IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI
CC No. 12/2008
CBI Vs Ramesh Chandra etc. (Janki Kunj CGHS)
22.1.2013
Present: Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.
None for accused persons.
It appears that due to the crowd collected in and out side the
accused persons could not appear.
Put up the matter for further proceedings on 8.2.2013.
(Vinod Kumar
Spl. JudgeII, CBI, Rohini
22.1.2013IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI
CC No. 37/2010
CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc.
22.1.2013
Present: Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.
Sh. R. N. Azad, Pairvi Officer for CBI.
Sh. Shamsher Singh, Naib Court for CBI.
All the convicts with their counsels except convict Om
Prakash Chautala, who is stated to have been admitted in G. B. Pant
Hospital due to his illness.
Convict Pushkar Mal Verma (37) and convict Durga Dutt Pradhan
(38) have filed written statements submitting that this is additional reply to
question no. 311 of their statements under Section 313 CrPC and that these
statements may also be considered as part and parcel of their statements
under Section 313 CrPC and that the same may also be considered while
awarding the sentence.
The stage of statement under Section 313 CrPC is over. However for
the sake of their satisfaction, I have taken these statements on record and I
am reading the same. Their stand would be discussed in the order on
sentence. Put up the matter after 30 minutes for announcing the order on
sentence.
The order on sentence has been announced in open court. The
attested copies of the main judgement have already been supplied to the
convicts. Copies of order on sentenced be supplied to the convicts/their
counsels.
One application has been moved by one surety namely Prabhu
Sharan Rai Nayyar. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Smt.
Shashi Malhotra (7) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his
surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail
bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed. 2
One application has been moved by one surety namely Nafe Singh.
He has stated that he is the surety of convict Brahma Nand (9) and that he
had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that
the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand
forfeited, the application is allowed.
One application has been moved by one surety namely Dharmender.
He has stated that he is the surety of convict Sher Singh (23) and that he
had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that
the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand
forfeited, the application is allowed.
One application has been moved by one surety namely Narender
Singh. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Rajender Singh Dahiya
(56) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It
is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety
bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.
At this stage, one applicant Amit Malhotra has moved an application
stating that he is the authorized representative of the surety namely O. P.
Malhotra and that O. P. Malhotra has stood surety for convict Smt. Krishna
Gupta (8). It is prayed that O. P. Malhotra has authorized him to receive
FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/. Along with this application one hand
written application by O. P. Malhotra is annexed in which it is stated that
the FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/ in his name may be given to his son
namely Amit Malhotra. Sh. Ashok Kumar, adv. has identified the signature
of O. P. Malhotra on this application. In these circumstances, I direct that
the FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/, in the name of O. P. Malhotra, be
released to applicant Amit Malhotra.
One application has been moved by one surety namely Krishan
Chander. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Smt. Kailash Kaushik
(25) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It
is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety
bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed. 3
At this stage, it has been informed that copy of order on sentence has
not been supplied to convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) and that it has been
sent to the jail. Therefore it is directed that copy of order on sentence be
sent to convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) through Jail Superintendent, who
shall take the receipt from the convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) and
transmit such receipt to this court.
File be consigned to record room.
(Vinod Kumar
Spl. JudgeII, CBI, Rohini
22.1.2013IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGEII (PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT) (CBI), ROHINI, DELHI
ID No. 02404R0008692008
CC No. 37/2010
RC No. 3(A)/04/ACU.IX/NEW DELHI
CBI Vs 1. Vidya Dhar, IAS
S/o Sh. Ram Swarup
R/o V & PO Dhabdhani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani,
Haryana.
2. Sher Singh Badshami
S/o Late Sh. Karta Ram
R/o (i) 931, Sector5, Kurukshetra, Haryan.
(ii) 327 Sector4, M.D. Complex, Panchkula,
Haryana.
3. Sanjiv Kumar, IAS
S/o Dr. Maheshwar Kumar
R/o Flat No. 6360, Sec.C, Pkt. 6&7 Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi70.
4. Om Prakash Chautala
S/o Late Sh. Devi Lal
R/o (i) V & POChautala, Tehsil – Dabwali,
Sirsa, Haryana,.
