CBI vs. Romesh Sharma-Chopper Hijjack

1 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.
INTHECOURTOFSHRISANJIVJAIN:PRESIDINGOFFICER:MACTII
SOUTHDISTRICT: SAKETCOURTS:NEWDELHI
InR.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND S.C.No.:55/09 UniqueCaseID:02401R0830112003
CentralBureauofInvestigation(CBI)
Versus 1. RomeshSharma S/oSh.Satyanarayan R/oC30,MayfairGarden, NewDelhi 2. HarishMishra S/oSh.SatyaNarayanMishra R/o507,RoyalTurnerRoad, Juhu,Mumbai 3. AvtarSinghAhluwalia S/oLateSh.BSAhluwalia R/oSaiKirpaBehindSriKrishnaComplex, VasaiRoad(W),Distt.Thane
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND
1/213
4. MDBhowani S/oLateSh.DKBhojwani R/o61,MayfairApartment MayfairGarden,NewDelhi 5. NaveenBudhiraja@Baboo S/oSh.AmritLalBudhiraja R/o1580/13,GovindPuri, NewDelhi 6. Indermani S/oSh.DRMishra R/oVill.UgrasainPur,Distt.Phulpur, Allahabad,U.P. 7. Avdesh S/oSh.JagdishPrashad R/oVill.UgrasainPur,Distt.Phulpur, Allahabad,U.P. 8. Manoj S/oSh.ShyamLal R/o69C,SobatiaBagh, Allahabad,U.P. 9. LaxmanSingh S/oSh.LalSingh R/oE71,LokSabhaRajyaSabha Govt.Flats,VasantVihar,NewDelhi
2/213
DateofInstitution
18.01.1999 06.07.2012 20.07.2012
DateofreservingofJudgment/Order : Dateofpronouncement JUDGMENT: :
1. Thequestinallcriminaltrialsistoarriveatthetruthandtherefore,the roleoftheJudgeistoculloutthetruefactsfromtheevidenceled beforehimandensurethatguiltydoesnotgoScotfreeandinnocents lifeandlibertyisnotjeopardised. ThisroleoftheJudgehasbeen explainedinthecaseofZahiraHabibullaH.Sheikh&Anr.Vs.State ofGujarat&Ors.AIR2004SC345thus: A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the casesanditspurposeistoarriveatjudgmentonanissueasa factorrelevantfactswhichmayleadtothediscoveryofthefact inissueandobtainproofofsuchfactsatwhichtheprosecution andtheaccusedhavearrivedbytheirpleadings,thecontrolling questionbeingtheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused.Sincethe objectistomeetoutjusticeandtoconvicttheguiltyandprotect theinnocent,thetrialshouldbeasearchforthetruthandnota
3/213
bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rulesaswillprotecttheinnocent,andpunishtheguilty. The proofofchargewhichhastobebeyondreasonabledoubtmust dependuponjudicialevaluationofthetotalityoftheevidence, oralandcircumstantialandnotbeanisolatedscrutiny. 2. Inthematterofanalysingtheevidenceonrecord,theSupremeCourt inInderSingh&Anr.Vs.TheState(DelhiAdministration)(1998)4 SCC161hasobservedthus: Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends considerablyonajudicialevaluationofthetotality,notisolated scrutiny. While it isnecessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. If a case is proved too perfectly,itisarguedthatitisartificial;ifacasehassomeflaws, inevitablebecausehumanbeingsarepronetoerr,itisargued thatitistooimperfect.Onewonderswhetherinthemeticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished,manyguiltymenmustbecallouslyallowedtoescape. Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtisaguideline,notafetishand
4/213
guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial questforperfectproofoftenaccountsforpolicepresentationof foolproofconcoction.Whyfakeup? BecausetheCourtasks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic.
3. This case vide FIR no. 799/98 was registered at the police station Hauz Khas on 20.10.98 on the complaint of H. Suresh Rao. The investigation of this case was transferred to CBI vide order dated 29.08.98. ThecasewasregisteredintheCBIofficevideR.CNo.1/ (S)/98/STF/CBI/ND and the investigation was taken up. On the completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accusedpersonsnamelyRomeshSharma,HarishMishra,AvtarSingh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh, Manoj,VinodKumarLuthraandLaxmanSinghon18.01.99fortheir havingbeencommittedoffencespunishableU/s120Breadwiththe Sections420,365,342,384,392,395and506IPCandsubstantive offences.
5/213
4. Aftercomplianceundersection207oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure, thecasewascommittedtotheCourtofSessionson22.04.99.
5. ThecaseoftheprosecutionisthatoneHelicopterModelBell47G5 VTEAP was owned by Pushpak Aviation Ltd. It was sold by the companytoitsDirector(Commercial)H.SureshRaoforRs.50,000/ videMemorandumofAgreement(inshortMOU)dated25.06.94. Its ownership was transferred in his name on 19.09.94. To make it airworthiness,H.SureshRaopurchasedsparepartsduringtheperiod from21.10.94to25.02.95fromSummitAviationforanamountofRs. 38,81,954.23. Rs. 18,59,913.23 towards principal amount and Rs. 5,95,172.23wereoutstandingtoSummitAviationfromH.SureshRao. He who was unable to pay the above dues and executed a MemorandumofAgreementon20.11.95forthesaleofHelicopterto SummitAviationforanamountofRs.40Lacs. InFebruary,1996,H.SureshRaocameincontactwithRomesh Sharma in the office of United India Airways. Sometime in March, 1996,H.SureshRaoandMahenderPujaravisitedDelhiatRomesh SharmasresidencewhereRomeshSharmaexpressedhisdesireto
6/213
hire Helicopter forhis Election purpose ashe wasgoing to contest electionfromPhulpurconstituencyinUP.
6. On24.03.96H.SureshRaoreceivedacallfromRomeshSharmato send his Helicopter immediately to Phulpur for election purpose. H. SureshRaotoldhimthathewouldbesendingtermsandconditionsin this regard which have to be entered into before he would give his consent.RomeshSharmatoldhimthatRakeshGuptaandhisbrother HarishMishrawouldcontacthiminthisregard. H.SureshRaothen asked Mahender Pujara to fax the terms of hiring of Helicopter to Romesh Sharma which he faxed as per which the hiring charge of HelicopterwasRs.80,000/perdayfor15daysandotherchargesfor insurance,transportofhiscrewmembersetc.totalamountingtoRs. 13lacs. RomeshSharmaaskedH.SureshRaotosendtheterms himselfwhosentthesamevideletteron25.03.96.
7. On26.03.96RomeshSharmaagaintelephonedH.SureshRaoand asked him to despatch the Helicopter immediately assuring that his brotherHarishMishrawouldcontacthimon27.03.96inthatregard. He however, expressed his difficulty to H. Suresh Rao that if he
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 7/213
acceptedthetermsofhiring,hewouldnotbeinapositiontousethe Helicopter for election purposes because the Election Commission would disqualify him for exceeding financial limit. He therefore, requested H. Suresh Rao to execute predated Memorandum of UnderstandingpurportingtoshowthesaleofHelicoptertoReliance DevelopersandInvestorsforRs.30LacsinsteadofRs.70lacs,the costoftheHelicopterassuringthatthesaidMOUwouldbedestroyed aftertheelectionwouldbeover.
8. On27.03.96,HarishMishraandRakeshGuptacontactedH.Suresh Raoinhisoffice. AMOUontheletterheadofRelianceDevelopers andInvestorspurportingtoshowthattheHelicopterhadbeensoldon 24.02.96byH.SureshRaotothesaidfirmwassignedbyH.Suresh RaoandHarishMishraon27.03.96.H.SureshRaosignedtheMOU believingtheassurancegivenbyRomeshSharmathatthesaidMOU wouldbedestroyedaftertheelection.AnamountofRs.3.0lacswas paidbyHarishMishratoH.SureshRaoonthatdayashiringcharges.
9. Thereafter,theHelicopterwasdespatchedintwotrucksaftergettingit dismantled. In other truck, Aviation fuel was sent. The carrier
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 8/213
documentsshowedPushpakAviationastheconsignoraswellasthe Consignee of the goods. Harish Mishra, being representative of Romesh Sharma sent his man who accompanied the trucks from MumbaitoPhulpur.CrewmembersnamelyBGPappara,Capt.AD Bansod and B R Pappara were sent on 28.03.96 to Ugarsen Pur, nativeplaceofRomeshSharma. OthercrewmembersnamelyHC Demons and Parashuram etc. were also sent to Phulpur. After despatch,HSureshRaodemandedmoremoneyforhiring charges fromRomeshSharmawhoaskedhimtocometoDelhi.
10. On30.03.96,H.SureshRaocontactedRomeshSharmaatDelhiwho issuedthreechequesofRs.1.0laceachandalsohandedovertoH. SureshRaoatypedMOUonaStampPaperpurportingtoshowthat Helicopter was sold by H. Suresh Rao to Reliance Developers and Investors on 24.02.96, induced him to sign representing that the previousMOUwasnotacceptableasalegaldocumentasthesame wasnotonaStampPaper.TheMOUwassignedbyH.SureshRao and Romesh Sharma and it was witnessed by M D Bhojwani and others.
9/213
11. TheHelicopterwasusedforelectioncampaigningofRomeshSharma inPhulpurConstituencytill07.05.96againsttheinitialagreedtimetill 12.04.96. Romesh Sharma lost the election. On 11.05.96, on the instructions of H. Suresh Rao, B G Pappara and H. C Demons dismantledtheHelicoptersinceitwastobesenttoKeralaviaMumbai inconnectionwithanothercontractwhichhadbeenenteredintoforthe use of the Helicopter for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation. TheycontactedAshokShuklatoarrangeforthetrucks. Thetrucks from SherePunjab roadways were booked for that purpose. One truck carrying fuel was despatched from Phulpur to Mumbai on 09.05.96.
12. On11.05.96truckreportedatUgarsenPurforcarryingtheHelicopter toMumbaithroughitsdriverSharafatUllahKhan.Thecrewmembers BGPappara,H.CDemons,Parshuram,BRPapparaetc.gotthe Helicopterloadedintheaforesaidtruck. However,beforetheTruck couldleave,1015personsofRomeshSharmaincludingAvtarSingh Ahluwalia,MDBhojwani,NaveenBudhiraja,Indermani,Avdeshand Manojcamethereandthreatenedthecrewmembersonthedirection ofRomeshSharmanottotaketheHelicoptertoMumbaianddirected
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 10/213
to take it to Delhi. The Helicopter was forcibly taken out from the possession of the crew members, unloaded and kept in the field adjacenttotheBungalowofRomeshSharmaundertheirguard.Avtar SinghAhluwaliathencontactedAbdulSalamtocarrytheHelicopter fromPhulpurtoDelhionhistruckanditsdrivercarriedittoDelhias perthedocumentspreparedinthenameofRomeshSharmaunderthe signatureofAvtarSinghAhluwalia.Itwasunloadedon12.05.96atJai MataDiFarmHouseofRomeshSharma.
13. On 12.05.96 when H. Suresh Rao contacted Romesh Sharma on telephone, he asked him to come to Delhi. On 14.05.96 he met RomeshSharmaathisresidenceatC30,MayfairGarden,NewDelhi where Romesh Sharma retorted and told him to forget about his Helicopterasthesamewasnothispropertyandaskedhimtotake morepaymentfortheHelicopter. Onthenextdayi.e.15.05.96,he reiterated his earlier stand and threatened H. Suresh Rao with dire consequences by referring his connection with Dawood and Abu Salem. H.Suresh Rao wasunder so much fearthathe could not muster courage to lodge complaint with the police. On 15.05.96 payment through draft no. 10249 of Rs. 2.0 lacs was made to H.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 11/213
SureshRaobyRomeshSharma.
14. OnreturntoMumbai,H.SureshRaoaskedRomeshSharmatoreturn hisHelicopterbutheflatlyrefusedandaskedhimtohavesomemore paymentforthecostofHelicopter,iftheoriginaldocumentsincluding registrationcertificateandaffidavitshowingthetransferofHelicopter wouldbehandedovertohim.Onloosingthehopeofgettingbackthe Helicopter he thought appropriate to hand over the documents to Romesh Sharma in order to get whatever money he could. He (HSureshRao)contactedRAShah,hisAdvocateandapprisedhim aboutthesituationrequestinghimtogotoDelhiwithhim.Heleftfor Delhion04.06.96andwasjoinedbyR.A.Shahon05.06.96.
15. On05.06.96,H.SureshRao,RakeshGupta,R.A.Shahwenttothe house of Romesh Sharma. Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh Sharmaalsoreachedthere. MaheshMehtahadatalkwithRomesh Sharmaandmadesomecorrectionintheproposedagreementofsale produced by Romesh Sharma. Romesh Sharma then asked H. SureshRaotohandoverthedocuments.WhenRAShahadvisedH. SureshRaonottohandoverthedocumentstoRomeshSharmatillthe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 12/213
entire payment was made, Romesh Sharma got annoyed, snatched the documents from H. Suresh Rao and threatened him. Romesh SharmathenhandedoverthedocumentstohisassociateVKLuthra. WhenVKLuthraputthepapersonthetable,RomeshSharmagot furious and started beating Luthra. An atmosphere of terror was createdbyhim.RomeshSharmaphysicallyliftedthecomplainantfrom hisseatandtookhimtohisofficechamberwhereheaskedhimtosign allthepapersinordertoenablehimtogettheHelicoptertransferredin hisname.Hethreatenedthatincasehedidnotsignthesame,he(H. SureshRao)wouldnotbealiveremindinghisconnectionwithDawood Ibrahim and his associates. H. Suresh Rao then signed the documents under fear of injury to his body. Romesh Sharma then broughtoutthecorrectedagreementtoselldated14.05.96whichH. SureshRaoalsosigned. H.SureshRaowasalsoforcedtosignthe affidavit showing that he has received full payment from Romesh Sharma against the Helicopter. Since, the original certificate of registration of the Helicopter was with Summit Aviation which was pledgedasCollateralSecuritybyH.SureshRaoforpaymentofdues, Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation was also called at the house of RomeshSharmawherehewastoldthatH.SureshRaohadentered
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 13/213
intoanagreementtoselltheHelicopteronwhichNeerajBhatiatold himthatsuchanagreementhadalreadybeenenteredintobetween himandH.SureshRaobutthesamecouldnotmaterialiseasSummit Aviationcouldnotmaketheresiduepayment. RomeshSharmathen askedNeerajBhatiatodelivertheoriginalcertificatepromisingthathe wouldmakethepaymentofRs.18LacstoNeerajBhatiaprovidedthe Helicopter is transferred in his name and made airworthy. Consequently,onhisinducement,theoriginalcertificateofregistration washandedovertoRomeshSharmabyNeerajBhatia.Theaffidavitof H.SureshRaowaspresentedbeforeKLVachhar,NotaryPublicfor notarisingbyVKLuthraintheabsenceofH.SureshRaoonlyonhis identification.RomeshSharmaonthebasisofthesaidaffidavit,and registration certificate etc. moved an application on 06.06.96 to DirectorGeneralCivilAviation(DGCA)fortransferofHelicopterinhis name.Itwastransferredinhisnameon08.06.96onthebasisofthe aforesaid documents. A sum of Rs. 1.0 lac in cash was paid by RomeshSharmatoH.SureshRaoon17.06.96andanotheramountof Rs.1.0lacwaspaidtoG.Krishnan,representativeofH.SureshRao on05.07.96. AnothersumofRs.1.0lacwaswithdrawnfromHarish Mishrafromhisaccountno.3442andwaspaidincashtoH.Suresh
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 14/213
Rao.H.SureshRaoinallreceivedRs.12lacsfromRomeshSharma.
16. Whenever,H.SureshRaodemandedhismoney,hewasthreatenedby RomeshSharma.HSureshRaoalsoreceivedthreateningcallsfrom Irfan Goga. He lodged a complaint with the police on 22.04.98 at Mumbai. With a view to retrieve his legitimate dues, he alongwith RakeshGuptacontactedRomeshSharmaon20.10.98athisresidence atC30,MayfairGardenwhereH.SureshRaowasmanhandledby RomeshSharma.TheythereafterwereabductedbyRomeshSharma andhismuscleman/securitymanLaxmanSinghwhokeptpointing hislicensedpistolonthemintheMercedescarno.DL1CC2272and weretakento16,MahadevRoad,NewDelhi.Someoneinformedthe police.ThepolicerescuedthemfromtheclutchesofRomeshSharma at16,MahadevRoadandthereafter,H.SureshRaolodgedthereport atthePoliceStationHauzKhas,NewDelhi. Accusedpersonswere arrested.AttheinstanceofaccusedRomeshSharma,theHelicopter wasrecoveredandseized.Therelevantdocumentswereseized.
17. AnapplicationwasmovedbyH.SureshRaoforreleaseofHelicopter onSuperdari.Videorderdated27.11.98,theHelicopterwasdirectedto

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 15/213
bereleasedtoH.SureshRaooncertaintermsandconditions.
18. VidedetailedorderonChargedated19.12.2000,accusedVinodLuthra was discharged of the offences. Accused Romesh Sharma was chargedoftheoffencespunishableU/s420,392,386,365,506,323 and412IPCforhisdishonestlyinducingH.SureshRaoafterhatching aconspiracywiththecoaccusedtosign/deliveranMOUpurporting to show that the Helicopter was sold to him though given on hire, forciblysnatchingthedocumentsrelatingtotheHelicopteretc.fromH. SureshRaobycreatinganatmosphereofterror,extortingH.Suresh Rao by putting him in fear of death forcing him to sign the documents/affidavitshowingthesaleofthesaidHelicopterandreceipt ofitssaleproceeds,abductingH.SureshRaoandRakeshGuptain thecarfromMayFairGardento16MahadevRoad,confiningthem thereintimidatingH.SureshRaotocausehisdeathbeatingH.Suresh Rao causing simple injuries on his person, detaining the aforesaid HelicopterbelongingtoH.SureshRaofullyknowingthatpossession hadbeentransferredbythecommissionoftheoffenceofdacoity.
19. Accused Harish Mishra was charged U/s 420 IPC for dishonestly
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 16/213
inducingHSureshRaoforenteringintotheMOU. AccusedLaxman SinghwaschargedU/s365and506IPCforabductingandcriminally intimidatingH.SureshRaoandRakeshGuptaonthepointofpistol. Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh and Manoj were charged U/s 395 IPC for their havingbeencommitteddacoityinrespectofthesaidHelicopterwhich wasinpossessionandownershipofH.SureshRaobycreatingan atmosphere of terror using the force against his employees and bringingittoDelhi. Besides,alltheaccusedwerealsochargedU/s 120BIPCreadwithSection420,395,412,386,365,323and506IPC fortheirenteringintoacriminalconspiracywithacommonintentionto dishonestly/fraudulentlyusetheHelicopterdeprivingH.SureshRao ofhislegitimateduesputtinghimandhisfamilyinthefearofdeathby confining/assaultinghim.
20. Alltheaccusedpersonspleadednotguiltyandclaimedtrial.
21. Tosubstantiateitscaseagainsttheaccusedpersons,theprosecution examinedasmanyas94witnesses.
17/213
22. PW1Sh.PPathakwasaairworthinessofficerwiththeDirectorateof CivilAviation. Hestatedthateveryflyingmachineisrequiredtobe registeredwithDGCA(India)forcontrollingthesafetyofAviation.Log booksofeveryaircraftarealsomaintained. Inordertoensurethat aircraftisairworthy,aphysicalinspectionofaircraftisdoneandonly thencertificateofairworthinessisissued. Atthetimeofchangeof ownership, original certificate of registration duly endorsed on its reversebythepreviousowneralongwithanaffidavitdulyattestedby theNotaryPublicbythepreviousownermentioninghisownershipand theavermentsthathehasreceivedtheconsiderationinfullandsoldto the person or the company from whom the sale proceeds/considerationhassobeenreceivedalongwithanapplication inFormCA28fromthenewownerrequestingfortransfer/changeof ownershipisrequired.Heprovedtheairworthycertificateinrespectto HelicopterinquestionEx.PW1/1andtheprocedureEx.PW1/2.
23. PW2 Sh. Charan Das was the Dy. Director Airworthiness, Civil Aviation,DGCA.HealsoprovedthecertificateEx.PW1/1inrespectof theHelicopterBell47G5aircraftS.No.25015havingregistrationno. VTEAP.Hestatedthatitwasissuedon27.12.95andwasvalidupto
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 18/213
27.01.97. He stated that Sh. N. Ramesh, Dy. Director General had giventhreefilesEx.PW2/AtoEx.PW2/CincludingthefileEx.PW2/B containing the application for registration of Helicopter of which PushpakAviationPvt.Ltd.wastheowner.Hestatedthatonthebasis of the application, the Helicopter was registered in its name vide certificateEx.PW2/B1.OnanapplicationmovedbyH.SureshRaoon 15.07.94,thecertificatewastransferredinhisnamevideEx.PW2/C2 vide dated 19.09.94. He stated that Romesh Sharma, Prop. of Reliance Developers and Investors had moved an application on 06.06.96 for transfer of certificate of registration and change of categoryincertificateofairworthinessofaboveHelicopterinhisfavour being maintained by M/s Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. alongwith an application form CA28 duly filled in, affidavit duly notarised by the seller in original, certificate of registration in original duly endorsed, copyofagreementandpayorderEx.PW2/A1toEx.PW2/A5.Itwas processed in file Ex.PW2/A and the registration certificate was transferred in the name of Romesh Sharma vide certificate 2040/3 Ex.PW2/D. He stated that Romesh Sharma had also requested to issuechangeoffirstpageofjourneynotebookvidedated26.06.96 Ex.PW2/A13whichrequestwasallowedandthefirstpagewasissued
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 19/213
on02.07.96inthenameofRomeshSharmavideletterEx.PW2/A16. He stated that although the sale deed of the said Helicopter was furnished by Romesh Sharma but the same was not required. He statedthatnocomplaintinrespectoftheHelicopterwasreceivedafter registration and issuance of airworthiness certificate till 1998. A complaint Ex.PW2/DA was received in his office on 31.08.98 which wasrepliedtoH.SureshRaovideEx.PW2/DC.
24. PW3Sh.LHFarooquiwastheSecretaryinElectionCommissionof India. HestatedthatforholdinganelectionforLokSabha,Election Commissionissuesapressnote.Thelimitofexpensestobeincurred inParliamentaryelectioninaConstituencyinthestateofUPwasfixed atRs.4,50,000/duringtheyear1996.Fromthedate,thecandidateis nominatedtilltheelectioniscomplete,thecandidatehastomaintain theaccountinaperformaprescribedbythecommissionandhehasto fileallthedocumentstotheDistrictElectionOfficerwithinonemonth fromthedeclarationoftheresultoftheConstituency. Heprovedthe pressreleaseinrespectoftheGeneralElectionEx.PW3/A1,Gazette Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of Election Ex.PW3/A3andtheoriginalreceiptregardingexpenditureEx.PW3/A4
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 20/213
inrespectofthecandidateRomeshSharma.HestatedthatRomesh SharmahadalsogivenanaffidavitofexpenditureEx.PW3/B2andthe expendituredetailsEx.PW3/B1whohadcontestedtheelectionfrom 55Phulpur,Allahabadin1996heldon07.05.96ofwhichtheresultwas declaredon11.05.96inwhichRomeshSharmagotdefeat.
25. PW4 Sh. Nageshwar Parsad was the Senior Assistant in District ElectionOffice,Allahabad.Hestatedthatcandidatemaintainsrecord in respect to the expenses incurred during the electionsthrough its agent.Hefilesaregisteralongwithanaffidavitgivingitemwisedetails. He proved the register Ex.PW4/A containing the details of the expensesincurredbyRomeshSharmaintheElectionandtheAffidavit Ex.PW4/BgivenbyRomeshSharmainrespectoftheexpenses. He statedthatintheeventofpurchaseofcar/Helicopteretc.duringthe period of election, price of the said vehicle is not included in the expenses,however,theamountspentondiesel/fuel/salaryofdriveris includedintheexpenses.
26. PW5Sh.MehboobKhanwastheAsstt.DistrictElectionOfficer.He handedoverthedocumentstoCBIvideseizurememoEx.PW5/A.

