Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)-02,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ashish Aggarwal, DHJS
CT No.9/2024
State v Closure Report (M. K. Sharma)
FIR No.22/2003
PS Anti-Corruption Branch
16.01.2025
Present : Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. Public Prosecutor for State.
IO ACP Rakesh Ahuja is present.
1. This is a closure report.
2. I have gone through the closure report. It is stated in the closure report that a
complaint had been submitted by Dr. Brahm Dutt, President of Kushth
Ashadeep Federation having registration No. KAF/CM/Delhi/Leprosy/1 dated
30.07.2002. The complaint had been received in the Anti-Corruption Branch,
Government of NCT of Delhi.
3. It was stated in the complaint that there had been misappropriation of funds
meant for spending on rehabilitation and welfare of leprosy afflicted persons of
Delhi. It was stated that the Federation had come to know that funds intended
for the benefit of leprosy afflicted persons and which were meant for keeping
and maintaining leprosy homes had been misappropriated by officers of
Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi. It was also
mentioned that a special audit had been got conducted by the government for
1/43
-- 1 of 43 --
expenditure incurred in years 1996 to 1999, and the audit confirmed the
allegations.
4. An inquiry was conducted pursuant to the said complaint and it was found,
prima facie, that offences under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC are made
out against Sh. Narain Singh, Superintendent, Sh. P. N. Jha, District Officer,
Sh. M. Joseph, Superintendent, Sh. M. S. Meena, Superintendent, Sh. M. K.
Sharma, Superintendent and Sh. Khem Chand, Deputy Director, alongwith
storekeeper and cashiers Sh. N. D. Pande, Vashisht Singh, Dharmender
Prasad, Kupuswamy, Saudan Singh, Rattan Singh, Sombir Singh, Mukesh
Pal, Ishwar Singh, Anand Vardhan, Sukhdev Singh of Social Welfare Deptt.,
GNCT of Delhi, the supplier bogus firms and others. On the basis of the said
inquiry, the FIR was registered.
5. It is further stated in the police report that there are five government funded
and managed institutions located in Tahir Pur (Near Nand Nagri), Sunder
Nagri, Delhi. The institutions have been described in the police report as
follows:
I. HLTB (Home for Leprosy and TB affected persons):
In this institution, beggars who are affected by leprosy are
kept as inmate. This is a residential complex. Provision for
food, stay, clothing, medicines are managed by the Social
Welfare Department. The institution is headed by
2/43
-- 2 of 43 --
Superintendent rank official. One institution namely HLAB
(Home for Leprosy affected Beggars) had been merged
with HLTB long back.
II. TCPC (L) (Training Cum Production Centre, Leprosy):
This institution is also situated in Tahir Pur. Some
inhabitants of HLTB who are capable of learning, are sent
for vocational training in this institution. They are given
some incentives like Rs. 30/- to Rs. 50/- per day for
learning. Besides the inhabitants some members of RCL
(Rehabilitation Centre for Lepers) also come to take
training here. The material used for training like threads,
paint, clay, raw material etc. is purchased by the officials
of this institution and is also headed by Supdt. rank
officials. Sometimes dual charges are given to the Supdt.
of HLTB.
III. TCPC (Old):
This institute is situated in Sunder Nagri, Nand Nagri,
Delhi. Now it is dysfunctional.
IV. SWPH (II) (Sheltered Workshop for Physically
Handicapped-11):
3/43
-- 3 of 43 --
This institution is located inside the HLTB complex. This is
also headed by Suptd. rank officials. It functions on the
line of TCPC.
V. RCL (Rehabilitation Centre for Lepers):
This is housing complex for lepers. Residents of this
housing complex are given sustenance allowance by the
Govt. The residences are maintained by the officials of the
Social Welfare Dept. This is also headed by
Superintendent ranked official.
6. It is further stated in the police report that during the course of investigation, it
was revealed that during the month of May 1998, the Department of Social
Welfare (DSW) conducted inquiries through its Vigilance Branch after
receiving some complaints of irregularities in the functioning of Homes for
Leprosy and TB affected beggars, Home for Leprosy affected Beggars,
Rehabilitation Centre for Leprosy, Training-cum-Production Centre (Leprosy),
Training-cum-Production Centre, Nand Nagri, Delhi and Sheltered Workshop
located at Tahirpur Complex, Delhi.
7. It is stated in the police report that the Department of Social Welfare (DSW)
found grave irregularities and then approached the Directorate of Audit, GNCT
of Delhi to conduct Special Audit of all the six institutions functioning at
Tahirpur Complex, Delhi. The six institutions were mainly engaged in
maintenance of court committed leprosy and TB affected beggars where
4/43
-- 4 of 43 --
lodging and boarding facilities were provided by the Government free of cost.
The facilities included free food, clothing, bedding, general items of daily use
and medical facilities. Out of these six institutions, the first two institutions
namely HLTB and HLAB were merged into one unit for administrative purpose.
The said two institutions were purchasing items for general store, dietary
items, clothing, bedding and other miscellaneous items including medicines.
Around 500 to 700 inmates were found lodged by the Audit Party during the
period of audit whereas capacity of both these two institutions was 300
inmates indicating the administrative difficulties for providing lodging and
boarding facilities.
8. It is further stated in the police report that the Special Audit on the purchases
made by above six institutions was conducted by the Directorate of Audit of
GNCT of Delhi as per order of No. Sr.AO/HO/letter No.F-1/Spl./Audit/123/671
dated 24.05.1998 for the period 1996-99 and Special Audit Report was sent to
Department of Social Welfare in June, 2000. The Special Audit pertaining to
the period 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 was conducted by Audit Party-IX
consisting of officers namely Sh. Lalit Kumar, IAO, Sh. M.S. Negi, IAO, Sh. K.