(ii) 231232, Chautala House, Barnala Road,
Sirsa, Haryana.
(iii) Tejakhera FarmHouse Village Tejakhera,
Tehsil Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana.
5. Ajay Singh Chautala
S/o Sh. Om Prakash Chautala
R/o (i) 231232 Chautala House, Barnala Road,
Sirsa, Haryana.
(ii) 18 Janpath, New Delhi.
6. Smt. Prem Bahl
W/o Sh. Balbir Kumar BahlR/o House No. 925, Sec. 7, Urban Estate,
Ambala City, Haryana.
7. Smt. Shashi Malhotra
W/o Sh. Prabhu Sharan Rai Nayyar
R/o H. No. 10, Vikash Vihar, Ambala City, Haryana.
8. Smt. Krishna Gupta
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Malhotra
R/o H. No. 74, Vijay Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.
9. Brahma Nand
S/o Sh. Chandgi Ram
R/o Village Ninar, Post Office Kaunt, Bhiwani,
Haryana.
10. Ms Vinod Kumari
D/o Sh. Harbans Lal Sharma
R/o 100, Ram Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
11. Maman Chand
S/o Sh. Pala Ram
R/o (i) A12/ Geeta Colony, Bhbiwani.
(ii) Village & Post Office Devasar District
Bhiwani, Haryana.
12. Sawan Lal
S/o Sh. Gurdayal
R/o 50, Kamala Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.
13. Smt. Kanta Sharma
W/o Sh. Bhim Singh Sharma
R/o 3928, Sector 22D, Chandigarh.
14. Sh. Prabhu Dayal (expired before filing of the
charge sheet)
S/o Sh. Aud Ram
R/o Village & Post Office Khabra Kalan,
Bhatukala, District, Fatehabad, Haryana.
15. Smt. Phool Khurana
W/o Sh. Bhupinder Pal
R/o Old Post Office Street, Bhuna, Fatehabad,Haryana.
Present address : H. No. 1386, Village Bhuna,
Block4, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, Haryana.
16. Harbans Lal
S/o Sh. Sadi Lal
R/o Village & PO Ramgarh, Near PNB, Ramgarh,
District Alwar, Rajashtan.
17. Ram Saran Kukreja
S/o Sh. Khem Chand
R/o 127, Vijay Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar,
Haryana.
18. Udal Prasad Sharma (expired during trial on
05.12.2012)
S/o Sh. Badri Prasad Sharma
R/o 1398, Parvatia Colony, Faridabad, Haryana.
19. Brij Mohan (discharged on 23.7.2011)
S/o Sh. Shri Ram Sharma
R/o 365, Near Shradha Nand Park, New Colony,
Palwal, Haryana.
20. Chand Singh Verma
S/o Sh. Kirpa Ram Verma
R/o 591/18, Om Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
21. Yogesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Sh. B. R. Sharma
R/o 860, Sector7, Extn. Urban Estate, Gurgaon,
Haryana.
22. Smt. Abhilash Kaur
W/o Sh. Sardar Singh
R/o 107, Pratap Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi.
23. Sher Singh
S/o Sh. Nand Ram
R/o Village & Post Office Mandhan, Tehsil Tosham,
District Bhiwani, Haryana.24. Anar Singh
S/o Sh. Neki Ram
R/o (i) H. No. C37, Surya Vihar, Near Sec. 4, Police
outpost, Gurgaon, Haryana.
(ii) H.No. 1446 – Huda, Sector6, Bahadur Garh,
Haryana.
25. Smt. Kailash Kaushik
W/o Sh. Karna Singh Kaushik
R/o H. No. 1132, Housing Board Colony, Jind.
26. Ajit Singh Sangwan
S/o Sh. Moji Ram
R/o Vidya Nagar, Mehram Road, Bhiwani, Haryana.
27. Smt. Ram Kaur
W/o Sh. Om Prakash
R/o H. No. 1498, Urban State, Jind, Haryana.
28. Mahavir Singh Lathar
S/o Sh. Balraj Singh Lathar
R/o Shadipur, Julana, District Jind, Haryana.