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 21/213
27. PW6Sh.H.SureshRaowasthecomplainant.Heinhisevidenceon oathhasmateriallysupportedthecaseoftheprosecutionbothmade inthecomplaintaswellasthestatementsmadeundersection161of theCodeofCriminalProcedure. Duringhisevidence,heprovedthe documents which have direct bearing on the prosecution case i.e. registration certificate Ex.PW2/C1 in the name ofPushpak Aviation, ApplicationmovedtotheDirectorGeneralCivilAviationfortransferof ownership in his name Ex.PW2/B2, Form CA28 and the MOU regarding the same Ex.PW6/23, transfer of registration in his name videcertificateEx.PW2/A5,MemorandumofAgreementbetweenhim and Summit Aviation Ex.PW6/5, Airworthiness Certificate Ex.PW1/1, Fax sent by Mahender Pujara to the accused Romesh Sharma regardingthetermsandconditionsofhireEx.PW6/6,lettersentbyhim totheaccusedRomeshSharmaon25.03.96reiteratingthetermsof the fax Ex.PW6/7, Transit Insurance Policy Ex.PW6/8, receipts Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 with respect to hiring of trucks for transportation of helicopter and fuel from Mumbai to Phulpur, vide GRs/LRsEx.PW6/11andEx.PW6/12wherebyPushpakAviationwas shownconsignorandtheconsignee,theMOUEx.PW6/14enteredinto betweenHarishMishraandPW6on27.03.96ontheletterheadof
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 22/213
Reliance Developers and Investors, letters sent to the Director, Airworthiness on 26.03.96 and 27.03.96 with respect to sending of helicopteroncontractbasis,receiptofchequesfromRomeshSharma on 30.03.96 Ex.PW6/17 to Ex.PW6/19, entering into another MOU Ex.PW6/20onaStampPaperwiththeaccusedRomeshSharma,air ticketsinrespectofhisvisiton30.03.96Ex.PW6/22andEx.PW6/23, Agreement with rubber plantation company Ex.PW6/24B and the correspondence with them Ex.PW6/24B4 and B5, Air tickets with respecttohisvisiton14.05.96Ex.PW6/25,demanddraftofRs.2.0 lacs Ex.PW6/26 given by the accused on 15.05.96, Log books Ex.PW6/30andtheaffidavitEx.PW2/A3astothereceiptoffulland final consideration given on 05.06.96 with respect to transfer of ownership in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma and the agreementtosellEx.PW6/33bearingthedate14.05.96,airticketsof the date of 04/05.06.96, draft of the payment received on 15.05.96 Ex.PW6/26, another payment on 17.06.96 Ex.PW6/36, receipt Ex.PW6/38astothepaymentmadeon05.07.96,anotherreceiptof 16.07.96astothepaymentmadebyHarishMishraEx.PW6/39andthe accountsofGarudaAviationEx.PW6/40andEx.PW6/41,thecomplaint giventotheSHOPoliceStationGreaterKailashIEx.PW6/43andthe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 23/213
DCP(Crime)Ex.PW6/44priortotheincidentof20.10.98,complaint Ex.PW6/46giventothepolicestationHauzKhasonthebasisofwhich the present case was registered, seizure memo of Pajero car and MercedescarEx.PW6/47andEx.PW6/48,seizurememoofHelicopter Ex.PW6/49 and identification of accused Laxman from the photographsEx.PW6/57. HealsoidentifiedthepistolEx.P1,Pajero JeepEx.P2andMercedescarEx.PW3. ThematerialportionofhisevidencewillbediscussedwhenI willspecificallydealwiththechainofeventsleadingtoitsapplicability or otherwise of the offences with which the accused have been charged. On being crossexamined, he stated that helicopter is flown undertheguidanceandcontrolofAviationDepartment,Govt.ofIndia. He stated that after he was informed by his employees that the helicopter was detained in UP, he did not inform the Aviation DepartmentnorinformedtheAuthoritywhenitwastakentoDelhi.He denied that he did not inform because he had entered into an agreementforsaleofhelicopterwithRomeshSharma.Hestatedthat hedidnotinformRomeshSharmawhileagreeingtohisproposalof selling the helicopter to him that he has already entered into an
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 24/213
agreementofsalewithtwomorecompanies. Hestatedthathehad madecomplainttoCivilAviationthathelicopterwasforciblytakenby himbutdidnotinformtheauthoritythathewasforcedtoenterintothe agreementonfalsepromisesandassurance.Hedeniedthathehad preserved the air ticket jackets intentionally with a view to create evidence against the accused. He stated that he did not ask his employeetolodgereportatthepolicestationwhenthehenchmenof RomeshSharmasnatchedthehelicopter.Heexplainedthattheywere advised by STD OperatorMr.Shukla not to report against Romesh Sharma and if they reported, he would get them eliminated. He admittedthatwhenaflyingmachineisgiventothepilot,itsphysical possession is given to him. He admitted that movements of flying machinearerecordedintheLogBook. Hestatedthatforthefirsttime,hereceivedthreateningcallfrom underworldDonaboutthiscasein1998andpriortothathedidnot receive any call. He denied that he was negotiating with Romesh Sharmainrespectofsaleofhelicopterpriortoreceiptofallegedthreat or that he was not afraid of Romesh Sharma prior to 1998. He admittedthat,atpresent,thecertificateofregistrationisinthenameof RomeshSharmaanditwastransferredin1996. Hedeniedthathe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 25/213
desiredtosellthehelicopter.Hedeniedthatheacceptedthepayment fromRomeshSharmainfurtheranceofMOU. Hestatedthathedid not issue receipt incorporating that the amount has been charged towardshire,however,hehasstatedthathehadmentionedsoinhis booksofaccounts. HeadmittedthathedidnotknowHarishMishra previously.Hemethimforthefirsttimeon25.03.96.Hedeniedthat in the meeting held in March, 1996 with Romesh Sharma, he had suggested Romesh Sharma that he was interested in selling the helicopter. Hedenied thatHarishMishrawasintroducedtohimby Rakesh Gupta whom he knew from before. He stated that Harish MishraalsomethiminJuly,1996inMumbaiwherehecametomake payment. HestatedthatHarishMishrahadgivenhimRs.6.0lacs approx.inall. HestatedthathedidnotoweanymoneytoRakesh Gupta. HestatedthatheknewLalitBaglaChairmanofUnitedIndia Airways.Hestatedthatthepolicehadshowedhimthephotographof Laxman Singh after the accused refused to participate in TIP. He statedthathehadfiledapetitionintheHighCourtinrespectofthe Helicopter.Hedeniedthatheindeliberateconnivancewiththepolice filedafalsecaseagainstRomeshSharmaorthatRomeshSharma had purchased the helicopter and made substantial payment either
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 26/213
towardschequeorcash.
28. PW7Sh.RakeshGupta wastheManagingDirectorofUnitedIndia Airways.HestatedthatAshokGulatiwastheDirectorinhiscompany. AshokGulatihadintroducedhimtoRomeshSharmainFebruary1996. Thereafter, there were frequent meetings with him and Romesh Sharma at his house at C30, Mayfair Garden and office at S41, PanchsheelPark.HealsoknewH.SureshRaosinceFebruary1996. HestatedthatH.SureshRaohadmethiminthehouseofLalitBagla wherehecamewithMr.Pujara. HestatedthatPW6wasdoingthe businessofhiringandcharteringHelicopterinthenameofPushpak AviationatMumbai. Hestatedthaton26.03.96at4.00PMRomeshSharmarang himupandcalledathishouse.Atabout7.00PMhemethim.Romesh SharmatoldhimthathisbrotherHarishMishrawouldseehimatthe Airport at Mumbai on 27.03.96. He was hiring a Helicopter from Suresh Rao and probably he has despatched the Helicopter on 26.03.96.HeaskedaskedhimtogowithhisbrotherHarishMishrato the office of H Suresh Rao to prepare a hiring agreement of the Helicopter.Hehandedoveranenvelopecontainingblankletterhead
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 27/213
ofRelianceDevelopersandInvestorsonwhichMOUofhiringwasto be prepared. On 27.03.96 he was received at Mumbai Airport by HarishMishra.FromtheretheywenttotheofficeofH.SureshRaoat JuhuAirport,MumbaiwhereRomeshSharmatalkedtoSureshRaoon telephone. He stated that from their telephonic conversation, he gatheredthatRomesh Sharmawasinsisting andrequestingSuresh RaotodrawMOUofsaleofHelicopterinsteadofhiring,sothatthe hiringchargesmightnotbementionedintheelectionexpensesstating thatMOUwouldbedestroyedaftertheelectionwouldbeover. He stated that initially H. Suresh Rao was reluctant but he ultimately acceded to his request and agreed to draw MOU. He stated that Suresh Rao had told him that he has no option as he has already despatchedtheHelicopter.HestatedthatRomeshSharmahadasked PW6todrawpredatedMOUshowingittobeexecutedon24.02.96. HestatedthatanMOUontheletterheadofRelianceDevelopersand InvestorsEx.PW6/14wasdrawnupinduplicateon27.03.96aspre datedpurportingtohavebeenexecutedon24.02.96whichwassigned byH.SureshRaoandHarishMishra. Hestatedthaton12.05.96hereceivedacallfromSureshRao fromMumbaiatDelhithathisHelicopterwasreadyfordespatchfrom
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 28/213
PhulpurtoMumbaibutitwasforciblytakenawaybythepersonsof RomeshSharma. HesoughthishelptogetbacktheHelicopterand themoney. Hestatedthaton05.06.06hereceivedacallfromSureshRao thathehascomeatDelhiwithhislawyerandwasgoingtotheHouse ofRomeshSharmatosortoutthematterandalsorequestedhimto comethere.Hewenttohishouse.RomeshSharmaandSureshRao werewiththeirlawyers. HestatedthatMaheshMehta,Advocateof RomeshSharmawashavingadraftofagreementwhichheshowedto Romesh Sharma. They after discussion suggested some changes whichwereincorporatedbyMr.Mehtainhiswritingontheagreement. SureshRaogavethedocumentstoRomeshSharmawhichhekepton thetable.Sh.RAShah,AdvocateofMr.Raointervenedandtoldthat he should have received the payment first from Romesh Sharma beforehandingoverthedocuments. WhenH.SureshRaoliftedthe documentsfromthetable,RomeshSharmagotannoyedandtoldMr. Raonottolistentohislawyer.HetookbackthedocumentsfromMr. RaoandhandedovertoVKLuthrawhoagainputthedocumentson thetable.Onthis,RomeshSharmagotveryannoyedwithMr.Luthra, beat himmercilessly and the whole atmosphere became tense and
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 29/213
theyfeltscared. RomeshSharmathentookthedocumentsandMr. Raotohiscabinforobtaininghissignatures.After510minutes,they cameout.SureshRaowasinaverybadshapewhenhecameoutof the cabin. Romesh Sharma then forced Suresh Rao to sign the document/agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 which he signed. Romesh Sharmaalsosignedthesaidagreement. Hestatedthatanaffidavit Ex.PW2/A3 was also signed by Suresh Rao where Mr. Shah was forcedtosignaswitness. HestatedthatonenquirybyRomeshSharma,SureshRaotold that the certificate of registration waswith Neeraj Bhatia ofSummit Aviation. RomeshSharmathenaskedH.SureshRaotocallNeeraj Bhatiaandrequesthimtobringthecertificateathishouse.Hestated thataftersometimeNeerajBhatiaandMajorGaonkarcamealongwith the certificate. Romesh Sharma asked Neeraj Bhatia to give the certificatebutNeerajtoldthatH.SureshRaoowedasumofRs.18 lacsandhasalsoenteredanagreementtosellinrespectofHelicopter withhim.Onthis,RomeshSharmatoldNeerajBhatiathathewould pay18lacstohim.HealsoshowedtheagreementtosellEx.PW6/33. He stated that no amount was paid by Romesh Sharma, however, NeerajBhatiahandedoverthecertificateofregistrationEx.PW2/A5to
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 30/213
RomeshSharmaonwhichH.SureshRaosignedonitsback. HestatedthathereceivedcallfromMr.Raothathehasnot receivedthepaymentfromRomeshSharmaandhewasinfinancial difficulty.Hestatedthaton22.06.96SureshRaotelephonedhimthat Romesh Sharma had told him that he would make the payment provided he facilitates the assembly of Helicopter at his Farm and makeitfunctional.Hestatedthaton23.06.96hewenttothehouseof RomeshSharmaatMayfairGardenwherehefoundhimsittingwith Major Gaonkar, Girish Rao and Pappara and discussing about the assembly of the Helicopter at the Farm House. Mr. Pappara was expressing some procedural difficulty that permission was required fromDGCA. Onthis,RomeshSharmagotangryandstartedhitting Pappara.Mr.GirishRaocametohishelpbuthewaspushedaside. Mr.Papparastartedbleedingfromhismouth. Inthemeantime,Mr. Gaonkar ranged someone at DGCA Office in Mumbai and made Papparatalkedtohim.Thereafter,Mr.PapparaandGirishRaowentto theFarm. HestatedthatSureshRaotelephonedhimnumberoftimesthat hedidnotreceiveanypaymentfromRomeshSharmaandeverytime whenherangedRomeshSharma,hewasthreatenedthathewouldbe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 31/213
eliminatedifheinsistedforpayment. RomeshSharmaassertedthat hewasverywellknowntoDawoodIbrahiminDubai.Hestatedthat SureshRaoalsotoldhimthathewasscaredofRomeshSharmato lodgereport. Hestatedthatononeortwooccasionhehadheard RomeshSharmatalkingtosomeoneontelephonetellinghimthathe wastalkingtoBhaii.e.Dawood. Hestatedthaton20.10.98SureshRaocametohishouseat about10/10.30AMandrequestedhimtoaccompanytothehouseof RomeshSharmatorequesthimtomakethepaymentashewasin verybadshape. Onhisrequest,hewenttothehouseofRomesh SharmaatC30,MayfairGardenat11.30AMwheretheywaitedfor twohoursasRomeshSharmawasupstairs. RomeshSharmacame downandtookthemtohiscabin.He(PW7)thenrequestedRomesh SharmatosettletheaccountofMr.Raoasmuchtimehaspassedand alsotoldthatifitisnotsettled,SureshRaowouldunnecessarilygo andmakecomplainttothepolice.Onthis,RomeshSharmagotvery muchannoyed,gavebeatingstoH.SureshRao,liftedachairtohit himbuthecaughtholdofhishandandpersuadedhimtosettlethe matteramicably. RomeshSharmathenwenttoaroomatfirstfloor. Healsofollowedhim.Whenhecamedown,hedidnotfindH.Suresh
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 32/213
Raosittingthere.RomeshSharmaaskedhimastowhereH.Suresh Rao was. They came out in the corridor where Romesh Sharma enquiredfromhismanaboutSureshRao.Heshoutedthemtobring himback.HeimmediatelysatdowninhisPajeroJeepandalsoasked himtositdownnexttohim. Assoonastheycameoutontheroad theysawRaowalking.RomeshSharmaaskedhimtositdowninthe Jeep.Hebroughthimbacktohishouse.HethenenquiredfromRao wherehewasgoing.Raotoldhimthathewasgoingtogetcigarette. RomeshSharmafriskedRaoandfoundapacketofcigarette.Onthis, hebecameannoyedandaskedhimwhyhewastellingalieasthe cigarettewasalreadywithhim. Hethenslappedandpunchedhim. Hecalledhisbodyguardandaskedhimtokeepawatchandnotto allowthemtoleave.HethencalledMercedesCarparkedinhishouse andaskedthemtositinit.RomeshSharmasatonthedriverseatand onthefrontseatoneSouthIndiangentlemanwassitting.Ontherear seat he, Suresh Rao and the bodyguard of Romesh Sharma were sitting.RomeshSharmacalledoneofhisdriverandaskedhim(PW7) togivethekeyofhiscartohimandtobringthecaratMahadevRoad. HestatedthattheSecurityGuardwassittingwithapistolinhishand pointingouttowardsthem.HedrovethecartoMahadevRoadwhich
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 33/213
was the party office of Romesh Sharma. He then asked Laxman Singhandhispersonsnottoallowthemtoleavefromthere. Hestatedthatafter2025minutes34policemencamethere, gotthemreleased.HealsoidentifiedthepistolEx.P1whichLaxman Singhwascarrying. On being crossexamined he stated that as soon as they reached the house of Romesh Sharma on 20.10.98 other agencies such as DRI, Customs, Income Tax, Wildlife, Excise also started coming and making search of the house of the accused Romesh Sharma.However,theydidnotmakeenquiryfromhimbutdiscussed withthepoliceofficersofPoliceStationHauzKhas.Headmittedthat PW6owedhimRs.10lacswhichhehasnotreturnedhowever,he deniedthathehelpedhimoutinthiscasesothathemightreturnhis money.HestatedthathehadpaidRs.10lacsasPW6hadagreedto leaseoutahelicoptertohim.HeadmittedthathehadhelpedPW6in drafting the complaint. He denied that he had asked the accused RomeshSharmatoarrangesomeloanfromLalitBagla. Hedenied thathewasnotforciblytakentoMahadevRoadorthatatnooccasion the accused Romesh Sharma had mentioned about Dawood. He deniedthattheaccusedLaxmanSinghdidnotthreatenthemorthat
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 34/213
hewasnotpresentinthecar.Hestatedthatthesearchinthehouse oftheaccusedatMayfairGardencontinuedtill21.10.98morningand duringthesearch,documentssuchasAgreementtoSell,Helicopter heightmapandotherdocumentswereseized.
29. PW8Sh.MahenderPujaraknewPW6since1995.HestatedthatH SureshRaousedtogivehisHelicopteronhireinthenameofPushpak Aviation. He(PW8)usedtochargecommissiononthiswork. He statedthaton19.02.96hecamewithSureshRaotoDelhiandwentto theresidenceofBagla,DirectorofUnitedAirwaysofwhichRakesh GuptaPW7wastheManagingDirector.HemetRomeshSharmain theofficeofBagla. InMarch,1996heagainwenttoDelhiwithH. SureshRao.SometalkabouthiringofHelicopterbetweenHSuresh RaoandRomeshSharmatookplaceforthepurposeofcampaigning inelectionwhichfacthecametoknowfromSureshRao. Hestated that Suresh Rao asked him to send a fax message Ex.PW6/6 on 24.03.96abouthiringtheHelicopterbyRomeshSharmawhichhesent mentioningthetermsandconditionsasstatedbySureshRao. Onbeingcrossexaminedhestatedthatconfirmationreceiptof faxmessageEx.PW6/6andoriginalfaxmessageweregivenbyhimto
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 35/213
PW6.Nosuggestionsweregiventothiswitnessthatnofaxmessage Ex.PW6/6wasreceivedbytheaccused.
30. PW9 Sh. B G Pappara was a qualified Aircraft Maintenance Engineer/Chief Maintenance Engineer with Pushpak Aviation. He statedthatPushpakAviationownedaHelicopterBell47G5VTEAP beingusedforpesticidespraying,generallyforpassengershiring/film shootingetc.Hisjobwastomaintainthehelicopterontheground.He statedthatwhentheHelicopterwastobesentoutofMumbaiitusedto bedismantled,packedandtransportedinatruckandreassembled. Heusedtogoforthispurposeandremaintheretilltheoperationwas complete.Fortransportation,companyissuesaletterforexemptionof SalesTaxcertifyingthatHelicopterisforitsownuseandnotforsale. GoodsreceiptisalsoissuedbytheTransportcompany.Maintenance manual,logbooks,inspectionscheduleetc.aremaintainedwhenthe Helicopter is despatched from one place to other. He proved the JourneylogbookEx.PW6/29,EnginelogbookEx.PW6/30,Aircraftlog bookEx.PW6/31andaircraftstationapparatuslogbooksEx.PW6/34 oftheperiodupto07.05.96includingafileEx.PW6/55inrespectof dailypreflyinspectionfrom26.03.96to09.05.96.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 36/213
HestatedthatinthemonthofMarch,1996heproceededto Phulpur where the Helicopter was to be sent for election flying for Romesh Sharma. It was dismantled, packed, loaded and sent to Phulpur in a truck on 26.03.96. Three technicians B R Pappara, Parshuram, Tukaram and Mr. Verma accompanied the Helicopter. TheyreachedPhulpuron28.03.96.Themachineswereunloadedon 29.03.96 and assembled on the same day on a ground near the Bungalow of Romesh Sharma. Information was sent to Director AirworthinessvideEx.PW6/15. HestatedthatSureshRaohadtold himthattheHelicopterwastoflyupto12.04.96andthereafterithadto proceed for Kerala for undertaking an aerial spraying contract on rubberplantationandtheratesforelectionflyingwasRs.80000/per day which were to be borne by Romesh Sharma. He stated that RomeshSharmausedtogivethemdailyprogramme. Thecontract expired on 12.04.96, however, they remained in Phulpur even after 12.04.96 since Romesh Sharma asked them to continue as the contract between them had extended. He stated that during the electionspeeches,RomeshSharmahadspokentothepublicatlarge that the Helicopter was purchased by himand would remain in the villagefortheirlocaluse.WhenheenquiredfromRaoontelephone,
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 37/213
hedeniedthisclaimofRomeshSharmatellingthathedidnotsellthe Helicoptertohim.On09.05.96hesentthefuelandsparepartsina truck from Phulpur to Mumbai through SherePunjab Transport services vide GR no. Ex.PW9/1. He requested Mr. Girish Rao to arrange the transit insurance vide fax Ex.PW9/2. He stated that Captain Bansode was the pilot on the helicopter upto 12.04.96 and thereafterCaptainDemosewasthepilot. TheyusedtostayinHotel YatrikatAllahabadfromwheretheyusedtogotoPhulpur. He proved the entries made in the books from 30.03.96 to 07.05.96Ex.PW6/30.Heprovedtheentryregardingdismantlingofthe helicopter to Mumbai vide memo Ex.PW9/8 and other entries Ex.PW9/3toEx.PW9/9. Hestatedthaton11.05.96,theHelicopterwasdismantledinthe morningandinthisrespectanentryEx.PW9/8wasmade.Theparts wereloadedinthetruck,whenthemachineandthepartswerebeing tied,theyweresurroundedbythepersonswhowereintwovehicles about15innumbers.Theywerecarryingguns/lathis.Thosepersons shoutedandthreatenedthemsayingthatHelicoptercannotbetakento MumbaiandithastobetakentoDelhiaspertheordersofRomesh SharmaandtheyhavetoaccompanywiththetrucktoDelhi. They
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 38/213
startedpullingdownthepartsloadedinthetruck.Hestatedthatthe driverofthetruckrefusedtogotoDelhibecausehewasnothaving permit for Delhi. He named the persons in the mob as Ahluwalia, Bhojwani,Budhiraja,Manoj,AvdeshandIndermaniandidentifiedthem statingthatheknewthemastheywereworkingasateamwiththem forelectionpurposes.TheythendecidedtoleaveAllahabadforsafety reasons.Theycancelledtheirtickets,bookednewticketsforMumbai. Hestatedthathedidnotreportthemattertothepoliceastheywere moreconcernedabouttheirsafetybecausetheyknewthatRomesh Sharma had lot of influence locally and reporting the matter could troublethem.FromLucknow,on11.05.96,theyinformedSureshRao on telephone about what had happened at Phulpur and reached Mumbai on 12.05.96. He met Suresh Rao and informed him the incident. Hestatedthaton24.06.96hecametoDelhiwithGirishRaoto assemble the helicopter and met Romesh Sharma. He stated that sincetheHelicopterwasnotmaintainedfrom11.05.96to26.06.96,he hadtotakeclarificationsfromtheDirector,Airworthiness,Mumbai.Mr. GaonkarcontactedtheDirectorandsoughtclarification.Hestatedthat when the information was being passed on, Romesh Sharma got
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 39/213
annoyed,caughtholdofhiscollar,hithimonhisfaceduetowhichhe sustainedinjuriesonhisupperlip. HestatedthatRomeshSharma threatenedhimsayingthatifhedidnotcooperate,hewouldcuthis legs.WhenGirishRaorequestedRomeshSharmanottohithim,he got annoyed and also punched him. He stated that after getting permission, they went to Farm House, reassembled the Helicopter andmadeanentryEx.PW9/9. On being crossexamined, he stated that he had sent a fax messageEx.PW9/2inresponsetothedirectionsofSureshRaothat theHelicopterwastobetakentoKerala,however,hedidnotgetany response.HestatedthathedidnotparticipateinTIP,however,denied thathebeinganassociateofSureshRaohasgiventhestatementon tothedictatesofCBIinconnivancewithSureshRao.Hestatedthat he did not see thehiring agreementbetween Romesh Sharmaand SureshRaoregardingtheHelicopter,however,deniedthatnothreator intimidationwasgivenbyanymemberorstaffofRomeshSharmaor bytheaccusedpersonsnamedinhisstatement.Headmittedthathe didnotreporttothepoliceatLucknow/Mumbaioftheincident.
31. PW10RAShahwastheFamilylawyerofSureshRao.Hehadgone
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 40/213
with Suresh Rao to the house of Romesh Sharma on 05.06.96 as SureshRaohadrevealedhimthathehadgivenhishelicopteronhire toRomeshSharmaforelectioncampaignwhichhewasnotreturning. HestatedthatheadvisedSureshRaototakelegalactionbutSuresh Rao told that he was scared of Romesh Sharma and he would do whateverRomeshSharmahasaskedhimtodofinally.Hestatedthat MaheshMehta,AdvocateofRomeshSharmaandoneMr.Guptaalso camethere.RomeshSharmagaveMaheshMehtaadocumentwho made certain corrections. Suresh Rao was having the original documents of the Helicopter in his hand. When Romesh Sharma demandedthedocumentsfromhim,heintervenedandaskedMr.Rao not to handover the documents till the payment was made to him. RomeshSharmagotannoyedinsultedhimandaskedSureshRaonot topayheedonhisadvice.Hethensnatchedthedocumentsfromthe handsofSureshRao,handedovertohisemployeewhokeptinonthe table. RomeshSharmagotupandtookupthedocumentsandkept them inside. He slapped and gave beatings to his employee. He becameterrified.RomeshSharmathenaskedSureshRaotosignthe document. He (PW10) again told Suresh Rao not to sign the document.RomeshSharmagotannoyed,tookSureshRaotoanother
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 41/213
room.Whentheycameout,theconditionofSureshRaowasscared and pale. Suresh Rao told him that he would sign the documents despite his advice. He signed the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 on which he also signed as witness at the instanceofRomeshSharma. Hestatedthatneitherofthemwentto Notary Public for attestation of affidavit. He stated that Romesh Sharma then asked Suresh Rao to produce the original registration certificate. HetoldthatitwaswithNeerajBhatia.Ontheaskingof RomeshSharma,SureshRaocalledNeerajBhatiawhobroughtthe certificateandgaveittoRomeshSharma.Hestatedthatnopayment wasmadetoNeerajBhatiabyRomeshSharmaonthatday. Onbeingcrossexamined,hestatedthatSureshRaodidnot show any other agreement of hiring of helicopter nor any hiring agreement in respect of the helicopter was prepared by him at the instance of Suresh Rao nor he was aware of any cash transaction betweenRomeshSharmaandSureshRao.Hestatedthathedidnot makeanycomplainttoBarCouncilorthePolicequatheinsultmeted to him by Romesh Sharma. He denied that Suresh Rao had sold/transferredtheHelicoptertoRomeshSharmainaproperdeal.
42/213
32. PW11 Captain A D Bansod was the Pilot on the Helicopter. He stated that on 29.03.96, the helicopter was assembled. He took permissionfromAirportStationAllahabadandflewthehelicopterthere from02.04.96to13.04.96. HehandedovertoCaptainDemoseon 13.04.96. HestatedthatatUgarsenPurSh.AvtarSinghAhluwalia hadmadearrangementfortheirlodgingandboarding.Hedeniedthat his payment was made by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he received the charges for flying the Helicopter from Suresh Rao amountingtoRs.60,000/.
33. PW12 Sh. K L Vachher was the Notary Public at Patiala House Courts.Hestatedthaton05.06.96VKLuthraproduced/presentedan affidavitEx.PW2/A3forattestation,executantofwhichwasH.Suresh RaowitnessedbyMr.Shah,however,theywerenotpresentatthetime of attestation. Mr. Luthra identified the signatures of Mr. Shah and SureshRao. HeputhissealandhandedoverthedocumenttoMr. Luthra. 34. PW13Sh.PankajBhardwajwastheStampVendoratDelhi.Asper record, he had sold the stamp papers bearing S. No. 148281 to
43/213
148284toSureshRao. OnhisbehalfAjayKumarmadetheentries Ex.PW13/B. HestatedthatStampPaperEx.PW6/20ofRs.2/was soldon29.03.96toSureshRaoanditalsocarriedthestampofthe date.
35. PW14WingCommanderHCDemose wasengagedbyH.Suresh RaoforflyingtheHelicopteratPhulpur.Hestatedthatitwasagreed between him and Suresh Rao that he was to get 12.5% of daily charges,beingchargedbythecompanyfromthehirerbesidesother expenseswhichweretobepaidbyRomeshSharmaatPhulpurand hiringchargeswereRs.80000/perday.HeflewtheHelicopteronthe places on the instructions of Romesh Sharma from 14.04.96 to 07.05.96. HestatedthathelicopterwastoberemovedtoKeralavia Mumbai.TheyarrangedtwotrucksfromSherePunjabAllahabadfor transportationoffuelandhelicopterafterdismantling. The fuelwas senttoMumbai. On11.05.96anothertruckcame. Thetechnicians afterdismantlingloadedthepartsofthehelicopter.Whentheywerein the process of tying its parts, two vehicles carrying 1015 persons arrivedthere.Theygotdownfromthevehiclesandshoutedloudlynot totakeorcarrythehelicoptertoKeralaandaskedtotakeittoDelhi.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 44/213
SomeofthemwerearmedwithLathisandsomeofthemwerehaving someweaponsintheirpocketastheirpocketswereswallowing.The truckdriverrefused to go to Delhi as he was not having permit for Delhi. He stated that those persons were very unruly. He apprehended physical assault from them and therefore rendered guidancetothosepersonsandhelpedthemtounloadthehelicopter. HeidentifiedAvtarSinghAhluwalia,Bhojwani,Avdesh,Manoj,Naveen BudhirajaandIndermani. HestatedthataccusedAvtarSinghasked them to stay in the Bungalow telling that he was going to arrange anothertruckandtheywerenottoleavewithouthispermission.They feltthreatened,wentinaroomanddiscussed.Theydecidedtoleave onebyone. HewenttoSTDboothwhereMr.Shuklaownerofthe booth advised him to write a complaint. When he was writing the complaint,Mrs.Shuklaintervenedandadvisednottodoso.Itcould createtroubleforhimashewasintheterritoryofRomeshSharma. Shealsoremindedhimoftheincidentinwhicharmedclashhadtaken placebetweenthesupportersofRomeshSharmaandanotherparty. HedroppedtheideaandwenttotheHotel. HewenttoMumbaion 12.05.96andnarratedthewholeincidenttoSureshRao. Onbeing crossexamined,hestatedthatSureshRaodidnotaskhimtoreport
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 45/213
themattertothepoliceatLucknownorSureshRaocalledthepolice. Hestatedthathedidnotseeanyoftheaccusedpersonscarryingfire armsorphysicallyassaultingthem.HestatedthatSureshRaonever toldhimthathehadagreedtosellthehelicoptertoRomeshSharma norSureshRaoshowedhimanyhiringagreement. 36. PW15ParsuramwastechnicianontheHelicopter.Healsodeposed on the lines of PW9 and PW14. He identified M Bhojwani and Ahluwalia. He stated that they were looked after well however, he deniedthatnosuchincidenttookplaceon11.05.96. HestatedMD Bhojwaniusedtoarrangetheircatering. 37. PW16Sh.HeeraChand wastheTransporteratMumbai. InMarch 1996ontheaskingofSureshRaohehiredthetrucksfortransportation ofhelicopterfromMumbaitoPhulpurforRs.30000/,issuedthebillin thenameofPushpakAviationEx.PW6/13,lorryreceiptsEx.PW6/11 and12,writingconsignorandconsigneeonthereceiptsasPushpak Aviation,MumbaiandPushpakAviation,Allahabadrespectively. He however, admitted that the consignor and consignee names were mentionedonthedirectionsofthesender.
46/213
38. PW17Sh.MaheshMehtawastheAdvocateofRomeshSharma.He identifiedtheagreementEx.PW6/e3preparedanddraftedbyhimon 14.05.96attheinstanceofRomeshSharmaaftergettingthecopyof MOUsEx.PW6/14andEx.PW6/20.Hestatedthathereceivedacall fromRomeshSharmathatAdvocateofSureshRaoandSureshRao havecomeandwanttodiscusssomethingabouttheagreementas theyhavesomereservations. Hewenttohishouse where Suresh Rao,hislawyerMr.Shah,RakeshGuptaandsomefewpersonswere present. After discussions, he made some corrections in the agreementattheinstanceofboththepartiesaswellastheAdvocate of Suresh Rao. He stated that signatures of the parties were not appearing on the agreement atthe time when the correctionswere made. 39. PW18 Sh. Neeraj Bhatia was the Managing Director of Summit Aviation Pvt. Ltd. which used to supply spare parts of Aircraft for maintenance/operationofHelicopter. Hestatedthatduringtheyear 199495 Pushpak Aviation had purchased spare parts of Helicopter fromhisfirmofthevalueofRs.35lacs.PushpakAviationpaidsome advancetohisfirm.AnamountofRs.18.5lacsremainedunpaidafter
47/213
adjustmentofpayment.Afteraddingtheinterest,thedueamountwas aboutRs.2223lacs.HestatedthatanMOUEx.PW6/5wasentered into on 20.11.95 between him and Suresh Rao for securing the aforesaidamount.ThevalueoftheHelicopterwasdeterminedasRs. 40lacs.HestatedthattheMOUwasexecutedasacollateralsecurity as he wanted to secure his money. He also obtained original certificateofregistrationEx.PW2/A5fromSureshRao.Hestatedthat inthefirstweekofJune,1996/05.06.96hewascalledbySureshRao at the house of Romesh Sharma at Mayfair Garden alongwith the certificateofregistration.HealongwithMr.Gaonkarreachedthereat about 1.00 PM, met Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao, his lawyer and RakeshGupta.ThereitwasdecidedthatRomeshSharmawouldpay hima sumofRs.18 lacs and he would handoverthe certificate of registrationoftheHelicoptertohim.HethenaskedMajorGaonkarto handoverthecertificateEx.PW2/A5toRomeshSharmaongettingthe assurancefromhimthathewouldpayhimRs.18lacs.Hestatedthat till date, he did not get the amount of Rs. 18 lacs from Romesh Sharma. OnbeingcrossexaminedhestatedthathehadmetRomesh Sharma23timesduringtheperiodfrom05.06.96tillhewasarrested.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 48/213
Hehowever,didnotaskhimtopaythesaidamountduringthatperiod butMajorGaonkarhadregularlyaskedhimtopaythesaidamount. HestatedthatMajorGaonkarwastheDirectorofthecompany. He statedthathedidnotserveanynoticetoRomeshSharmatomakethe payment. However,hestatedthatatthetimeofagreement,itwas agreed that Suresh Rao would make the Helicopter airworthy and Romesh Sharma would make the payment. He stated that the HelicopterwasmadeairworthyanditwascheckedbyMajorGaonkar attheFarmhouseofRomeshSharma.
40. PW19Sh.PremNarainPuri wastheMunshiwithAzadForwarding Agency,Allahabadwhicharrangedthetrucksonhire.Hestatedthat everygoodsreceiptispreparedintriplicate,oneforthedriver,second for the consignor and third for record. He proved the receipt book Ex.PW19/Aissuedtothepartiesduringtheperiodfrom19.04.96to 22.05.96. He stated that dismantled helicopter was booked for carriage in the truck no. UP 70 9771 vide receipt Ex.PW19/A1 on behalf of Romesh Sharma from Ugarsen Pur Allahabad to C30, MayfairGarden.ThetruckbelongedtoAbdulSalamandShehnawaz was itsdriver. Its fare was Rs. 6200/. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, had
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 49/213
bookedthetruckandsignedthereceiptEx.PW19/A1.
41. PW20 Ms. Geeta Kashyap was the licensed Stamp Vendor. She statedthatthejudicialstamppaperEx.PW6/33ofRs.2/wassoldby her brother Shankar on 13.05.96 in the name of Romesh Sharma, S41,PanchsheelPark. 42. PW21HayatullahKhanwasthesonoftheProprietorofAzadGolden Roadlines, Allahabad. He stated that his company had provided a truckbearingno.MH04C5336toJagdeepSingh,Prop.ofShere Punjab on 11.05.96 on commission basis for transportation of HelicopterfromUgarsenPurtoMumbai.Theysentthetruckat8.30 AM. At about 7.00 PM he received a call from his driver that the helicopterwasloadedonthetruckbutthetruckwasnotbeingallowed toproceedbythemenofNetajimeansSharmaJi. Heaskedhimto stopthevehiclethereandtalkedtoSherePunjab. Itwassentback empty. Hestatedthathisdriverhadtoldhimthatloadedhelicopter wasremoved/unloadedfromthetruck. 43. PW22Sh.Shahnawaz wasthetruckdriveronthetruckno.UP70
50/213
9771ofwhichAbdulSalamwastheowner.ItwasattachedwithM/s AzadTransportCompany,Allahabad. Hestatedthaton11.05.96at about 11/12 noon his father handed over two GRs. He was accompaniedbytwopersons.OutofthemonewasAvtarSingh.He wenttoUgarsenPurinthetruck.Onecarwasaheadoftheminwhich 23personsweresitting.ThecarstoppednearaKothiatUgarsenPur wherehestoppedhistruck.Atruckhadalreadybeenparkedthereon whichhelicopterhadbeenloaded. Thehelicopterwasthenremoved fromthetruckandloadedonhistruck. 810personspresentthere helpedhiminremovingthehelicopterfromothertrucktohistruck.He firsttookthetrucktoDelhi. Histruckwasfollowedby34vehicles. TheycameatDelhion12.05.96atabout6/7PM.Heparkedhistruck nearabungalowandthentookittoaFarmhouse.Headmittedthathe didnotparticipateinTIPbutdeniedthatheidentifiedAvtarSinghat theinstanceofCBI.
44. PW23 Sh. Sarafatullah Khan was the employer of Mobin Khan, driverontruckno.MH04C5333withitscleanerKalluKhan. He stated thathe wascontacted by the transporter Hayatullah ofAzad Golden Transport in May, 1996, if he could carry a Helicopter from
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 51/213
PhulpurtoMumbaiwhichheagreed.HewenttovillageUgarsenPur withthetruck,parkeditinfrontofthehouseofNetajiwherehelicopter wasloaded.Hestatedthat2025personscamethere,raisedanoise andaskedhimtotakethehelicoptertoDelhiandnottoMumbai.He told them that he cannot carry the truck to Delhi since he was not having the permit for Delhi. He stated that those 2025 persons threatenedthepersonswhohadloadedthehelicopteronthetruck. HeinformedHayatullah,whoaskedhimtounloadthehelicopterand cometoAzadGoldenTransport. Hestatedthatthehelicopterwas unloaded from his truck and he went to Azad Transport. In cross examinationhestatedthathewasnotmadetoidentifythepersons whohadthreatenedhimtotakethehelicoptertoDelhiinhistrucknor helodgedreport.
45. PW24KalluKhanwasthecleaneronthetruck.Hedeposedonthe linesofPW23. Hestatedthatwhenthehelicopterwasloadedno builty/GRwasprepared.Hestatedthatthehelicopterwasloadedat about11.00AM.2025personscamethereandtoldthatthehelicopter would be taken toDelhiand notto Mumbai. Theyalso threatened them.Hestatedthattheytoldthemthattheydidnothavepermitfor
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 52/213
Delhisothehelicopterwasunloadedby2025persons.Hestatedthat hewasnotmadetoidentifythosepersonsbythepolice.
46. PW25JagdeepSingh waspartnerinSherePunjab,Allahabad.He producedtheGRreceiptno.3854Ex.PW/25A1wherebythefuelwas senttoMumbai in truckno. UP729705 tothe consignorPushpak Aviationon09.05.96. 47. PW25Sh.BBalaKrishnanwastheGeneralManagerwithM/sErry Sons Maliyalam Ltd., a plantation company. He stated that in May/Junepriortotheadventofmonsoon,sprayingofchemicalisdone onrubberplantationtopreventgrowthofbacteriaforwhichtheytake theservicesofhelicopterfromPushpakAviationandGarduaAviation. He handed over a file to CBI Ex.PW26/A containing the correspondence of Pushpak Aviation and Garuda Avitation with his company. HestatedthatIbrahimAssociateswasthelocalagentof Pushpak Aviations. In 1996 they contacted the aviation company whetheritcouldplacetheirhelicopterforsprayingaroundtherubber plantation. ThecompanyrespondedvideletterEx.PW26/B1. They wrotealetterEx.PW26/B2dated22.01.96confirmingtheproposalof
53/213
aerialsprayandthetermsandconditions. On25.03.96theysenta lettertoIbrahimAssociatesEx.PW26/B4givingthedetailsofthearea tobesprayedfortheperiodfrom22.04.96to17.05.96.Anadvanceof Rs. 2.0 lacs was sent. He stated that they received a letter from GarudaAviationthatthehelicopterwouldbepositionedfrom30.04.96. He stated that vide letter dated 16.05.96 addressed to Ibrahim AssociatesEx.PW26/B10byPushpakAviation,itwasinformedthat thehelicopterwasimpoundedbythehirer/politicianandunauthorisedly removedtoDelhiregrettingitsplacementforsprayingpurposes. He statedthatafaxmessagewassenton23.05.96forrefundofadvance, various correspondence took place and legal notice was sent. On 25.01.97aletterwasreceivedfromGarudaAviationforadjustmentof theamountandthematterwassettled.Incrossexaminationhestated that he has no personal knowledge of the helicopter being forcibly takenbysomeonenorhevisitedthatplace.
48. PW27Mrs.KBhargavawastheSecretaryofRomeshSharma.She identified the MOU Ex.PW6/20 which also bears the signatures of RomeshSharma,SureshRaoandMDBhojwani.Shestatedthatthe agreementwastypedbyheronthebasisofdraftgivenbyMr.Mehta.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 54/213
49. PW28Sh.PhilipIbrahim wastheProp.ofIbrahimAssociates,the subagent of various aviation company which leases helicopter for aerialspray. HedeposedonthelinesofPW26. Hestatedthata letter was sent to him by Suresh Rao that helicopter was taken by hirer/politiciantoDelhivideEx.PW6/24B(4).Consequently,hesenta letter dated 30.05.96 Ex.PW24/B (11) to refund the advance. He however, stated that he was not aware of any deal entered into by SureshRaowithanypersoninrespectofthehelicopter.
50. PW29 Sh. Ashok Kumar Shukla owned a STD/PCO booth at Allahabad.Heturnedhostile.Hewasconfrontedwiththestatement recorded during the investigation Ex.PW29/A but he denied having narrated the facts containing in the statement. He denied having arrangedthetrucksfortransportationfromM/sSherePunjab.
51. PW30Sh.SansarChandDubeyusedtodopoliticalworkofRomesh SharmaandstayatS41,PanchsheelPark,NewDelhi.Hestatedthat accused Romesh Sharma contested an election from Parliamentary seat from phul Pur constituency, Allahabad which he lost. In 1998 RomeshSharmafloatedapartyunderthenameofAllIndiaBhartiya
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 55/213
CongressPartytocontestelectioninDelhiState.Apremisesbearing no.16,MahadevRoad,DelhiwasallottedtoShivCharan,aformerMP whohadretiredfewmonthsbeforeRomeshSharmafloatedtheparty. HestatedthatRomeshSharmastartedusingthesaidpremisesfor officialpurposeswiththepermissionofShivCharan. Hestatedthat RomeshSharmausedtoliveatC30,MayfairGardenandhenever usedthatpremisesasoffice.HestatedthatVinodLuthra,ArvindBali, Indermani,Avdeshusedtocomethere.HestatedthatwhenRomesh SharmawasremovedfromAllIndiaCongressCommittee,hetookthe letterofprotestgivenbyRomeshSharmatotheofficeofCongress Party. HestatedthatinMarch,1996helicopterandfuelwerebrought toUgarsenPurintwotrucks.Theaccommodationwasprovidedtothe staff members of helicopter by Romesh Sharma initially in the BungalowatUgarsenPurandlaterinHotelYatrik.ArvindBali,Avtar SinghAhluwalia,NaveenBudhiraja,MDBhojwani,Avdesh,Indermani, ManojhadgonetoUgarsenPurfortheelectionofRomeshSharma. AvtarSinghwastheoldfriendofRomeshSharma.Hehadworkedfor Romesh Sharma in his election. Avdesh and Indermani are the nephews of Romesh Sharma and all of them used to stay in the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 56/213
bungalowofRomeshSharmaatUgarsenPur. HestatedthatEx.PW6/20wasexecutedbetweenHSureshRao and Romesh Sharma on 30.03.96 onwhich he, M DBhojwani and Kashmira Bhargava signedaswitnesses. He was declared hostile. He denied that Suresh Rao had not actually sold his helicopter to RomeshSharmaandhadgivenitonhireorthatinordertohoodwink theElectionCommission,thepurchaseofthishelicopterwasshownin thisagreementorthattheMOUwasgotpreparedtocamouflageand coverexpenditureofelection/hiringchargesorthatRomeshSharma had assured H Suresh Rao that he would destroy the same after election was over. He admitted that he did not notice any man of Suresh Rao when the helicopter was being loaded in the truck. However,headmittedthathehadseenthehelicopterparkedinthe farmhouseofRomeshSharma.HedeniedthatRomeshSharmaused to allure the people and obtain their properties without making payment. He was also confronted with the statement Ex.PW30/B recordedduringtheinvestigation.Onbeingcrossexamined,hestated thattheMOUEx.PW6/20wasexecutedwiththeconsentoftheparties infriendlyatmosphereandafter1996onmanyoccasionshehadseen SureshRaostayinginthehouseofRomeshSharmaatC30,Mayfair
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 57/213
GardenwheneverhecametoDelhi. 52. PW31Sh.MJohnson statedthatthePajerobearingno.DL1CC 3501isregisteredinthenameofRomeshSharma. MercedesBenz bearing no. DL 1CC 2272 is registered in the name of Ganpati CommerceLtd. Boththevehicleswereregisteredintheyear1992 videEx.PW31/AandB. 53. PW32 Sh. G S Krishnan was the Manager Administration with PushpakAviationin1996.Hestatedthatonehelicopterwasleasedto RomeshSharmaforelectionpurposes.Heprovedthereceiptsofthe amount received from Harish Mishra Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW6/37 and Ex.PW6/38.Headmittedthatnoneofthereceiptsfindmentionasto onwhataccountmoneywaspaid.
54. PW33Sh.PLMeenawasDSP,CBI.Herecordedthestatementof witnessesandseizedthedocumentsi.e.goodsreceipt,bills/recordof HotelYatrik,airticketsetc. 55. PW34SISameerKumarwaspostedatthepolicestationHauzKhas
58/213
inOctober1998.Inhispresence,InspectorAnandParkashhadtaken thespecimensignatureofaccusedRomeshSharmavideEx.PW34/1 toEx.PW34/3.
56. PW35Sh.SSKhannawastheSeniorManager(Deposits)inBankof Tokyo Mishi Bishi where Reliance Developers & Investors with its Proprietor Romesh Sharma had an account vide no. 012206 Ex.PW35/A.Heprovedthechequeno.511860dated30.03.96forRs. 1.0 lakh Ex.PW6/19. He stated that after debiting the amount of aforesaid cheque, the balance in the account on 30.04.96 was Rs. 79/.Hehowever,admittedthatintheaccount,nameoftheProprietor RomeshSharmaisnotmentioned.
57. PW36 Sh. Gurcharan Singh was the Clerk in the Bank of Tokyo MishiBishi.HealsodeposedonthelinesofPW35.
58. PW37Sh.KamalBhushanwastheSeniorManagerinOrientalBank ofCommerceatHauzKhasbranchwhereRelianceDevelopersand Investorshadanaccountvideno.377. Heprovedthestatementof accounts for the period from 12.01.95 to 07.02.97 Ex.PW37/A. He
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 59/213
statedthatchequeEx.PW6/17dated30.03.96ofRs.1.0lacinfavour ofH.SureshRao,cheque223695dated15.05.96ofRs.2.0lacEx. PW37/Binfavourofyourself/bankforbankdraftEx.PW37/Cwere debitedandthebankdraftinfavourofH.SureshRaoEx.PW6/26of Rs.2.0lacwasissuedbythebank.
59. PW38 Sh. R K Meena, was the ACP (Lajpat Nagar). He on the information received from ACP (South), went to the house of V BalasubramaniamatNewFriendsColony on 20.10.98,obtainedthe documentsregardingthehelicopter.HestatedthatBalasubramanium hadtoldhimthatsomeofthedocumentswerewithWingCommander ManchandaathisofficeatLeMeridian.HewithMr.Manchandawent totheofficeandthereaftertothehouseofBalasubramaniumwhere Manchandahandedoverthosedocumentstohimwhichwereseized vidememoEx.PW30/AwhichhelaterhandedovertoI.OInspector AnandPrakash.
60. PW39ASINeenaDeviwastheDutyOfficeratPSHauzKhas.She onreceiptofcomplaintEx.PW6/46atabout4.00PMon20.10.98from H.SureshRaorecordedtheFIREx.PW39/AandmadetheDDentry