Somarajan Pillai, JAO, Sh. Satish Manchanda, JA and Sh. Ramesh Chander,
JA. Special Audit Report of these two institutions i.e. HLTB and HLAB had
found several irregularities indicated in 19 audit paragraphs and found fault in
maintenance of records, handling of cash books, non-observation of codal
formalities and other related norms as well as several other irregularities in
5/43
-- 5 of 43 --
making purchases. Similarly, several lapses and irregularities were found in
functioning of other four institutions, which even included some serious
lapses/irregularities. The Department of Social Welfare, on noticing these
lapses by their officers, took cognizance of these lapses/irregularities and the
matter was referred to its Vigilance Branch which after inquiring into the matter
as well as considering the Special Audit Report identified the following officers
for initiating Departmental action:
I. Sh. P.N. Jha, DO (North)
II. Sh. Narain Singh, Superintendent/HOO
III. Sh. M. Joseph. N. Tudu, Superintendent/HOO
IV. Sh. M.S. Meena, Superintendent/HOO
V. Sh. M.K. Sharma, Superintendent/HOO
VI. Sh. Khem Chand, Dy. Director (A)
9. It is further stated in the police report that keeping in view the gravity of the
matter, the Department of Social Welfare through its Vigilance Branch served
Show-Cause Notice for these alleged lapses/irregularities to all the six officers
on 08.06.2001. After obtaining their replies and examining the same as well as
other relevant records, the matter was forwarded to Directorate of Vigilance on
03.01.2003 for initiating departmental proceedings. Director (Vig.), GNCT of
Delhi referred this matter to Central Vigilance Commission for seeking their
First Stage Advice. CVC concurred with the recommendation of Directorate of
Vigilance for major penalty proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules,
6/43
-- 6 of 43 --
1965 and accordingly five of these officers were charge-sheeted. Case of the
sixth officer viz. Sh. Khem Chand was examined by the Social Welfare
Department separately by issuing a show cause notice to him. The brief
charges against five officers, as mentioned in the police report, were as under:
I. Sh. Narain Singh- He exceeded his jurisdiction and
incurred expenditure beyond his power, without meeting
codal formalities and without approval/sanction of the
competent authority. Purchases were also shown from
non-existent firms as reported by the Sales Tax
Department. Approval/sanction of the competent authority
was not obtained. Payments were made without proper
receipts.
II. Sh. P.N. Jha- Purchases were made without completing
codal formalities. Purchases were also shown from non-
existent firms as reported by the Sales Tax Department.
Approval/sanction of the competent authority was not
obtained. Payments were made without proper receipts.
III. Sh. M. Jospeh. N. Tudu – He made purchases without
meeting codal formalities and also from firms which were
found to be non-existent by the Sales Tax Department. He
made purchases of inadmissible articles.
7/43
-- 7 of 43 --
IV. Sh. M. S. Meena – He made purchases without
observing codal formalities and without approval of the
competent authority. Purchases were made by splitting
purchases to avoid codal formalities and
approval/sanction of the competent authority.
V. Sh. M. K. Sharma – He made purchases without
completing codal formalities and without approval/sanction
of the competent authority.
10. It is further mentioned in the closure report that a PIL was filed before the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi by complainant Brahm Dutt in which the Hon’ble
High Court gave directions to Directorate of Vigilance to conduct an inquiry. It
is further mentioned in the closure report that the allegations were
substantiated during the preliminary inquiry on the basis of special audit report
and survey report of Sales Tax Department.
11. It is further mentioned in the closure report that as per contents of the special
audit report, officers namely Sh. Narain Singh, Superintendent, Sh. P. N. Jha,
District Officer (North), Sh. M. Joseph, Superintendent, Sh. M. S. Meena,
Superintendent and Sh. M. K. Sharma, Superintendent were found to be
involved and the following irregularities were noticed for the period of their
tenure:
“I. Splitting of the bills to avoid sanction/approval from the
Competent Authority.
8/43
-- 8 of 43 --
II. Non-observation of Codal Formalities as per rules.
III. Purchase from local agencies by paying higher rates
than that of the rates of Govt. Agencies, without calling
tender/ quotations.
IV. Purchase of the items from the same agencies on the
same dates through different bills of different amounts of
less than Rs. 5,000/-.
V. Non-obtaining of the expenditure sanctioned from the
Competent Authority in the cases where the total amount
incurred is beyond the Limit.
VI. Non-preparation of comparative statement of rates.
VII. No acknowledgment of receipt of cheques from the
supplier firms.
VIII. Purchase from the local bogus firms, which were
virtually non functioning on their respective business
premises.
IX. These firms were charging Sales Tax but not
depositing to the Sales Tax Department resulting in loss of
Govt. exchequer continuously for the last many years.
X. After making the entries in the Stock Register non-
showing of the further placement of the items purchased.
9/43
-- 9 of 43 --
XI. Purchases of the excess quantities of the items though
sufficient quantities were being in the stock resulting in
blockage of Govt. funds.
XII. Meeting of the repairs and maintenance work of the
office building from the officer budget in place of getting
works done by the PWD Authorities.”
12. The sums of money which were subject matter of the financial irregularities
were mentioned in the police report as follows:
Sr.
No.
Name of
Superintendent
Designation & posting Period Institution and
year
Amount (of
irregular
purchases)
1. Sh. M.K. Sharma,
Supdt.
TCPC(L), Tahir Pur,
TCPC (Nand Nagri) and
SSPH(L)
97 TCP(O), 1997 80,000/-
approx.
2. Sh. P. N. Jha, DO
(North)
HLTB, HLAB, TCPC
(L), TCPC (Nand Nagri)
and SWPH (L)
Up to
96-97,
97-98
HLTB/HLA B
(1996-97)
HLTB/HLA B
(1997-98)
HLTB/HLA B
(1998-99)
Rs.48,41.173/-
Rs.96,72,146/-
Rs.4,28,111/-
10/43
-- 10 of 43 --
3. Sh.Narain Singh,
Supdt,
HLTB, RCL, TCPC(L),
TCPC, SWPH(L)
98-99 HLTB/HLA B Rs. 37,39,988/-
4. Sh. M. S. Meena,
Supdt.
TCPC(L) 97-98 TCP(O), RCPC
(L)
Rs. 1.25 lacs
approx.
5. Sh. M. Joseph.
Supdt.
HLTB, HLAB, RCL 98-99 HLTB Rs. 36,94,220/-
13. It is stated in the police report that from the record of leprosy homes which had
been obtained from the Department of Social Welfare and the scrutiny done,
certain irregularities were found but embezzlement and misappropriation was
not noticed. The observations of Mr. Subhash Chander, former Dy.
Director/Investigation and Finance, Anti-Corruption Branch, GNCT of Delhi in
respect of Sh. M. K. Sharma and Sh. M. S. Meena, DDO/HOO/TCPC (Old),
TCPC (Leprosy) and sheltered workshop for physically handicapped (L)-II vis-
a-vis the Special Audit Report are mentioned in the police report as follows:
“I. The materials purchased are generally related to the
Trades (i.e. Book Binding/Carpentry/Tailoring/Shoe
Making etc.) for which the training is being provided in the
concerned Training-cum-Production Centres.
II. The purchases pointed out and made through
Contingent Bills referred to in the Special Audit Report
11/43
-- 11 of 43 --
have been made based on Quotations/Comparative
Statements/Lowest Rates.