29. Narain Singh Ruhil
S/o Sh. Preet Singh
R/o (Present) H.No. 66, Officers Colony Kunj Pura
Road, Karnal, Haryana.
(Permanent): Village & PO Beholi, District Panipat,
Haryana.
30. Krishan Lal Narang
S/o Sh. L. R. Narang
R/o H. No. 1973, Sector13 Urban Estate, Karnal,
Haryana.
31. Smt. Usha Rani
W/o Sh. Radha Krishan Chanana
R/o 847, Sector13, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana.
32. Madan Lal Kalra
S/o Sh. Jai Lal Kalra
R/o (i) House No. B4, D.C. Colonyu, Kurukshetra. (ii) House No. 534, Modal Town, Jind Road,
Kaithal, Haryana.
33. Veer Bhan Mehta
S/o Sh. Thakur Das Mehta
R/o Ward No. 6, Village & Post Office, Indri District,
Karnal, Haryana.
34. Shashi Bhushan (expired during trial on
12.11.2008)
S/o Sh. Atma Ram
R/o H. No. 1142, Sec.13, Urban State,
Kurukshetra, Haryana.
35. Dilbag Singh
S/o Sh. Lehri Singh
R/o House No. 320, Ward No. 1, Charkhi Dadri,
District Bhiwani, Haryana.
36. Ram Kumar
S/o Sh. Bhana Ram
R/o Mandir Wali Gali6, Patel Nagar, Kaithal,
Haryana.
37. Pushkar Mal Verma
S/o Sh. Ram Chander Verma
R/o H. No. 1360, Mohalla Shiv Colony, Opp.
Panchayat Bhawan, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh,
Haryana.
38. Durga Dutt Pradhan
S/o Sh. Maha Ram Sharma
R/o Gali New Sari, Sain Chowk Road, Narnaul,
Haryana.
39. Bani Singh
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Mohalla Sainipura, Mahendergarh, Haryana.
40. Smt. Daya Saini
W/o Sh. B. S. Saini
R/o H. No. 396/1, Sector – 44, Chandigarh.41. Ram Singh
S/o Sh. Surat Singh
R/o Village & Post Office Sheikh Pura, District,
Karnal, Haryana.
42. Puran Chand (Expired during trial on
03.12.2012)
S/o Sh. Lachhaman Das
R/o H. No. 301, Ward No. 11, Panipat, Haryana.
43. Sheesh Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh
R/o (i) 1165, Sector15, Sonepat.
(ii) 257, Sarojini Colony, Yamuna Nagar,
Haryana.
44. Smt. Rekha Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Ravi Dutt Sharma
R/o H. No. 438, Sec.16, Punchkula, Haryana.
45. Smt. Raksha Jindal
W/o Sh.R. C. Jindal
R/o 1383, Sec.15, Punchkula, Haryana.
46. Jeet Ram Khokhar
S/o Sh. Shobh Ram
R/o H. No. 326, Opposite Power House, Modal
Town, Rohtak, Haryana.
47. Smt. Nirmal Devi
W/o Sh. Dhambir Singh
R/o 813/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak, Haryana.
48. Amar Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Krishan
R/o Village & PO Meham, Mohalla, Kharikuri,
District Rohtak, Haryana.
49. Smt. Sudha Sachdeva
W/o Sh. R. S. Sachdeva
R/o H. No. 72A, Model Town, Near Shravan Jayanti
Park, Rewari, Haryana.50. Darshan Dayal Verma
S/o Sh. Vasudev Prasad Verma
R/o 380, Agarsain Colony, Sirsa, Haryana.
51. Smt. Saroj Sharma
W/o Sh. R. B. Dutta
R/o H. No. 207, Sec.7, Gurgaon, Haryana.
52. Tulsi Ram Ram Bihagra
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o 251, Street7, Gulabi Bagh, Rewari, Haryana.
53. Nathu Ram (expired during trial on 17.01.2012)
S/o Sh. Kurara Ram
R/o Village Adampur, Post Office Mandi Adampur,
District Hissar, Haryana.
54. Om Prakash Tiwari
S/o Sh. Mangat Ram Tiwari
R/o Nahoria Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana.