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 60/213
Ex.PW39/B. Shestatedthatfurthertheinvestigationwasconducted byInspectorAnandPrakash. Shestatedthaton20.10.98atabout 2.00 PM an information was received from the Control Room that RomeshSharmawasbeatingtwopersonsatC30MayfairGarden. SheenteredtheinformationvideDDno.30BEx.PW39/Dandsentitto SIJaswinderSinghthroughCt.KabalSingh. Shealsobroughtthe informationtothenoticeoftheSHOwhoalongwithhisstaffleftthe policestationat2.06PMandinthatrespectDDno.32BEx.PW39/E was recorded. She stated that Inspector Anand Prakash alongwith SHOandstaffreturnedatthepolicestationon21.10.98andtothat effectDDno.24Ex.PW39/Fwasrecorded. Shestatedthattillshe remainedonduty,shehadreceivedtheinformationaboutthebeatings onlyandnotabouttheproceedingsbyCBI,Customs,WildLife,Excise andForeignExchangeDepartmentetc.Shedeniedthattheentriesin theDDandFIRweremadetogaintimetomakeoutcasesagainst RomeshSharmatofalselyimplicatehimandhisemployees.
61. PW40 Sh. Parshant Kumar Chattopadhyay was the Director Airworthiness,CivilAviation,Mumbai.Hehandedoverthedocument/ letter no. PAPLOW 96 D2/240 dated 26.03.96 mark X/Ex.PW40
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 61/213
bearingthesignatureofBGPapparatotheCBIvideseizurememo Ex.PW40/A. Hestatedthatthefactrecordedintheletterwasabout the transportation of helicopter and the site where it was to be transported.Onbeingcrossexamined,hestatedthatthepossession remainswiththecompanywhichtransportsitandinthiscaseitwas PushpakAviationPvt.Ltd.
62. PW41Ct.LeelawaspostedatPCR.Shereceivedthetelephonecall at100numberfromthetelephoneno.6960219at1357hrs.Romesh Sharmadoadmiyonkesathmaarpeetkarrahahai.Sherecordedthe informationvideEx.PW41/A.
63. PW42 Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik was the SHO at the police stationKalkaJi.Hestatedthat,on20.10.98,hereceivedamessage onwirelessthatheshouldreachC30MayfairGardenandreportto SHOHauzKhas.Atabout2.30PMhewithSIRavinderGillandH.C. SurajBhanwentthereinhisGovt.vehiclewherehemetMr.Bakshi, SHOPoliceStationHauzKhaswhoaskedhimtogoto16,Mahadev RoadtellingthatRomeshSharmahaspickeduptwopersonsforcibly and taken them there. He instructed him to rescue them namely
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 62/213
SureshRaoandRakeshGuptasayingthathehasalreadydiscussed thematterwiththeseniorofficers.Hewentthereandsawtwopersons inthecaptivityofRomeshSharmaandhismen. Heenquiredwho SureshRaoand Rakesh Gupta were.Theystoodup however,they wereverydisturbedandterriblyshattered. Theyrescuedthemand tookthemtothePoliceStationHauzKhas. HethentookRomesh SharmatoMayfairGardenandhandedoverhimtoSHOHauzKhas. Onbeingcrossexamined,hestatedthatSHOHauzKhasdidnotgive himanyinstructioninwritingnorshowedhimanycasediary/FIR.He was not directed by DCP (South) to go to SHO Hauz Khas but someonefromtheControlRoomhadinstructedhim.Headmittedthat HauzKhasandMahadevRoadareadonotfallwithinhisjurisdiction andtheDCPisoverallincharge.Headmittedthathedidnotcontact DCPaftergettinginformationfromPCRnorgotrecordedthisfactto the Duty Officer,Kalka Ji. He reached the police station Kalkaji at about 4.45 AM however, he did not make entry that he had apprehendedRomeshSharmaandhandedovertoSHOHauzKhasor thathehadrescuedSureshRaoandRakeshGuptafromMahadev Road. Hestatedthattherewere56personsatMahadevroad. He deniedthatontheinstructionsofhisofficers,hemanipulatedthecase
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 63/213
againstRomeshSharma.Hestatedthathedoesnotrememberifany personwaspointedoutbySureshRaoandRakeshGuptathathewas onewhohadputPistolontheirpersonsthreateningthemtokillduring theprocessofabduction. 64. PW43Sh.TRWaliawastheManagerinCitibankNewDelhiwhere RelianceDevelopersandInvestorshadaccountno.0037569003.He handedoverachequedated30.03.96ofRs.1.0lacinfavourofH. SureshRaoissuedfromtheaboveaccountEx.PW6/18.
65. PW44Sh.GirishRaowastheDirectorofPushpakAviationalongwith hisbrotherH.SureshRao. Hestatedthatthehelicopterwasearlier ownedbyPushpakAviationandthereaftertransferredinthenameof H.SureshRao.However,itremainedavailablewithPushpakAviation forserviceswhichincludedfilmshooting,charter,electionandspray onplantation. Hestatedthatin1996thehelicopterwasgivenonhire/leaseto RomeshSharmaforelectionpurposes.ItwassenttoPhulpurUPwith fewcrewmemberson26.03.96.ItwasneversoldtoRomeshSharma at any time. He stated that Suresh Rao had shown him the MOU
64/213
Ex.PW6/14. He came to Delhi with Mr. Pappara on 23.06.96 and assembledthehelicopterinthefarmhouseofRomeshSharma. He stated that he was told by his brother that Romesh Sharma would makethepaymentregardingtheremaininghirecharges. Hestated thatMr.Papparahadsomereservationastotheassemblingofthe helicopter.HewasbeatenbyRomeshSharma.Whenheintervened, hewasalsoassaulted.Hestatedthatforflying,helicopterisrequired tobeinsured.AfterthehelicopterwassnatchedbyRomeshSharma, he did not pay the premium and wrote a letter to the insurance companyEx.PW6/DAon26.07.96. Hestatedthatthehelicopterwas not sold and the word sold was written in the letter since the certification of registration had been transferred in the name of Romesh Sharma and was in his possession so that the premium towardsinsurancecouldbepaidbyRomeshSharma.Onbeingcross examined,hestatedthatpremiumispaidbytheregisteredowner.He statedthatwhenheandhisEngineerwerebeateninDelhiinJune 1996,hedidnotmakeanycomplaintinDelhiorMumbai.Hedenied thattheyhadsoldthehelicoptertoRomeshSharma.
66. PW45WingCommanderVinodManchanda wastheManagerCo

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 65/213
ordination with Reliance Industries. He was looking after all the aspectsofaviationsofRelianceGroupandwirelesscommunication. He stated that in 1997, his Group President Mr. Balasubramanium called him that one of his acquaintance, a politician has got a helicopter which he proposes to sell. He gave the documents of helicopterforcheckingitsauthenticityandtoassesswhetheritwould beofanyuseforthecompany.Hecheckedtherecordsfromtheoffice of Director, Airworthiness and found the documents correct. He advisedthecompanythatthehelicopterwasofanoldmakeandlotof expenditure has to be incurred to make it fully airworthy. Balasubramaniumthen asked himtokeep the documentswith him. OnthedirectionsofBalasubramanium,hehandedoverthedocuments to the police i.e. the journey log book Ex.PW6/29, engine log book Ex.PW6/30,aircraftlogbookEx.PW6/31,aircraftradioapparatuslog book Ex.PW6/34, certificate of registration Ex.PW2/D, certificate of airworthinessEx.PW1/1andaletteraddressedtoRomeshSharmaby DGCAEx.PW2/E. Hestatedthatthehelicopterwasinthenameof RomeshSharma.
67. PW46CaptainAshokKumar was aFreeLancerPilot. Hejoined

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 66/213
PushpakAviationin1995.Heprovedtheentriesinthelogbook.He stated that in June 1996, he nevervisited Delhi nor assembled the helicopternorgavethecertificateinthelogbooktotheeffectthatit wasinspectedandO.K.afterreassembling. 68. PW47 Sh. Suresh Kumar Tribhuwan Mishra knew the accused RomeshSharmasince1980andalsoknewSureshRao. Hestated thatSureshRaohadtoldhiminthemonthofApril,1996thathehas senthishelicoptertoPhulpurConstituencyforelectionpurposesandit washiredbyRomeshSharmawhowascontestingtheelectionfrom there.HethentoldSureshRaothatRomeshSharmaEkNumberka cheater hai Aur na to tumhare helicopter ka bhara dega aur na hi helicopterdega.Hestatedthatafter12monthsSureshRaotold himthathehadtoldhimcorrectlyaboutRomeshSharma. Hehad infact neither paid the hire charges nor returned the helicopter and beatenhimandbroughthimontotheroad(Itnamarahaiorsarakpe laadiyahai).HeaskedSureshRaoastowhyhewasnotreportingto thepolice.Herepliedthatifhedidso,RomeshSharmawouldfinish offhisfamily. Thereafter,SureshRaomethimandsoughthishelp sayingthathewasreceivingthreateningcallsfromRomeshSharma.
67/213
HethentoldSureshRaotoringupRomeshSharmaandhewouldtalk tohim.SureshRaotelephonedRomeshSharma.He(PW47)talked tohimandtoldthathewasagoodleader/personbuthehascheated aninnocentpersonbynotpayingthehirechargesnorreturninghis helicopterandthatheforciblygotsomedocumentssignedfromhim. On this, Romesh Sharma asked him not to interfere in this matter threateningthathewouldgethimcutintopiecesbytheeveningand hispartsofthebodywouldbethrowninJuhuDariyai.e.sea.Romesh Sharmathentoldhimtowaitforthenexteveningwhenhewouldcome toknowwhowouldringhimupfromDubai.Nextday,hereceiveda telephonecallwhodisclosedhisnameIrfanGogaclaiminghimselfto beamanofDawoodIbrahimgivinghistelephonenumberaskinghim not to intervene in the matter telling that Romesh Sharma was his friendandifheintervened,hewouldbeshotdeadrightinfrontofhis building.HestatedthatinmanypolicestationofMumbai,therewere casesagainstIrfanGogaforextortion,threatsetc.Hestatedthaton thenextday,hereceivedatelephonefromDubaifromAbuSalemthat hewasrighthandmanofDawoodIbrahimandaskedhimtogetaway fromthematterofSureshRao. Whenheaskedhisconnectionwith RomeshSharma,herepliedthatRomeshSharmawashisagentin
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 68/213
India.Hestatedthaton20/30.04.98SureshRaoagaincametohim. Hewasveryfrightened.Hewascrying.Heaskedhishelpashewas continuouslyreceivingthreats.Headvisedhimtoreportthematterto thepolice.He,SureshRaoandhisbrotherGirishRaowenttoSanta CruzPoliceStationMumbaiwhereSureshRaomadeacomplaint. Onbeingcrossexamined,hestatedthatpriortoregistrationof this case, as per his knowledge, there were other cases registered againstRomeshSharma.Hestatedthathedoesnotknowthenames ofthepersonswhowerecheatedbyRomeshSharma.Hestatedthat hedidnotlodgereportwiththepoliceregardingthethreatsgivenby RomeshSharmaorbyAbuSalemorIrfanGoga. However,hehad told the police of Santa Cruzthat he had also received threatening calls.Hedeniedthatnosuchmeetingsevertookplacebetweenhim andSureshRao.
69. PW48Sh.GKBehlwastheStampAuditoratTisHazariCourts.He handedoverthestamppapersaleregistertothepolicemaintainedby PankajBhardwajfortheperiodfrom14.03.96to06.04.96andbyRita Kashyapfortheperiodfrom10.05.96to22.06.96whichwereseized vidememoEx.PW48/1.