III. The matter relating to observation of Codal Formalities
for making the purchases was also discussed with the
officers for statement. It was stated by the IAO that the
documents relating the Quotations/Comparative
Statements were not produced before the Audit Party at
the time when the Audit was conducted and the
observations relating to non-observation of Cordal
Formalities was pointed out in the Audit Report.
IV. As desired by Shri Tilak Ram, ACP, the then Inquiry
Officer in the case, all the stock entries relating to the
items purchased through the contingent bills pointed out in
the Audit Report had been checked. No discrepancy with
regard to the quantity and the value of the material/items
purchased had been noticed and all the purchases made
had been found to be taken on stock in the concerned
Stock Register.”
14. It is further stated in the police report that the record relating to the purchases
made during the tenure of Shri P. N. Jha, Sr. Supdt., Shri M. J. N. Tudu,
Supdt. and Shri Narain Singh, Supdt., DDO/HOD Home for Leprosy and T. B.
Affected Beggars, Tahirpur, Shahdara/HLAB/Rehabilitation Centre for leprosy/
12/43
-- 12 of 43 --
TCPC(Old)/ TCPC(L)/SWPH(L) had been checked by previous I.O.'s vis-a-vis
the Special Audit Report for the period 1996-97 to 1998-99 and the
observations made were as under:
“1. Out of the total purchases worth Rs. 2,37,09,467/- in
the concerned institutions, purchases to the extent of Rs.
1,90,51,959/- had been made through Govt/govt.
approved agencies like Kendriya Bhandar, Super Bazaar,
NCCFI, DCCWS, Mother Dairy, Govt. Medical Store
Mehrauli etc. The purchases worth Rs. 46,57,508/-were
made from various Private Agencies.
II. The purchases from various Private Agencies had been
made on the basis of Quotations/Comparative
Statements/Lowest Rates.
III. The matter relating to observation of Codal formalities
for making purchases was also discussed with the
concerned IAO, Mr. M.S. Negi, who stated that the
documents relating to quotations/Comparative statements
were not produced before the audit team.
IV. The audit paras relating to the Purchases of mild,
Payment of conveyance charges, issue of Excess Dal in
lieu of vegetable items, non-consumable items issued to
inmates and not taken back had been settled by Deptt. of
13/43
-- 13 of 43 --
Audit vide their letter no. F.1(123)2w7/Audit/Spl./41 & Dt.
30.12.2002.
V. All the stock entries relating to items purchased through
Contingent Bills pointed out in the Special Audit Report
had been checked by previous IO ACP Surjeet Singh and
no material discrepancy with regard to quantity value of
the items purchased had been noticed. All the purchases
made had been found to be taken into stock in the
concerned stock registers. One stock register relating to
Dietary items for the period 1996-97 was not available in
the record and as such stock entry for the items
purchased during the period could not be verified.
However, the required certificate indicating reference to
the page no. of the stock register was found to have been
recorded on the concerned contingent bills.
VI. The para relating to excess issue of Dietary items had
been examined with reference to the quantity issued
register vis-a-vis the number of inmates on the dates
pointed out by the audit and it had been observed that the
entire quantity issued on the dates had been treated as
excess by the audit party. As a matter of fact, the dietary
items were not issued on day-to-day basis but were
14/43
-- 14 of 43 --
issued on the date assigned for issue thereof. As such all
the dietary items issued on a particular date could not be
considered to be issued for consumption on the specific
date.
VII. Most of the purchases relating to dietary, clothing and
bedding articles, vegetables, milk, medicines, and
dressing material had been made from Govt.
agencies/Govt. approved agencies like Kendriya Bhandar,
Super Bazar, DCCWS, DSCSC, Mother Dairy etc. and not
through private agencies as reported in the Special Audit
Report.
VIII. The cash book relating to Rehabilitation Centre for
leprosy had been checked and it had been observed that
some procedural lapses like non-recording of closing
balance, non-preparation of summary of undisbursed
amount at the close of month etc. were noticed but none
of the other objections relating to over payment/non-
payment of the amount of assistance etc. could be
substantiated during checking of relevant record.
IX. Although separate Stock Register for Consumable and
Non-Consumable items were not found to have been
maintained, all the entries relating to purchases made in
15/43
-- 15 of 43 --
RCL were found to have been entered in the respective
Stock Registers maintained in the office.
X. Annual physical inspection and verification of stock as
required in GFR 113 (1) had not been found to have been
conducted.
XI. The record relating to payment of financial assistance
through A/c No. 119 in United Bank of India, Gagan
Cinema Delhi in the name of DDO/HOO, Rehabilitation
Centre for leprosy was not available.
XII. The undisbursed amount of Rs. 10,800/- was
deposited in Govt. A/c but the maximum limit for the
period of retention up to 90 days was not observed in
some of the cases as pointed in Special Audit Report.
XIII. It had been observed that payments had generally
been made through account payee cheques to the
Govt./Private Agencies from which the purchases had
been made by the institution during the tenure of the
concerned officers.”
15. It was also noticed that in departmental proceedings, some employees were
punished whereas one employee was exonerated.
16. It is further mentioned in the police report that the audit team did not find any
embezzlement or misappropriation of funds, and they had noticed only
16/43
-- 16 of 43 --
procedural lapses, irregular purchases and violation of orders. It is also
mentioned that as per survey report dated 19.05.1999 conducted by Sales Tax
Officers, two firms namely M/s. Parul Sales and M/s. Ambey Supply
Corporation were found to be non-existing whereas the remaining four firms
were found to be not registered with the Sales Tax Department. It is stated that
the staff of Leprosy Homes denied having misappropriated funds. It is also
mentioned in the police report that there had been no embezzlement because
the inmates of the institutions were aggressive and had there been any
shortage in the stock, the inmates would have attacked the management of
the institutions.
17. It is also mentioned in the closure report that four private firms had written
sales tax numbers on their bills but on verification with the Sales Tax
Department, it was found that the firms were not registered on those numbers.
It is mentioned in the closure report that false sales tax numbers were
mentioned on the bills so as to cheat the Department of Social Welfare. It is
also mentioned in the closure report that the returns of Kusum Goyal,
Proprietor of Shiva Sales Corporation could not be verified because it was
found that no such record existed in the ward of the Income Tax Department.
18. It is mentioned in the police report that the suspects denied their involvement
and found flaws with the audit report.