55. Bihari Lal
S/o Sh. Pat Ram
R/o 15/249, Bansal Colony, Sirsa, Haryana.
56. Rajender Singh Dahiya
S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh
R/o H. No. 62, 8Marla, Sonepat, Haryana.
57. Dalip Singh
S/o Sh. Chand Ram
R/o 245/5/3 Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, District
Sonepat, Haryana.
58. Smt. Kamla Devi (expired before filing of the
charge sheet)
W/o Sh. Ranbir Singh
R/o 174 L 9A), Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana.
59. Rajender Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Ranbir Singh
R/o House No. 3903/D, Sec. 22, Chandigarh.
(Permanent Address: 365, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani,Haryana).
60. Sarwan Kumar Chawla
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Chawla
R/o 44, Madhu Colony, Behind Madhu Cinema,
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.
61. Smt. Urmil Sharma
W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma
R/o 72, Krishna Colony, Yamuna Nagar, ITI Road,
Haryana.
62. Joginder Lal
S/o Sh. Ram Lal
R/o 1026, Dwarka Puri, Jagadhari, District Yamuna
Nagar, Haryana.
O R D E R ON S E N T E N C E
22.01.2013
Most of the convicts are senior citizens and all of them suffer
from various ailments. Some of them are seriously ill. Many of them
have their spouses, children and parents, who suffer from
interminable diseases. Some of the unfortunate convicts have the
burden of supporting their minor grand children due to the death of
their sons. A few of them are physically challenged. Many of these
convicts have been deserted by their children in their old age. In this
background, this judgment of conviction, it is argued, has shattered
them beyond redemption.
2. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. has prayed fervently for showing leniencyin awarding sentence to Om Prakash Chautala due to his old age,
physical challenge and various ailments. It is argued that Om Prakash
Chautala, Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh Badshami have heavily
suffered in terms of their political career because after the registration
of this case, their party had lost the power and individually these
convicts have lost elections successively. It is further argued that even
this conviction is an enough punishment for them because it is
difficult for them to show face to the society.
3. Ld. Counsels for convicts have submitted their medical records
and the medical records of their family members in support of their
submissions. I find no reason not to believe the aforesaid submissions
of Ld. Counsels for convicts. However, these aspects are not relevant
to the question of the quantum of sentence. The relevant points for
considering the sentence are the circumstances attending the offence.
4. The enormity of the offences under consideration today can be
appreciated from the facts that the conspiracy in question took in its
sweep almost all the districts of State of Haryana. As many as 57
Chairpersons/members of 18 District Level Selection Committees were
made to create forged award lists in which the interview marks of
about 8,000 candidates were changed. I have already discussed in the
main judgment that the forging of award lists amounted to forging of
'valuable securities' punishable under section 467 IPC which provides
sentence upto life imprisonment. The gravity of the offences furtherenhances in view of the reason that the brazenness with which the
sacrosanct constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in the
matters of public employment to each citizen of India has been
violated. In AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1548, the full Bench of
Supreme Court had severely castigated the lenient view taken by the
Sessions Court in sentencing a convict in such offences and observed
as under:
“7. Social defence is the criminological foundation of
punishment. The trial judge has confused between correctional
approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on
decriminalization of serious social offences. The first is basic, the
second pathetic. That Court which ignores the grave injury to society
implicit in economic crimes by the upperberth 'mafia' ill serves social
justice. Soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents
are the potential victims. It is altogether a different thing to insist on
therapeutic treatment, hospital setting and correctional goals inside
the prison (even punctuated by parole, opportunities for welfare work,
meditational normalization and healthy selfexpression), so that the
convict may be humanised and, on release, rehabilitated as a safe
citizen. This court has explained the correctional strategy of
punishment in Giasuddin's case (1978) 1 SCR 153: (AIR 1977 SC
1926). Coddling is not correctional, any more than torture is
deterrent. While iatrogenic prison terms are bad because they
dehumanize, it is functional failure and judicial pathology to hold out
a benignly selfdefeating nonsentence to deviants who endanger the
morals and morale, the health and wealth of society.”
