former chief minister om parkash chautala convicted with others - abhishek kadyan

IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

CC No. 12/2008CBI Vs Ramesh Chandra etc. (Janki Kunj CGHS)

22.1.2013Present: Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.

None for accused persons.

It appears that due to the crowd collected in and out side the court for hearing order on sentence in CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc., the accused persons could not appear.

Put up the matter for further proceedings on 8.2.2013.

(Vinod KumarSpl. JudgeII, CBI, Rohini

22.1.2013

IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMARSPECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

CC No. 37/2010CBI Vs Vidya Dhar etc.22.1.2013Present: Sh. A. P. Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.

Sh. R. N. Azad, Pairvi Officer for CBI.Sh. Shamsher Singh, Naib Court for CBI.All the convicts with their counsels except convict Om

Prakash Chautala, who is stated to have been admitted in G. B. Pant Hospital due to his illness.

Convict Pushkar Mal Verma (37) and convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) have filed written statements submitting that this is additional reply to question no. 311 of their statements under Section 313 CrPC and that these statements may also be considered as part and parcel of their statements under Section 313 CrPC and that the same may also be considered while awarding the sentence.

The stage of statement under Section 313 CrPC is over. However for the sake of their satisfaction, I have taken these statements on record and I am reading the same. Their stand would be discussed in the order on sentence. Put up the matter after 30 minutes for announcing the order on sentence.

The order on sentence has been announced in open court. The attested copies of the main judgement have already been supplied to the convicts. Copies of order on sentenced be supplied to the convicts/their counsels.

One application has been moved by one surety namely Prabhu Sharan Rai Nayyar. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Smt. Shashi Malhotra (7) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.

2 One application has been moved by one surety namely Nafe Singh.

He has stated that he is the surety of convict Brahma Nand (9) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.

One application has been moved by one surety namely Dharmender. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Sher Singh (23) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.

One application has been moved by one surety namely Narender Singh. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Rajender Singh Dahiya (56) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.

At this stage, one applicant Amit Malhotra has moved an application stating that he is the authorized representative of the surety namely O. P. Malhotra and that O. P. Malhotra has stood surety for convict Smt. Krishna Gupta (8). It is prayed that O. P. Malhotra has authorized him to receive FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/. Along with this application one hand written application by O. P. Malhotra is annexed in which it is stated that the FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/ in his name may be given to his son namely Amit Malhotra. Sh. Ashok Kumar, adv. has identified the signature of O. P. Malhotra on this application. In these circumstances, I direct that the FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/, in the name of O. P. Malhotra, be released to applicant Amit Malhotra.

One application has been moved by one surety namely Krishan Chander. He has stated that he is the surety of convict Smt. Kailash Kaushik (25) and that he had furnished original FDR along with his surety bonds. It is preyed that the same may be released. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds stand forfeited, the application is allowed.

3 At this stage, it has been informed that copy of order on sentence has

not been supplied to convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) and that it has been sent to the jail. Therefore it is directed that copy of order on sentence be sent to convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) through Jail Superintendent, who shall take the receipt from the convict Durga Dutt Pradhan (38) and transmit such receipt to this court.

File be consigned to record room.(Vinod Kumar

Spl. JudgeII, CBI, Rohini22.1.2013

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGEII (PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT) (CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

ID No. 02404R0008692008CC No. 37/2010RC No. 3(A)/04/ACU.IX/NEW DELHICBI Vs 1. Vidya Dhar, IAS

S/o Sh. Ram SwarupR/o V & PO Dhabdhani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani,Haryana.

2. Sher Singh BadshamiS/o Late Sh. Karta RamR/o (i) 931, Sector5, Kurukshetra, Haryan. (ii) 327 Sector4, M.D. Complex, Panchkula,

Haryana.3. Sanjiv Kumar, IAS

S/o Dr. Maheshwar KumarR/o Flat No. 6360, Sec.C, Pkt. 6&7 Vasant Kunj,New Delhi70.

4. Om Prakash ChautalaS/o Late Sh. Devi LalR/o (i) V & POChautala, Tehsil – Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana,. (ii) 231232, Chautala House, Barnala Road,

Sirsa, Haryana. (iii) Tejakhera FarmHouse Village Tejakhera,

Tehsil Dabwali, Sirsa, Haryana.5. Ajay Singh Chautala

S/o Sh. Om Prakash ChautalaR/o (i) 231232 Chautala House, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Haryana. (ii) 18 Janpath, New Delhi.