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 69/213
70. PW49IndermaniTiwariwastheAssistantManagerinSASTravels, Allahabad.HeprovedtheairticketsissuedinthenameofDemonsfor hisjourneyfromLucknowtoMumbaibySaharaAirlineson12.05.96.
71. PW50 Sh. H P S Shergill had flown the helicopter of Pushpak Aviationfrom08.03.96to14.03.96andmadeentriesinthelogbook Ex.PW6/29.
72. PW51 Sh. Rajiv Jain was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hauz Khas where Reliance Developers & Investors had a current accountno.370beingoperatedbyRomeshSharma,itsProprietor.He produced the statement of accounts for the period from 01.01.94 to 07.09.98 Ex.PW27/A and stated that a cheque no. 223691 dated 30.03.96wasissuedbyRomeshSharmainfavourofH.SureshRao for Rs.1.0 lac.A draftofRs.2.0 lac wasprepared infavourofH. Suresh Rao and the amount which was debited on the strength of chequeno.223695dated15.05.96. 73. PW52Ms.NeelamVerma wasManagerinHotelYatrik,Allahabad. She brought the record regarding arrival of passengers etc./bills of
70/213
lodging / boarding of the crew members of Pushpak Aviation who stayedinthehotelwhichusedtobepaidbyRomeshSharma.
74. PW53 Sh. N T Shettigar was the Manager, Canara Bank. In his presence, on 19.01.99 the specimen signature of Harish Mishra Ex.PW53/AtoEx.PW53/10weretaken. 75. PW54Sh.AjitPatil wasinUcoBank,NarimanPoint,Mumbai. He wasalsopresentwhenthespecimensignaturesofHarishMishrawere taken. 76. PW55 Ravi Karan was the front office Manager in Hotel Yatrik Allahabad.Heprovedthebills,vouchersetc.whichusedtobepaidby RomeshSharma.
77. PW56 Sh. K F Wilfred was the Under Secretary in Election Commission,India. HeprovedtheletterEx.PW56/1dated23.12.98 sent with the order dated 29.10.98 Ex.PW56/2 passed by the CommissionontheissueofmergerofAllIndiaIndiraCongresswith IndianNationalCongressaswellastheletterfromRomeshSharma,
71/213
PresidentofAllIndiaIndiraCongressSecularreceivedintheofficeon 17.10.98requestingforthechangeofofficeofAllIndiaIndiraCongress Secular from Churiwalan, Sita Ram Bazar to Mahadev Road. He stated that the essence of the order Ex.PW56/2 was that the party seeking merger was not permitted as per the Election Commission guidelines.
78. PW56Sh.RavinderShankerShukla wastheEstateOfficerinthe Directorate of Estate, Nirman Bhawan. He handed over the file in respectoftheflatatMahadevRoadtoCBIvidereceiptEx.PW57/1.He statedthatthepremiseswasallottedtoShivCharanSingh,MPRajya Sabha.Aletterwasreceivedon20.08.98fromtheLiasionOfficerfor evictionofShivCharanSinghfromthepublicpremisesandalsofrom theUnderSecretaryRajyaSabharegardingcancellationofallotment. HeissuedthenoticeEx.PW57/6on25.08.98andon09.09.98Eviction orderEx.PW57/7waspassed.Hestatedthatwhenthepremiseswas notvacated,warrantofevictionwasobtainedanditwasgotvacated on11.11.98videEvictionReportEx.PW57/10. 79. PW58Dr.PrasannaKumarPatsaniwastheMPLokSabha.Hewas
72/213
allottedaccommodationat11,MahadevRoad.Hestatedthathedoes notknowhowhewasintroducedtoRomeshSharmabyShivCharan. HedeniedthathehadmetRomeshSharmamanytimes.
80. PW59VijayChatrabhujBhatiawastheAssistantDivisionalManager inNationalInsuranceCompany.Hestatedthatthepolicyinrespectof helicopterwasissuedinthenameofSureshRaovideEx.PW39/11for a period of one year and the company was to pay the premium in installment.Hestatedthatinresponsetothedemandmadebythem forthesecondinstallment,M/sPushpakAviationinformedvideletter Ex.PW6/DAthatthehelicopterinquestionhasbeensoldtoRomesh Sharma. Hestatedthattherewasnotransitinsuranceofhelicopter fromAllahabadtoDelhi.
81. PW60Sh.DharamPal gotevictedthepremises16,MahadevRoad on10.11.98aftergettingwarrantEx.PW57/9.Hestatedthattherewas aBoardofAllIndiaBhartiyaCongressonthepremises.
82. PW61 Sh. Manoj Kumar J Shah was posted in State Bank of HyderabadatMumbai.HebroughtthestatementofaccountofHarish
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 73/213
Mishrabearingno.3442beingoperatedatJuhubranchatMumbai Ex.PW61/1toEx.PW61/21. HealsobroughttheaccountofRomesh Sharmainrespectofaccountno.4954Ex.PW61/23toEx.PW61/25. 83. Examinationof PW62Sh.GLSood, VigilanceOfficer,MTNLwas givenupbyCBI.
84. PW63 Sh. Ajay Kumar was serving with Pankaj Bhardwaj Stamp Vendor.HedeposedonthelinesofPW13.
85. PW64Sh.VBalasubramanium wastheGroupPresident,Reliance Industries. He stated that he knew Romesh Sharma for about 78 years. He had also attended a party at Jai Mata Di Farm which belongs to Romesh Sharma. He had given the documents of Helicoptertothepolice. Hestatedthatthedocumentsweresentto himbyRomeshSharma,theownerofthehelicopterwiththerequest whetherthesaidcompanycoulduseorhirethesaidhelicopter. He handed over the documents to Wing Commander Manchanda to check.HeaftercheckingfoundthehelicopterinthenameofRomesh Sharma but opined that the helicopter cannot be used by their
74/213
company. HethenaskedMr.Manchandatokeepthedocumentsin safecustodyandconveyedthisfacttoRomeshSharma.Hedeposed onthelinesofMr.Manchanda. Incrossexaminationhestatedthat once,Birthdaypartyofhisgranddaughterwasorganisedbyhimon thisFarmwiththepermissionofRomeshSharmawherehehadseen theHelicopterparked.
86. PW65 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia was present when the specimen signatureofRomeshSharmaEx.PW65/1to4weretakenbyCBI.
87. PW66Sh.RaviPrakashSaxenaprovedthesignatureofDDBannett andHemaOberoiofTajHotel,Lucknowonthedocuments.
88. PW67 ASI Surya Bhan had accompanied Jasbir Malik to Mayfair GardenandMahadevRoad. HestatedthattheystayedatMahadev Road for 20 minutes and in his presence, statement of any of the personwasnotrecorded.Hedeniedthathewasintroducedasafalse witnessinthiscase.
89. PW68 Sh. R N Singh was the Office Assistant, Air Mail Sorting
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 75/213
Division,ChankyaPuri. HeknewtheaccusedAvtarSinghAhluwalia frombefore.HeidentifiedhissignaturesonthesheetsEx.PW68/1to Ex.PW68/3.
90. ExaminationofPW69Sh.BDSharma,SortingAssistantAirMail wasgivenup.
91. PW70 Sh. Prakash Bhaskar Majumdar was the Sr. Manager, CanaraBank,Laturbranch,Maharashtra.Hewaspresentwhenone pistol and seven live cartridges were seized by the CBI from the accused Laxman Singh on 28.12.98 vide memo Ex.PW70/1. He provedthepistolEx.P1andthecartridgesEx.PW70/2toEx.PW70/8, thelicenseseizedfromLaxmanEx.PW70/9andthecashmemoofthe pistolEx.PW70/10.
92. PW71 Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta, DSP CBI partly investigated thecase,recordedthestatementofthewitnessesandobtainedthe specimensignatureofGirishRaoEx.PW70/1toEx.PW70/6. 93. PW72 Sh. Jaswinder Singh was present with Inspector Anand
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 76/213
PrakashwhenthesearchofthehouseofRomeshSharmaatC30 MayfairGardenwastakenonthenightof20/21.10.98inpresenceof Romesh Sharma. He stated that a video cassette Ex.PW72/1 was recoveredanditwasseizedvidememoEx.PW72/2.However,itwas notsealed.
94. PW73 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, was the Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari. He did the TIP of the accused Laxman Singh where he refusedtoparticipatevideproceedingsEx.PW73/11.
95. PW74 Sh. I Hassan was the Inspector STF CBI. He seized the documentsandrecordedthestatementofwitnesses.Hecollectedthe copyofFIRandthechargesheetofthecasesFIR849/98andFIR 849/98 and FIR 858/98 registered at the police station Hauz Khas Ex.PW70/1andPW71/2.Healsoobtainedthecopyoftranscriptofthe conversation Ex.PW74/Ahaving been taken place between Romesh Sharma and Abu Salem running into 71 pages from the Inspector IshwarSingh. 96. ExaminationofPW75Sh.RamSinghwasgivenupbyCBI.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 77/213
97. PW76AnoopSinghKumarwastheDy.Commissioner,IncomeTax, Mumbai.HefurnishedthecopyoftheincometaxreturnsofH.Suresh RaoasindividualandofGarudaAviationofthefinancialyear199495 and199596Ex.PW76/1toEx.PW76/4toCBI.
98. PW77Sh.SSDagarwastheInspectorSTF,CBI.Heseizedthefile of the car from the MLO. He also collected the original cheque Ex.PW6/18fromCitibank,ParliamentStreet,chequeEx.PW6/19from Bank of Tokyo, Parliament Street, copy of DDs and recorded the statementofwitnesses.
99. PW78 Sh. K S Nayar was in STF, CBI as DSP. He arrested the accusedNaveenBudhirajaon18.01.99fromhishouse.
100.PW79 Sh. A M Thakur was Inspector CBI, STF Mumbai. He collectedthestatementofaccountsinthenameofGarudaAviation from September 1993 to December, 1997 running into 27 pages Ex.PW19/2andtheaccountofSureshRaoEx.PW79/3fromtheChief Manager, SBI. He also collected cheque no. 948400 of Rs.1.0 lac Ex.PW60/27 issued from the account of
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 78/213
HarishChandMishraEx.PW79/4.
101.PW80Sh.HCSamuel wastheLockupInchargeTisHazari. He was handed overthe custodyof accused Laxman by CBI officer in muffledface. 102.PW81InspectorAnandPrakash wastheAddl.SHOinthePolice StationHauzKhas.Heonreceiptofinformationatabout2.00PMon 20.10.98 vide DD no. 30B Ex.PW39/D went to Mayfair Garden alongwiththeSHOandpoliceforcetorescuethepersons.Hestated thatnoonemetthemandfromtheresidentsofthelocality,theycame toknowthatthepersonsconfinedthereweretakenawaybyRomesh SharmatohisPartyofficeatMahadevRoad.HestatedthatInspector Jasbir Singh Malik also reached there alongwith his staff whom InspectorBakshi,SHOPSHauzKhasaskedtogotoMahadevRoad torescuethepersons.HestatedthattwopersonsnamelyH.Suresh RaoandRakeshGuptamethiminthepolicestationatabout4.15/ 4.30PM. OneladyofficerNeenaDevirecordedtheFIR. Atabout 5.00/5.15PMtheFIRwasassignedtohimalongwiththecomplaint. HeinterrogatedHSureshRao,wenttoMayfairGardenwithHSuresh
79/213
RaoandRakeshGuptawherehemetInspectorMalikwhowaswith RomeshSharma.HeseizedthePajeroJeepandMercedescarvide memo Ex.PW6/47 and Ex.PW6/48, searched the premises and recovered three bullet proof jackets, one bag, 28 files of different properties kept in the bed and 18 video cassettes including that of HelicopterEx.PW72/1.Hestatedthathehadviewedthecassetteon which registration number was written. Four registers were also recoveredfromtheAlmirahofthegarageincludingsomedocuments and45rubberstampswhichwereseizedvidememoEx.PW7/A. He statedthatSureshRaoremainedwiththemtill9.30/9.45PM.Since hehadcomplainedofbodypain,hewassentformedicalexamination. HealsoseizedtheregistersrelatingtoHelicopterandoriginalMOU Ex.PW6/20. HealsowenttoJaiMataDiFarm,Chattarpur,Mehrauli with Romesh Sharma and on the identification of Suresh Rao, he seized the helicopter vide memo Ex.PW6/56. He also arrested the accused Vinod Luthra on the night of 23/24.10.98, took Romesh SharmatoAllahabadon25.10.98onremand,obtainedhisspecimen signaturesEx.PW34/1to3anddidtheinvestigationtill06.11.98i.e.till thetimeitwashandedovertoCBI.Hehandedoverthedocumentsto CBIvidememoEx.PW81/2.Onbeingcrossexaminedhestatedthat
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 80/213
one Ram Kumar Gupta resident of Yusuf Sarai had joined the investigation. He stated that he did notsee the seniorofficials i.e. ACP/DCPonthespottomonitortheinvestigationnorsawtheofficials of Wild Life Protection, Income Tax, FERA, Revenue Intelligence, Exciseduringthecourseofinvestigationatnight. Hedeniedthathe gotthevideocassetteEx.PW72/2preparedinrespectofhelicopteron thedirectionsofseniorofficers. Hestatedthatnophotographerwas calledtotakethephotographsofhelicopteratJaiMataDiFarm. He stated that he was the witness in three cases registered against Romesh Sharma, one on the complaint of Charles Dinkey Mechrshenas,recordonthecomplaintofMalikandthethirdoneunder WildLifeProtectionAct.Healsoseizedthedocumentsconcerningthe abovecase. Hedeniedthatheobtainedfalsecomplaintagainstthe accusedRomeshSharma. Hestatedthatthedocumentsconnected withthecaseofcomplainantSanjaySabharwalwerealsorecovered fromthererelatingtothepremisesC30MayfairGardenandJaiMata DiFarm. Hedeniedthathepressurisedthecomplainantstolodge falsecomplaintsagainstRomeshSharma.
103.ExaminationofPW82H.C.KishanPalwasgivenupbyCBI.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 81/213
104.PW83Sh.PramodMudBhatkalwasDSPSTFCBIinMumbai.He seizedthedocumentsfromHarishMishraon14.11.98.
105.Examination of PW84 Satender Sanghwan, SI Special Cell was alsogivenupbyCBI.
106.PW85InspectorIshwarSingh wastheInspectorinAntiExtortion Cell,CrimeBranch. Heusedtoprocessinformationconcerningthe commissionofextortionintheofficeofCrimeBranch.Hestatedthat inthelastweekofSeptember1998,aninformergaveatipthatmenof DawoodIbrahimarefrequentinDelhiandoneofhisgangmenknown with the name of Romesh Sharma was using a mobile phone no. 9811197600 with which he used to talk to someone in Dubai and Pakistan. He had also given two numbers one being operated in DubaiandotherinPakistan. Hestatedthatinthosedays,Dawood IbrahimusedtooperatefromDubaiandPakistan.AbuSalemwashis trusted man and used to operate from Dubai. He passed on the information to senior officers and obtained permission from the competent authority. He started tapping the aforesaid phone from 01.10.98to20.10.98andrecordeditstranscriptEx.PW74/3. Hethen
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 82/213
gotregisteredtwocasesvideFIRno.849/98and850/98atthepolice stationHauzKhasEx.PW74/1andEx.PW74/2whichwereinvestigated bytheCrimeBranchofwhichchargesheetswerefiled.Hestatedthat duringthecourseofinvestigation,hecametoknowthatmostlythe accusedRomeshSharmahadtalkedtoAbuSalem. Inhiscrossexamination,hestatedthathehadtakenthevoice sample of Romesh Sharma, however, could not obtain the voice sample of Abu Salem, so he could not compare the voice of Abu Salemrecordedduringtapingofthephonewithanyothervoice. He statedthatoneRameshMalikofLajpatNagarhadcomplainedthathe wascriminallyintimidatedbyAbuSalem.
107.PW87InspectorG.P.Singh,waspresentwhentheaccusedNaveen Budhirajawasarrestedon18.01.99videarrestmemoEx.PW86/1.
108.PW88Dr.R.Kalanjiam wasassociatedwithShivSena,apolitical party. In 1998, he was the president of All India Thevar Service Society, Chennai supported by AI.D.M.K. He stated that he knew Romesh Sharma since he had floated All India Bhartiya Congress Party.HehadmethimthroughhisfriendNajimuddin. Hewantedto
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 83/213
joinhisparty.HestatedthatonedaybeforeDiwali,in1998,hehad met Romesh Sharma in Delhi. He went to hisparty office from his residenceandcamebackinhiscar.Hestatedthatthereweremany personsinhishouse.Hewasdeclaredhostilebytheprosecution.He admittedthatinthecaseFIR802/98,PoliceStationHauzKhas,he hadtestifiedinfavourofRomeshSharmaasdefencewitnessthathe hadstayedinthehouseofRomeshSharmaatMayFairGardenonthe nightof19/20.10.1998.andtheofficeofhispartywasat16,Mahadev Road.Hedeniedthaton20.10.1998twopersonsweretakenawayby Romesh Sharma with the help of his gunman Laxman from his residence to the party office. He admitted that he had given a statementbeforetheLd.MM.Headmittedthatwhenhereachedthe residenceofRomeshSharmafromhispartyoffice,hefoundthepolice andRomeshSharmainthecustodyofpolice.Hewasalsoconfronted withthestatementEx.PW88/1.HewasreadoverthestatementEx. PW91/1giventoLd.MM.Hestatedthatatthattimethequestionsput tohimwereinHindiwhichhecouldnotfollowanditwasnotreadover to him when he signed it nor he was allowed to read. His further examination was deferred and there after he did not appear in the witnessbox.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 84/213
109.PW89SIAtulKumarwaspostedatthePoliceStationLajpatNagar. HedidtheinvestigationoftheCaseFIRNo.756/98registeredatthe PoliceStationLajpatNagarEx.PW89/1andfiledthechargesheet against Romesh Sharma and Ashok Malik placing Abu Salem in columnno.2asproclaimedoffender.
110.PW90 Dr. Prashant Kulshrestha was the Sr. Forensic Doctor in AIIMS,heprovedtheMLCofSureshRaoEx.PW90/1preparedbyDr. Monika Gupta. He admitted that name of the assailant is not mentionedintheMLC.
111.PW91 broughtthestatementofDr.R.Kalinjam,PW88recordedin thecourtofSh.S.S.RathiinthecaseFIR802/98registeredatthe PoliceStationHauzKhasEx.PW91/1.
112.PW92wastheDSP,CBI.OnthetransferofinvestigationtoCBIvide ordersEx.PW92/1hereregisteredthecasevideFIR92/2anddid theinvestigation.Hecollectedthedocuments,recordedthestatement of witnesses, viewed the video cassette of helicopter, arrested the accusedLaxman,seizedthepistolandcartridges,gotconductedhis
85/213
T.I.P. and filed the chargesheet. He also obtained the specimen signatures of H. Suresh Rao Ex.PW65/1 to Ex.PW65/4 on 06.01.1999.Onbeingcrossexaminedheadmittedthatonthedaythe investigationwasassignedtohim,thehelicopterwasregisteredinthe name of Romesh Sharma in the record of Director General Civil Aviation.
113.PW93Sh.M.P.SharmawasDSPS.P.Branch,CBI.Hehadassisted PW92intheinvestigation.
114.PW94 Sh. R.K. Jain was the Government Examiner posted at Hyderabad. He examined the questioned documents with the specimen signatures and gave the report Ex. PW94/8 giving the detailedreasonsstatingthatthewritingsonthequestioneddocuments tallywiththespecimenwritings. 115.AccusedpersonswereexaminedU/s313Cr.P.C.whereintheydenied theincriminatingevidenceagainstthemandpleadedtheirinnocence.
116.AccusedRomeshSharmaadmittedthatShivCharanhadpermitted
86/213
All India Bhartiya Congress Committee to use the premises 16, MahadevRoad,Delhiasitsofficeandthathehadbeenresidingat C30, Mayfair Garden and that he had floated All India Bhartiya CongressPartyintheyear1997andthatAvdeshandIndermaniare hisnephewsandAvtarSinghishiswellwisher.Healsoadmittedthat he had contested election from Phulpur parliamentary constituency heldon07.05.96andlosttheelection. Healsoadmittedthatinthe event of purchase of car/helicopter, by a candidate during election period,itspriceisnotincluded in theexpensesincurredduringthe election and in case candidate hires car / helicopter for election purpose,thehirechargesareincludedintheexpensesandthatthe candidatewasrequiredtomaintainaccountofexpensesincurredin connectionwiththeelectionandthataftertheelection,hehadfiledthe accountsofexpensestotheDistrictElectionOffice. Hestatedthathehadpurchasedthehelicopterwithanideathat itmaynotreflectinitshirechargesinhiselectionexpensesincethe expensewasnottoexceedRs.4,50,000/. Someofthequestions, heansweredthatheisnotaware. HestatedthatLalitBaglamight haveintroducedhimwithH.SureshRaoinFebruary,1996aspolitician andPropertyDealer.HealsoadmittedthatS41,PanchsheelParkis
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 87/213
his office as well as Guest House. He stated that in March, 1996 Suresh Rao had come to his house of his own, stayed there and proposedthat hewantedtoselltheabovehelicoptersincehewasin needofmoneyurgentlyformakingpaymenttosomepartyinDelhiand during his visits, he had told H. Suresh Rao that he was going to contest election from Phulpur Parliament constituency and for that purposesservicesofhelicopterwererequired. Earlierhequotedthe priceasRs.60lacsbutaftertheenquiryhequotedthepriceasRs.30 lacs.Headmittedthaton24.03.96hegaveacalltoH.SureshRaoto sendthehelicoptertoPhulpur.Hestatedthatsincehehadpurchased thehelicoptersotherewasnonecessitytoagreethathewouldpay Rs.80,000/perdayashiringchargesforthesaidhelicopterandother miscellaneousexpenses.Hedeniedhavingreceivedthefaxmessage eitherfromH.SureshRaoorMahenderPujara.Hestatedthatsince thetermsforpurchaseofthehelicopterwerealreadyfinalisedbyhim andacceptedbyH.SureshRao,therewasnooccasionforhimtotell H.SureshRaothathisbrotherHarishMishraandRakeshGuptawould meethimatBombayofficeforfinalisationoftermsandconditions.He denied having given any understanding to H. Suresh Rao that pre datedMOUwouldbedestroyedaftertheelectionswereovernorgave
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 88/213
anassurancethathelicopterwouldbereturned.Hestatedthathedid notknowwhetherSureshRaohadpaidRs.30,020/toCentralCarrier Corporation, Mumbai for transportation of helicopter and fuel from MumbaitoPhulpurorParsuramandotherstaffweredeputedbyH. Suresh Rao with the truck. He denied having given an envelope containingblankletterheadofRelianceDevelopersandInvestorson whichMOUofhiringofhelicopterwastobeprepared.Hestatedthat hehadpaidfullamounttoH.SureshRaoinrespectofthesaleof helicopter. He stated that all the papers in respect of the sale of helicopterwerepreparedbyH.SureshRaoandtheMOUEx.PW6/20 on30.03.96wassignedwiththemutualconsentofhisAdvocateand theAdvocateofH.SureshRao.Hestatedthataftertheelectionitwas tobetransportedtoDelhi.Hestatedthathismenwerewellbehaved andtheyhadgoodrelationswithH.SureshRaoandhismen. They had arranged their boarding and lodging and were given VIP treatment.Hestatedthathismenwereawarethathehadpurchased the helicopter so there was no question of their damaging the helicopter. Hestatedthatitwasagreedthatthelogbookwastobe handedovertohimbythetechnicianofSureshRao.Hestatedthatit wastheresponsibilityofH.SureshRaotosendthehelicoptertoDelhi.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 89/213
HisrelationswithSureshRaowerecordialHestatedthatSureshRao didnotaskhimtopayhirechargesorreturnthehelicopterhowever, haddemandedthesaleconsideration. Hedeniedhavinglinkswith underworldDon. Hestatedthathehadrelationswithpoliticiansand upper strata of society. He stated that at the time of delivery of helicopter, H. Suresh Rao had handed over him the necessary documents.Hestatedthatsomeofthedocumentswerenotgivenby him,however,hehadassuredthattheywouldbegivenlatersincethey were mortgaged to someone. He stated that Rakesh Gupta had visitingtermswithhim.HehadarrangedafinanceofRs.40lacsfor RakeshGuptaforhisairlinesthroughoneofhisfriendandRs.10lacs fromsomepersonforH.SureshRao.HeadmittedthatSureshRao hadbroughtanAdvocateathisresidencehowever,deniedthatRA Shahhadobjectedthemannerastosigningofdocumentsorthathe abusedRAShahorsnatchedthedocumentsfromhim.Hestatedthat H.SureshRaohadgiventhedocumentstohimwillingly. Hedenied thatagreementtosellandaffidavitshadbeensignedbyH.Suresh Raooutoffear. HestatedthatitwasH.SureshRaowhogotthe affidavitnotarised. Hestated thathe had madethepaymenttoH. Suresh Rao and did not call Neeraj Bhatia to bring registration
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 90/213
certificate at his residence. He stated that when certificate of registrationwashandedovertohimbyH.SureshRao,heintroduceda person Neeraj Bhatia to him and told that he had entered into an MemorandumofAgreementEx.PW6/5withNeerajBhatiatosellthe helicopterforRs.40lacsandthatsomeamountwasowedbyhimto NeerajBhatia.HedeniedthatheassuredNeerajBhatiatopayRs.18 lacs. He stated that he had made it clear that when certificate of airworthinessofhelicopterwouldbegiventohim,hewouldmakethe balancepaymenttoH.SureshRao.Hestatedthathehadmadethe entirepaymentofRs.30Lacstowardsthesaleconsiderationofthe helicopter. Hestated thatH. Suresh Rao had assured him asand whenhisengineerswouldbefreehewouldsendthemtohisFarm House to reassemble the helicopter. He denied having beaten / threatenedPappara.Hestatedthathedoesnotknowanypersonby thenameofSureshMishra.Hedeniedthaton20.10.98RakeshGupta orSureshRaohadcometohishouseorsuchincidenttookplace.He statedthatpolicehadforcedhimtosignsomeblankdocuments.He deniedhavingsnatchedthehelicopterfromSureshRao. Hestated thatthepremisesS41wastakenbyhimonrentandthevehicleswere registeredinhisname.Hestatedthatheusedtomakethepaymentin
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 91/213
installments. He stated that he had given the documents of the helicoptertoRelianceIndustrieswithanunderstandingthatReliance Industriesmayusethesaidhelicopteronhire.HestatedthatReliance companyaftercheckinghadtoldhimthatthehelicopterwasnotuseful for them. He stated that Suresh Rao had informed the insurance companythatthehelicopterhasbeensoldtohim.Hedeniedhaving talkedtoanypersonnamelyAbuSalemorhavingconnectionwiththe mobileno.9811197600orthatLaxmanSinghwashisassociate. He statedthattherewasnocassetteonwhichthewordhelicopterwas written. He stated that on 20.10.98, the police officials and other agencieshadraidedhishouse. He stated that H. Suresh Rao had an intention to get the helicopterbackfromhim.Withthatmotive,hefabricatedthestoryand lodgedthiscase.Thepoliceofficialshavetestifiedagainsthimunder the influence of NDA Government as he was having video clips/cassettesregardinginvolvementofMinistersofNDAGovernment andseniorpoliceofficersofCrimeInvestigationAgency.Hehadalso formedanewpartyandwasinprocessofexposingcorruptofficers andministers.HewasNationalGeneralSecretaryofIndianSocialist PartyandLokDalParty.HeremainedinCongressfrom1984to1987,
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 92/213
heldseveralimportantpostandcreatedanewpoliticalpartyin1987 under the name of All India Bhartiya Congress Party. He had a politicalcleanimage.Hehadboughtthepropertieslawfully.Theidea topurchasethehelicopterwassuggestedbySureshRaoinoneofthe meetings.HestatedthatthehelicopterwastwoseaterwhichSuresh RaohadboughtforRs.50,000/.HehaspaidRs.30lacstoSuresh RaoininstallmentsandheafterreceivingtheentireamountofRs.30 lacs got the helicopterregistered in his name and handed over the documents. He stated that it was Suresh Rao who enjoyed a bad reputation in the circle ashe had cheated numberofpersons. He statedthatitwasablatantconspiracyagainsthim.
117.AccusedHarishMishrastatedthathewasframedinthiscasesince hehappenedtobethebrotherofRomeshSharma.CBIwantedhimto becomewitnessagainstRomeshSharmaandwhenherefused,he was framed in this case. He denied having visited to the office of SureshRao. Mostofthequestions,heansweredhedoesnotknow. Hestatedthatpaymentwasmadetowardsthesaleofhelicopterand notforthehirecharges.
93/213
118.He examined Sh. Lalit Kumar Bagla as DW1. He stated that he knewRomeshSharma. Hedealsinsaleandpurchaseofimported cars.RomeshSharmahadpurchasedanimportedcarfromhim.He alsoknewRakeshGuptaofUnitedIndiaAirways,whoknewH.Suresh RaoofPushpakAviation.HestatedthatRakeshGuptahadtakenRs. 30lacsfromhim.Heissuedhimachequewhichonpresentationwas dishonoured.Hefiledacaseandgotthemoneyback.Hestatedthat heneverpurchasedanyhelicopternordealtwithH.SureshRao.He statedthattwoFERAcasesarependingagainsthimregardingHawala transactionofpurchaseofaMercedescar.
119.Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia in his statement admitted his signaturesontheGRs. HestatedthathehadgonetoPhulpurfor campaigningintheelectionofRomeshSharma.SincetheEngineers receivedinstructionnottobringthehelicoptertoMumbaifromUgarsen Pur,heandhistechniciansthemselvesunloadedthehelicopterfrom thetruckandloadedonatruckforDelhi.There,theatmospherewas cordial.Otherquestionsheanswered,hedoesnotknow.Hestated that Romesh Sharma had told him that he has purchased the helicopter. He had also seen the MOU Ex.PW6/20 at Phulpur,
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 94/213
Allahabad.Hestatedthatthehelicopterwasdismantledon11.05.96. He denied having accompanied with the truck. He stated that CBI wanted himtobe anapproverwhich herefused,sohewasfalsely implicatedinthecase.
120.AccusedLaxmanSingh statedthatCBIwantedtomakeastrong caseagainstRomeshSharma,soincludedhisname.Hestatedthat hedidnotparticipateintheTIPsincehewasshowntothewitnesses priortohisidentification. Hestatedthatpolicehadseizedthepistol andcartridgesfromhimbuthewashavingalicenseforthesame.He deniedhavingthreatenedH.SureshRaoorRakeshGuptawiththe pistol or accompanied them to Mahadev Road in the car of the accusedRomeshSharma.
121.AccusedManoj statedthathewasengagedasacookbyRomesh Sharma. Heusedtoremaininhisbungalowandcookmealsforthe employeesofH.SureshRaoandhispersonswhowerecampaigning forRomeshSharma.
122.AccusedAvdeshstatedthathewasengagedincanvassinginfavour
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 95/213
of Romesh Sharma in the election. Romesh Sharma is his uncle. During canvassing it was conveyed to him that helicopter was purchasedbyRomeshSharma.Hestatedthathewasnotpresentat the site of transportation of helicopter but his name was included maliciouslybyCBIundertheinfluenceofH.SureshRao. Hestated whenCBIcametoknowthathewasnephewofRomeshSharma,it falselyincludedhisnameandthenamesofotherrelativesandfriends. He came to know during canvassing that Romesh Sharma was his unclesincehehadleftthevillageevenpriortohisbirth.Hestatedthat RomeshSharmawasmakingspeechesintheareaduringelectionthat he has purchased the helicopter which Pilots and technicians were alsolisteningandneverobjected.
123.AccusedNaveenBudhiraja stated thathe wasnotpresentatthe spotwhenthehelicopterwasunloaded.HewasinDelhi. 124.AccusedIndermani statedthatthewitnesseswhohavenamedhim weretheemployeesofH.SureshRao.Theyhavedeposedunderthe influenceofH.SureshRao.Hestatedthathehadbeencanvassingin theelectionforRomeshSharma,therefore,hewasnamedandmight
96/213
have been known byname however, he was not present when the helicopterwastransportedtoDelhi. Hestatedthataftercanvassing, heusedtoreturntohisvillageandneverstayedatUgrasenpur. He stated that the CBI has falsely implicated him being the nephew of RomeshSharma.CBIwantedtoimplicatealltherelationsofRomesh Sharmaincludinghimselfsothatnopersonisleftouttodopairviof RomeshSharma.
125.AccusedMDBhojwani statedthathewasnotpresentatthespot. HehadgonetoAllahabadRailwayStationforreservationforDelhi. HestatedthathehadsignedtheMOUaswitness.Hehadremained at Phulpur for two days in connection with the election of Romesh Sharma.
126.It is to be mentioned that H. Suresh Rao had filed a suit for DeclarationandInjunctionbeforeHonbleHighCourtagainstRomesh SharmaandOthersintheyear1999Ex.DX2prayingforcancellingthe MOUdated14.05.96andotherdocumentsusedforthetransferofsaid helicopter by declaring that he is the owner of the helicopter and directingtheDirectorGeneralofCivilAviationtotransferthehelicopter
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 97/213
inhisnameandalsodirectingtheIncomeTaxDepartmenttoremove theattachmentordersinrespectofthehelicopter.
127.RomeshSharmacontestedthesuitanddeniedtheavermentsmade intheplaintvidewrittenstatementEx.DX3.Replicationwasalsofiled byH.SureshRaowhereinhereiteratedthefactsasstatedintheplaint vide Ex.DX4. In that suit, following issues were framed vide order dated12.01.06: 1. Whether the suit against defendant no. 3 is maintainableinviewoftheprovisionsofSection293 oftheIncomeTaxAct?OPD 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in viewoftheprovisionsofSection41(H)oftheSpecific ReliefAct?OPD 3. Whether defendant no.1 had purchased the helicopterbearingregistrationno.VTEAPModelNo. Bell47,G5?OPD 4. Whether the MOU dated 14.05.96 and other documents used for transfer of the helicopter in questionweregotexecutedfromtheplaintiffunder pressureorcoercion?OPP
98/213
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.2 to transferthehelicopterinhisname?OPP 6. Relief. 128.Matterwasthereafterlistedforplaintiffevidence.H.SureshRaodid not file evidence despite number of opportunities including last and final opportunity and therefore, his suit was dismissed for want of evidencevideorderdated11.01.08bytheHonbleHighCourt. The accusedRomesh Sharmaplacedon recordtheordersheetsofthe proceedingsofthecivilsuitwhichwereexhibitedasDX5/1toDX5/35 (colly.)videorderdated22.12.11.
129.I have heard the arguments advanced by Learned Special Public Prosecutor(P.P.)Sh.SKSaxenaforCBI,LearnedCounselsSh.Prem Kumar alongwith Sh. Jaswinder Singh for the accused Romesh SharmaandHarishMishraandSh.SPKaushalfortheotheraccused persons.
130.Ld.SpecialPublicProsecutorhassubmittedthattheaccusedRomesh Sharma and the accused Harish Mishra conspired and cheated the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 99/213
complainantSureshRao,PW6ofhishelicopterbypracticingdeception uponhiminitiallyinducinghimtogiveonhirehishelicopterandthen byforciblydispossessinghimandthendetainingitbyforcewiththe helpofthecoaccused. Theynotonlydeprivedhimofthehelicopter but also did not pay him his legitimate dues or its price. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that vide certificate of registration Ex.PW2/B1,thehelicopterbearingregistrationno.VTEAPwasinitially ownedbyPushpakAviationPvt.Ltd.Itwastransferredinthenameof H.SureshRaoandconsequentthereto,thecertificateEx.PW2/C2was issuedinhisname.Ld.PublicProsecutorstatedthatH.SureshRao hadpurchasedthesparepartsofRs.38,81,964/fromSummitAviation andalsospentRs.6,21,659/foritsassemblyoutofwhichhepaidRs. 23,42,310/ and pledged the helicopter with Summit Aviation as a collateral security. Ld. Public Prosecutor referred the testimony of PW85statingthataccusedusedtomakecallsatDubaiandPakistan. Healsoplacedonrecordthetranscriptofthetalkswhichtookplace between Romesh Sharma and Abu Salem Ex.PW74/3. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that the accused had contested the election from Phulpur,AllahabadforwhichthemaximumexpenditurelimitwasRs. 4,50,000/.Ld.PublicProsecutorstatedthatthehelicopterwasgiven
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 100/213
onhireatRs.80000/perdayandtothateffectafaxEx.PW6/6was sent. The GR receipts show Pushpak Aviation as consignor and consignee. The MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed on a stamp paper purchasedon29.03.96showingtohavebeenexecutedon24.02.96. Two more MOU/agreements were prepared and the signatures of PW6weretakenbydeception/useofforce/coercion.Nosaledeed aboutthesaleofhelicopterwasexecuted.Onlyanagreementtosell was prepared. The affidavit from PW6 regarding full and final paymenton05.06.96wasobtainedbyinducingthreat.Ld.PPstated thatPW6hadalreadyenteredintoanagreementwithacompanyat KeralaforaerialsprayingofpesticidesandreceivedRs.2.0lacsin advancebutsincethehelicopterwasforciblyretainedbytheaccused, PW6 could not execute the agreement and also faced the legal proceedings. Ld.PPstatedthatinitiallythehelicopterwasgivenon hire upto 12.04.96 but the period was unilaterally extended by the accusedRomeshSharmatill09.05.96.ThefuelwassenttoMumbai on09.05.96,however,whenthehelicopterwasbeingloadedinatruck on11.05.96forMumbai,itwasoffloadedbytheaccusedpersonswho arrived there and threatened the crew members with dire consequences.Ld.PPstatedthatitwasloadedonatruckforDelhi,
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 101/213
whichwasarrangedbytheaccusedAvtarSinghAhluwalia. Ld.PP statedthatbefore11.05.96,thephysicalpossessionofhelicopterwas PW6anditwasnevertransferredtoRomeshSharma.Ld.PPstated that PW7 has corroborated the testimony of PW6 on all material aspects.Ld.PPstatedthatwhenRomeshSharmahadmadefulland finalpaymenttoPW6beforethetransferofhelicopterandifitwas true,therewasnoreasonforhimtomakepartpaymentoftheamount on24.06.96and16.07.96. Ld.PPstatedthattheaccusedHarishMishrawaspartytothe conspiracywithRomeshSharmainacquiringthehelicopterbyillegal means.HehadsignedthefirstMOUandmadepartpaymentfromhis account.IfthehelicopterwasscheduledtobesenttoDelhiasclaimed bytheaccused,thenwhyBGPapparawouldhireatruckfromShere PunjabforsendingthehelicoptertoMumbai.Ld.PPstatedthatfacts andcircumstancesshowthatthehelicopterwastakenonhireandthe agreementtosellwasexecutedbytheaccusedpersonstolimitthe election expenses, otherwise, Election Commission could have disqualifiedhimforexceedingthefinanciallimit. Ld.PPstatedthatintheelectionspeeches,theaccusedhad spokenthathehaspurchasedthehelicopteranditwouldbeusedfor
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 102/213
the people of Phulpur, then there was no purpose in taking the helicoptertoDelhi. Ld.P.Pstatedthatstatementofaccountsofthe accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra show that there was negligible balance in their accounts. In these circumstances, there could be no bonafide basis to enter into such an agreement for purchaseofhelicopter.Ld.PPstatedthathisintentionwasdishonest to grab the helicopter by illegal means. He threatened PW6 and otherswithdireconsequencestoforgetaboutthehelicopterclaiming thatitwashisproperty.Evenotherwise,hedidnotpayRs.18lacsto Neeraj Bhatia when he gotthe registration certificatefromhimwho hadestimatedthecostofhelicopterasRs.40lacswhenhegotthe registrationcertificateasacollateralsecurity.Ld.Counselstatedthat wheneverPW6triedtocontacttheaccusedwithregardtoreturnthe helicopter or make payment of his dues, he was threatened by RomeshSharmathroughIrfanGogaandothersforwhichhelodged thereportatthepolicestationSantaCruzwithPW47SureshMishra. Ld. PP stated that when the helicopter was taken to Delhi after unloadingandthenloadinginanothertruckhiredfortransportingitto Delhi,nointimationwassenttotheDirectorAviation. Ld.PPstated thatwhenPW6alongwithPW7cameatthehouseoftheaccusedat
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 103/213
MayfairGarden,theywerethreatenedandweretakento16,Mahadev Road at the point of pistol in the possession of Laxman Singh, his muscle man. The car and the jeep were recovered from the possessionofaccusedalongwiththecassetteofhelicopter. Ld.PP statedthattheaccusedhadcontactedRelianceIndustriesandgiven papers showing his intention to sell the helicopter. Facts and circumstancesshowthathehadillegallytakenthepossessionofthe helicopter without paying full and final consideration. Ld. Public Prosecutorstatedthattheaccuseddidnotdisputetheirsignatureson thedocuments. Ld.PPstatedthatintentionoftheaccusedfromthe beginningwastograbthehelicopterandnottopurchasewhichfactis evident from the documents Ex.PW6/6 i.e. the fax message, Ex.PW6/18insurancedated26.03.96,Ex.PW6/9regardingpurchase offuel,Ex.PW6/14MOU,GRsEx.PW6/11andEx.PW6/12onwhich consignor and consignee were mentioned as Pushpak Aviation not Romesh Sharma, letter of B G Pappara Ex.PW6/16 informing Civil Aviationthathelicopterwasgivenoncontractandtheagreementwith IbrahimforsprayingpesticidesinKerala. Ld.PPstatedthatHarish Mishra,Bhojwaniandotheraccusedpersonswerepartytothecriminal conspiracywiththeaccusedRomeshSharma.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 104/213
131.On the other hand, Ld. counsel Sh. Prem Kumar for the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra has contended that the controversyinthiscasebetweentheaccusedandthecomplainantis of civil nature as is indicative from the facts that accused Romesh Sharma had purchased the helicopter from the complainant for the valueofRs.30.00lacsandhasevenpaidRs.12.0lacstowardsthesale priceondifferentoccasions;thatthepresentcasehasbeenconcocted tocoercetheaccusedandtoacceleratetheremainingpayment;that the other coaccused persons have been falsely implicated in this case; that there is no evidence to show that the accused Romesh Sharmaandthecoaccusedpersonshadenteredintoconspiracyto forciblytakethepossessionofthehelicopterinordertodeprivethe complainantofitslegitimatedues;thattheincidentofsnatchingthe helicopterforciblyisconcocted;thatthehelicopterwasinpossession oftheaccusedRomeshSharmaashehadpurchasedit;thatthereis no evidence regarding the terms of hire agreement and even the allegedfaxmessagevidewhichthetermsweresentandsettledhas not been procured and produced; Ld. Counsel submitted that the goldenruleofcriminaljurisprudenceisthatthereshouldbereasonable certaintytoconnecttheaccusedwiththecrime. Ld.Counselstated
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 105/213
thattheaccusedhadapoliticalcareerofabout35years.Heremained in custody for about 13 years although it is a case of unfair investigationbyCBI. Ld.Counselreferredthecaseof RanBahadur Vs. State of UP AIR 2000 SC 1209 and State of West Bengal Vs. ShewMangalSinghAIR1981SC1917tocontendthattheprosecution hastoprovetheguiltbeyondreasonabledoubtwhichitfailed. Ld.counselcontendedthatthereisdelayofabout900daysin registrationofthecaseastheallegedincidentofsnatchinghappened on 11.05.96, while the FIR in this case has been registered in the month of October, 1998. No explanation was given for delay. He placedrelianceonthecase StateofAPVs.MadhuSudan (2008)15 SCC 582, Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709 (i), KishanSinghVs.GurpalAIR2010SC3624tocontendthatdelaymust be sufficiently explained. Ld. Counsel stated that the complainant belongstoanupperstrataofsociety.Hisfatherwasinthebusinessof aviation. He used to move in High Society. He had contacts with influentialpersons.Thehelicopterwasregisteredinthenameofthe accusedintherecordofDirectorofCivilAviationin1996butchallenge tothateffectwasmadebythecomplainantinacivilsuitfiledin1999 which also failed when thecomplainantdid not leadevidence. Ld.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 106/213
CounselstatedthattheCivilCourtdecidesthecivilrightsinrespectof movable/immovablepropertyanditbringsfinalityinregardtotheright oftheparties. Ld.Counselstatedthatthehelicopterisstillwiththe accused.Ld.Counselstatedthatthecasewasregisteredatthepolice stationHauzKhason20.10.98anditwastransferredtoCBItoendthe politicalcareeroftheaccused.Therewasnowrittencontractofhire. TheMOUwasforthesaleofhelicopter.Partconsiderationwaspaid on27.03.96. Thecomplainanthadpurchasedthehelicopterin1994 i.e.after24yearsforRs.50,000/inaccidentalcondition.Hemadeit airworthybyspendingRs.38lacs.BeforeenteringintoMOUwiththe accused,hehadenteredintoagreementwithtwomorepersons,thus concealedthevitalinformationfromtheaccused.Hehadpledgedthe certificateofregistrationwithNeerajBhatiaofSummitAviationasa collateralsecurity. Ld.counselstatedthatthehiringexpenseswereallegedlyRs. 13lacsanditscostwasRs.30lacs. Nosensiblepersonwouldpay thehirechargesofRs.13lacsforhiringahelicopterfor30dayswhen itscostwasRs.30lacs. Thereisnothingtoindicatethattherewas threatfromthesideoftheaccusedwhentheMOUwasenteredinto northerewasanythinginwritingthattheMOUwouldnotbeacted
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 107/213
uponaftertheelection.Ld.CounselreferredtheprovisionsofSection 23oftheContractActandsubmittedthatthecomplainanthimselfwas guiltyofcheatingtheAuthoritiesbyshowingthatitwassoldoutand notgivenonhire. Ld.counselstatedthatwhenthereisdocumentaryevidenceon recordi.e.Agreementtosell,Affidavitastothesaleofhelicopterby PW6andreceiptoffullandfinalconsiderationfromtheaccusedanda letterwrittenbyGirishRaototheinsurancecompanyastothesaleof helicopter, the oral testimony does not have any meaning. The prosecutiondidnotfileanyproofastothereceiptoffaxmessagesent by PW8 to the accused Romesh Sharma giving the terms and conditionofhiringofhelicopter,noranysafeguardwastakenbythe complainanttoensurethattheMOUshallnotbeactedupon. The complainantdidnotmentionthefactintheMOUthatthehelicopter waspledgedascollateralsecuritywithSummitAviation.Ld.Counsel stated that when the maximum limit prescribed for incurring the expenditureonelectionwasRs.4.5lacswhyapersonwouldtakethe helicopteronhire.Theprosecutiondidnotfileanydocumenttoshow thatthevalueofthehelicopterwasRs.70lacsalthoughintheMOU Ex.PW6/5withSummitAviationthevalueofthehelicopterwasshown
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 108/213
asRs.40lacs. Thatbeingtheposition,thefigureofRs.30lacsas appearingintheMOUappearedtobereasonable. Ld.counselstatedthaton20.10.98,morethan350policemen cameinthehouseoftheaccused.Itwasapreplannedmove.The accusedwasfloatingapartyatMahadevRoadandhewasimplicated for scoring a political vendetta. It assumes importance as earlier a report was lodged by the complainant in the police station Greater KailashPartI,NewDelhibutnoactionwastakenbythepoliceonthe report.TherewasnothreatfromDawoodIbrahimatthetimeofMOU. IrfanGogahadallegedlythreatenedthecomplainantovertelephonein 1998forwhichreportwaslodgedatthepolicestationSantaCruzin April, 1998 so why Irfan Goga / Dawood Ibrahim were not made accusedinthepresentcase. Ld.counselstatedthattheaccusedpersonshavebeencharged for criminal conspiracy for the period from March, 1996 to October, 1998.Thequestionariseswhoweretheconspiratorsin1996whenthe helicopterwasallegedlytakenonhire.Inthiscase,noconfessionof thecoaccusedwasrecordednortherewasanyrecoveryfromthemor attheirinstance.Ld.CounselreferredthecaseofKaliRamVs.State 2010VI AD (Delhi)45 to contend that there should be evidence of
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 109/213
conspiracy and some object behind that conspiracy. Ld. Counsel statedthatwhentheagreementwasenteredintoon30.03.96,there was no fraudulent/dishonest intention/undue influence. It was genuinelyexecuted.HarishMishrahadtakentheMOUsincehewas alreadyinMumbai.HepaidRs.3.0lacs.ThesignaturesofPW6on theMOUwerenotobtainedbythreat,sohewasnotapartytothe conspiracy. He was not involved in any other incident so, how conspiracy/cheatingwasdonebyhimasallegedintheCharge. He wasnotthepartyofsecondMOUdated30.03.96. Astotheincidentdated05.06.96thattherewasanatmosphere ofterror,Ld.Counselcontendedthatallthedocumentsi.e.logbook, insurance etc. were given by PW6. PW18 did not say that the registrationcertificatewastakenfromhimbythreats.PW6hadcome alongwith his counsel in Delhi with the affidavit on a Stamp Paper whichhegotpreparedinMumbai.SonocaseU/s386IPCismade out. The helicopter came at the farm house on 14.05.96 and its possessionwiththeaccusedwaslawful.NocaseU/s365/506IPCis madeoutastherewasnoabductionorwrongfulconfinementofPW6 ordangertothelifeofPW6.Ld.Counselalsoreferredtheallegations levelled in the FIR and the Civil Suit filed in the High Court. Ld.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 110/213
Counselsubmittedthattheregistrationofhelicopterclinchestheissue thatRomeshSharmawastheownerofthehelicopter. Thestoryof hiringwasimaginaryandafterthought.Ld.Counselcontendedthat anycontractenteredvoluntarilyisaprimaryevidence.Iftheamountis notreceivedaspercontract,itwouldbeacaseofcivilliabilityasany breachofcontractentailscivilaction. Ld.Counselstatedthatfacts andcircumstancesandthedocumentsplacedonrecordgotoshow that Romesh Sharma wanted to purchase the helicopter and not to takeonhire. AsprovidedunderAircraftRules,thereshouldbepure andclearsaleofhelicopterwhichwasthereinthepresentcase.The accused in election speeches had openly spoken that he has purchasedthehelicopterandwoulduseforthepeople. Ld.Counsel statedthatResjudicataU/s11CPCisapplicableinthepresentcase. Ld.CounselreferredthecaseofDayaSapraVs.VishnuDuttSharma 2008IIAD(Delhi)84tocontendthatthejudgmentoftheCivilCourtis bindingontheCriminalCourt.Ld.CounselstatedthattheCivilCourt hasdismissedthesuitcontainingsimilarallegations,sonocauseof actionliesbeforetheCriminalCourt.Reliancewasalsoplacedofthe caseKGPremshankarVs.InspectorofPoliceAIR2002SC3372and GulabChandSharmaVs.HPSharma ILR(1974)IDelhi190. Ld.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 111/213
CounselreferredtheSections40,43and13oftheEvidenceActto contendthatonceafindinghascomefromtheCivilCourt,thematter cannot be reagitated. DGCA has already declined the request of Suresh Rao to change its ownership. Ld. Counsel stated that the informationwastotheextentthatRomeshSharmawasbeatingtwo persons,whyDRI,WildLife,IncomeTaxOfficersandPolicefromthe PoliceStationKalkaJicameinthehouseoftheaccusedandsearched hishouseforthewholenight.Ld.CounselstatedthatCBIhadalready ceasedofthematterasitwasenquiringaboutthehelicopterevenprior totheallegedincident.Ld.CounselstatedthatSureshRaowasmade puppetbytheGovernmenttoscoreitspoliticalvendettaanditwasa largerconspiracyoftheGovernmenttoendthepoliticalcareerofthe accusedRomeshSharma.Ld.CounselstatedthataftertheMOU,any entryintheGRshowingconsignorandconsigneeasPushpakAviation becomes irrelevant. Reliance was also placed on the case Gulab Chand sharma Vs. H P Sharma ILR (1974) I Delhi 190, Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board Vs. Syed Jalauddin Sha AIR 2005 Andhra Pradesh 54, Abdul Majid Khan Vs. Tukaram & Another AIR 1927, Nagpur359,LakshmanGovindandAnotherVs.AmritGopal&Others ILR 24 Bombay 691, Maroli Laxman Koshi Vs. Jagannathdas
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 112/213
Lachmandas Gadewal AIR 1939 Nagpur 12 and Dilavar Singh Vs. StateofDelhi2007Cri.L.J.4709(1). 132.LearnedCounselthensummeduphisargumentswiththefollowing submissions: i) Thereisno proofwhatsoeverthattherewasanycontractfor hiring of the helicopter between Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma. MOUforsaleofthehelicopterwasenteredintobetweenSuresh Rao and Romesh Sharma twice i.e. on 27.03.1996 and 30.03.1996. The complainantSuresh Rao hasnotgiven any reasonwhatsoevertoshowhowhegotpersuadedbysimpleor emptyassurance. ComplainantSureshRaodidnotobtainanysafeguardinthe formofanywritingfromtheaccusedRomeshSharmatoensure that MOUs entered into between Suresh Rao and accused RomeshSharmaarenotactedupon. SureshRaohadalreadyenteredintoMOUwithSummitAviation forsaleofthehelicopteranddidnotdisclosethisfacttothe accusedRomeshSharma. ComplainantSureshRaohadkepttheregistrationcertificateof thehelicopterwithSummitAviationasacollateralsecurityapart fromenteringintotheMOU.Thisfactwasalsonotdisclosedby
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
113/213
SureshRaototheaccusedRomeshSharma. vi) The fact that he had to pay about Rs.18,00,000/ to Summit Aviation was also not disclosed by Suresh Rao to Romesh Sharma. If it was a hiring contract then it was cheating the election commissionbecausetheexpensesfarexceedthelimitofthe electionexpenses. Ifitissaleofhelicopterthenitisnotatall cheatingtheelectioncommission.HencesalethroughMOUis agenuinesaleofthehelicopter. ComplainantSureshRaoismakingafalseassertionthatthe valueofthehelicopterwasRs.70,00,000/.Nothinghasbeen broughtonrecordthatthevalueofthehelicoptercouldbeRs. 70,00,000/particularlywhenitwasanoldhelicopterpurchased in 1970 and the helicopter even met with an accident. The helicopterwaspurchasedbySureshRaoonlyforRs.50,000/. Moreover the MOU entered by complainant Suresh Rao with SummitAviationshowsitsvaluetobeRs.40,00,000/.Thusits value could be anywhere between Rs.30,00,000/ to Rs. 35,00,000/andhencethedescriptionofthesalepriceofRs. 30,00,000/ in the two MOUs executed with Romesh Sharma show that the said price was the genuine price and not Rs. 70,00.000/asissoughttobemadeoutbythecomplainantin hisoraldeposition. Thecomplainanthasnotbroughtanythingonrecordtoshow thatsocalledfaxmessagewasactuallyreceivedbyRomesh SharmahenceSureshRaohasmadeafalsestatementthatthe
114/213
vii)
viii)
ix)
termsofhiringwerefaxedtoRomeshSharma. x) SureshRaodidnottalkofhisowncomplicityinthematter.Such acharactercannotbebelieved.SureshRaocannotbebelieved forthereasonthatactionishighlybelatedforhavingfiledthe complaintafter947daysoftheallegedincident. PW6isanexpertinaviationlineandpreparingdocumentsof transfer. Howhecouldhaveexecuteddocumentsofsalenot once but twice and doing everything for making it legally executablebutnotgettingexecutedadocumentofhiringinhis favour. Suresh Rao was not getting anything in writing as per his statement in his own favour but executing everything against him. He was not apprehending anything what will happen if RomeshSharmadecidestoactupontheallegedMOU.
xi)
xii)
133.Ld. counsel Sh. S P Kaushal contended that the accused M. D. Bhojwani did not enter into criminal conspiracy with the accused RomeshSharma;noovertactcanbeattributedtohimwithregardto theincidentof11.05.1996ashehasnotbeennamedintheFIR;his signatureontheMOUaswitnessdoesnotsuggestanycomplicitywith theaccusedinthiscase;theactoftheaccusedpersonsAvtarSingh Ahluwalia, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja, Avdesh and Indermani and others as to the incident of 11.05.1996 was bonafide and exempted
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 115/213
undertheGeneralExceptionundersection79IPCastheybelieved bonafideandingoodfaiththestatementofaccusedRomeshSharma made during his election campaign that he has purchased the helicopterfortheservicesofthepeopleofhisconstituency;thereisno deception and no knowledge can be attributed to them; that the accusedpersonshavebeennamedoutofmemoryastheyusedtobe presentwiththeaccusedintheelectioncampaign;thattheaccused werenotnamedinthecomplaintEx.PW6/46;NoTIPoftheaccused persons was got conducted, nor their photographs were shown for identification;Ld.Counselarguedthatitwasacaseofpoliticalrivalry. AraidwasconductedinthehouseoftheaccusedRomeshSharmaon 20.10.98.Hisentirehousewasransackedandnumberofcaseswere registered involving him and his relations. Ld. Counsel stated that therewasnoevidenceofconspiracyinMumbaiandotherpartsofthe countryasstatedintheCharge.Ld.Counselcontendedthatthereare materialcontradictionsinthetestimonyofprosecutionwitnessesasto thepresenceofpersonsonthespoton11.05.96orwhethertheywere armed with weapons ornot. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no evidence of conspiracy against them prior to 11.05.96. Documents placedonrecordshowthatthehelicopterwassoldtoRomeshSharma
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 116/213
and its ownership was also transferred in his name. Ld. Counsel statedthatwhenthehelicopterwasloaded,therewasnothreattoany ofthecrewmembers. Everyonewasfreetomove. Noreportwas lodgedbyanyofthecrewmemberswhenthehelicopterwasallegedly detained. NameofAbuSalemorDawoodcamelater. Therewasa delay of 863 days in lodging the FIR. Ld. Counsel stated that the witnesses were the employees of PW6 and were the interested witnesses.Therewasnoconfinementorextortionorfearon11.05.96. Aspertheagreementwiththeplantationcompany,thehelicopterwas to be taken to Kerala, so why it was being taken to Mumbai. No lathi/danda/weapon was recovered from the possession of accused persons.Policemettheaccusedpersonsforthefirsttimeonorafter 16.11.98. PW14hasstatedthathehadinformedSureshRaoabout theincidentbutnoreportwaslodged.Thisitselfshowsthathelicopter wasnotgivenonhirebutitwassoldtoRomeshSharma. ForaccusedLaxman,itwascontendedthattheaccusedwas onlya guard at MayfairGarden. None ofthe witnessesi.e.PW6, PW7,PW42andPW67saidaboutthepresenceofaccusedLaxman atMayfairGarden.TheprosecutiondidnotexamineSIRavinderGill. PW42waspostedasSHOatPoliceStationKalkajiandnotatHauz
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 117/213
KhasorCannaughtPlace.SowhatmadehimconducttheraidatHauz KhasorMahadevRoad. Therewerenoinstructionsfromthesenior policeofficials. Theaccused hadsimplydonehisdutyandprovided protectiontohismasteraccusedRomeshSharma;thathewashaving alicensedpistol;however,nointentioncanbeattributedtohimthathe hascommittedanyoffenceinthiscasepunishableundersection120B or365or506IPC.Hewasnotarrestedfromtheplaceofincident.He wasarrestedon29.12.98.Ld.CounselarguedthataccusedRomesh Sharmawasinvalidpossessionofhelicopter.Thecrewmembershad advanceprogrammetoleavethestation. Ld. Counsel stated that the accused Manoj and Naveen Budhiraja have been falsely implicated in this case, they had no knowledge or intention which can be imputed for commission of offenceofconspiracy.
134.Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in rebuttal argued that the accused RomeshSharmawascontestingtheelectionanddidnotwantthehire chargestobeincludedintheelectionexpenses,sotocircumventthe same,heinducedPW6toenterintotheMOU,sothathemightnotbe disqualifiedfromtheelection.Hisintentionwastograbthehelicopter.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 118/213
Theintentionistobeseenfromthecircumstances.PW6couldhave notsoldthehelicoptertoRomeshSharma,evenifhehadintended because he had pledged the helicopter as collateral security with Summit Aviation. Even otherwise, the statement of account of Romesh Sharma shows that he did not have sufficient funds to purchasethehelicopter. Hehadgivenabaldstatementthathehad madetheentirepaymenttoPW6.Hisintentionwasnottopurchase buttodepriveitspossessionfromPW6.Nofindingshavecomefrom the Civil Court that the helicopter in question belonged to Romesh Sharma, so principle of resjudiceta is not applicable. PW6 had a constructivepossessionofthehelicopterbuttheaccusedbyuseof forceandthreatstookawaythehelicopter.Therewasnoactofdue careandcautionbytheaccusedpersons.AstoholdingofTIP,Ld.PP stated that the accused and the witnesses remained at Phulpur for about 40 days and very well knew one another. The links of the accusedwithDawoodIbrahimareestablishedastwomorecaseswere registered against him by the police. The transcript of accused RomeshSharmawithAbuSalemalsocorroboratesthisfact. Ld.PP stated that the delay was due to the fact that the complainant was underfear.Ld.PPstatedthatthedelayinFIRdoesnotgiveimmunity
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 119/213
totheoffender,ifthefactsappealtojudicialconscience.Reliancewas placedonthecaseHridayaRanjanPd.VermaVs.StateofBihar2000 Cri.L.J.2983,V.Y.Jose&Anr.Vs.StateofGujaratI(2009)CCR246 (SC)wherethedistinctionbetweenthepurecontractualdisputeofcivil natureandoffenceofcheatingwasdiscussed.
135.I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration on the contentions raised on behalf of both the sides and have gone through the statements of witnesses and the documents on record. In order to appreciate the evidence, it will be convenient to split the events in sequenceasunder:
OwnershipoftheHelicopteranditsuse: 136.Itemergesfromthetestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesnamely PW1,PW2,PW40,PW6andPW44andthedocumentsthatPW6 was in the business of Aviation in the name and style of Pushpak AviationPvt.Ltd.foralongtime.PushpakAviationownedahelicopter Bell47G5intheyear1970videregistrationno.Ex.PW2/C1.PW6 andPW44wereinductedasDirectorsinthecompanyonorabout
120/213
199394.In1988,itmetwithanaccidentandwasseverelydamaged. PW6purchasedthehelicopterfromPushpakAviationintheyear1994 forRs.50,000/.HethenmovedanapplicationtoDGCAfortransferof itsownershipinhisnameandtheownershipwastransferredinhis namevideregistrationcertificateEx.PW2/A5on19.09.94.
137.Tomakeitairworthy,PW6purchasedsparepartsworthRs.40lacs from PW18. He made part payment to PW18 and for a balance paymentofRs.18lacs,heenteredintoaMemorandumofAgreement Ex.PW6/5on20.11.95withSummitAviationofwhichPW18wasthe ManagingDirector. Hepledgedhisoriginalcertificateofregistration Ex.PW2/A5withit.WhentheMOUwasenteredinto,thevalueofthe helicopter was determined as Rs. 40 lacs and it was executed for securingthedueamountasacollateralsecurity.
138.Thehelicopterbecameairworthinessin1995andtothateffectPW6 obtainedtheairworthinesscertificateEx.PW1/1on27.12.95whichwas valid till 27.01.97. Since PW6 was not having a nonschedule operatorspermitforleasingthehelicopterandthecompanyPushpak Aviation was having the same, he entered into an agreement with
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 121/213
PushpakAviation forleasing out the said helicopter. The company usedtoengagefreelancepilotsoncommissionbasisforaparticular job.ItalsohadpermanenttechnicalstaffwhichincludedPW9Sh.B R Pappara Senior Technician, PW15 Sh. Tukaram Technician, Sh. Verma and Sh. Dutta, helpers. According to PW44,the helicopter remainedavailablewithPushpakAviationforserviceswhichincluded filmshooting,charter,electioneeringandaerialsprayingonplantation. PW26 was the General Manager of Erry Sons Maliyalam Ltd. a plantationcompany.HehasstatedthatinMay/Junepriortoadventof Monsoon,theytaketheservicesofhelicopterfromPushpakAviation and Garuda Aviation for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation to preventgrowthofbacterias.Heplacedonrecordthecorrespondence Ex.PW26/AinthisregardandstatedthatIbrahimAssociatesPW28 wasthelocalagentofPushpakAviation. In1996hiscompanyhad contactedtheaviationcompanytotaketheservicesofhelicopterfor spraying chemicals on the rubber plantation to which the company respondedvideletterEx.PW26/B1andalsowrotealetterEx.PW26/B2 dated22.01.96confirmingtheproposalandthetermsandconditions. On 25.03.96 PW26 sent a letter to PW28 Ex.PW26/B4 giving the scheduleandtheareaforaerialsprayingfrom22.04.96to17.05.96
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 122/213
and paid an advance. An agreement was also entered into vide Ex.PW6/24B2.PW9hadalsocontactedPW28showinghisintention tovisittheplacesatKeralavideletterdated12.02.96Ex.PW28/B.The correspondence between Pushpak Aviation and Ibrahim Associates showsthatthesprayingworkwastobecompletedbythelastweekof AprilorthefirsthalfweekofMay1996. PW6couldnothonourhis commitmentandvideletterdated11.05.96itwascommunicatedtothe company by PW44 that the helicopter was being despatched on 11.05.96 from Phulpur to Mumbai and it would be immediately transportedtoKeralaenrouteMumbaiandwouldreachby17.05.96. PushpakAviationcouldnotexecutetheagreementandwrotealetter dated 16.05.96 Ex.PW6/24B to PW28 that due to unforeseen circumstancesbeyondtheircontrolthatafterelectioneeringinUP,the helicopterwasimpounded bythe High Politicianand unauthorisedly removedtoDelhiandthatthehelicopterhasalsosuffereddamages duetomishandlingbyunauthorisedpersonsduringtransportationand unloading at Delhi, they would not be in a position to make the helicopteravailableforthisseason.Thecompanytheninitiatedalegal actionagainstPushpakAviationforrecoveryofdues. PW26senta faxon23.05.96forrefundofadvanceandalsosentalegalnotice.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 123/213
PW28 sent a letter dated 30.05.96 Ex.PW6/24 B(4) to refund the advance.On25.01.97hereceivedaletterfromGarudaAviationasto theadjustmentofadvance. Theaforesaidamountwasadjustedand thematterwassettled.
ElectionofRomeshSharmaandmattersrelatingtohelicopter: 139.TestimonyofPW3,PW4andPW5showthattheaccusedRomesh Sharmacontestedtheelectionin1996from55Phulpurconstituency, Allahabadasanindependentcandidate.ThegeneralelectionstoLok Sabha were announced on 19.03.96 but the actual notification was issuedon27.03.96.AspertheletterEx.PW3/B,themaximumlimitof electionexpenditureforacontestingcandidateatthattimewasRs. 4,50,000/.AccordingtoPW3,fromthedate,theelectionwasnotified till it was complete, the candidate had to maintain an account in a proformaprescribedbytheCommissionandfileallthedocumentsto the District Election Office within one month from the date of declarationofresult.HeprovedthepressreleaseEx.PW3/A1,Gazette Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of election Ex.PW3/A3. According to PW3, Romesh Sharma had given an
124/213
affidavit of expenditure Ex.PW3/B2 on 09.06.96 and the details Ex.PW3/B1.Perusalofitrevealsthathehadusedthehelicopterinthe electionandpaidthechargesforfueletc.AccordingtoPW4,inthe eventofpurchaseofcar/helicopterduringtheperiodofelection,the price of the vehicle is not included in the expenses and only the amountspentondiesel/salaryofdriverisincludedintheexpenses. Theaccusedhasadmittedtohaveknowledgeofthisfact.PW3has stated that the election was held on 07.05.96 and the result was declared on 11.05.96 in which the accused Romesh Sharma got defeat.
140.IthascomeinthetestimonyofPW6thathewasintroducedtothe accusedRomeshSharmaaspolitician/propertydealerbyLalitBagla DW1andPW7RakeshGuptaofUnitedIndiaAirwaysduringhisvisit inDelhiinFebruary,1996attheirofficeatS41,PanchsheelPark.He wasaccompaniedbyhisMarketingExecutiveMahenderPujaraPW8. PW7,theManagingDirectorofUnitedIndiaAirwayshascorroborated histestimonyastothemeetingofPW6andPW8withtheaccused RomeshSharma.Theirtestimonydonotrevealthatanytalkastothe purchase/hiring of helicopter took place between PW6 and the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 125/213
accusedRomeshSharmainFebruary,1996.
141.TestimonyofPW6furtherrevealsthatinMarch,1996duringhisvisit at the house of the accused, the accused expressed his desire to contest the election and take the services of his helicopter for that purposeandalsoenquiredaboutitscostwhichwasRs.70lacs.On 24.03.96 evening, he received a telephone call from the accused askinghimtosendthehelicoptertoPhulpurwhomheaskedtoenter into an agreement of hiring with him on the terms and conditions mutuallyagreeable.PW6hasstatedthatafterthenegotiations,rates were settled as Rs. 80,000/ per day as hiring charges and other miscellaneousexpenses. PW6thenaskedPW8tosendthehiring termsbyfax.PW8hasstatedthatontheaskingofPW6,hesenta faxmessageEx.PW6/6on24.03.96toRomeshSharmamentioning thetermsandconditionsasstatedbyPW6.Perusalofitrevealsthatit wassentatabout10.15PMonthefaxno.6852828fromthefaxno. 91228073440 mentioning the hire charges, insurance charges, transportationchargesandairticketsfortheirstafftotalamountingto Rs.13lacs. Crossexaminationofthesewitnessesonthisaspectis conspicuous by its absence. Although the accused denied having
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 126/213
receivedthefaxmessagebutitwasheldinthecaseof BalKishan (Supra) that if there is no crossexamination on this aspect, the evidenceshallbedeemedtohavebeenadmitted.Ithasfurthercome inthetestimonyofPW6thattheaccusedhadtoldhimontelephone thathisbrotheraccusedHarishMishraandPW7wouldcontacthimat hisMumbaiofficeforfinalisationofhiringtermsconfirmingthereceipt offaxmessageandaskedhimtodespatchthehelicopter.PW6vide letter Ex.PW6/7 dated 25.03.96 making reference to his telephonic conversation regarding charter/hire of helicopter also reiterated the termsasstatedinthefaxandinformedthatitwouldbepositionedon 28.03.96 and would be available for operation from 29.03.96 to 12.04.96. PW6hasstatedthaton25.03.96accusedHarishMishra came to his office and enquired as to whether the helicopter was despatchedtoPhulpur. Hetoldtheaccusedthatthetransportwas beingarranged.DGCAwasinformedregardingdespatchofhelicopter toPhulpurandtransitinsurancewasgotdone.PW9corroboratedthis fact and proved the Journey log book Ex.PW6/29, Engine log book Ex.PW6/30, Aircraft log book Ex.PW6/31 and the Aircraft station apparatuslogbookEx.PW6/34.Hehasstatedthatthehelicopterwas dismantled,packedandloadedinatruckon26.03.96.TheMachines
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 127/213
wereunloadedatPhulpuron29.03.96andassembledonthesame day near the bungalow of Romesh Sharma and information to that effect was sent to the Director Airworthiness vide Ex.PW6/15 and Ex.PW6/16.PW6hasstatedthattheaccusedHarishMishrahadalso senthismanwhoaccompaniedwiththetrucktoPhulpur. PW9has statedthatSureshRaohadtoldhimthathelicopterwouldflythereupto 12.04.96andthereafter,itwouldproceedtoKeralaforundertakingan aerialspraycontractonrubberplantation. Perusaloftheinformation Ex.PW6/16 reveals that the helicopter had gone out on outstation contractforflyingatPhulpurAllahabadbyroadtransportanditwould remaintill12.04.96. ThecorrespondenceplacedwithMescoAirlines Ltd.dated07.08.96alsogoestoshowthatthehirechargesatthattime wereRs.72,000/perday. PW6hasstatedthatRs.17,000/were incurred towards transit insurance policy Ex.PW6/8, Rs. 50,000/ towardspurchaseoffuelandtwotruckswereengagedfromCentral CourierCorporationsfortransportationofhelicopterandfuelforRs. 30,030/videreceiptEx.PW6/13andGRsEx.PW6/11andEx.PW6/12 whereinontheGRPushpakAviationwasshownasConsignorandthe Consignee.
128/213
142.IthascomeintheevidenceofPW7thaton26.03.96atabout7.00 PMhewascalledbyRomeshSharmaandtoldthathisbrotherHarish MishrawouldseehimattheairportatMumbaion27.03.96ashewas hiring helicopter from PW6 who probably had despatched it on 26.03.96andalsoaskedhimtogowithHarishMishratotheofficeof PW6 to prepare a hiring agreement giving an envelope containing blankletterheadofRelianceDevelopersandInvestorsonwhichthe MOUofhiringwastobeprepared.Hehasstatedthaton27.03.96he wasreceivedattheAirportbyHarishMishra.Fromtheretheywentto theofficeofPW6whereRomeshSharmatalkedtoPW6overphone requiringPW6todrawanMOUforsaleofhelicopterinsteadofhiring so that the hiring charges might not be reflected in the election expensesandalsoassuredthatMOUwouldbedestroyedafterthe electionwouldbeover.HestatedthatinitiallyPW6wasreluctantbut thenaccededtohisrequestandagreedtodrawanMOUtellingthathe has no option since he has already despatched the helicopter. Testimony of PW6 reveals that on a letter head of Reliance DevelopersanMOUEx.PW6/14waspreparedinduplicateonwhich accusedHarishMishraandhesigned. HegaveonecopytoHarish Mishraandretainedtheother. HarishMishrapaidhimRs.1.0lacin
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 129/213
cashandhandedoverRs.2.0lacstoPW32towardshirecharges. Perusaloftheagreementwouldshowthatitwaspredatedpurporting tobeexecutedon24.02.96.ThetotalconsiderationwasfixedasRs. 30lacs.Aspertheterms,ondespatchRs.3.0lacswerepaid,Rs.7.0 lacswouldbepaidonorbefore29.03.96andthebalanceofRs.20 lacswouldbepaidbeforethecommencementoffirstflightandthe transferofownershipwouldbeeffectedonlyafterthepaymentoffull andfinalamount.TheaccusedHarishMishraatnostagedisputedhis signaturesontheaforesaidpredatedagreement.Theelectionswere announcedon19.03.96.Itisdifficulttovisualisefromthesefactsasto whatpromptedtheaccusedenterintoapredatedMOUshowingthe dateofexecutionas24.02.96.
143.IthasfurthercomeinthetestimonyofPW6thatafterdepartureof the helicopter he telephoned Romesh Sharma to make further paymenttowardsthehirecharges. AccusedRomeshSharmaasked himtocometoDelhion30.03.96.PW6wenttoDelhi.Hereceived threechequesofRs.1.0laceachEx.PW6/17to19.AccusedRomesh SharmaproducedanotherMOUEx.PW6/20onastamppapertosign andwhenhequestioned,heansweredthattheearlierMOUwasnota
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 130/213
legaldocumentandmightbeobjectedbytheElectionCommissionas itwasnotonastamppaper. Hethensignedtheagreementinthe presenceofMDBhojwaniandSansarChandandthenleftforMumbai on 30.03.96 by air. He proved the air tickets Ex.PW6/22 and Ex.PW6/23.PW30SansarChandwhousedtodothepoliticalworkof Romesh Sharma also corroborated this fact that the agreement Ex.PW6/20wasexecutedon30.03.96onwhichheandMDBhojwani hadsignedaswitnesses.PerusalofMOUEx.PW6/20revealsthatthe MOU was entered showing the date of its execution as 24.02.96, althoughthestamppaperwaspurchasedon29.03.96fromPW13and theagreementEx.PW6/20didnothavethereferenceofearlierMOU Ex.PW6/14whichwasexecutedontheletterhead. PW27whowas theSecretaryofRomeshSharmahasalsoadmittedtohavetypediton thatday. Questionnowarises,aspertheearlierMOURs.3.0lacs wereshowntohavebeenpaidandthesaidMOUwasshowntobe executedon24.02.96sowhyonthesamedayi.e.24.02.96videMOU Ex.PW6/20,thepaymentwasshownasRs.8.0lacs.Thefactofthe matteristhatnopaymentwasmadeon24.02.96bytheaccusedwhich datewasshownontheaboveMOUs.Thechequesandthestatement of accounts produced by PW35, PW36, PW37, PW43, PW51,
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 131/213
PW53,PW54andPW61alsoshowthatbefore27.03.96nopayment wasmadetoPW6andonlyRs.6.0lacswerepaidtill30.03.96.PW6 hasalsofiledtheLedgeraccountsdulyauditedEx.PW6/41maintained byGarudaAviationvisavisthetransactionwiththeaccusedRomesh Sharmashowingtheaforesaidpaymenttowardsthehirechargesand nottowardsthesaleconsideration.Eventhecorrespondenceplaced on record and the testimony of PW9 show that the helicopter was givenonhireandwasnotsoldtotheaccusedRomeshSharma.Asis apparentfromtherecordthatthemaximumexpensestobeincurredin electionbyacandidatewaslimiteduptoRs.4.5lacsbutthecharges itselfforhireofthehelicopterwouldbearoundRs.13lacs.
Transportation of Helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai which did not happen: 144.TestimonyofPW3showsthattheelectionatPhulpurConstituency washeldon07.05.96andtheresultwasdeclaredon11.05.96.PW9 on10.05.96sentafaxtoPW6thatRomeshSharmahasnotreached Allahabadandthearrangementstodespatchthemachineandtostart theworkofsprayingatKeralawasatstake.PW9sentafaxtoGirish
132/213
RaoPW44on10.05.96videEx.PW9/2thathehasbookedaroad carrier to carry the helicopter and requested him to arrange transit insurance. On11.05.96aTruckbearingno.MH04C5333videGR No.3862fromSherePunjabRoadwaysAllahabadreachedthere.
145.PerusalofthedocumentswouldshowthatintheLogbook,lastentry offlyingthehelicopterwasshownupto07.05.96videEx.PW9/14.The flight commenced from 30.03.96 at Ugarsen Pur vide entry Ex.PW11/A. TheentryEx.PW9/8onthelogbookofAircraftreflects that the helicopter was partially dismantled on 11.05.96 for road transportationtoMumbai.ThetestimonyofPW21,theProp.ofAzad GoldenRoadlinesshowsthatthetruckwasprovidedtoPW25,the ProprietorofSherePunjabon11.05.96fortransportationofhelicopter fromUgarsenPurtoMumbaiat8.33AM.PW23wasthedriveronthe saidtruckwithPW24asCleaner. Thetruckwasparkedinfrontof house of the accused Romesh Sharma where the helicopter was loaded. Fuel and spare parts had already been sent to Mumbai in anothertruckon09.05.96asisevidentfromthetestimonyofPW9 whosentitvideGREx.PW9/1.
133/213
TransportationofhelicopterfromPhulpurtoDelhi:
146.ThetestimonyofthewitnessesPW9,PW14,PW15,PW19PW21, PW22,PW23andPW24andthedocumentsandtheGR/LRreveal thatwhenthetruckwasloadedfromMumbaitoPhulpur,theconsignor and the consignee of the helicopter were Pushpak Aviation. The transitinsurancewasfromMumbaitoPhulpurandnotforDelhi. In order to transport the helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai after the election,PW9hadrequestedPW6toarrangetransitinsurance.The helicopterduringtheelectionremainedinthephysicalpossessionof crew members/ techniciansof PW6 and itwasneverparted with. Theymadealltherelevantentriesinthelogbook/journeybookofthe helicopter. On the programme given by PW44, arrangement was madetotakethehelicoptertoKeralaenrouteMumbai. PW9had arrangedtwotrucksfromSherePunjabRoadways.On09.05.96,in oneofthetruck,fuelandsparepartsweresent.On11.05.96theother truckofSherePunjabcameatUgarsenPurinfrontofthebungalow ofRomeshSharmawherethehelicopterwasparked. PW9andhis crewmembersdismantledthehelicopterandgotitloadedforcarrying toMumbai.Whenitwasbeingloaded,noneofthepersonsobjected.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 134/213
Thetestimonyofthewitnessesandtherecordfurthershowthatthe accusedAvtarSinghAhluwalia,M.D.Bhojwani,Avdesh,Indermani, Manoj and Naveen Budhiraja used to campaign for the accused Romesh Sharma in the election. Avtar Singh was an old friend of RomeshSharma.M.D.Bhojwaniwashisneighbourandhadarranged thefoodandlodgingforthepersonswhohadcampaignedforRomesh Sharmaintheelection. AvdeshandIndermaniwerethenephewof RomeshSharma.Theaccusedpersonsintheirstatementsrecorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also admitted to have campaigned for the accusedRomeshSharmaintheelection.ThetestimonyofPW9and othercrewmembersrevealthatwhentheyweretyingthepartsofthe helicopter,noneoftheaccusedpersonsobjected. Aftersometime, the accused persons alongwith some more persons came in two vehicles armed with lathis and weapons. They got down from the vehiclesandthreatenedthathelicopterwouldnotbetakentoMumbai anditwouldgotoDelhiasinstructedbyRomeshSharma.Theywere more in numbers and also climbed on the truck to unload the helicopter. TheyalsothreatenedthemtoremaininBungalowandto accompanythemtoDelhiwiththetruck. Whenthetruckdrivertold themthathedidnothavethepermittogotoDelhi,accusedAvtar
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 135/213
Singh Ahluwalia arranged another truck and brought it there. The helicopterwasunloadedfromthetruckandloadedinanothertruck arrangedbyAvtarSinghAhluwalia. ItwasescortedfromPhulpurto Delhiby34vehicles.WhenPW14wenttoSTDboothatHotelYatrik, AllahabadandtoldtheincidenttoPW29,headvisedhimtolodgethe complaintbuthiswifeintervenedandtoldhimthattheaccusedhada greatinfluenceatAllahabadastherehadalreadybeenincidentofarm clashintheelection.Theirtestimonyshowthattheaccusedpersons tooklawintheirhands,gotunloadedthedismantledhelicopterfrom the truck and took it to Delhi by use of force, though the record indicates that the constructive/physical possession of the truck was withPW6/hismen.
TransferofOwnershipinthenameofRomeshSharmaandassemblyof HelicopterathisFarmHouse: 147.ThetestimonyofPW6showsthaton11.05.96hewasinformedby PW9thatthehenchmenofaccusedRomeshSharmaoffloadedthe helicopterfromthetruckandtriedtotakecaptivetheEngineersand
136/213
threatened them that they have been instructed by the accused Romesh Sharma to take the helicopter to Delhi. On 12.05.96, he telephonedRomeshSharmawhotoldhimnottoworryandaskedhim tocometoDelhion14.05.96statingthatbythattimethehelicopter wouldalsoreachDelhi. On14.05.96hereachedDelhiviaairticket Ex.PW6/25,wenttothehouseoftheaccusedatMayfairGardenand enquiredtowhichtheaccusedtoldhimthathelicopterishisproperty anditisinhispossession.Afterfewhourswhenheagainaskedhim toreturnhishelicopterandmakepaymenttowardsthehirecharges, theaccusedtoldhimtoforgetaboutthehelicopterasthesamehas becomehispropertynowandatthemosthewouldbeentitledtothe paymentrelatingtothehelicopter.On15.05.96heagainrequestedthe accusedtoreturnthehelicopterandmakepaymenttowardsthehire chargesbuttheaccuseddidnotbudgeandthreatenedthathewas connectedwithDawoodIbrahimandhisassociatesandifhedidnot follow his instructions, he would face dire consequences and also scaredhimofhisproximitywithAbuSalemandIrfanGoga.Hewas scared and thought to recover whatever money he could get. The accused gavehim ademand draftofRs.2.0 lacsEx.PW6/26. He returnedtoMumbaion15.05.96viaairticketEx.PW6/27.Aftersome
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 137/213
time,heagaintelephonedRomeshSharmawhoaskedhimtobring theoriginaldocumentsofhelicopteralongwithanaffidavitrequiredfor itstransferandtoldthathewouldmakethepaymentthereafter. He discussedthematterwithhisAdvocateRAShahPW10astowhat shouldbehiscourseofactionwhichshouldbeasperlaw. Hegot preparedtheaffidavitEx.PW2/A3andcametoDelhion04.06.96with theaffidavitandthelogbooks.RAShahcameon05.06.96.Bothof themwentto MayfairGarden where theymetRakeshGupta PW7. AccusedRomeshSharmawasalsowithhisAdvocateMaheshGupta PW17.MaheshGuptawaswritingsomethingonadocumentwholeft thereafter. Accused Romesh Sharma then asked him to sign an agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33. PW6 has stated that his Advocate (PW10)hadalsoadvisedhimtotakethepaymentfirstandthensign thedocumentsbuttheaccusedgotfurious,snatchedthedocuments fromPW6,tookhiminaroomandremindedofhisconnectionwith Dawood Ibrahim gang. PW6 got scared of him and signed the affidavitonwhichhisAdvocate(PW10)alsosigned.
148.PW7corroboratedthetestimonyofPW6onallmaterialaspects.He has stated that on 11.05.96 he received a call from PW6 that the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 138/213
helicopterwasforciblytakenbythemenofRomeshSharma.Hewas calledbySureshRaotocomeatthehouseoftheaccusedRomesh Sharmaon05.06.96tosortoutthematter. PW17,theAdvocateof RomeshSharmawashavingadraftofagreement.PW17discussedit withRomeshSharmaandonthesuggestionsofRomeshSharma,he made some changes and thereafter he left. The agreement after correctionsremainedwiththeaccusedRomeshSharma.
149.PW10alsocorroboratedthetestimonyofPW6.Hehasstatedthat on knowing from PW6 that the accused was neither returning the helicopternorpayingthehirecharges,headvisedPW6totakelegal action.HewastoldbyPW6thattheaccusedhadaskedhimtoforget aboutthehelicopterandsignthedocuments.Heagainadvisedhimto takeactionbutPW6toldhimthathewasscaredoftheaccusedand woulddowhatevertheaccusedwantedhimtodo. Heaskedhimto come to Delhi on 05.06.96 as PW6 wanted to execute some documents,whichhewantedtoshowtohimbeforesigning.Hecame toDelhiviaairticketEx.PW6/35andwentwithPW6tothehouseof accusedwherePW17alsocamewhomtheaccusedaskedtomake correctionsintheagreement.PW17leftaftermakingcorrectionsin
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 139/213
theagreement.PW17hasstatedthattheagreementEx.PW6/33was drafted by him on 14.05.96 on the instructions of accused Romesh SharmaafterseeingtheearlierMOUsEx.PW6/14andEx.PW6/20.On receiptofcallfromRomeshSharma,hewenttohishousewherePW6 andPW10werepresent. Theywantedtodiscusssomethingabout theagreementastheyhadsomereservations. Afterdiscussion,he made some corrections in the agreement Ex.PW6/33, however, the saidagreementwasnotsignedbythepartiesinhispresence.
150.TestimonyofPW6furthershowsthattheaccusedwantedtoseethe documents.WhenhisAdvocatePW10objectedandadvisedthatthey should part with the agreement only on receiving the payment, the accusedgotangryandabusedPW10,snatchedthedocumentsfrom him (PW6). He then called V K Luthra. When Luthra put the documentsonthetable,theaccusedgotfurious.Hescoldedandbeat Luthra. He(PW6)andPW10gotscared. Theaccusedthenlifted himtohisofficechamberwhereheremindedhimofhisconnection withDawoodIbrahimandhisassociatesandthreatenedthatincase hewouldnotsignthedocument,hewouldkillhim.Hehasstatedthat fromtheofficechamber,accusedbroughthimtotheplacewherehis
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 140/213
Advocate(PW10)wassitting. Heaskedhimtosignthedocuments andtheagreement.Inthesecircumstances,hehadnochoicebutto signthedocuments.HisAdvocatePW10alsosignedontheaffidavit aswitness. PW6hasstatedthatthecertificateofregistrationwas withPW18whichfacthasalsocomeinthetestimonyofPW18who hadtakenitasacollateralsecurityagainstthepaymentofthespare parts of the helicopter vide Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5. PW6hasstatedthatwhenhetoldthisfacttotheaccused,hetoldhim toaskNeerajBhatiaPW18tobringthecertificatetohishouse.PW6 thenrequestedPW18tobringthecertificateofregistration,whoafter sometimecamewiththecertificate.Theaccusedthenaskedhimto handoverthecertificateofregistrationstatingthathehaspurchased thehelicopter. WhenPW18toldtheaccusedthatRs.18lacswere duetohimtowardsthecostofsparepartsandthatPW6hasalready entered into an agreement with him and showed the accused the agreementEx.PW6/5,theaccusedtoldPW18thathewouldmakethe paymentofRs.18lacs. Onhisassurance,PW18handedoverthe certificateofregistrationEx.PW2/A5totheaccusedonwhichhealso signedasitwasoneoftherequirementforitstransfer. However,no moneywaspaidbytheaccusedtoPW18onthatdayorthereafter.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 141/213
PW6hasstatedthatontheassurancegivenbyhimtotheaccused thattheywouldnotlodgeanyreportwiththepolice,theyflewoutvia airticketEx.PW6/35.Theaccusedinhisstatementhasalsoadmitted ofhisenteringintotheagreementEx.PW6/33,takingintheaffidavit andlogbooksfromPW6andreceivingtheregistrationcertificatefrom PW18on05.06.96.
151.I have seen the agreement Ex.PW6/33. It is shown to have been executedon14.05.96bearingthesignatureoftheaccusedandPW6 containing some corrections. The handwriting Expert report Ex.PW94/8 also proves the signatures of the accused on the agreement.Inpara4ofthesaidagreement,ithasbeenagreedthat thepurchasershallpaytothesellerbalancesaleconsiderationofRs. 18lacsuponexecutionofdocumentsoftransfer.Thesaidagreement wasnotwitnessedbyanyonenorwasgotattestedfromanyone.The testimonyofwitnessesshowthatthesaidagreementwassignedby thepartiesnoton14.05.96,thedayofitsexecutionbuton05.06.96.It alsofindsareferenceofanMOUdated24.02.96Ex.PW6/20. The saidagreementtoselliscontrarytothefactscontainingintheaffidavit Ex.PW2/A3whereinitwaswrittenthatthehelicopterhasacleartitle
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 142/213
andPW6hasreceivedthesaleproceedstowardsthehelicopterinfull and final. The affidavit also bears the date of 05.06.96 and the signatureofPW6.TherecordshowsthattheaccusedhadpaidRs.8 lacsonlybythattime. Theaffidavithasan attestationofa Notary PublicalthoughPW6hasstatedthathedidnotgotoanyAdvocateor theNotaryPublicforitsattestation. RecordshowsthatVKLuthra hadidentifiedPW6SureshRaoanditwasattestedbyPW12.PW12 hasalsoadmittedthisfactinhistestimonythattheexecutantPW6 andthewitnessPW10werenotpresentwhenheattestedtheaffidavit.
152.IthascomeinthetestimonyofPW1thatforchangeofownership, originalcertificateofregistrationdulyendorsedonitsreversebythe previousowneralongwithanaffidavitbythepreviousownerthathe hasreceivedtheconsiderationinfullandanapplicationinFormCA28 from the owner, is required. In this case, the accused with the applicationhadsubmittedallthesedocumentsonthebasisofwhich theownershipwastransferredinhisnamevidecertificateEx.PW2/D. Theaccusedhadalsorequestedtoissuechangeofthefirstpageof the Journey log book which request was also allowed and the first pagewasissuedon02.07.96videletterEx.PW2/A16.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 143/213
153.Testimony of PW6 and the documents i.e. the cheques and the statement of accounts would show that after the transfer of the helicopter,theaccusedRomeshSharmamadepartpaymentofRs.1.0 Lac on 17.06.96 vide receipt Ex.PW6/36, Rs. 1.0 lac on 24.06.96 through the accused Harish Mishra vide receipt Ex.PW6/37,Rs. 1.0 Lacon05.07.96videreceiptEx.PW6/38andRs.1.0Lacon16.07.96 videreceiptEx.PW6/39.
154.OnthemannerofexecutionofdocumentsbyPW6,thetestimonyof PW7andPW10iscogentandconsistent. Nothingcanbeinferred fromtheirtestimonythattheyhavedeposedatthebehestofPW6to falselyimplicatetheaccused. Ithasalsocome inthetestimonyof PW18thattilldatehedidnotgettheamountofRs.18lacs,although hisDirectorMajorGaonkarhadregularlyaskedtheaccusedtomake thepayment. Assembly oftheHelicopteratJaiMataDiFarmHouseatChattarpur, NewDelhi:
155.It has come in the evidence of PW6 that the accused Romesh
144/213
SharmahadaskedhimtosendhisEngineerstotheFarmHouse to assemble the helicopters stating that he would make the payment thereafter. HisEngineerPW9andhisbrotherPW44cametoDelhi on24.06.96,ofwhose,theairticketswerearrangedbyHarishMishra. PW9 also stated that on 24.06.96, he came with PW44 at the instance of PW6 and met the accused. He stated that since the helicopter was not maintained during the period from 11.05.96 to 26.06.96, he had to take some clarifications from the Director, Airworthiness,Mumbaiashispermissionwasrequired.Whenhetold the accused Romesh Sharma that he was advised by Director Airworthiness to remain in touch, the accused got annoyed, caught holdofhiscollarandhitonhisface.Hesustainedinjuriesonhislips andbled.HestatedthatRomeshSharmaalsothreatenedhimthatif he did not cooperate, he would get his legs cut. When PW44 requestedtheaccusednottohitPW9,accusedRomeshSharmaalso punchedhim. Hestatedthatafterobtainingpermission,hewiththe helpoftwotechniciansassembledthehelicopterandmadeentryin thelogbookgivenbytheaccusedRomeshSharma.Hestatedthathe didnotlodgethereportsincehewasfrightened.PW44alsodeposed ontheselinesandstatedthathewasalsoassaulted.Hestatedthat
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 145/213
hedidnotmakefurtherpaymentofinsuranceandhadwrittentothe insurancecompanyvideletterEx.PW6/DAthatthehelicopterwassold toRomeshSharma,sothatthefurtherpremiumcouldbepaidbythe accused.
156.ItwasarguedbyLd.Counselfortheaccusedpersonsthatthestory ofhiringthehelicopterwasconcoctedbyPW6,whowasmadepuppet by CBI which investigated the matter on the directions of the Governmentwhichhadpoliticalvendettaagainsttheaccusedasthe accusedwantedtoexposethecorruptministersoftheGovernment. Ld. Counsel stated that the MOUs Ex.PW6/14, Ex.PW6/20 and the agreementtosellEx.PW6/33,affidavitEx.PW2/A3andthepayments madebytheaccusedgotoshowthatthehelicopterwaspurchasedby theaccusedandwasnottakenonhire.Itfailedtoexplainastowhy theaccusedwouldpayRs.13lacsashirechargestoPW6whenthe costofthehelicopterwasRs.30lacs.Ld.Counselfurtherarguedthat PW6atnostageproducedthehireagreementandtheentriesmade intheledgerdonotbearthesignatureoftheaccusedatthepointof time. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section 91 of the EvidenceActtocontendthatwhentherearewrittendocuments,the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 146/213
oraltestimonydoesnothaveanymeaning.Theaforesaidagreements clearlyshowthatthehelicopterwassoldtotheaccusedbyPW6and wasnotgivenonhire.Ld.CounselstatedthatifPW6hadtotakeany duesfromtheaccused,hewouldhavefiledacivilsuitforrecoveryof thesaidamount.Ld.Counselstatedthatthedispute,ifanyisofcivil natureandnocriminalitycanbefastenedontheaccusedpersons.
157.Ld. Counsel further contended that the PW6 had filed a suit for DeclarationandMandatoryInjunctionbeforeHonbleHighCourtwhich suitwasdismissedbyHonbleHighCourtforwantofevidence. Ld. CounselstatedthatthematterintheCivilSuitandtheallegationsin thepresentcasedirectlyorsubstantiallyarethesame. Findinghas already come from the Civil Court which isbinding on the Criminal Courtastothetitle. Ld.CounselreferredtheprovisionsofSection 4042oftheEvidenceActandthecasetitled VeerPrakashSharma Vs.AnilKumarAgarwal&Anr.JT2007(10)SC57,JosephZacharia Vs. Joseph Kuriakose AIR 1992 Kerala 103, Bishnudeo Narain Vs. SeogeniRai AIR(38)1951,SC280,RamadossVs.Muniammal AIR 1965 Madras 452, Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd., Criminal Appeal No. 833 of 2002 decided on 20.07.06 by Honble
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 147/213
SupremeCourt,RoopKumarVs.MohanThadaniAIR2003SC2418, KGPremshankarVs.InspectorofPoliceAIR2002SC3372,Kishan Singh (D) Vs. Gurpal Singh AIR 2010 SC 3624, Daya Sapra Vs. VishnuDuttSharma2008IIAD(Delhi)84andRameshChandGupta Vs. Union of India 2009 (2) JCC 826 to contend that no case of cheatingismadeoutagainsttheaccused.
158.Inordertoappreciatetherivalstand,itwouldbeusefultonoticethe statutory provisions. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for cheatinganddishonestlyinducingdeliveryofproperty.Toconstitutean offenceundersection420IPC,followingingredientsmustexist: i) ii) Thattherepresentationmadebytheaccusedwasfalse; Thattheaccusedknewthattherepresentationwasfalseatthe verytimewhenhemadeit; iii) That the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention of deceiving the person to whom it was made;and iv) That the accused thereby induced that person to deliver any propertyortodoortoomittodosomethingwhichhewould otherwisenothavedoneoromitted.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 148/213
159.ItwasheldinthecaseofHridayaRanjanPrasadVermaandOthers Vs.StateofBihar(2000)4SCC168thatindeterminingthequestion, ithastobekeptinmindthatthedistinctionbetweenmerebreachof contractandtheoffenceofcheatingisafineone.Itdependsuponthe intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judgedbyhissubsequentconduct. Merebreachofcontractcannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonestintentionisshownrightatthebeginningofthetransaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore,itistheintentionwhichisthegistoftheoffence. 160.The above observations were reiterated in the case of Indian Oil Corporation(Supra).InthecaseofJosephZacharia(Supra)there wereallegationsofundueinfluenceandcoercionandthepartyhad sufficienttimeandopportunitytodisputethevalidityofagreementbut didnottakeanyaction.Itwasheldthattheagreementwasnotvitiated byundueinfluenceorcoercion.InthecaseofBishnudeo(Supra),it was held that though pleas of undue influence and coercion may overlapinpartinsomecases,theyareseparablecategoriesinlaw andmustbeseparatelypleaded.InthecaseofRamadoss(Supra),it
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 149/213
was held that it is only where a fraudulent representation leads to discovery of property, which is dishonestly retained, then the ingredients of Section 415 IPC are established. Otherwise, every debtorwhorepudiateshiscivilliability,onsomefalsepretextorthe other,wouldbeguiltyofcheatingandthatisnotthelaw.Inthecaseof IndianOilCorporation (Supra),itwasheldthatagivensetoffacts maymakeoutpurelyacivilwrongorpurelyacriminaloffenceorcivil wrongaswellascriminaloffence.Thecriminalproceedingsarenota cutshortofotherremedies,ifthematterisessentiallyofcivilnature. The intention of the person who induces the victim of his representationandnotthenatureofthetransactionisparamount. 161.Fromtheabovepropositionoflaw,itisclearthatitisonlywherea dishonest misrepresentation or fraudulent representation leads to deliveryofpropertyordishonestlyretentionofproperty,theingredients of Section 415 IPC are established. Otherwise, every person who repudiates his civil liability on some false pretext or other would be guilty of cheating and that is not the law. It isthe intention of the personwhoinducesthevictimbyhisrepresentationandnotthenature of the transaction which would be decisive. The intention of the
150/213
accusedmaybeinferredfromhissubsequentconductalso.
162.Section91ofEvidenceActrelatestoevidenceoftermsofcontract, grants and other disposition of properties reduced in the form of document.Itmerelyforbidsprovingthecontentsofawritingotherwise thenbywritingitself.InthecaseofRoopKumarVs.MohanThadani AIR2003SC2418itwasheldthatwhenajuralactisembodiedina single memorial, all other utterance of the parties on the topic are legallyimmaterialforthepurposeofdeterminingwhatarethetermsof theiract.Thisruleisbaseduponanassumedintentiononthepartof contractingparties,evidencedbytheexistenceofwrittencontractto placethemselvesabovetheuncertaintiesoforalevidenceandona disinclinationoftheCourtstodefeatthisobject.Itislikewiseageneral andmostinflexiblerulethatwhereverwritteninstrumentsareadopted, either by requirement of law or by contract of parties to be their repositories and memories of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used either in a substitute from such instruments to contradictoralterthem.
163.InthecaseofKGPremShankarVs.InspectorofPoliceAIR2002
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 151/213
SC3372itwasheldthat(i)thepreviousjudgmentwhichisfinalcanbe relieduponasprovidedU/s40to43oftheEvidenceAct;(ii)inCivil Suitsbetweenthesamepartiesprincipleofresjudicatamayapply;(iii) inacriminalcaseSection300Cr.P.C.makesaprovisionthatoncea person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the sameoffenceiftheconditionsmentionedthereinaresatisfied;(iv)if thecriminalcaseandthecivilproceedingsareforthesamecause, judgmentofCivilCourtwouldberelevantifconditionsofanyofthe sections 40 to 43 are satisfied but it cannot be said that the same amountedtoconclusiveexceptasprovidedinSection41.Section41 provides,whichjudgmentwouldbeconclusiveproofofwhatisstated therein. The Court has to decide to what extent, it is binding or conclusivewithregardtothematterdecidedtherein.Itwasheldinthe caseof M/sKaramchandGangaPershadVs.UnionofIndia AIR 1971 SC 1244 that it is well established principle of law that the decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts. The converse is not true. The simultaneous proceedings of a civil and criminalcaseispermissible.InthecaseofDayaSapra (Supra),the caseofJaegerCo.Ltd.Vs.Jaeger(1929)46RPC336wasreferred whereitwasheldthateveryjudgmentisconclusiveproofasagainst
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 152/213
thepartiesandpriviesoffactsdirectlyinissueinthecaseactually decidedintheCourtandappearingfromthejudgmentitselftobethe ground on which it was based. The principles laid down in K G Premshankar(Supra)casewerealsofollowedinthecaseofRamesh Chand(Supra).
164.Here,thequestionisastowhetherthecivilsuitdismissedsimplicitor forwantofevidencebindsaCriminalCourtevenifthepartieswerethe same and the matter directly or substantially in the issue was the same. In the Civil Suit filed by PW6, after framing the issues, no evidencewasledbyPW6andthesuitwasdismissedsimplicitorfor wantofevidence.TherewasnofindingonmeritfromtheCivilCourt between the parties that the helicopter in question was legally purchased by the accused or the agreement or the MOUs or the documentsusedfortransferofthehelicopterwerenotgotexecuted fromPW6underundueinfluenceorcoercion.Thatbeingtheposition, it cannot be said that the matter directly or substantially has been decidedbytheCourtofcompetentjurisdictionandithasattainedits finality.Itwassimplicitoradismissalandtherefore,wouldnotoperate asresjudicataonthisCourt. Section41oftheEvidenceActisalso
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 153/213
inapplicable here. The criminal case in the present case was registeredintheyear1998andtheCivilSuitwasinstitutedintheyear 1999.
165.AsregardstheapplicabilityofSection91oftheEvidenceAct,itisto be seen under what circumstances the aforesaid MOUs and the affidavit were executed by PW6. After the verbal communication between the parties, the fax message was sent by PW8 to the accusedmentioningthetermsandconditionsofhireofthehelicopter. AnotherletterwaswrittenbyPW6totheaccusedreiteratingtheterms andconditionsofhire.ThefirstMOUi.e.PW6/14wasexecutedafter thehelicopterwasdespatched. ThecorrespondencemadebyPW9 withtheDirectorAviationshowsthatthehelicopterwassenttoPhulpur oncontractupto15.04.96whichwasextendedtill07.05.96.PW6had alsoenteredintoanagreementwithPW26andPW28forsendingthe helicopter for spraying the chemicals on rubber plantation in Kerala andhadreceivedanadvance.TheMOUsEx.PW6/14andEx.PW6/20 wereexecutedpredated. ThetestimonyPW6,PW7,PW8,PW9, PW11 and PW14andthe entriesin the Account books of Garuda AviationEx.PW6/41showthatthehelicopterinquestionwasgivenon
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 154/213
hireonly.PW6hadalreadyanagreementwithPW18wherethecost ofthe helicopterwasestimated as Rs. 40 lacs. There appears no basisastowhyshouldPW6sellthehelicopteratthepriceofRs.30 lacs to the accused Romesh Sharma. There were repeated assurances from the accused that after the election, the helicopter wouldbereturnedandthehirechargeswouldbepaidandthatthe agreement/MOUs had been executed just as a smoke screen to camouflagetheelectionexpenses,forwhichthelimitofexpenseswas fixedasRs.4.5lacsbytheElectionCommission.Thepartpayments weremadebytheaccusedeitherbyhimorthroughHarishMishra,his brother even after the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3.TheaccusedhadpromisedPW18topayRs.18lacsbut didnotpayanything.PW18recoveredtheamountfromPW6byfiling acase.
166.As regards contention, why the accused would pay Rs. 13 lacs towardsthehirechargeswhenthecostofthehelicopterwasRs.30 lacs, the record shows that when PW6 entered into an MOU with PW18andpledgedtheregistrationcertificateasacollateralsecurity, he had estimated the value of the helicopter as Rs. 40 lacs. The
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 155/213
helicopterfurtherrequiredrecurringmaintenanceandoperationwhich workinnormalcircumstancesisdonebytheAviationcompany. To avoidrecurringexpensesofmaintenance,operationandotherrunning expenses,generally,itseemsreasonableforapersontogoforhiring oftheaircraft.FactsandcircumstancesshowthatPW6neveragreed tosellthehelicoptertotheaccusedRomeshSharmaforRs.30lacs.
167.Facts and circumstances further show that there was no transit insurancefromPhulpurtoDelhi.Therewereinstructionstothecrew members and technicians from PW6 that the helicopter after the electionwastobetakentoKeralaenrouteMumbaiforundertaking anotherwork.Therewasnoobstruction/resistancefromtheaccused RomeshSharmawhenthefuelandsparepartsofhelicopterweresent to Mumbai on 09.05.96. It was PW9 who arranged the truck for carryingthehelicoptertoMumbaiandwhenitwasbeingtied,PW9 andotherswereobstructedbytheaccusedpersonswhocameintwo vehicles armed with lathis. They were threatened with dire consequences. AccusedAvtarSinghhiredanothertruckforcarrying the helicopter to Delhi which was escorted by 45 vehicles. The accusedRomeshSharmaoneveryoccasionhadassuredPW6that
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 156/213
thehelicopterwastakenonhiretohoodwinktheelectionexpenses. WhenthehelicopterwasfinallytakentoDelhi,eventhentheaccused didnottellPW6thatithasbecomehisproperty.WhenPW6cameat the house of the accused on 14.05.96, the accused made his dishonestintentionclearthatthehelicopterhasbecomehisproperty andthreatenedhimwithdireconsequencesthathewasthemanof DawoodIbrahim. HehadfurtherthreatenedthatifPW6wouldnot follow his instructions, he would eliminate him. The accused had furthertoldhimtocomewiththeoriginaldocuments,logbooksandthe affidavit.Theaccusedon05.06.96byextendingthreatstoPW6and PW10,obtainedthesignaturesofPW6ontheagreementEx.PW6/33 and an affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 interalia that he has received the full considerationfromtheaccusedthoughfactofthematterwasthateven atthattimehehadtopayRs.22lacstoPW6.Thebankaccountof the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra showed negligible balancewhichalsocastdoubtastotheintentionorthecapacityofthe accusedRomeshSharmatopurchasethehelicopter. 168.ItisnodoubttruethatPW6hadexecutedallthedocumentsofsale but the above facts make it abundantly clear that the aforesaid
157/213
documentswerenotexecutedvoluntarilybyPW6butwereobtained byusingforce,fraud,coercionandimminentthreatstoPW6.
169.Iamoftheviewthatthecaseoftheaccusedisnotcoveredunder Section91oftheEvidenceAct.Theoralevidenceisrelevantandhas directbearingonthiscase anditwill alsohaveprecedenceonthe documents/MOUsexecutedbyPW6. AbarelookatSection90of theIndianPenalCodestatesthecircumstanceswhenconsentceases tobevalidconsentandisvitiated.Section90provides:Aconsentis notsuchaconsentasitintendedbyanysectionofthisCode,ifthe consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconceptionoffact,andifthepersondoingtheactknows,orhas reasontobelieve,thattheconsentwasgiveninconsequenceofsuch fearormisconception.
170.Thatistosay,thatthepartiesshouldbeadidem,i.e.mustbeofthe same intention concerning the matter agreed upon. If consent is obtained by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake,theverycontractisvitiated. 171.TestimonyofPW6clearlyshowsthathisconsenttoenterintoMOU
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 158/213
Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20 was obtained by dishonest mis representationbytheaccused.TheagreementtosellEx.PW6/33and theaffidavitEx.PW2/A3wereobtainedbyextendingthreats/coercion byterrorisinghimbytheaccusedRomeshSharmabythenamesof DawoodIbrahimandhisassociatesandhisconnectionwiththem.
172.DishonestintentionofaccusedRomeshSharmaisalsoclearfromthe facts that during elections speeches he had allured the people of Phulpurthathehaspurchasedthehelicopterforthemanditwouldbe usedforthem.Butaftertheelection,heneveruseditforthepeopleof Phulpurasclaimedbyhimintheelectionspeeches.Heimmediately directed his men to take the helicopter to Delhi and also contacted PW45andPW64,theseniorpersonsofRelianceIndustriesgiving thepapersofthehelicopterfortheuseofRelianceIndustriesorforits sale. Thetestimonyofthewitnessesshowthatthosepaperswere handed over by PW45 and PW64 to CBI during the investigation. Facts and circumstances further show that the intention of accused RomeshSharmawastograbthehelicopterbyusingallillegalmeans bygivingallurementtoPW6andlaterbyextendingthreatsthathe was the man of underworld Don and coerced him to execute the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 159/213
documentspurportingtohavesoldthehelicopter,thoughitwasgiven onhireandagreedPW6toadmithavingbeenreceivedfullandfinal considerationandgottheownershiptransferredinhisname,though hehadtopaysubstantialamountinrespectofthehelicoptereitherto PW6orPW18,theProprietorofSummitAviationandalsogothim threatenedfromIrfanGogaandAbuSalemnottolodgereportwiththe police. 173.Factsandcircumstancesfurthershowthatitwasnotacaseofcivil dispute rather the act and the subsequent conduct of the accused establishthattheaccusedhadadishonestintentiontocheatandhe succeededinaccomplishingit.
174.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the helicopterwas taken on hire butthe accused Romesh Sharmaand HarishMishradishonestlyinducedPW6toenterintoanMOUofsale makinghimbelievethatthesaidMOUwasbeingenteredtohoodwink theelectionexpensesasthemaximumlimitforincurringtheexpenses by an independent candidate was Rs. 4.5 lacs and the said MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over. Subsequent
160/213
conductofRomeshSharmaandHarishMishraalsogotoshowthat the said MOU Ex.PW6/20 was entered into on 30.03.96 when the helicopterhadalreadyleftforPhulpur.ThetestimonyofPW6further goes to show that another agreement Ex.PW6/33 was prepared on 15.05.96 regarding sale when the helicopter instead of sending to MumbaiwasbroughtatDelhibythemenofRomeshSharma. The correction in the MOU Ex.PW6/33 was made by the Advocate of Romesh Sharma PW17 Sh. Mahesh Gupta when PW6 and his AdvocatePW10werecalledbytheaccusedRomeshSharmaathis residenceatMayfairGardenon05.06.96.IntheaffidavitEx.PW2/A3 givenbyPW6,itwasgotwrittenthathehasreceivedfullandfinal payment towards the helicopter. Record shows that after the said agreementandaffidavit,furtherpaymentwasmadebytheaccused RomeshSharmaandHarishMishrabycheque,draftorcash. The testimonyofPW18alsoshowsthatRs.18lacswereyettobepaidby theaccusedtohim. Itisdifficulttocomprehendastowhyaperson would sell helicopter for Rs. 30 lacs when in an agreement earlier executedwithSummitAviationEx.PW6/5thepriceofRs.40lacswas offeredbySummitAviationforthesaidhelicopter.
161/213
175.Onappreciationoftheevidences,itisclearthataccusedhadatthe very outset dishonest intention to cheat by making into believe his representationswhichwerefalsetohisknowledgewithintenttocause wrongfulgainorwrongfulloss. 176.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetomentionherefromthesequenceofevents thatRomeshSharmawasnotaloneincheatingPW6buttherewasa definiteconspiracybetweenhimandhisbrother,HarishMishra,who fromtheoutsetwaspartyingettingthesignatureofPW6ontheMOU on27.03.1996Ex.PW6/14whenheknewthatMOUwasnotforhiring butforsalemakingdeceitfullyPW6believethatitwasashamMOU andalsoheadvancedpartconsiderationtowardsthechargeswhichat that time PW6 was made to believe was towards hiring of the helicopter. He sent his men to accompany the truck loaded with helicopterfromMumbaitoPhulpurtoensureitssafetransportationto further the intention of the accused Romesh Sharma to take possession of the helicopter though constructively possession continuedwithPW6.HepaidpartconsiderationtoPW6evenafter thetransferofregistrationofhelicopterinfavouroftheaccusedwhich registrationwasdoneonthebasisoftheaffidavitEx.PW2/A3which
162/213
PW6 was made to sign and deliver under physical threat by the accused, Romesh Sharma that he has received the entire considerationforsaleofthehelicopter. 177.From the aforesaid, I am of the view that the accused Romesh Sharmahascommittedtheoffenceofcheatingbyplayingfraudonthe personofPW6bydishonestlyinducinghimtoenterintotheMOUand subsequentlyretaineditspossessionafterobtaininganaffidavitfrom PW6thathehasreceivedfullandfinalpaymentfromtheaccused, thoughthehelicopterwasgivenonhireandtheaccusedhadtomake payment for the same. So far as the accused Harish Mishra is concerned, he is also guilty of having cheated PW6 to further the dishonest intention of the accused Romesh Sharma to grab the helicopter by hook or crook. Thus, the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 420 IPC stand proved against the accused persons namelyRomeshSharmaandHarishMishra.
178.Now,comingtotheincidentofdacoitywhichallegedlyoccurred on11.05.96,Ld.Counselarguedthattheaccusedpersonswereunder thebeliefthatthehelicopterwaspurchasedbytheaccusedRomesh