17/43
-- 17 of 43 --
19. It is stated in the police report that a closure report was filed in the Court in the
year 2005. The then Ld. Special Judge rejected the closure report and directed
further investigation with the following observations:
“On a careful consideration of the audit report it is apparent that
material pregularities were pointed out by the special audit report
as well as with regard to the purchaxes made by various
institutions under Social Welfare Department from bogus forms.
However, the closure report shows that the proprietors of such
firms which have been pointed out by the special audit team as
bogus were not examined as witnesses and I.O. did not make
any efforts to know as to who were the persons doing business
under these firms names. In my considered view the
submissions of Mr. Ahluwalia, Advocate as well as the
conclusion of the I.O. is not supported by the material collected
during investigation on this point and in my considered view
further investigation on this point and other related points is
required as the survey report of the sales tax department shows
that the sales tax department found that M/s Kusum Enterprises,
1518 S.B. Marg. Delhi, M/s Parul Sales Corp. AE-137, Shalimar
Bagh, M/s Amber Supply Corp D-25, Surajmal Vihar and Mis
Shiva Sales Agency, D-67 C.C. Colony. R.P. Bagh Delhi were
not registered with Sales Tax Department. The fact that these
18/43
-- 18 of 43 --
firms represented themselves to have been registered with the
Sales Tax Department shows that some persons were doing
business under the name of these firms and the I.O. did not
make any efforts to trace the proprietors of these firms. Further
as per Income tax Return collected by the I.O. the proprietors of
all these firms belong to the same family which is very much
clear from the name of the father given in the income tax returns.
The I.O. verified the existence/non-existence of Mis Galaxy Co-
operative Stores Ltd. from Registrar of Societies and of M/s Sri
Ambe Supply Corporation from the Chief Manager P.N.B
Chandni Chowk where Mr. Ravinder Nath is maintaining current
A/c No. 19613 and existence of Mis Kusum Enterprises, M/s
Shiva Sales Agency. M/s Parul Sales Corpoartion has been
verified from the Manger, Allahabad Bank, Chandni Chowk. A
perusal of the documents collected during investigation shows
that the address of Kusum Enterprises is of Shiv Ashram,
Mukherji Marg, Delhi, address of Shiva Sales Agency is of C.C.
Colony, R.P. Bagh and of Parul Sales Corp. is Shalimar bagh.
Although, these three Companies are having different addresses
but are maintaining their current account in the same Bank ie.
Allahabad Bank, Chadni Chowk. The point that arises for
consideration is whether a same person is doing business in
19/43
-- 19 of 43 --
three different firm names and this fact requires investigation
which escaped the attention of the I.O.
Further the proprietors of these three firms which have been
found to be bogus by special audit team and the sales tax
registration numbers of these firms have been found to be fake
by sales tax department are either from the same family or
closely related to each other because Yogender Nath Proprietors
of Parul Sales Corporation and Rakesh Goyal Proprietor Kusum
Enterprises are brothers as per the information given in the
Income Tax Return. It appears that Kusum Goyal Proprietor of
Shiva Sales Corporation is number of the same family. Further
the verification done by the I.O. either from the Bank or from the
Registrar of the societies was in fact verification of the papers
only which were submitted to these offices and not the
verification of the person / persons who was/were doing the
business under these names. What this verification by the I.O.
means is that these firms do exit on papers whereas what fact is
required to be verified is whether in fact these firms exist and
were doing actual business. The proper verification can be only
after examining the persons doing the business under these firm
names. In my considered view further investigation in the matter
is required en these points only.
20/43
-- 20 of 43 --
The special audit report shows that there was violation of the
norms and procedure of the purchase policy of Government of
Delhi and Financial rules applicable for purchase of medicines
and dressing material. It was also observed in the audit report
that in some cases some material had been purchased through
4/5 vouchers on the same date while in the other cases some
material had been purchased on daily basis and administrative
approval and expenditure sanction of the competent authority
has never been obtained for purchase of medicines and dressing
material. This report also shows that many items have been
purchased either daily or after one or two days such as Phenyl,
Soap, Finite, Bleaching Powder. The I.O. was required to
investigate whether these purchases were with a view to split up
the purchases for side tracking the sanction of the competent
authority which would have become necessary if such items
would have been purchased in one go. The investigation does
not reflect as to what were the circumstances that promoted such
purchases. The fact that requires investigation is whether these
were merely the administrative lapses that were warranted by
then existing exigencies or whether these recurring
administrative lapses were in fact the misuse of the power for
circumventing the violation of the norms and procedure of the
21/43
-- 21 of 43 --
purchases policy of the Government of Delhi and related
Financial rules. In my considered view investigation on these
points is also required to be made.
For the foregoing discussion, I hold that the matter requires
further investigation. I accordingly direct the I.O. to conduct
further investigation and to submit the report on 22.09.07. The
Police file be returned to the I.O. alongwith the attested copy of
the order for compliance.”
20. It is stated in the police report that further investigation was carried out and the
aforesaid points are clarified as follows:
“I. M/s Shiva Sales Agency- B/67 CC Colony Rana Pratap
Bagh, Delhi- It had been found that Ms. Kusum Goyal w/o
Ravinder Goyal r/o 225, Mohalla Gurihan, Chhota Bazar,
Shahadra, Delhi was the Proprietor of this firm. She died
on 16.08.2006. Her death Certificate has been provided
by her husband. She used to run her business as tenant
of Sh. Virender Sharma, owner of B/67 CC Colony Rana
Pratap Bagh, Delhi. Sh. Virender Kumar Sharma has also
sold this property and is now living at 20/72 Shakti Nagar
Delhi.
II. M/s Kusum Enterprises- 1518, SP Mukherjee Marg.
Delhi- Sh. Rakesh Goyal r/o 225, Mohalla Gurihan,
22/43
-- 22 of 43 --
Chhota Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi had been found to be
Proprietor of this firm. Sh. Jagmohan Gupta who is distant
relative of Rakesh Goyal had given a portion of this
property to Rakesh Goyal to run this business. Jagmohan
Gupta himself is a tenant here since around 30-35 years.
III. M/s Galaxy Consumer Co-operative Store- Nai Basti
Kurani, Narela Delhi- Sh. Akbar r/o Village Kaurani Nai
Basti Narela Delhi had been found to be Proprietor of this
firm. He was tenant of Sh. Gulfam who informed that he
had rented out some portion to Sh. Akbar. It has also
been informed that M/s Galaxy is a registered firm in ward
No. 71 on reg. No. L-71/194034/07/97 under local Act.
IV. M/s Shri Ambey Supply Corporation- B/25, Surajmal
Vihar, Delhi- Sh. Ravinder Goyal r/o 225, Mohalla
Gurihan, Chhota Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi had been found
to be Proprietor of this firm. Smt. Pushpa Goyal w/o Sh.