6. Smt. Prem BahlW/o Sh. Balbir Kumar Bahl

R/o House No. 925, Sec. 7, Urban Estate,Ambala City, Haryana.

7. Smt. Shashi MalhotraW/o Sh. Prabhu Sharan Rai NayyarR/o H. No. 10, Vikash Vihar, Ambala City, Haryana.

8. Smt. Krishna GuptaW/o Sh. Om Prakash MalhotraR/o H. No. 74, Vijay Nagar, Ambala City, Haryana.

9. Brahma NandS/o Sh. Chandgi RamR/o Village Ninar, Post Office Kaunt, Bhiwani,Haryana.

10. Ms Vinod KumariD/o Sh. Harbans Lal SharmaR/o 100, Ram Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.

11. Maman ChandS/o Sh. Pala RamR/o (i) A12/ Geeta Colony, Bhbiwani. (ii) Village & Post Office Devasar District

Bhiwani, Haryana.12. Sawan Lal

S/o Sh. GurdayalR/o 50, Kamala Nagar, Bhiwani, Haryana.

13. Smt. Kanta SharmaW/o Sh. Bhim Singh SharmaR/o 3928, Sector 22D, Chandigarh.

14. Sh. Prabhu Dayal (expired before filing of the charge sheet)

S/o Sh. Aud RamR/o Village & Post Office Khabra Kalan,Bhatukala, District, Fatehabad, Haryana.

15. Smt. Phool KhuranaW/o Sh. Bhupinder PalR/o Old Post Office Street, Bhuna, Fatehabad,

Haryana.Present address : H. No. 1386, Village Bhuna,Block4, Tehsil Fatehabad, District Hissar, Haryana.

16. Harbans LalS/o Sh. Sadi LalR/o Village & PO Ramgarh, Near PNB, Ramgarh,District Alwar, Rajashtan.

17. Ram Saran KukrejaS/o Sh. Khem ChandR/o 127, Vijay Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Hissar,Haryana.

18. Udal Prasad Sharma (expired during trial on 05.12.2012)

S/o Sh. Badri Prasad SharmaR/o 1398, Parvatia Colony, Faridabad, Haryana.

19. Brij Mohan (discharged on 23.7.2011)S/o Sh. Shri Ram SharmaR/o 365, Near Shradha Nand Park, New Colony,Palwal, Haryana.

20. Chand Singh VermaS/o Sh. Kirpa Ram VermaR/o 591/18, Om Nagar, Khandsa Road, Gurgaon,Haryana.

21. Yogesh Kumar SharmaS/o Sh. B. R. SharmaR/o 860, Sector7, Extn. Urban Estate, Gurgaon,Haryana.

22. Smt. Abhilash KaurW/o Sh. Sardar SinghR/o 107, Pratap Nagar, Jail Road, New Delhi.

23. Sher SinghS/o Sh. Nand RamR/o Village & Post Office Mandhan, Tehsil Tosham,District Bhiwani, Haryana.

24. Anar SinghS/o Sh. Neki RamR/o (i) H. No. C37, Surya Vihar, Near Sec. 4, Police

outpost, Gurgaon, Haryana. (ii) H.No. 1446 – Huda, Sector6, Bahadur Garh,

Haryana.25. Smt. Kailash Kaushik

W/o Sh. Karna Singh KaushikR/o H. No. 1132, Housing Board Colony, Jind.

26. Ajit Singh SangwanS/o Sh. Moji RamR/o Vidya Nagar, Mehram Road, Bhiwani, Haryana.

27. Smt. Ram KaurW/o Sh. Om PrakashR/o H. No. 1498, Urban State, Jind, Haryana.

28. Mahavir Singh LatharS/o Sh. Balraj Singh LatharR/o Shadipur, Julana, District Jind, Haryana.

29. Narain Singh RuhilS/o Sh. Preet SinghR/o (Present) H.No. 66, Officers Colony Kunj PuraRoad, Karnal, Haryana.(Permanent): Village & PO Beholi, District Panipat,Haryana.

30. Krishan Lal NarangS/o Sh. L. R. NarangR/o H. No. 1973, Sector13 Urban Estate, Karnal,Haryana.

31. Smt. Usha RaniW/o Sh. Radha Krishan ChananaR/o 847, Sector13, Urban Estate, Karnal, Haryana.

32. Madan Lal KalraS/o Sh. Jai Lal KalraR/o (i) House No. B4, D.C. Colonyu, Kurukshetra.

(ii) House No. 534, Modal Town, Jind Road, Kaithal, Haryana.