163/213
Sharmaandfurthertheaccusedduringtheelectionspeecheshadalso spokenthathehaspurchasedthehelicopterforthepeopleofPhulpur andwoulduseitforthem,so,underthisbonafidebelief,thehelicopter wastakentoDelhibeingthepropertyoftheaccusedRomeshSharma andthuswerejustifiedinlawinpreventinghishelicoptertobetaken from Phulpur to Mumbai and their action was covered under the generalexceptioncontaininginSection79IPC.Theydidnotcommit robberyandthequestionofdacoitydidnotarise. 179.Foranoffenceundersection395IPCwhichprovidespunishmentfor dacoity,followingingredientsmustexist: a) Thattherobberywascommittedorattempted; b) Thatfiveormorepersonscommittedorattemptedtocommit robbery;oraidingsuchcommissionorattempt;orthatthewhole numberofpersonscommittingorattemptingtocommitrobbery wasfiveormore. c) Thatsuchpersonswereactingconjointly. d) Inrobbery,thereiseithertheftorextortion.Theftisrobberyifin order to the committing of the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the
164/213
offender,forthatend,voluntarilycausesorattemptstocauseto anypersondeathorhurtorwrongfulrestraint,orfearofinstant deathorofinstanthurtorofinstantwrongfulrestraint.Extortion isrobberyiftheoffencer,atthetimeofcommittingtheextortion, isinthepresenceofthepersonputinfear,andcommitsthe extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or instanthurt,orofinstantwrongfulrestrainttothatpersonorto some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
180.PW9hasstatedthaton11.05.96thehelicopterwasdismantledand thepartswereloadedinthetruck.Whenthemachineandtheparts werebeingtied,twovehiclesloadsofpeopleappeared. Theywere about 15 persons who surrounded the truck. Some of them were carryinggunsandmostofthemwerehavinglathis. Thosepersons shoutedandthreatenedthemthatthehelicoptercannotbetakento Mumbai, it has to be taken to Delhi as per the orders of Romesh SharmaandthestaffincludingEngineersandPilothavetoaccompany thetrucktoDelhi. Theystartedpullingdownthepartsloadedinthe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 165/213
truck. Theywereaggressiveandmoreinnumberswitharmsandif resistedtheywouldhavebeenphysicallyharmed.Hestatedthatthe driverofthetruckrefusedtogotoDelhibecausehewasnothaving permitforgoingtoDelhiwhichfactisalsoevidentfromthetestimony ofPW23. PW9hasstatedthatheadvisedthosepersonsthatthey wouldhelptheminunloadingthepartsandmachinesafely.Hestated that accused Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Budhiraja, Manoj, Advdesh and Indermaniwerepartofthegroup.Heidentifiedthemcorrectlystating thatheknewtheaccusedpersonssincetheywereworkingasateam forelectionpurposewiththem.Hestatedthatthosepersonsunloaded thepartsandmachineontothegroundandthereafter,theemptytruck left the spot which fact has also come in testimony of PW21 who arrangedthetruck. PW9hasstatedthathisbrotherBPPappara removed the documents i.e. log books from the truck which they broughttoMumbai. Sincetheyweretoldnottoleavethebungalow, andhadapprehensionabouttheirsafetysincetheywerethreatenedto betakentoDelhiforcibly,theydecidedtoleavetheplaceonebyone. CaptainDemoseleftonthepretextofbuyingacigarette.Hethenleft inacarandwenttoAllahabadwherehemetCaptainDemoseatHotel Yatrik. They decided toleaveAllahabad and cancelled theirearlier
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 166/213
tickets. PW9 hasstated that theydid notreport the matter to the policebecausetheyweremoreconcernedabouttheirsafetygiventhe factthatRomeshSharmahadlargecloutinthearea.FromLucknow theytelephonedtoHSureshRao.TheyreachedMumbaion12.05.96. However,theotherstaffreachedMumbaion14.05.96.Hedeniedthat no threat was given by any of the accused persons. PW14 Wing Commander Demose also deposed on the lines of PW9. He has statedthatafterdismantlingwhentheyweretyingthepartsandthe machineonthetruck,twovehiclesloadedwith1015peoplearrivedat thespot. Theyshoutedloudlynottotakeorcarrythehelicopterto Kerala but asked them to take it to Delhi. Some were armed with lathis. Someofthepersonsclimbedonthetruckandstarteduntying and unloading the helicopter. They were very unruly. They apprehendedphysicalassaultfromthosepersonsincasetheytriedto stopthem.Hestatedthataccomplishesoftheaccusedunloadedthe partsofthehelicopterfromthetruck.HeidentifiedtheaccusedAvtar Singh Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Avdesh, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja and Indermaniandstatedthattheywereamongstthosepersons.Hehas statedthattheywereshoutingmenacingly.TheaccusedAvtarSingh hadaskedhimtostayinBungalowashewasgoingtoarrangeanother
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 167/213
truck. They required him not to leave the Bungalow without their permission.Inthesecircumstances,helefttheplaceonthepretextof buying cigarette and reached Allahabad. He went to a STD booth where he met PW29, Mr. Shukla who advised him to write a complaint. ButMrs.Shuklaintervenedandadvisedhimnottodoso as it would create trouble for him since he was in the territory of RomeshSharma.Shealsofearedarmsclashbetweenthesupporters ofRomeshSharmaandtheotherparty.PW15alsodeposedonthe linesofPW9andPW14andstatedthattherewere1015personsof RomeshSharmawhocameandunloadedthehelicoptersayingthat theyhaveinstructionstosendthetrucktoDelhi.PW15identifiedthe accused Avtar Singh and M.D. Bhojwani amongst those persons statingthattheaccusedM.D.Bhojwaniusedtoarrangetheircatering.
181.PW23and24whoweredriverandcleaneronthetruckwhichwas hired from SherePunjab have stated that after the helicopter was loaded,2025personscame,raisedanoiseandrequiredthemtotake thehelicoptertoDelhiandnottoMumbai. Whentheysaidthatthey were not having permit for Delhi, 2025 persons threatened the personswhohadloadedthehelicopterinthetruckandaskedthemto
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 168/213
take the truck to Delhi. PW23 has stated that due to fear he telephonedPW21whoaskedhimtounloadthehelicopterandcome there.PW24hasstatedthatthehelicopterwasloadedatabout11.00 AM.2025personscamethereandtoldthemthatthehelicopterwould betakentoDelhiandnottoMumbai.Theyalsothreatenedthemwith dire consequences. Hestated thatthehelicopter wasunloaded by those2025personswhichtheytookabout10hourstoload.
182.PW19whowastheMunshiofAzadForwardingAgencyhasstated that the dismantled helicopter was taken in the truck on behalf of Romesh Sharma fromUgarsen Purto Delhi at Mayfair Garden, via numberUP709771onwhichPW22wasthedriver. AccusedAvtar Singhhadbookedthetruckandpaidthefareinadvance.PW22also corroboratedhistestimonyandstatedthaton11.05.96,hewashanded overtheGRs.AvtarSinghAhluwaliawasthere.Hehasstatedthata truckwasstandingthereonwhichhelicopterpartsandmachinehad beenloaded. Thereafter,thepartsandthemachinewereremoved fromthetruckandloadedinhistruck. 810personspresentthere helpedhimtounloadthehelicopterandloaditinhistruck.34car/jeep escortedtheirtruck.On12.05.96theyreachedDelhiandstoppedthe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 169/213
truckinaFarmHousewherethehelicopterwasunloaded.
183.Intheinstantcase,PW23andPW24didnotsaythatthosepersons hadnotthreatenedthemtounloadthehelicopterortotakeittoDelhi. ItisnotthecasethatPW23orPW24knewtheaccusedpersonsfrom beforeorwereinterestedintheirfalseimplication. Hadthissortof incidentnottakenplace,PW23andPW24wouldhavenotdeposed aboutthisincidentofthreat,useofforcefortakingawaythehelicopter from Phulpur to Delhi. Although no recovery of any weapon was effectedfromaccusedpersonsbutitisalsotobeseenthatthecase was registered after about two years of incident, so in these circumstances,itwasnotpracticablefortheinvestigatingagencyto seizethelathis.
184.Factsandcircumstancesshowthattheaccusedpersonswerearmed withlathis.Theyweremorethanfiveinnumber.Theywerepresentat the place of the commission of the crime with arms/lathies, carried away forcibly the dismantled helicopter, possession of which they obtainedbyforcebyputtingPW9andhiscrewmembersinfearof hurt or wrongful restrain so as to take the physical possession of
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 170/213
helicopterfromthecrewmembersetc.onthedirectionsoftheaccused Romesh Sharma. The act of the accused persons amounted to dacoity in respect of the said helicopter which was owned and possessedbyPW6bycreatingterrorattheplaceofoccurrenceand byusingforceagainstthecrewmembersofPW6whowereincharge ofthesaidhelicopteratPhulpurandforciblytakingpossessionthereof foritstransportationtoDelhiinsteadofMumbai.
185.RegardingtheapplicabilityorotherwiseofSection79ofIndianPenal Code, the word good faith has been defined U/s 52 of IPC as Nothingissaidtobedoneorbelievedingoodfaithwhichisdoneor believedwithoutduecareandattention.PW9hasstatedthathehad heardtheaccusedRomeshSharmaspeakingtothepublicatlarge duringtheelectionspeechesthatthehelicopterwaspurchasedbyhim andwouldremaininthevillageforthelocaluseofthefarmers.When hemadeenquiryfromPW6,herepliedinnegativeregardingtheclaim oftheaccusedRomeshSharma.PW6alsotelephonedtheaccused RomeshSharmaandenquiredaboutthisfactwhotoldhimthatitwas onlyanelectiongimmicktoattractthepeopleandaftertheelectionhe wouldreturnthehelicopter.Thereisnoevidenceandcircumstanceon
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 171/213
recordexceptbaldanduncorroboratedstatementofaccusedpersons tosubstantiatetheirversions.Noprudentpersononearthcanbelieve suchabaldstatementuntilandunlesshemakesenqiryandfindsitto becorrect.ItwasheldinthecaseofHarbhajanSinghVs.Stateof Punjab1966Cr.L.J.82thatsimplebelieforactualbeliefbyitselfisnot enough. Appellant mush show that the belief in the impugned statementhasrationalbasisandwasnotjustabaldsimplebelief. 186.Inthepresentcase,theaccusedRomeshSharma,whosestatement theaccusedclaimedtohavebelievedingoodfaith,washimselfthe accused of playing deception upon the complainant (PW6). Ithas comeinthetestimonyofPW6thatMOUEx.PW6/20wasexecutedon astamppaperdated29.03.96purportingtobeenteredpredatedi.e. on24.02.96,ontheassurancegivenbytheaccusedRomeshSharma thatitwasjustadocumentonpaperneveragreedtobeactedupon justtocamouflagetheelectionexpensesanditwouldbedestroyed aftertheelectionwouldbeover. Itwasalsosignedbytheaccused M.D.Bhojwani.ItisalsotobenotedthatearlieranMOUEx.PW6/14 waswrittenontheletterheadofRelianceDevelopersandInvestors whichalsobearsthedate24.02.96butitdoesnotbearthesignatures
172/213
oftheaccusedMDBhojwani.ItgoestoshowthatnoMOUasalleged wasenteredintobetweenRomeshSharmaandPW6on24.02.96.It isalsosignificanttonotethattheaccusedpersonswerearmedwith lathiswhenthemachineanditspartswerebeingloadedbythemenof PW6. They threatened PW9 and others to take the helicopter to Delhiandforcedthemtoaccompany.Theytookthelawintheirhands andneverreportedthemattertothepolice,45vehiclesalsoescorted withthehelicopter. Hadtheybeenunderbonafidebelief,theywould nothaveactedinsuchamannerandtakenlawintheirhands. The facts and circumstances show that they under the directions of the accusedRomeshSharmaillegallyandunlawfullytookthepossession ofhelicopterfromPW9andothersandtookittoDelhi.Thisveryact onthepartoftheaccusedshowsthattheiractionwasnotingoodfaith andthustheycannotclaimimmunityfromtheircriminalliability.
187.Duringthecourseofarguments,itwascontendedbyLd.Counselfor theaccusedpersonsthatnoTIPoftheaccusedpersonswasheld,the accusedwerenotnamedintheFIRandtheywerearrestedafterabout 2yearsoftheincident.Ifindthiscontentionsansmeritsinceithas come in thetestimonyofPW9 andotherwitnessesthattheabove