Mohan Lal Goyal r/o A-78, Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi has
stated that she had given a portion of this address to
Ravinder Goyal who is her nephew.
V. M/s Parul Sales Corporation- AE/137 Shalimar Bagh
Delhi- Sh. Yoginder Nath Goyal ro 225, Mohalla Gurihan,
Chhota Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi had been found to be
23/43
-- 23 of 43 --
Proprietor of this firm. Smt. Beena Rani Gupta w/o Sh.
Uttam Chand Gupta stated that she had rented out a
portion of her property to Sh. Joginder Nath Goyal. He did
business from here from 1996 to 1999. He was a close
relative of her as such she only used to take nominal rent
from him.”
21. It is further stated in the police report that after further investigation a second
closure report was filed in the court. The said closure report was also rejected
by the then Ld. Special Judge vide order dated 22.10.2021. In the said order it
was held as follows:
“1. This is a final report u/s 173 (2) Cr.P.C for closure of
the above-mentioned FIR. The closure report has been
preferred for the second time. First closure report was
rejected by the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated
30.05.2007, wherein few points were mentioned to be
further investigated, specifically.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the complainant Dr.
Brahm Dutt as president of Kusth Asha Deep Federation
lodged a complaint dated 30.07.2009 which was
addressed to the Chief Minister of Delhi. On the said
complaint, ACP of Police Station Anti Corruption Branch
made an endorsement dated 14.05.2003 and then the FIR
24/43
-- 24 of 43 --
was registered. In the complaint there are allegations
against public servants of Department of Social welfare
Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the effect that as per a Special
audit report of Social Welfare Department several
discrepancies were noticed in purchase of articles by the
department and thus funds were misappropriated by the
public servants.
3. Notice of the present final report was issued to the
informant and the informant has filed a written protest
petition. The informant Dr. Brahm Dutt was also heard in
person as he is a lawyer also by profession. As also the
investigating officer has been heard.
4. Bare perusal of the present final report, particularly
internal page no. 8 and 9 would reveal that the final report
is completely vague causing unnecessary confusion with
no clarity as to on what reasons the conclusions are
drawn by the investigating officer. Few such paragraphs
from the final report may be reproduced here, which would
indicate that the final report does not make any sense. It
reads as follows:
"It appears to be a case where the entries of the items
issued on different dates entered in a Quantity-Issue-
25/43
-- 25 of 43 --
Register on a particular date by which the audit thought it
being in excess-consumption against a normal
consumption of items per day. For example, the institution
(TCPC) undertakes book binding assignments in different
government offices. The book binding is done by Deaf and
Dumb inmates (after getting training in the training
centres) mostly at different locations. The different teams
of book binding have different requirement of Maida and
other stitching materials even at different intervals on a
single day itself. Therefore, the different teams have to
purchase Maida and other related raw materials for book
binding separately from the different suppliers located at
different areas on the same day and furnish the purchase
vouchers at the institution on their return after finishing the
work.
This is because of the fact that the exact quantity of
bookbinding work at different offices at different locations
cannot be made known in advance. Thus, quantity of
Maida by which the paste is prepared varies from office to
office thereby increases the number of vouchers for a
single day.
26/43
-- 26 of 43 --
If the stores including medicines & other dressing
materials required to be purchased by an officer within his
own financial powers delegated by him, there appears no
objection to purchase such stores either on daily basis or
otherwise according to his requirements but subject to
rates already fixed. However, the purchase of certain
materials, which are perishable in nature, are normally
purchased on daily basis. Similarly, as per instructions of
D.G. (Health Services), Govt. of India. New Delhi the
medicines should not be prescribed by a A.M.A for more
than 3/4 days at a time. Such system are operative in
college hostels/ residential institutions etc. Administrative
approval/expenditure sanction of the Head of Department
is required only where the purchase officer is not
authorized to inure monetary expenditure. In the instant
case, the Head/ Centers were duly authorized to enjoy full
Financial power in respect his/her homes/centres till
19.06.2002 vide order No. F.8/3/2000-AC/927, dated
20.06.2002".
5. Besides it, in the earlier final report rejection order
dated 30.05.2007 the Ld. Predecessor specifically
directed the investigation to be done on the aspect
27/43
-- 27 of 43 --
whether certain firms involved in this case actually were
doing business or not. In response to the said direction 10
has mentioned that those firms were being run by
Yogender Nath Goel, Ravinder Goel, Rakesh Goel, and
Lt. Kusum Goel who are all relatives and family members
and they were actually carrying out business and were
maintaining separate bank accounts. IO has also
mentioned that there was nothing wrong in those persons
doing business individually and having account in the
same bank. But IO has not specified as to what material
did he collect to render force to the submission that those
firms were actually carrying out business.
6. Perusal of final report also reveals that at one stage of
investigation prosecution sanction was sought against five
public servants and out of them few sanctions were even
granted. Final report also reveals that against five public
servants disciplinary proceedings were conducted
resulting into imposition of penalties against the public
servants. It is not specified in the final report as to when
no material existed against public servants, why sanction
was obtained and why thereafter the investigating agency
has taken a somersault stating that no embezzlement was
28/43
-- 28 of 43 --
found. Similarly, the observation in the final report on page
no. 10 that procedural lapse and irregularities were there
but possibility of embezzlement or misappropriation of
funds was not there, is not supported with reasons in
favour of that conclusion.
7. Accordingly, the final report in its present form cannot
be accepted as it is vague and lacking on the above-
mentioned aspects and therefore it is rejected and further
investigation is directed on every point ordered in the
earlier order dated 30-05-2007 and that the final report
should be preferred with clarity in support of conclusions
drawn.”
22. Further investigation was again undertaken. It is further mentioned in the
closure report that before completion of further investigation and without any
new material coming on record, a request had been made for prosecution
sanction against the five officers namely Sh. Narain Singh, Sh. P. N. Jha, Sh.
M. Tudu Joseph, Sh. M. S. Meena, Sh. M. K. Sharma vide letter No. 2681/FIR-
22/03/SS/ACP/ACB dated 14.09.2007.
23. On 25.10.2007, another request was sent for treating the request for
prosecution sanction as withdrawn.
24. On 19.12.2007, letters were again sent separately against each of those
employees seeking prosecution sanction.
29/43
-- 29 of 43 --
25. The Chief Secretary of Delhi granted sanction for prosecution of Mohan Singh
Meena and M.J.S. Tudu. Sanction as against Narain Singh remained pending
before the Chief Secretary.