5. Therefore, considering the enormity of the offences and the
manner in which politician bureaucrat nexus has resulted in depriving
such a large number of candidates of their constitutional rights, I do
not find any reason for leniency in sentencing those convicts whowere masterminding the entire conspiracy or assisting them in
execution of the same.
6. It has been argued on behalf of convict Vidya Dhar that he did
not took any benefit from these offences and even his own relatives
could not be selected and that he had not spoken a word in any of the
meetings. Hence, it is prayed that a lenient view should be taken
while sentencing him. I disagree with his submissions. Those who
host a lunch will have to pay the bill, even if they themselves are on
fast. Needless to say that they also serve, who stand and wait silently.
7. It has been argued on behalf of convict M.L. Kalra, Durga Dutt
Pradhan, Bani Singh, Smt. Daya Saini and Ram Singh that their role is
only in respect of their respective districts, and, therefore, they cannot
be compared with those who planned the conspiracy. I disagree with
this submission. If you have jumped in a cesspool, you are in it. It
does not matter whether you are in the center of it or in the corner of
it. Hence, your culpability and liability is same as the main
conspirators. It is like a person planning a terrorist act and the person
executing it. Both deserves same sentence. Hence, I find no
substance for adopting any lenient approach towards these convicts.
Convict Pushkar Mal Verma and Durga Dutt Pradhan had
maintained that they had never prepared the award lists, but, today
they have come with the written submissions as to how the incident
took place. In the written submission, Durga Dutt Pradhan hasadmitted his signatures on the lists but stated that the interview marks
were filled later on. He has not pleaded any pressure upon him.
Hence, his case has to be considered alongwith the convicts namely
M.L. Kalra etc. So far as Pushkar Mal Verma is concerned, he has
written as to how the entire incident took place and how he was
under pressure. Though, this submission has come at a very late
stage, but, better late than never.
8. However, what troubled me was to decide the question of
sentencing Sanjiv Kumar. I have held him to be a 'whistle blower'.
There is no law at present to protect the whistle blowers. Had Sanjiv
Kumar not taken a step to approach the Supreme Court of India and
had he not produced the second set of award lists, this scam would
not have come to light. The dilemma before this court in deciding the
question of sentence is on account of the simple reason that
sentencing such a person may send a message that a whistle blower is
not appreciated by law, rather, he is put to trial and tribulation.
9. In absence of any law for the protection of the whistle blowers, I
feel that following principles may govern them:
1. Law welcomes whistle blowers.
2. If the whistle blower is innocent but only was a victim of
circumstances, he must be cited as a prosecution witness.
3. If whistle blower had a minor role in the commission of the offence or
in the conspiracy for commission of such offences, the courts should comeforward to his rescue and in appropriate cases should not hesitate to make
him an 'approver'.
4. If the whistle blower had a major role in commission of such offences,
he must come up with complete facts before the investigating
officer and during trial he must testify on oath at the stage of defence
evidence and should disclose the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth before the court during trial. The trial court, in such event, must
certify in its judgment about the fact that such whistle blower had come
out with truth and has not concealed anything from the court.
5. On such certification in the judgment, the court can proceed to award
the minimum possible sentence to such convict and if possible, may
release him on probation with recommendation to the government that
no departmental action should be initiated against him in view of the said
conviction.
10. Now, let me see as to whether Sanjiv Kumar had disclosed the
complete truth before this court. I have already stated that his entire
effort in the trial was to show as if he had nothing to do with the
entire offence. His stand as to which was the true award list was
found to be false. He kept on saying that he had prevented the scam
by not implementing the fake lists. The prosecution evidence on the
other hand has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was fully
involved in the scam and had actually implemented the forged award
lists. One of the defence witnesses examined by him was found to be
untrustworthy. He took a wrong stand before the Supreme Court ofIndia in respect of the fakeness or genuineness of the award lists. He
maintained the same stand before the investigating officer and stuck
to his guns to the last even during trial. Even if, Sanjiv Kumar had
taken a truthful stand, atleast at the stage of final arguments in view
of the over whelming evidence forthcoming before this court, his case
would have been taken entirely on a different footing than the other
convicts. But in view of his consistent false stand in respect of the
genuineness and fakeness of the award lists, I have no option but to
treat him on parity with those convicts who were overseeing the
execution of the entire conspiracy.