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 173/213
accusedpersonshadcampaignedfortheaccusedRomeshSharmain theelectionandremainedwithPW9andhiscrewmembersforabout 40 days which was the sufficient period when PW9 and his crew members/technicianscouldknowtheaccusedpersonswell. Itisnot thecasethatPW9andothershadaglimpseoftheaccusedpersons. Theyhavespecificallynamedtheaccusedpersonsintheirtestimony andidentifiedthemcorrectly. Althoughtheaccusedhavestatedthat theywerenotpresentatthetimeofincidentbutnosuchsuggestions cameinthecrossexamination.ItwasheldinthecaseofDanaYadav @DalhuVs.StateofBihar2002JT(7)page68thatiftheaccusedis well known to the prosecution witnesses from before, no test identificationiscalledfor. Itwouldbemeaninglessandshallbethe wasteofpublictimetoholdthesame. Keepinginviewthefactsofthepresentcase,itcansafelybe saidthatnotconductingofTIPbytheinvestigatingagencyisnotatall fataltothecaseoftheprosecution. 188.Itwas contended byLd.Counsel forthe accusedpersons thatthe prosecution witnesses namely PW9, PW14 and PW15 were the employees of PW6 and were the interested witnesses. On going
174/213
throughtheirtestimony,Ifindthattheyweresubjectedtoanvilofcross examinationbuttheirtestimonyremainedintrinsicallyworthbelieving. TheirtestimonystandcorroboratedfromPW23andPW24.Further, thereisnoevidencetoshowthatPW9andotherswereinterestedin theirfalseimplicationortheyhadenemitywiththosepersons.Inthe caseof DaulatRamSadhramTeliVs.StateofChattisgarh 2009 AIR SCW6273 itwasheldthatmerelybecauseeyewitnessesare family members of the deceased, their evidence cannot be perse discarded.Whenthereisallegationofinterestedness,thesamehasto be established. It would not by itself be sufficient to discard their evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers fromseriousinfirmitieswhichraisesconsiderabledoubtinthemindof theCourt(See StateofGujaratVs.NaginbhaiDhulaBhaiPatel AIR 1983SC839). Inthepresentcase,thetestimonyoftheprosecution witnessesremainedconsistentandcogent.
189.As regards contradictions, some of the witnesses have stated that theywere2025personsandsomesaidthattheywere1015persons, testimonyofPW9andPW14wouldshowthattherewereabout15 personswhocameintwovehicles.Theywerearmedwithlathisand
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 175/213
threatenedthem.TheyalsopressurisedthemtoremaininBungalow and accompany them to Delhi with the helicopter. There minor contradictions do not appear to be material to have bearing on the outcomeofthecase. Itwasheldinthecaseof SiddiquaVs.NCB 137(2007)DLT500thatasmallcontradictionhereandtherecouldnot makethetestimoniesofthewitnessesdoubtful. Minordiscrepancies are very natural to occur. The Court has to consider the entire evidence as has been adduced before it and then come to the conclusion.Minutedetailsofincidentswiththepassageoftimegoout of memory. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. Sometimes the witness cannot anticipate the occurrence whichsooftenhasanelementofsurprise.Itwasheldinthecaseof BharwadaBhoginbhaiHirjibhaiVs.StateofGujarat AIR1983SC 753 that no value is to be pinned with minor and insignificant contradictions.
190.InthecaseofKrishnaMochi&Ors.Vs.StateofBihar&Ors.2002 (2)CCCases(SC)58itwasheldthat:ItisthedutyoftheCourtto separategrainfromchaffwhenchaffcanbeseparatedfromgrain,it couldbeopentotheCourttoconvicttheaccusednotwithstandingthat