26. It is further stated that the request for prosecution sanction against M. K.
Sharma and P. N. Jha was put up before the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.
27. It is further stated that the Lieutenant Governor declined to grant sanction for
prosecution of the said two officers whereas no decision was taken in respect
of Narain Singh.
28. It is further stated in the police report that on 04.10.2011, a fresh request was
sent to Directorate of Vigilance for putting up the matter before the Lieutenant
Governor for reviewing the decision of declining the prosecution sanction as bv
against M. K. Sharma and P. N. Jha. The request of review was not
entertained.
29. It is further stated that P. N. Jha and Narain Singh had retired from service and
therefore there was no need for their prosecution sanction. It is then stated
that a letter was sent to the Directorate of Vigilance requesting that the review
application in respect of M. K. Sharma and P. N. Jha and the application for
prosecution sanction of Narain Singh may be treated as withdrawn on the
ground that investigation had now moved forward.
30. It is further mentioned that a writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble High
Court with the prayer that since prosecution sanction sought against M. K.
Sharma and P. N. Jha had been declined and since the case of other officers
30/43
-- 30 of 43 --
is on the same footing, the prosecution sanction given by the Chief Secretary
against Mohan Singh Meena should be set aside. The writ petition was
dismissed as having become infructuous. It is further stated that departmental
action had been taken against some of the employees.
31. The police report submitted before this Court has set out its conclusions as
follows:
“The investigation revealed the following outcome:
Sl
No.
Allegations Name of alleged Firms and
their proprietors
Remarks
1 who were the
persons doing
business under these
firm’s name, though
the sale tax
department found
that these firms were
not registered with it
and IO to verity
whether these firms
actually exists and
doing actual
business, for which
actual examination of
person doing
business is required.
(1)M/s Shiva Sales Agency -
B/67 CC Colony Rana Pratap
Bagh, Delhi.
Ms. Kusum Goyal w/o
Ravinder Goyal r/o 225,
Mohalla Gurihan, Chhota
Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi was the
Proprietor of this firm.
(2) M/s Kusum Enterprises -
1518, SP Mukherjee Marg,
Delhi.
Sh. Rakesh Goyal (Younger
brother of Ravinder Goya) r/o
225, Mohalla Gurihan, Chhota
Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi has
been found to be Proprietor of
this firm.
(3) M/s Shri Ambey Supply
Corporation B/25, Surajmal
Vihar, Delhi.
Sh. Ravinder Goyal r/o 225,
She died on 16.08.2006. Her
death Certificate has been
provided by her husband
Ravinder Goyal and verified.
She used to run her business
as tenant of Sh. Virender
Sharma, owner of B/67 CC
Colony Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi. Sh. Virender Kumar
Sharma has also sold this
property and is now living at
20/72 Shakti Nagar Delhi.
Sh. Jagmohan Gupta who is
distant relative of Rakesh
Goyal had given a portion of
this property to Rakesh Goyal
to run _ this business.
Jagmohan Gupta himself was
a tenant here since around 30-
35 years on nominal rent of
Rs.10/-.
Smt. Pushpa Goyal w/o Sh.
Mohan Lal, Goyal r/o A-78,
Suraj Mal Vihar, Delhi has
stated that she had given a
31/43
-- 31 of 43 --
Nigak Mohalla Gurihan,
Chhota Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi
has been found to be Proprietor
of this firm.
(4) M/s Parul Sales
Corporation AE/137 -Shalimar
Bagh Delhi.
Sh. Yoginder Nath (Younger
brother of Ravinder Goyal) r/o
225, Mohalla Gurihan, Chhota
Bazar, Shahadra, Delhi has
been found to be Proprietor of
this firm.
(5) Ms Galaxy Consumer
Cooperative Store Nai Basti
Kurani, Narela Delhi.
Sh. Akbar r/o Village Kaurani
Nai Basti Narela Delhi has been
found to be Proprietor of this
firm.
portion of this address to
Ravinder Goyal who is her
nephew.
Smt. Beena Rani Gupta w/o
Sh. Uttam Chand Gupta stated
that she had rented out a
portion of her property to Sh.
Joginder Nath Goyal. He did
business from here from 1996
to 1999. He was her close
relative and as such she only
used to take nominal rent from
him.
He was tenant of Sh. Gulfam
who informed that he had
rented out some portion to Sh.
Akbar. It has also been
informed that M/s Galaxy is a
registered firm in ward No. 71
on reg. No. L-71/194034/07/97
under local Act.
2 Firms with different
address have
account in one bank
i.e. Allahabad Bank,
IO to investigate
whether the same
persons is doing the
business in their
different firm’s
names.
All the persons were different
with different addresses.
It is not be said that the firms
were fictitious and bogus and
were not in existence. The
agencies were acknowledged
by the Social Welfare
Department also. Pay &
Accounts Offices also never
raised any objection while
issuing the cheques and
always passed the bills on
merits. Ravinder Goyal, his
wife Late Mrs. Kusum Goyal,
his younger brothers Rakesh
Goyal and Yoginder Nath
Goyal were the proprietors of
these four firms and were
doing business separately.
3 The points were
raised in audit report
pertaining to (a)
purchase of some
material through 4/5
vouchers on the
same date (b)
purchase of material
on daily basis or after
As per available record and
statement of witnesses, it has
not been established that to
avoid the sanction of the
competent authority, bills were
spitted. At the time of audit,
the DDO/HO was vested with
full power for purchases and
this power was Subsequently
32/43
-- 32 of 43 --
a gap of one or two
days such as phenyl,
soap, Mosquito
repellants &
Bleaching powder
etc. (c) obtaining
expenditure sanction
from competent
authority for
purchase of
medicines and
dressing material.
reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- per
annum by order No.
F.8/3/2000-AC/92 dated
20.06.2002 issued by Govt. of
NCT, Finance (Accounts)
Department. AS regards
specific reference to some bills
having common date, the
alleged officials have already
been punished due to
administrative lapses.
4 The report shows
many items have
been purchased
either daily or after
one and two days
such as PHENYLE,
Shop, Bleeching
Powder, finit etc. IO
to investigate &
comment of IO are
required to ascertain
that whether the
splitting of bills was
misuse of power or
mere administrative
lapse
These are daily consumable
items, They are purchased
strictly on need basis and
required to be distributed to
cleaners/ users very carefully to
avoid wastage, pilfcrage and
their misuse. There are
instances where the inmates of
the Homes/Centers attempted to
commit suicide by consuming
phenyl, finite Tik-20 etc. after
stealing them from laboratories.
