccusedSudhaSachdevA49andthosewho diedorweredischarged)alsostandconvictedu/s467/471IPC. Alltheaccusedpersonsi.e.A1toA62(exceptthosewhohave expired or discharged) stands convicted u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the PreventionofCorruptionAct,1988. Announcedintheopencourt onthis16thdayofJanuary,2013 (VinodKumar) SPEICIALJUDGEII (PREVENTIONOFCORRUPTIONACT) (CBI),ROHINI,DELHI

Chautala Haryana Teachers Recruitment Scam Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Chautala Haryana Teachers Recruitment Scam Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chautala Haryana Teachers Recruitment Scam Case Judgement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.

2 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

3 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

4 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

25. 26. 27. 28.

5 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

6 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

39. 40. 41.

7 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

44. 45. 46.

8 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

54. 55. 56. 57.

9 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

10 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

11 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

12 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

13 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

14 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

15 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

16 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

17 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

18 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

19 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

20 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

21 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

22 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

23 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

Education Ambala 2 3 Smt. Malhotra

A10 A12 A11

DPEO, (02.12.1999 till Chairman 31.01.2002)

Prasad Dy. District Education Member

24 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

IV .FATEHABAD 12 Smt. Sharma A13

A14 (since expired) A15

Phool BlockEducationOfficer, Member Bhuna Primary Chairman Officer,

V .GURGAON 15 Chand Singh District Verma Education Gurgaon A20

Dy. Distt. Education Member

25 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

VII.JIND 21 22 23 A26 A27 A28

IX.KURUKSHETRA 27 MadanLalKalra A32

Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Kurukshetra BlockEducationOfficer, Member Kurukshetra

26 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

RamKumar Megh Sharma

27 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

RamSingh Puran Chand(expired duringtrial)

28 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

XVI.SIRSA 49 NathuRam District Primary Chairman EducationOfficer,Sirsa (expired duringtrial) A53

XVII.SONEPAT 53 Rajinder Singh District Dahiya Education Sonepat DalipSingh A56

Dy. Distt. Education Member Officer,Sonepat

Sarwan Kumar Dy. Distt. Education Member Chawla Officer,YamunaNagar

29 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

JoginderLal Smt. Sharma

BlockEducationOfficer, Member YamunaNagar

Urmil BlockEducationOfficer, Member YamunaNagar

30 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

31 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

32 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

33 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013

34 CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc. CC No.37/2010 Judgment dt. 16.01.2013