R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 176/213
evidenceisfounddifficulttoproveguiltofotheraccusedpersons falsehoodofparticularmaterialwitnessormaterialparticularwouldnot seclude it from the beginning to endthe maxim Falsus in uno falsus inomnibus has no application in India and the witnessescannotbebrandedasliar. 191.In the light of above facts, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 395 IPC against the accused persons namely Avtar SinghAhluwalia,NaveenBudhiraja,MDBhojwani,Manoj,Indermani andAvdesh. 192.TheothersubstantivechargesagainsttheaccusedRomeshSharma arethathehadcommittedoffenceofextortionagainstPW6byputting him under the fear of death/grievous hurt, forcing him to put his signatureontheagreementpurportedtobedated14.05.1996tosell the helicopter and on the affidavit dated 05.06.1996 as deponent showing the sale of the said helicopter to him and receiving of payment/sale proceeds in full and final from him and dishonestly inducing him to deliver the aforesaid documents being the property andthevaluablesecuritytohim.
177/213
193.Section 383 defines extortion for which punishment is prescribed undersection384andtheaggravatedformofextortionispunishable undersections385and386.
194.To constitute an aggravated offence of extortion punishable under section386IPC,thefollowingingredientsmustexist: a) Theextortionerputthecomplainantoranyotherpersoninfear ofdeathorofgrievoushurt; b) Theextortionerdidsointentionally.
195.The offence of extortion u/s 383 consists in intentionally putting a personinfearofinjurytohimselforanother;ordishonestlyinducing thepersonsoputinfeartodelivertoanyperson,propertyorvaluable security. 196.TestimonyofPW6showsthatwhen he wasinformed byhiscrew membersPW9andPW14thatthehelicopterwastakenawaytoDelhi from Phulpur by use of force by the men of the accused Romesh Sharma,hecontactedtheaccusedRomeshSharmaonphonewho askedhimtocometoDelhisayingthatbythetimethehelicopterwould
178/213
alsoreachDelhi.On14.05.1996hereachedDelhiandcontactedthe accusedandenquiredtowhichtheaccusedtoldhimthatthehelicopter is his property and it is in hispossession. When he asked him to returnhishelicopterandmakepaymenttowardsthehirecharges,the accused told him to forget about the helicopter as the same has becomehispropertynowandatthemosthewouldbeentitledtothe paymentrelatingtothehelicopter. On15.05.1996,whenPW6again requestedtheaccusedtoreturnhishelicopter,hethreatenedofhis connection withDawoudIbrahimgangand tofollowhisinstructions otherwise he would face dire consequences. He also revealed his proximitywithAbuSalemandIrfanGoga.Thereafter,heaskedPW6 tobringtheoriginaldocumentsofthehelicopteralongwithanaffidavit required for its transfer and told that he would make the payment thereafter. ThetestimonyofPW6furtherrevealsthathecamewith his advocate, PW10 on 05.06.1996, also called PW7 where the accused asked him to sign an agreement to sell Ex. PW6/33 purportedtobeofdated14.05.1996. WhenPW10advisedPW6to take the payment first and then sign the documents, the accused became furious, snatched the documents from PW6 and also threatenedhisconnectionwithDawoodIbrihamGang.Beingscaredof
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 179/213
thethreatsgivenbytheaccusedRomeshSharma,hesignedonthe agreementandtheaffidavitEx.PW2/A5andalsohandedoverhim thelogbooksofthehelicopterwhichwastherequirementfortransfer of ownership of the helicopter in the name of the accused. The accused had also directed PW6 to call PW18 with whom he had pledged the registration of the helicopterasa collateral security for paymentofduesofRs.18lacswhichwereoutstandingagainstPW6 towardsthecostofthesparepartsofthehelicopter.Ontherequestof PW6,PW18cameatthehouseoftheaccusedwhoalsoreiterated thefactbutontheassurancegivenbytheaccusedRomeshSharma that he would pay him Rs.18 lacs, he handed over the registration certificateofthehelicopterEx.PW2/A3.Theaccusedonthebasisof theaforesaiddocumentsgottransferredtheownershipinhisname. PW10andPW7havedulycorroboratedthisfactandnothingmaterial cameintheircrossexaminationtodrawaninferencethattheyhave deposedattheinstanceofPW6.
197.The affidavit is itself a property, which was delivered and later on came into the possession of the accused Romesh Sharma as the ownership of the helicopter could not have been transferred in the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 180/213
nameofaccusedRomeshSharmawithouttheproductionofthesame asisevidentfromthestatementofPW1andPW2.TheSupreme CourtinAbhayanandMishraVs.StateofBihar1961(2)Crl.L.J.822 hasheld thatitisnotnecessarythataproperty(document)should haveanypecuniaryvalueandthusheldthatadmissioncardtositin examinationisapropertyasdefinedintheIndianPenalCode.Inthe casetheaffidavitEx.PW2/A3andthelogbooks,bothinoriginalare thepropertyascontemplatedu/s22oftheIPC. 198.From the above facts, it is established that on 05.06.1996, the accusedRomeshSharmacommittedtheextortionbyputtingPW6in thefearofdeath,forcedhimtoputhissignatureontheagreement Ex.PW6/33purportedtobedated14.05.1996tosellthehelicopterand alsoforcedhimtoputhissignatureontheaffidavitdated05.06.1996 Ex.PW2/A3showingthereceiptofthesaleproceedsofthehelicopter infullandfinalfromtheaccusedRomeshSharmawhichwasbeing carried by PW6 and dishonestly induced him to part with the possession of the said documents and deliver the affidavit and log booksbeingthepropertyandthevaluablesecuritytotheaccusedand therebyhecommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection386IPC.
181/213
199.Now,comingtothechargeundersection412IPCagainsttheaccused RomeshSharma,theallegationsarethaton14.05.1996theaccused Romesh Sharma received the stolen property i.e. the helicopter belongingtoH.SureshRaoathisresidenceandJaiMataDiFarm, Chattarpur,Delhi knowing fullywellthatthepossession thereof has been transferred on commission of the offence of dacoity by his accomplices. 200.Theimportantelementsofsection412IPCare: a) Thepropertyisstolenproperty; b) Thesaidpropertywasconcernedwithdacoity; c) Theaccuseddishonestlyreceivedit; d) The accused knew or had reason to believe that the said propertywasstolenindacoity. e) Apropertywillbedesignatedasstolenifpossessionofsuch propertyhasbeentransferredbytheftorextortion,orrobberyor the property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respectofwhichcriminalbreachoftrusthasbeencommitted.
201.Thetestimonyoftheprosecutionwitnessesclearlyestablishthatthe
182/213
accusedpersonsAvtarSinghandcoaccusedon11.05.1996,afterthe machineandthedismantledpartsofthehelicopterwhichhadbeen loadedforMumbai,reloadedthesameinanothertruckarrangedby AvtarSinghtohandoverthestolenpropertytotheaccusedRomesh Sharma.Theaccusedpersonsweremorethanfiveinnumber,armed withweaponsandlathis. Theyforciblyunloadedthehelicopterfrom thetruckandgotitloadedinothertruckandtookittoDelhi.Allthey didwasonthedirectionsofaccusedRomeshSharma.Theytookthe helicoptertothefarmofRomeshSharmaatChatterPur,Delhiwhere on24.06.1996theaccusedgotreassembledthehelicopterfromPW9 andPW44.HealsogotthedocumentsexecutedfromPW6astothe receiptoffullconsiderationtowardsthehelicopterforitstransferby extendingthreatsastohisconnectionwithDawoodIbrahimGang,got theownershipofthehelicoptertransferredinhisnameandretainedits possessionunlawfullyandfurthercontactedPW45andPW64forits usebytheRelianceIndustries.
202.Iamoftheconsideredviewthatprosecutionhasestablisheditscase against the accused Romesh Sharma of his having committed the offencepunishableundersection412IPC.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 183/213
203.NowcomingtothechargesU/s365,506and323IPCagainstthe accused persons namely Romesh Sharma and Laxman Singh, the allegations are that on 20.10.98, from C30 Mayfair Garden they abductedH.SureshRaoandRakeshGuptainhisMercedescarand forciblybroughtthemtotheofficeat16,MahadevRoadwithintentto causethemtobesecretlyandwrongfullyconfinedandalsocommitted criminalintimidationbypointingalicensedpistoltowardsH.Suresh RaotocauseinjurytoH.SureshRaowithintenttokeephimforcibly sittinginthecarandvoluntarilycausedhurtontothepersonofH. SureshRao.
204.Section 365 provides punishment for kidnapping or abducting with intentsecretlyandwrongfullytoconfineperson.Abductionincommon languagemeansthecarryingawayofapersonbyforceorfraud. 205.Section 323 provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. To constitute an offence under this section, following ingredients must exist: (i) The accused by his act caused bodily pain, disease or infirmitytothecomplainant;
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 184/213
(ii)
Hedidsuchactintentionallyorwithknowledgethatitwould causehurt,etc.
206.Section506IPCprovidespunishmentforcriminalintimidation. This sectionhasthefollowingessentials: 1) Threateningapersonwithanyinjury: a) b) Tohisperson,reputation,orproperty,or Totheperson,orreputationofanyoneinwhomthat personisinterested; 2) Threatmustbewithintent: a) Tocausealarmtothatperson,or, b) Tocausethepersontodoanyactwhichheisnotlegally boundtodoasthemeansofavoidingtheexecutionof suchthreat,or c) Tocausethatpersontoomittodoanyactwhich that personislegallyentitledtodoasthemeansofavoiding theexecutionofsuchthreat.
207.TestimonyofPW6revealsthaton20.10.98hecametoDelhi,met PW7andrequestedforhishelpinretrievinghislegitimatedues.They
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 185/213
wenttothehouseoftheaccusedatMayfairGardenat11.30AMwhere theyweremadetowaitfortwohours.Accusedthencalledtheminthe cabinwherePW7requestedtheaccusedtosettletheaccountofMr. Rao(PW6)statingthatPW6wasingreatdifficulty.PW6hasstated thattheaccusedthentoldthemthatthehelicopterhasbecomehis property.WhenPW7requestedtheaccusedtosettletheaccountof Mr.Raoasmuchtimehaspassedandtoldthatifitisnotsettled,PW6 mayunnecessarilygoandmakecomplainttothepolice,theaccused gotangryandtoldthathewastellingalie.HeknewthatPW6has already filed a complaint. Accused then started beating him giving punchesandkicks.Healsoliftedachairandtriedtohithimwhich PW7prevented.Accusedthentoldthemtositandnottomove.Ithas furthercomeinthetestimonyofPW6thathethoughttorunaway.He toldthepersonnelofaccusedRomeshSharmainthehousethathe wasgoingtobuyacigarette.Hecameoutandstartedrunning.He thensawsomeonefollowinghim.Whenhewastryingtotakeataxi,he sawtheaccusedinPajerojeep,drivingithimself,PW7sittingbyhis side and another person sitting on his back. PW6 has stated that accusedshoutedathimandaskedhimtositinthecar.Theaccused enquiredfromhimifhewasgoingtothepolicestation.Whenhetold
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 186/213
him that he was going to purchase cigarette, accused frisked his pocket and found the cigarette in his pocket. He stated that the accused became annoyed and started beating him. He called his securityman,accused Laxman Singh anda South Indian man and askedthemtositinhisMercedesCar. TheaccusedLaxmanSingh hadapistolwithhimwhopointeditouttowardshiminthecar.PW6 hasalsostatedthataccusedhadtoldLaxmantoshootifhe(PW6) triedtorunaway.Theaccusedthentookthemto16,MahadevRoad, his party office from where they were not allowed to leave. They remained confined there for some time and were rescued by the police.HeidentifiedthepistolEx.P1.Hestatedthatonthesameday he gave the complaint Ex.PW6/46 in the police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. In his presence Pajero jeep and Mercedes Car were seized.TestimonyofPW6showsthathewasexaminedonthesame day of incident at AIIMS where his MLC Ex.PW90/1 was prepared. The testimony of PW6 H. Suresh Rao is corroborated by the statement of PW7 Rakesh Gupta who has stated that Romesh Sharma when foundcigarettesinthepocketofofH.SureshRao slapped and punched him (H. Suresh Rao). Someone informed the controlroomatTel.No.100regardinghisbeating.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 187/213
The said information was received by PW41 lady constable Reena. PW41hasstatedthatshehadreceivedacallat100No.at 1357 hrs. that Romesh Sharma was beating two persons. She recordedtheinformationvideEx.PW41/A.Nosuggestionsweregiven toPW41thatnosuchinformationwasreceivedorsherecordedthe falseinformation.Shehasstatedthattheinformationwaspassedon throughthecommunicationset.PW39hasstatedthatsherecorded the information in theRojnamchavideDD Ex.PW39/D. PW42 the SHO of Police Station Kalkaji, New Delhi has stated that he had received the message on wireless that he should reach at Mayfair GardenandreporttotheSHOPoliceStationHauzKhas. Hewent there and met the SHO Hauz Khas who asked him to go to 16, MahadevRoadsayingthataccusedhaspickeduptwopersonsforcibly andtakenthemthere.HewentthereandfoundPW6andPW7inthe captivityofRomeshSharma. Herescuedthem. Theyatthattime wereverydisturbedandterriblyshattered.Hetookthemalongwiththe accusedtothepolicestationHauzKhas.Hethentooktheaccused RomeshSharmatoMayfairGardenandhandedoverhiscustodyto theSHOHauzKhas.
188/213
208.Ithasalsocomeinevidencethat16,MahadevRoadwasallottedto ShivCharanSinghagainstwhomanevictionorderEx.PW57/7was passedaftertheallotmentwascancelled.Sincethepremiseswasnot vacatedbyShivCharan,soitwasgotvacatedon11.11.98videEviction ReportEx.PW57/10. IthascomeintheevidenceofPW56thatthe accusedhadgivenanapplicationrequestingforchangeofhisoffice from Churiwalan, Sita Ram Bazar to Mahadev Road. PW10 has stated that there was board of All India Bhartiya Congress on the premises.Fromthetestimonyofabovewitnesses,itisclearthatthe accusedwasoperatingfromthepremisesat16,MahadevRoadatthe timeofincidentwhichwashispartyoffice.
209.PW6 also identified the accused Laxman from the photograph Ex.PW6/57, after the accused Laxman refused to participate in TIP. PW7alsodeposedonthelinesofPW6.Nomaterialcontradictions cameinthetestimonyofPW7astotheincidentwhichhappenedon 20.10.98.
210.ItwascontendedbyLd.CounselfortheaccusedLaxmanSinghthat the accused was simply a security guard of the accused Romesh
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 189/213
Sharmaandhasnothingtodowiththeallegedincident.
211.It is true that the accused was a security personnel of accused Romesh Sharma for his security, but, he did not have a license to threaten or kidnap anyperson thattoo at the pointofpistolon the instructionsofhismaster.Thereisnothingtoindicatethattheaccused RomeshSharmahadthreatfromthem.TestimonyofPW6andPW7 gotoshowthathehadaccompaniedtheaccusedRomeshSharmain hiscarandhadputpistolontoPW6andconfinedtheminaroomat 16, Mahadev Road. This shows his complicity with the accused Romesh Sharma in abducting and wrongfully confining PW6 and PW7atMahadevRoad. Thus,fromthetestimonyofabovewitnesses,itisprovedthat theaccusedRomeshSharmaabductedPW6andPW7withintentto wrongfullyrestrainthemat16,MahadevRoadatthepointofpistolwith thehelpofcoaccusedLaxmanSinghandalsogavebeatingstoPW6 whenPW6triedtoretrievethehelicopterorhislegitimateduesfrom theaccusedtherebycommittedtheoffencespunishableu/s365/506 and323IPC.
190/213
CriminalConspiracy:
212.ItwascontendedbyLd.Counselfortheaccusedpersonsthatthereis nomaterialonrecordtoshowthattheaccusedRomeshSharmahad hatched criminal conspiracy with the coaccused or they agreed to commitsuchoffencesasalleged.
213.TheessentialingredientforanoffenceofconspiracyU/s120Aisthat thereshouldbeanagreementbetweentwoormorepersonstocommit an offence. The agreement to commit an offence or an illegal act betweentwopersonsormoreistheessenceofconspiracy.Suchan agreementisdesignatedascriminalconspiracy.Itisrelevanttoquote therelevantobservationsmadebyHonbleSupremeCourtin Kehar SinghVs.State(DelhiAdministration)AIR1988SC1883(knownas IndiraGandhimurdercase)whichareasfollows: Generally,aconspiracyishatchedinsecrecyanditmaybe difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution often relies on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their commonintention.Theprosecutionwillalsomoreoftenrely
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 191/213
upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can undoubtedly be proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial.ButtheCourtmustenquirewhetherthetwo personsareindependentlypursuingthesameendorthey havecometogetherinthepursuitoftheunlawfulobject.The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does.Itis,however,essentialthattheoffenceofconspiracy requiressomekindofphysicalmanifestationofagreement. Theexpressagreement,however,neednotbeproved.Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessarytoprovetheactualwordsofcommunication.The evidenceastotransmissionofthoughtssharingtheunlawful designmaybesufficient.
It is unnecessary to prove that the parties actually came togetherandagreedintermstopursuetheunalwfulobject; theirneedneverhavebeenanexpressverbalagreement,it being sufficient that there was a tacit understanding betweentheconspiratorsastowhatshouldbedone.
192/213
214.Fromperusal oftheabove,itcomesoutthatin ordertoprovethe conspiracy,prosecutionisnotrequiredtoprovetheagreementandto adducethedirectevidence/agreementofconspiracyorthattheparties shouldcometogetheractuallytoagreetopursuittheunlawfulobject, there maybe,it is notnecessarythatthere was an express verbal agreementbutwhatisnecessarytoshowisthattherewassomesort oftacitunderstandingbetweentheconspiratorsastowhatshouldbe done.Itwillalsobeappropriatetorefertoobservationsmadeinpara no.276whereinitisstatedthattherelativeactsorconductofthe partiesmustbeconscientiousandcleartomarktheirconcurrenceas towhatshould be done. The concurrencecannotbe inferredbya groupofirrelevantfactsartfullyarrangedsoastogiveanappearance of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and incidentsshouldnotenterthejudicialverdict. Inthecaseof E.G. BarsayVs.StateofBombay (1962)2SCR195 itwasheldthatthe gistoftheoffenceisanagreementtobreakthelaw.InacaseofEran EliavVs.State 2008DrugsCases(Narcotics)98 itwasheldthat both abetment and criminal conspiracy are fiendishly difficult to establishbyvirtueofdirectevidence,itcanbeestablishedbyindirect orcircumstantialevidencewhichisofanimpeccablenature.
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 193/213
215.In the decision reported as State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Somnath Thapa & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659 the Supreme Court observed that for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledgeofwhattheconspiratorswantedtoachieveandthereafter havingtheintendtofurthertheillegalacttakesrecoursetoacourseof conducttoachieveendorfacilitateitsaccomplishment.
216.Theevidenceandthecircumstancesofthepresentcaseclearlyshow thattheaccusedRomeshSharmahaddishonestintentiontograbthe helicopterfromthefirstdaytothelastday.Inordertoaccomplishit,he tookvariousillegalsteps.HewithdishonestintentionmadePW6to believethathelicopterwasrequiredforelectionpurposesonhire,so that it could reach Phulpur, his place of constituency from where it couldbesafelytransportedtoDelhiathisfarmhouse.Theaccused RomeshSharmadespitehavingreceivedthefaxmessageregarding thetermsandconditionsofhiringdidnotcommitanythinginwriting and dishonestly persuaded PW6 to sign an MOU regarding the agreement of sale purported to have taken place on 24.02.96 vide Ex.PW6/14 which was subsequently converted into an MOU on a stamppaperon30.03.96videEx.PW6/20.HeropedinHarishMishra,
194/213
his brother in the conspiracy who entered into the first MOU Ex.PW6/14 with PW6. He was also made to pay the part of the amount.HarishMishrasenthismanwiththehelicopteronthetruck from Mumbai to Phulpur. He also arranged tickets for PW44 and PW8whentheycametoDelhion24.06.96toassemblethehelicopter.
217.The accused RomeshSharma madePW6tobelieve thatthe said MOUswereonlymeantforelectionpurposesandwouldbedestroyed aftertheelectionwasoversincethehirechargeexpensescouldnotbe shownintheElectionexpenses,limitofwhichwasRs.4.5lacsandit could disqualify him. He dishonestly induced PW6 to part with the possession of the helicopter. The aforesaid MOUs were recovered fromtheaccusedwhichclearlyshowthataccusedneverdestroyedthe MOUs and his intention from the beginning was sinister to the knowledgeofhisbrotherHarishMishrawhocansafelybesaidtobe the party to the said conspiracy by his conduct. The record and affidavitasdiscussedabovealsoshow,underwhatcircumstancesthe helicopter was transferred in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma in June, 1996.Other accused personswerehis colleagues
195/213
andhadgonetoPhulpurAllahabadtohelphiminhiselectioneering. TheyevennotonlyobstructedtheemployeesofPW6fromcarrying thehelicoptertoMumbaibutalsoretaineditspossessionandforcefully loadedthesameinanothertruckandbroughtittoDelhi. Accused AvtarSinghgotunloadedthedismantledhelicopterandloadedinthe truck arranged by him. The accused persons namely Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani created an atmosphere of terror in the mind of crew members of helicopter, thus, they deprived PW6 of his helicopter which was the common intention behind the conspiracy. PW6 was calledbyRomeshSharmaatDelhi. Therehewasthreatenedwith dire consequences. In June, 1996 he gotthe documents executed from him by extending threats claiming his connection with the underworlddons.InallRs.12lacswerepaidbuttheaffidavitwasgot executedfromPW6totheeffectthatfullandfinalpaymenttowards thehelicopterhasbeenreceivedbyhim. Theaccusedobtainedthe registrationcertificatefromPW18onfalseassurancethathewould makethepaymentasitwasoneofthepreconditionforgettingthe helicopter transferred in the name of the accused. He made false promise to PW18 to pay Rs. 18 lacs which payment PW6 had to
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 196/213
maketowardsthecostofspareparts.HeforcedPW9andPW44to assemble the helicopter to make it airworthy. In the accounts of accusedRomeshSharma,therewasnosufficientbalancetopurchase thehelicopter.Allthesefactsandcircumstancesshowhiscomplicity withthecoaccusedtograbthehelicopterbyunlawfulmeans. 218.HethreatenedandabductedPW6andPW7inhiscarforciblywith thehelpofhismusclemanAvdeshwhoputpistolonPW6whenthey cameatthehouseofaccusedtoretrievethehelicopterorthedues. He beat PW6 and took them to Mahadev Road and wrongfully confinedthemthere.Theywererescuedbythepolicesubsequently. The services rendered by the accused Laxman Singh in abducting PW6andPW7cannotinanywaybesaidtobethesecuritygivento theaccusedRomeshSharma. 219.Factsandcircumstancesshowthatalltheaccusedwerepartytothe criminalconspiracywhichtheaccusedRomeshSharmahatchedwith themwiththecommonintentiontograbthehelicopterbyillegalmeans fromPW6. Theconspiracywasattwostages,firstwithhisbrother HarishMishratocheatandthesecondwiththeotheraccusedwhen theelectionwasovertotakeforciblepossessionofthehelicopterfrom
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 197/213
theemployeesofPW6withintentiontograbit. 220.Thefactsofthecasealsomakeitabundantlyclearthatitisnota caseofcivilnatureatallascriminaloffencesinquestionhavebeen committedatvariousstages,startingwiththeconspiracytocheatand thereafterbycommittingvariousotheroffencesreferredtoabove.The samecontinuedatvariousstagesupto20.10.98.Hence,theversionof thedefencethatitisacaseofcivilnatureisnotatalltenablekeeping inviewthenumberoffeaturesofthecaseandtheoffenceswhichtook placeatvariousstagesundercriminalconspiracy.
DelayinFIR:
221.ItwasarguedbyLd.Counselfortheaccusedpersonsthattherewas delayinrecordingtheFIR.Thehelicopterwasallegedtohavebeen taken,asperprosecutioncase,snatchedandforciblytakenawayfrom thepossessionofPW6/complainantinthemonthofMay,1996but theFIRinthiscasewasregisteredonlyon20.10.98afterdelayofmore than two years. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamilnadu 1972 Cr.L.J. 1296 SC to contend that first information report in a criminal case isextremelyvital and valuable
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 198/213
pieceofevidenceforthepurposeofcorroboratingtheoralevidence adduced at the trial. The object of lodging report to the police in respectofcommissionofoffenceistogetearlyinformationregarding thecircumstancesinwhichthecrimewascommitted,thenameofthe actualculpritsandthepartplayedbythemaswellasthenameofthe witnessespresentatthesceneofoccurrence.Thedelayinlodgingof firstinformationreportquiteoftenresultsinembellishmentwhichisa creatureofafterthought. 222.Ld.PublicProsecutoronthecontrarysubmittedthatthecomplainant/ PW6inhisstatementhasgivenexplanationofthereasonsastowhy hedidnotcomplainin1996orimmediatelythereafter.
223.Perusal of the testimony of PW6 reveals that after the incident of 11.05.96, he immediately contacted the accused. He went to the houseofaccusedatDelhion14.05.96toretrievethehelicopterand thehirecharges. Partpaymentwasalsomadebytheaccusedon 15.05.96.Aftertheincidentof05.06.96,hediscussedthematterwith hisparentsthattheaccusedhasthreatenedtoeliminatehimandhis familymembersthroughhisconnectionssuchasDawoodIbrahimand
199/213
AbuSalem. Hisparentsgotworriedandadvisedhimnottofileany complaintagainsttheaccusedasAbuSalemandIrfanGogaatDubai weredreadedcriminalsandtheycouldeliminatethem. Hewasvery muchscaredandafraidoftheaccusedRomeshSharmawhoinclear termshadrevealedhisconnectionswiththeunderworlddonDawood Ibrahim. PW6 then sought the help of Suresh Mishra PW47, an influential person having political connection in Mumbai to speak to Romesh Sharma for retrieving his legitimate dues. Suresh Mishra telephonedRomeshSharmabuttheaccusedflatlyrefusedandasked him not to interfere and if he ventured to interfere, he would suffer elimination in no time. PW47 also corroborated this fact in his testimony.HehasstatedthathealsogotthreateningcallsfromDubai from the person of Irfan Goga, asking him not to intervene in the matterofHelicopterbetweenH.SureshRaoandRomeshSharma.He alsoreceivedthreateningcallsfromAbuSalemwhoaskedhimtoget awayfromthismatter. PW6alsolodgedreportatthepolicestation SantaCruz,Mumbaion24.04.98ofwhichaDDentrywasrecorded.
224.TestimonyofPW6&PW7furtherrevealthatPW6hadmadeevery efforttoretrievethehelicopterandhislegitimatedues.Evenafterthe
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 200/213
incident of 05.06.96, time and again he telephoned the accused to makepayment.HealsolodgedreportwiththeDeputyCommissioner ofPolice,DelhivideEx.PW6/43andacomplaintwiththeSHOPolice StationGreaterKailash,NewDelhion04.05.98videEx.PW6/44. It has also come in the testimony of PW6 that after the aforesaid complaints, he received threatening calls from Irfan Goga who instructed him not to pursue the complaints filed against Romesh Sharmawiththepolice. On20.10.98PW6wenttothehouseofthe accusedatMayfairGardenwithPW7andrequestedhimtosettlehis dues. PW7 who had accompanied PW6 had also persuaded the accused to make payment to PW6 failing which he may be constrainedtofileacomplaintwiththepolice.Onthat,theaccusedgot annoyed.Hegavehimfistandkicks,liftedthechairtohitPW6and threatenedhimwithdireconsequencesstatingthatheknewthatPW6 hasalreadylodgedareportagainsthimwiththepolice.Itisnotthe casethatPW6aftertheincidentof11.05.96and05.06.96sleptover thematter.
225.FactsandcircumstancesfurthershowthatPW6hadalsowrittento theDirectorAviationtocanceltheownershipinfavouroftheaccused.
201/213
Evenotherwiseonthedayofallegedincidenti.e.on20.10.98hecame atthehouseoftheaccusedtoretrievehishelicopterorhislegitimate dues.Whentheincidentofhisabductioncametothenoticeofpolice through someone, and the police rescued him, he then gave the complainttothepoliceonthebasisofwhichthepresentcasewas registered.IdonotfindanythingtoinferthatPW6ropedtheaccused personsinthisincidentorhemanipulatedthestory.Iamoftheview thattheprosecutionhassufficientlyexplainedthereasonsastowhy PW6didnotlodgethecomplaintinMay/June1996orthereafter. 226.As regards the contention that CBI had already investigating the matterbeforetheregistrationofthecase,aperusalofrecordwould show that the CBI on a source information had enquired about the helicopterevenpriortotheregistrationofthecasebutatthattimeit didnothaveanycluewhetherthehelicopterwasacquiredlegallyor illegallybytheaccused. 227.ItwasfurtherarguedbyLd.Counselfortheaccusedthattheaccused wasfalselyimplicatedtoscorepoliticalvendetta. Ld.Counselmade referencetotheproceedingsoftheElectionCommissionstatingthat the accused had floated a party and many great leaders/politicians
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 202/213
wereplanningtojoinhispartyandhewasalsogoingtoexposethe criminals/corruptpoliticians.
228.OngoingthroughtheElectionCommissionproceedings,Ifindthat theaccusedwasthePresidentofAllIndiaIndiraCongressSecular.He hadwrittenalettertotheElectionCommissionregardingchangeofits office from Churiwalan Sitaram Bazar to 16, Mahadev Road, New Delhi. Therewasalso an issue astothe merger ofhis party with IndianNationalCongress. TheElectionCommissionhadconsidered thematterandpassedanorderEx.PW6/52.Theessenceoftheorder dated29.10.98Ex.PW56/2forwhichahearingwasgivenon23.10.98 wasthatthePresidentandtheOfficeBearerswerenotacceptedas therepresentativesofAllIndiaIndiraCongressSecularinaccordance withtheconstitution. Theelectionproceedingsinnowayshowthat the aforesaid action was taken by the CBI on the directions of the Governmenttoscorepoliticalvendettaasnoevidenceofthissortwas broughtbytheaccusedinhisdefence.Nothingcanbeinferredfrom theproceedingsandthetestimonyofPW6thathewastargetedbythe Governmenttoimplicatetheaccusedinfalsecases. Recordrather showsthataccusedwasfoundinvolvedinnumberofcasesrelatingto
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 203/213
grabbingofpropertiesofnumberofpersonsbyusingtheinfluenceof DawoodIbrahimandhisassociates.Ithasalsocomeinthetestimony of PW85 that he on an intelligence had tapped the mobile phone bearing no. 9811197600 on which phone accused Romesh Sharma usedtotalktosomeoneinDubaiandPakistan.Thetranscriptversion Ex.PW74/3revealedhistalkswithAbuSalem.
229.Ld.Counselfortheaccusedhasarguedthatitwasasimplecallthat theaccusedwasgivingbeatings,sowhysomuchpoliceforcewentto thehouseoftheaccusedandwhySHOPoliceStationKalkajiwithhis staffwenttherewhentheMayfairGardenAreaandMahadevRoad Areadidnotfallwithinhisjurisdiction.
230.From the testimony of PW42, it is clear that he had received the messageonwirelesstoreachMayfairGardenwithhisstaff. Itisno bodys case that he went there on his own. Since, the police had informationandthetranscript/recordofthelinksoftheaccusedwith underworldDonevenpriortotheincident,whichfactmadethepolice toactswiftlyonreceivingthecallandtoensurepresenceofsufficient policeforce.PW67whohadaccompaniedPW42alsocorroborated
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 204/213
thetestimonyofPW42astohowPW6andPW7wererescuedfrom thecaptivityoftheaccusedpersons.TestimonyofPW31showsthat thePajeroJeepwasinthenameoftheaccusedRomeshSharmaand theMercedesCarwasinthenameofGanpatiCommerceLtd. He provedtheirregistrationcertificateEx.PW31/AandEx.PW31/B.
231.Inthepresentcase,prosecutionhasexaminedallthelinkwitnesses i.e.PW34andPW81whohadjoinedtheinvestigationandPW39 whohadrecordedtheFIRaftergettingthecomplaintfromPW6.The ProsecutionhasalsoexaminedPW89whodidtheinvestigationofthe caseFIR758/98registeredatthepolicestationLajpatNagarinwhich RomeshSharmaandoneAshokMalikwereaccusedofgivingthreats totheownerofthepropertyatLajpatNagarboostingtheirproximity withDawoodIbrahimandhisassociatesandinthatverycase,Abu Salemwasalsomadeanaccused. ToSumup : 232.Thechargeofcriminalconspiracyforthecommissionofoffencefor whichtheaccusedpersonshavebeencharged,spreadsintwostages,
205/213
i.e.fromMarch, 1996 to October,1998. Firstly, with respect to the offenceofcheatingandsecondly,withrespecttotheotheroffencesas discussed above. The initial conspiracy was hatched between RomeshSharmaandhisbrotherHarishMishrasometimeinMarch, 1996.ThereafteratalaterstageaccusedAvtarSinghAhluwalia,M.D. Bhojwani, Naveen Budhraja, Indermani, Avdesh Kumar, Manoj and LaxmanSinghjoinedtheconspiracytocommitdacoityetc.
233.The existence of the criminal conspiracy between Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra can be inferred firstly from the fact that as per evidenceofPW6,accusedHarishMishra,brotherofaccusedRomesh Sharma,contactedPW6,H.SureshRao,inhisofficeandenquiredas to whether the helicopter has been dispatched or not and also informedthatoneofthepersonofRomeshSharmawouldaccompany themachinetoPhulpur.Secondly,fromthecircumstancesthatHarish Mishra at the behest of Romesh Sharma agreed to execute MOU Ex.PW6/14on27.03.1996purportingtoshowasifthesamehasbeen executedon24.02.1996. TheblankletterheadofRelianceInvestors and Developers of which Romesh Sharma was the proprietor, was givenbytheaccusedRomeshSharma.TheMOUpurportingtobean
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 206/213
AgreementtoSellwastypedonthesaidletterheadasrequiredbythe accusedRomeshSharma. ItwassignedbyH.SureshRaoandthe accusedHarishMishra.H.SureshRaowasinducedtosignthesaid MOUontheassuranceofRomeshSharmathatthesaiddocument wasonlymeantforthepurposeofElectionCommissionsofficeand wouldbedestroyedafterelectionisover. Oneofthesignedcopyof the said MOU was thus delivered to the accused Harish Mishra. Another copy Ex.PW94/6 on which the signature of Harish Mishra exists was recovered from the possession of accused Romesh Sharma.Ifsuchinducementandfalserepresentationwouldhavenot beenmadebytheaccusedpersonstoPW6H.SureshRao,hewould not have signed this predated MOU. The offence of cheating punishableU/s420IPCisfurtherestablishedfromthefactthatPW6 wascalledbytheaccusedatDelhion30.03.96whereanothertyped MOUonastamppaperwasgiventoPW6tosign. Hesignedthe MOUonhisinducementthatthepreviousMOUwasnotacceptableas thesamewasnotastamppaper.NeerajBhatiawasinducedtopart with the possession of the original Certificate of Registration of the helicoptertoRomeshSharmaontheassurancethatRs.18lacswold bepaidbyRomeshSharmainrespectofwhichthesaidcertificatewas
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 207/213
keptbyNeerajBhatiaasacollateralsecurityfromPW6(H.Suresh Rao).
234.FactsandcircumstancesshowthatthehelicopterVTEAPhadbeenin theconstructivepossessionofPW6H.SureshRaothroughhiscrew members who had carried it to Phulpur and were looking after its operation and maintenance etc. When the election was over, crew memberswanteditstransportation.Theyloadedthehelicopterinthe truckhiredbythemandwhentheywereintheprocessoffinalisingits transportationtoMumbai,theaccusedpersonscameintwovehicles. Theywerecarryingthelathis.TheyatthebehestofaccusedRomesh Sharmathreatenedthecrewmembers,offloadedthehelicopterfrom that truck and loaded in another truck which was arranged by the accusedAvtarSinghAhluwalia. Theytooktheforciblepossessionof thehelicopterandtransportedittoDelhi.Theidentityoftheaforesaid persons among those 10 to 15 persons who had snatched the helicopterVTEAPandforciblyunloadedthedismantledpartsfromthe truckhasbeenestablishedfromtheevidenceofPW9B.G.Pappara, PW14Capt.H.C.Demose and PW15Parshu Ram. The accused personswereverywellknowntoaforesaidwitnesseswhohadseen
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 208/213
them during the entire election campaign being carried out by the accused Romesh Sharma. Thus, theyknew the aforesaid accused personsbynameandface.
235.TestimonyofPW6showsthaton05.06.1996,theaffidavitandtheLog booksofthehelicopterwereforciblysnatchedbytheaccusedRomesh Sharmafromhim.He(H.SureshRao)wasputinthefearofinstant hurtasRomeshSharmastartedbeatinghisemployeeVinodKumar Luthrawhenheputthedocumentsontable. Atthesametimethe accusedRomesh Sharmaalso abused PW10R.A.Shah,who was presentthere.AccusedRomeshSharma,thereafter,carriedPW6H. Suresh Rao to his chamber and threatened him with dire consequencesandthereaftergothissignaturesonvariousdocuments likeEx.PW6/33andobtainedtheaffidavitandtheLogbookswhich were required for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the helicopterinhisname(RomeshSharma).AccusedRomeshSharma alsoaskedPW6H.SureshRaotocallPW18NeerajBhatiatocome along with the original certificate of registration. He came at the residenceofRomeshSharmawiththecertificateasrequired.PW6H. SureshRaosignedallthosepapersasaforesaidandaskedNeeraj
209/213
Bhatia (PW18) to hand over the said certificate to the accused Romesh Sharma in pursuance of fear of imminent threat of instant hurt.
236.Factsandcircumstancesshowthatthehelicopterwasforciblybrought by the coaccused persons at Delhi by committing the offence of dacoity at the instance of the accused Romesh Sharma. The helicopter was taken at the farm house of Romesh Sharma at Chattarpur. On 24.06.96 he got the helicopter reassembled from PW9andPW44. HegotthedocumentsexecutedfromPW6asto thereceiptoffullandfinalconsiderationtowardsthehelicopterforits transferbyextendingthreats. Hegottheownershipofthehelicopter transferred in his name and retained its possession unlawfully. He further contacted PW64, Group President of Reliance Industries givingthepapersofthehelicopterfortheuseofRelianceIndustriesor foritssale.
237.ThetestimonyofPW6H.SureshRaoandofPW7RakeshGupta establishthattheywerekidnappedbytheaccusedRomeshSharma from C30 Mayfair Garden on 20.10.1998 and were brought by the
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 210/213
accusedRomeshSharmainhisMercedesCarandkeptconfinedat16 MahadevRoad. AccusedLaxmanSinghwhowasthebodyguardof theaccusedRomeshSharmakeptawatchoverthemandwasaparty tosuchabduction. TheaccusedLaxmanSinghkeptonpointinghis licensed pistol on PW6 H. Suresh Rao throughout the way at 16 MahadevRoadandkeptPW6andPW7captiveinthesaidbungalow. The rescue of the aforesaid persons from their captivity has been establishedfromthetestimonyofPW42InspectorJasbirSinghMalik.
238.TestimonyofPW6andPW7showthatwhenon20.10.98,theytried toretrievethelegitimateduesfromtheaccusedandtoldthatPW6 mayfileacomplaintinthePoliceStation,theaccusedgotangryand told,heknewthatPW6hasalreadyfiledacomplaint. Hestarted beatingPW6givingpunchesandkicks.Healsomadehimsit.When PW6onthepretextoftakingcigarettecameout,theaccusedgothim sitinthecar,friskedhispocketandfoundthecigarette.Heagaingot angryandbeathim.HeabductedthemtoMahadevRoad.Theywere rescued byPW42. PW6 wasthen taken to AIIMS where he was examinedbytheDoctorvideMLCEx.PW90/1.
211/213
CONCLUSION:
239.The net result of the proceedings before me based on oral and documentaryevidenceandalsotherivalcontentionsofthepartiesare that: Theprosecutionhasproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt against the accused Romesh Sharma of the offence of cheating punishableundersection420IPC,extortionbyputtingPW6infearof deathorgrievoushurtundersection386IPC,dishonestlyreceiving stolen property in the commission of offence of the dacoity under section412IPC,abductionwithintentiontowrongfullyconfineunder section 365 IPC, criminal intimidation under section 506 IPC, voluntarilycausingsimplehurtundersection323IPC,andhatching thecriminalconspiracyundersection120B(1)readwithsections420, 395,365and506IPC.
240.Theprosecutionhasalsoproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt against the accused AvtarSingh Ahluwalia, M.D. Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani for their having been committedtheoffencepunishableundersection395IPCandunder
R.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 212/213
section120B(1)readwithsection395IPC.
241.Theprosecutionhasalsoproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt against the accused Harish Mishra under section 420 and under section120B(1)readwithsection420IPC.
242.Theprosecutionhasalsoproveditscasebeyondreasonabledoubt againsttheaccusedLaxmanSinghundersections365and506IPC andundersection120B(1)readwithsection365and506IPC. 243.Iholdalltheaccusedpersonsguiltyoftheaboveoffencesandconvict themthereunder.
ANNOUNCEDINTHEOPENCOURT TODAYON20thJULY,2012
(SANJIVJAIN) PresidingOfficerMACTII SouthDistt.:SaketCourts NewDelhi:20.07.2012
213/213