Bulk purchases of such items
sometime lead to leakage,
evaporation etc. while lying in
store/godown.
Purchases in small lots were
made primarily with a view to
avoid creation of heavy
inventory. Purchases to were
made on need basis, only
after assessing the urgency
and essentiality of the
requirements after completing
all the codal formalities on
competitive rates. Goods were
purchased and entered the
respective stock registers and
issued for the beneficiaries.
Details of bank accounts:
Sl
No
Name of Firm and name of proprietor Bank Account No. and name
of bank
Duration
1 M/s Parul Sales Corporation AE/137 -
Shalimar Bagh Delhi.
Sh. Yoginder Nath
103241, Allahabad Bank,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi
110006
1995-96 to
1998-99
2 M/s Shiva Sales Agency B/67 CC
Colony Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
103241, Allahabad Bank,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi
110006
1995-96 to
1998-99
33/43
-- 33 of 43 --
Proprietor - Kusum Goyal
3 M/s Kusum Enterprises, 1518, Shiv
Ashram, SP Mukherjee Marg, Delhi-
110006
Proprietor - Rakesh Goyal
103241, Allahabad Bank,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi
110006
1995-96 to
1998-99
4 M/s Shree Ambey Supply Corporation
B/25, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi-52.
Proprietor Sh. Ravinder Goyal
19613, Punjab National
Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
Account closed
on 09.06.1999
32. Having noted the chequered history of the case, this Court is to decide
whether to accept the closure report.
33. The case revolves around misappropriation of funds which were meant for
spending on rehabilitation and welfare for leprosy afflicted persons. As per
allegations, funds which were received for welfare of inmates of institutions
were misappropriated by officers of Department of Social Welfare. The
allegations are supported by a report of a special audit.
34. To start with, the Anti-Corruption Branch did find that rules had been flouted in
making of purchases. The purchase by a government department is made
after the proposal is processed at different levels. At least one person in the
said echelons should have blown the whistle and should have protested
against purchases being made indiscriminately without following the rules. Not
having done so, there is a chance that the officers were acting in collusion.
34/43
-- 34 of 43 --
35. The special audit report states that shortcomings of not preparing the
contingent register and other shortcomings had been pointed out in the routine
internal audit but was not rectified. It states that purchases were made without
inviting tenders, without comparing prices, without approval of rates, without
obtaining approval and expenditure sanction, without constituting purchase
committee and the prices at which articles had been purchased were also
found to be inflated. It is mentioned that purchases were made from private
agencies instead of government approved cooperative stores and that
purchases were made on piecemeal basis and on alternate days. It was
noticed that the same item had been shown to have been purchased multiple
times, and in some cases on all working days of the week. It was found that
purchases were made in excess of the requirement of the institution. It is
mentioned that some duplicate bills were presented after a gap of 15 years
and somehow the payment was disbursed without having obtained approval of
competent authorities. It is stated that vouchers have not been signed by DDO
and store officer and the stock entry certificate had not been signed by the
store keeper which shows that there is a possibility that the articles were not
even received. The record of issuance/release of items to inmates was found
to be improper. The audit report is supported by several documents which
substantiate the contents of the report.
36. The officers were aware of the lapses. They however continued to make the
said expenditures unabated. The regular audit tended to sweep the matter
35/43
-- 35 of 43 --
under the carpet. Special audit was carried out. The special audit flagged the
violations. Inspite of this, no action was taken.
37. It is only after the complainant submitted a complaint and filed a public interest
litigation that the government departments woke up from their slumber and
decided to take some action. Then also, as is clear from the reading of the
police report, repeatedly, an attempt was made by the Anti-Corruption Branch
to downplay the violations and to pass them off as a mere breach of rules. The
record was in the face of the Anti-Corruption Branch and the Department of
Social Welfare. The record showed that some entities were not in existence
and some entities were not registered with the sales tax department. That
sales tax was not being paid pointed towards fabrication of record and
preparation of bogus bills. However, this was brushed aside by the
Investigating Officers on the ground that this is a mere taxation issue, which
too was not pursued by the Anti-Corruption Branch. The Anti-Corruption
Branch came up with a queer reason in defence of the officers. They stated
that the inmates of institutions would have raised a hue and cry if they had not
received the articles purchased for them. The Anti-Corruption Branch also
stated that they have asked the officers of Department of Social Welfare
whether they had taken bribe and they declined. The Anti-Corruption Branch
also asked the suppliers as to whether they had paid bribe, and they too
refused. On this basis, the Anti-Corruption Branch concluded that the
transactions are without blemish. All this shows that either the Anti-Corruption
36/43
-- 36 of 43 --
Branch is manned by officers who are too naive, or they feared probing deeper
because they felt that they might stumble upon evidence that would have
incriminated officers of Department of Social Welfare and then they would
have been compelled to take some concrete steps which clearly they were
unwilling to. It appears that the Anti-Corruption Branch had no intention to
investigate the matter and to collect evidence. They have not tried to find out
from the accounts of the suppliers in which money had been received, as to
how the money was used and whether any part of it was diverted to the
officers of Department of Social Welfare. They did not collect mobile phones of
suppliers and of officers of Department of Social Welfare to ascertain whether
they were in contact with each other and whether messages were exchanged
and if so, the contents of the communication. If powers of investigation are not
to be exercised, and if conclusions are to be drawn only by asking the
suspects whether they have paid or received bribe, then most cases
investigated by the Anti-Corruption Branch would result in closure for lack of
evidence. It is possible that one or two investigating officers and their
supervisory officers are untrained in investigating crimes. But not having taken
action for twenty years inspite of directions of the Court only shows a clear
lack of sincerity, and sheer dishonesty on the part of the Anti-Corruption
Branch. The report of special audit has been shrugged off on flimsy grounds.
The plea that the inmates would have protested is without any basis. The
inmates of the institutions were obviously not in a position of authority that they
37/43
-- 37 of 43 --
could have protested. There is nothing to show that the inmates were
participating in the management of the institution and were being shown the
official records of the institutions, or that they were being allowed to inspect
records, or that the audit reports were shared with them, or that they were
given the liberty to voice their concerns, so that they could have protested. The
Anti-Corruption Branch has not recorded statements of inmates to show the
number of articles that were given to them for consumption and to compare
them with the articles which are shown to have purchased, and instead, a
clean chit has been given to officers by holding that there was no agitation
from inmates who may have been suffering in silence.
38. The Anti-Corruption Branch has not examined persons who are claimed to
have delivered the articles in question to the institutions, so as to lend
credence to the said delivery. The delivery documents have not been collected
and verified.