11. However, I agree that the convicts who had acted under severe
pressure must be treated leniently. These convicts had been truthful
during the trial. They were aware that they had committed a serious
mistake in their life, but, their conscience did not permit them to
speak falsehood before the court. Their moral values shone like a
guiding lamp for them. During the entire trial, they were truthful and
courageous despite the fact that they knew that by being truthful, they
were inviting their conviction which may entail a long jail term. I
refer to the statement u/s 313 CrPC of Prem Bahal, R.S. Dahiya etc.
and the defence evidences of Sher Singh and D.D. Verma. They had
committed an offence once, but soon the repentance was in their
hearts. They fully cooperated CBI during investigation. They came up
truthfully before this court. A few hesitant convicts soon followedthem. Their remorse for the act exhibited itself frequently during
trial. In such circumstances, their sentences must be highly reduced in
comparison with the other convicts who had no pressure upon them
and were not truthful before this court. In this regard, I would refer
to the case of convict Sudha Sachdeva. She had not taken a truthful
defence but the fact that she did not sign the forged award list is a
circumstance which entitles her to a reduced quantum of sentence.
12. I, therefore proceed announce the sentences as under:
1. Om Prakash Chautala (A4) and Sanjiv Kumar (A3)
(i) I sentence both of them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for six months each.
(ii) Both the convicts are further sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ each
u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
2. Vidya Dhar (A1), Sher Singh Badshami (A2), Ajay Singh
Chautala (A5).
(i) I sentence all these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention ofCorruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for six months each.
3. Madan Lal Kalra (A32), Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38), Bani
Singh (A39), Smt. Daya Saini (A40) and Ram Singh (A41).
(i) I sentence Madan Lal Kalra (A32), Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38),
Bani Singh (A39) and Smt. Daya Saini (A40) to rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ each u/s
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.
(ii) All the five convicts are further sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for 10 years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s
120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
(iii) All the five convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s
467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
4. Pushkar Mal Verma (A37)
(i) I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and afine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for six months each.
(ii) He is further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years
and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ u/s 120B IPC r/w Section
418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment
for six months each.
(iii) This convict is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s
467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine, he
shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I further
sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 471 IPC
and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
5. Smt. Prem Bahal (A6), Smt. Shashi Malhotra (A7) and Smt.
Krishna Gupta (A8).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/wSection 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these three convicts are also sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment
for four years u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month each. I further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for
three years u/s 471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In
default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment
for one month each.
6. Brahmanand (A9), Ms. Vinod Kumari (A10), Maman Chand
(A11) and Sawan Lal (A12).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonmentfor three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
7. Smt. Kanta Sharma (A13) and Smt. Phool Khurana (A15).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) Both these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.8. Harbans Lal (A16), Ram Saran Kukreja (A17).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) Both these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
9. Chand Singh Verma (A20), Yogesh Kumar Sharma (A21)
and Smt. Abhilash Kaur (A22).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
10. Sher Singh (A23), Anar Singh (A24), Smt. Kailash Kaushik
(A25).
(i) I sentence Anar Singh (A24) and Smt. Kailash Kaushik (A25)
to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
(ii) I further sentence Sher Singh (A23), Anar Singh (A24) and
Smt. Kailash Kaushik (A25) to rigorous imprisonment for four years
and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w Section
418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Indefault of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment
for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
11. Ajit Singh Sangwan (A26), Ram Kaur (A27) and Mahavir
Singh (A28).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
12. Narain Singh Ruhil (A29), Krishan Lal Narang (A30), Smt.
Usha Rani(A31).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
13. Veer Bhan Mehta (A33), Dilbag Singh (A35), Ram Kumar(A36).
(i) I sentence Veer Bhan Mehta (A33) and Ram Kumar (A36) to
rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of
payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
(ii) I further sentence all these three convicts to rigorous
imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each
u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
14. Sheesh Pal Singh (A43), Smt. Rekha Sharma (A44), Smt.
Raksha Jindal (A45).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergosimple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
15. Jeet Ram Khokhar (A46), Amar Singh (A48), Nirmal Devi
(A47).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simpleimprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
16. Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49), Darshan Dayal Verma (A50),
Smt. Saroj Sharma (A51), Tulsi Ram Bihagra (A52).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts (except Sudha Sachdeva A49) are also
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 418 IPC and
rigorous imprisonment for four years u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs.