CBI vs. Romesh Sharma-Chopper Hijjack

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CBI vs. Romesh Sharma-Chopper Hijjack

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

InR.CNo.:1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND S.C.No.:55/09 UniqueCaseID:02401R0830112003

2 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

3 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

18.01.1999 06.07.2012 20.07.2012

DateofreservingofJudgment/Order : Dateofpronouncement JUDGMENT: :

4 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

5 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

6 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

7 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

hire Helicopter forhis Election purpose ashe wasgoing to contest electionfromPhulpurconstituencyinUP.

8 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

9 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

10 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

11 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

12 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

13 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

14 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

15 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

17. AnapplicationwasmovedbyH.SureshRaoforreleaseofHelicopter onSuperdari.Videorderdated27.11.98,theHelicopterwasdirectedto

16 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

17 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

21. Tosubstantiateitscaseagainsttheaccusedpersons,theprosecution examinedasmanyas94witnesses.

18 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

19 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

20 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

21 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

inrespectofthecandidateRomeshSharma.HestatedthatRomesh SharmahadalsogivenanaffidavitofexpenditureEx.PW3/B2andthe expendituredetailsEx.PW3/B1whohadcontestedtheelectionfrom 55Phulpur,Allahabadin1996heldon07.05.96ofwhichtheresultwas declaredon11.05.96inwhichRomeshSharmagotdefeat.

26. PW5Sh.MehboobKhanwastheAsstt.DistrictElectionOfficer.He handedoverthedocumentstoCBIvideseizurememoEx.PW5/A.

22 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

23 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

24 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

25 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

26 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

27 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

28 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

29 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

30 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

31 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

32 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

33 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

34 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

35 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

hewasnotpresentinthecar.Hestatedthatthesearchinthehouse oftheaccusedatMayfairGardencontinuedtill21.10.98morningand duringthesearch,documentssuchasAgreementtoSell,Helicopter heightmapandotherdocumentswereseized.

36 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

37 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

38 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

39 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

40 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

41 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

42 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

43 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

44 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

148284toSureshRao. OnhisbehalfAjayKumarmadetheentries Ex.PW13/B. HestatedthatStampPaperEx.PW6/20ofRs.2/was soldon29.03.96toSureshRaoanditalsocarriedthestampofthe date.

45 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

46 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

47 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

48 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

49 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

50 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

51 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

52 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

53 CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.