39. Investigation has been revealed that suppliers are related to each other. That,
by itself, is not an offence but it does give rise to a possibility that the suppliers
were acting in collaboration and may have had an arrangement with the
management of the institutions for restricting participation of other contenders
or suppliers in receiving orders of the said supplies.
40. It is also startling that while drawing conclusions, the investigating officer who
filed the closure report referred to and relied upon opinions of previous
investigating officers. These opinions are not in the nature of expert opinions.
38/43
-- 38 of 43 --
It appears that this has been done in order to disown the conclusions drawn by
the investigating officer or to somehow shift/share the blame for drawing
bizarre and uncanny assumptions.
41. A close reading of the police report, when compared with the documents on
record, shows that the Anti-Corruption Branch has selectively picked up
information that may have remotely supported the suspects and has used it to
efface the entire allegation of misappropriation and embezzlement.
42. Also, undue emphasis has been placed by the Investigating Officer on the fact
that the audit report did not have a categorical finding of misappropriation of
funds and that the officers in question who faced department inquiry were not
charged with misappropriation. This reasoning is an eye-wash and is wholly
misleading. Government accounts are subjected to audit and audit is done in
order to ensure transparency, accountability and compliance with financial
regulations. During the process of audit, it is to be seen whether an
organization’s financial position is accurately reflected by the financial
statements. It is also to be seen whether the funds entrusted to it have been
used efficiently and for intended purchases, in line with approved budgets and
with required approvals. If the funds had been misapplied, if approvals have
not been obtained, if receipt of purchased articles has not been duly recorded,
if articles have been purchased at inflated prices, an auditor may notice this on
the basis of records. As to whether, for the purchases, kickbacks were
received by government officers, if purchases were shown only on paper and
39/43
-- 39 of 43 --
the money was diverted by first transferring to the supplier and then
withdrawing cash, if bribes were being taken, those cannot be noticed by an
auditor. Basis the regulatory violations, it is an in-depth investigation which can
reveal these facts. It is for this purpose that police and other law enforcement
agencies are invested with powers. These investigating powers are not
bestowed upon auditors, who have to only give findings on the basis of
records. An auditor cannot started probing into details by recording of
statements and by sustained interrogation of the suspects. An auditor can only
point out if the rules were being followed while carrying out expenditure.
Therefore, to close a case on the ground that the auditor has not given a
finding of diversion of funds or embezzlement would amount to putting the cart
before the horse. In this case, there is a specific audit report which states that
rules were flouted all throughout. When rules are defied, when expenditure is
unauthorizedly undertaken, when articles are purchased at inflated prices, it is
a likely inference that these acts were done with a view to receive undue
benefit or to give undue benefit to a private person. This should have been
followed up by officers of the Anti-Corruption Branch with sincere efforts to
unearth facts but they somehow developed cold feet and did not investigate
these matters at all. How the illegitimate money that was generated by
transgression of rules found its way into the pockets of the violators is a matter
which can, and could have, emerged only by investigation. This could not have
40/43
-- 40 of 43 --
been a finding given by the auditor, nor could it have figured as a charge
during disciplinary action.
43. It is for collection of evidence that an investigation is undertaken. However, in
the present case, owing to inaction by the investigating officers of the Anti-
Corruption Branch, the evidence was not collected and the Anti-Corruption
Branch excused itself from gathering evidence by giving the reason that the
complainant or the auditor did not hand over the evidence to them. If it was the
duty of the complainant to provide the entire evidence on a platter to the
investigating agency, there would be no requirement for the investigating
agency to be in existence and the complainant would then rather prove the
allegations himself by leading his evidence in the Court.
44. It is a basic fact that an offence of corruption, by its very nature, does not take
place in full public glare. Evidence has to be unearthed by affirmative action.
Not doing so and simply holding that there is no direct evidence that has been
given to the Anti-Corruption Branch by the complainant or by the auditor about
embezzlement of funds, is nothing short of abdication of duties by the Anti-
Corruption Branch with a view to protect the offenders for reasons best known
to the officers of Anti-Corruption Branch.
45. Not only this, the manner in which, after seeking of sanction for prosecution,
the request for sanction was withdrawn by the Anti-Corruption Branch itself
raised many questions about the genuineness of the investigation that has
been undertaken. The repeated flip-flop and changing stands of the Anti-
41/43
-- 41 of 43 --
Corruption Branch shows that their investigation lacks sanctity and the officers
are ready to make a mockery of the objective of curbing corruption. While it is
mentioned in the police report that the request for sanction was withdrawn
because investigation had continued, when the Court asked what investigation
had been undertaken, the Anti-Corruption Branch remained tight-lipped. This
implies that a false statement was made before this Court in the closure report
in order to somehow justify the withdrawal of request for sanction.
46. Sanction is sought only after the investigating officer has concluded his
investigation against the person for whom he seeks sanction. This completion
of investigation is notified to senior officers and with their approval, sanction is
sought. Therefore, the assertion that investigation was continuing and that
sanction had been sought midway is itself unworthy of credit. If there was any
such lapse by an investigating officer, there would have been departmental
action against him which too has not been reported to have been undertaken.
47. In order to ascertain genuineness of repeated change in stance, this Court
asked the investigating officer to show the said decisions being taken on file,
but the Anti-Corruption Branch refused to show the file. All the above shows
that the officers were abusing their powers in deciding whether or not to
prosecute the offenders.
48. Twice earlier, closure reports were filed before the Ld. Predecessors of this
Court. On both occasions, the closure reports were rejected and the case was
referred for further investigation. However, the deficiencies were not made
42/43
-- 42 of 43 --
good. The Anti-Corruption Branch closed the case by holding that the audit
report has not established embezzlement of funds. What it overlooked was
that it was not the duty of the audit team to investigate into embezzlement of
funds. It is for the Anti-Corruption Branch to investigate this. It has been found
that some of the bills were fake. The supplier firms were found to be non-
existent. Inspite of this, the Anti-Corruption Branch closed the case by holding
that the suppliers did not admit that they had paid bribe. Neither the suppliers
nor the public servants were subjected to thorough and sustained
interrogation.
49. On account of the reasons stated above, in keeping with the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhinandan Jha vs Dinesh Mishra AIR 1968 SC
117, which has been consistently followed in subsequent cases, the closure
report is rejected. The case is referred for further investigation.
50. Let further investigation be undertaken. Status report be filed on 07.04.2025.
(Ashish Aggarwal)
Special Judge (PC Act)(ACB)-02
Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi
16.01.2025
43/43
-- 43 of 43 --