100/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simpleimprisonment for one month each. I further sentence them to
rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 471 IPC and fine in the
sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
17. Om Prakash Tiwari (A54) & Bihari Lal (A55).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a
fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) Both these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
18. Rajender Singh Dahiya (A56), Dalip Singh (A57).
(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and afine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for
four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w
Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple
imprisonment for one month.
(iii) Both these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
19. Rajender Pal Singh (A59), Sarwan Kumar Chawla (A60),
Urmil Sharma (A61) and Jogender Lal (A62).
(i) I sentence Rajender Pal Singh (A59), Sarwan Kumar Chawla
(A60) and Urmil Sharma (A61) to rigorous imprisonment for two
years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo
simple imprisonment for one month.
(ii) I further sentence all the above mentioned four convicts torigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.
100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 r/w Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years
u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,
they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I
further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s
471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment
of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.
13. All the sentences of all the convicts mentioned in this order
shall run concurrently.
14. I would be failing in my duty if I do not refer to some more
points raised during this trial. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. for Om Prakash
Chautala, Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh Badshami had argued
while addressing arguments on sentence as to why the candidates
who reaped the benefit of the scam are still in the job. I fully agree
with his submissions. During investigation as well as during this trial,
it has very clearly come on record that the favoured candidates were
given 17 or more than 17 marks in the interviews. Therefore, such
candidates who have been so favoured have adopted unfair means for
getting their selections. In Rakesh Kumar Chhabra V. State ofHimachal Pradesh, 2012 Cr.L.J., the Himachal Pradesh High Court
had held such persons to be the coconspirators. Hence, such
candidates should not be allowed to remain in job. Regarding the
remaining candidates, it would be appropriate if the District Wise
merit list on the basis of Supreme Court lists is prepared. I may
mention that as per Rule 11 issued by the Directorate Primary
Education which has been exhibited as Ext.PW52/B, it was directed
that District Level Selection Committees would prepare the merit list
after conclusion of the interviews which would be sent to the
Directorate Primary Education. The vacancies of each district should
be filled up on the basis of District wise merit list. Where the
Supreme Court list is not available like district Kurukshetra, Panipat
and Rohtak, such merit list should be prepared purely on the basis of
the academic marks etc. or their interviews should be held afresh.
15. I hasten to add here that this is only a suggestion to the
government and not a direction. Since, this issue has been raised
before this court, hence, it has been dealt with.
16. I would further like to add here that the Dy. Commissioners and
the SDMs etc. had actively compelled the Chairpersons and the
Members of the District Level Selection Committees to sign affidavits
on a preprepared proforma. This is a serious matter because these
affidavits were being taken for the purpose of filing a reply by the
government in the Supreme Court of India. I recommend CBI to holdan inquiry and to identify those officers who had indulged in such
activities and if sufficient material is found, departmental action
should be recommended against those officers.
17. I may point out that Sanjiv Kumar in his Writ Petition no.
93/2003 had specifically mentioned that the same scam had taken
place in the selections of the teachers under the DirectorateSecondary
Education during the same time. Some evidence to that effect has
been led during trial which indicates the possibility of such a scam.
One award list Ext.PW24/L has been shown to this court which
reflects the same pattern of marks as available in the Directorate lists.
The CBI should not close its eyes on this aspect on the ground that the
second set of award lists is not available. I may point out that even in
JBT scam, the original award lists of some of the districts are not
available, but, this court has held the Directorate Lists of those
districts to be fake on the basis of the marking pattern. Therefore, I
recommend that CBI should start investigation u/s 173(8) CrPC in
respect of the selections of teachers under Directorate of Secondary
Education which happened during the same time, of course, after
fulfilling the necessary requirements.
Announced in the open court (Vinod Kumar)
on this 22
nd
day of January, 2013. Special JudgeII
Prevention of Corruption Act
CBI, Rohini, Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment
thanks for your valuable comment