33. Veer Bhan MehtaS/o Sh. Thakur Das MehtaR/o Ward No. 6, Village & Post Office, Indri District,Karnal, Haryana.

34. Shashi Bhushan (expired during trial on 12.11.2008)

S/o Sh. Atma RamR/o H. No. 1142, Sec.13, Urban State,Kurukshetra, Haryana.

35. Dilbag SinghS/o Sh. Lehri SinghR/o House No. 320, Ward No. 1, Charkhi Dadri,District Bhiwani, Haryana.

36. Ram KumarS/o Sh. Bhana RamR/o Mandir Wali Gali6, Patel Nagar, Kaithal,Haryana.

37. Pushkar Mal VermaS/o Sh. Ram Chander VermaR/o H. No. 1360, Mohalla Shiv Colony, Opp.Panchayat Bhawan, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh,Haryana.

38. Durga Dutt PradhanS/o Sh. Maha Ram SharmaR/o Gali New Sari, Sain Chowk Road, Narnaul,Haryana.

39. Bani SinghS/o Sh. Amar SinghR/o Mohalla Sainipura, Mahendergarh, Haryana.

40. Smt. Daya SainiW/o Sh. B. S. SainiR/o H. No. 396/1, Sector – 44, Chandigarh.

41. Ram SinghS/o Sh. Surat SinghR/o Village & Post Office Sheikh Pura, District,Karnal, Haryana.

42. Puran Chand (Expired during trial on 03.12.2012)

S/o Sh. Lachhaman DasR/o H. No. 301, Ward No. 11, Panipat, Haryana.

43. Sheesh Pal SinghS/o Sh. Hoshiar SinghR/o (i) 1165, Sector15, Sonepat. (ii) 257, Sarojini Colony, Yamuna Nagar,

Haryana.44. Smt. Rekha Sharma

W/o Late Sh. Ravi Dutt SharmaR/o H. No. 438, Sec.16, Punchkula, Haryana.

45. Smt. Raksha JindalW/o Sh.R. C. JindalR/o 1383, Sec.15, Punchkula, Haryana.

46. Jeet Ram KhokharS/o Sh. Shobh RamR/o H. No. 326, Opposite Power House, ModalTown, Rohtak, Haryana.

47. Smt. Nirmal DeviW/o Sh. Dhambir SinghR/o 813/23, DLF Colony, Rohtak, Haryana.

48. Amar SinghS/o Sh. Ram KrishanR/o Village & PO Meham, Mohalla, Kharikuri,District Rohtak, Haryana.

49. Smt. Sudha SachdevaW/o Sh. R. S. SachdevaR/o H. No. 72A, Model Town, Near Shravan JayantiPark, Rewari, Haryana.

50. Darshan Dayal VermaS/o Sh. Vasudev Prasad VermaR/o 380, Agarsain Colony, Sirsa, Haryana.

51. Smt. Saroj SharmaW/o Sh. R. B. DuttaR/o H. No. 207, Sec.7, Gurgaon, Haryana.

52. Tulsi Ram Ram BihagraS/o Sh. Ram SwaroopR/o 251, Street7, Gulabi Bagh, Rewari, Haryana.

53. Nathu Ram (expired during trial on 17.01.2012)S/o Sh. Kurara RamR/o Village Adampur, Post Office Mandi Adampur,District Hissar, Haryana.

54. Om Prakash TiwariS/o Sh. Mangat Ram TiwariR/o Nahoria Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana.

55. Bihari LalS/o Sh. Pat RamR/o 15/249, Bansal Colony, Sirsa, Haryana.

56. Rajender Singh DahiyaS/o Sh. Hoshiar SinghR/o H. No. 62, 8Marla, Sonepat, Haryana.

57. Dalip SinghS/o Sh. Chand RamR/o 245/5/3 Adarsh Nagar, Gohana, DistrictSonepat, Haryana.

58. Smt. Kamla Devi (expired before filing of the charge sheet)

W/o Sh. Ranbir SinghR/o 174 L 9A), Model Town, Sonepat, Haryana.

59. Rajender Pal SinghS/o Sh. Ranbir SinghR/o House No. 3903/D, Sec. 22, Chandigarh.(Permanent Address: 365, Jagat Colony, Bhiwani,

Haryana).60. Sarwan Kumar Chawla

S/o Sh. Manohar Lal ChawlaR/o 44, Madhu Colony, Behind Madhu Cinema,Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

61. Smt. Urmil SharmaW/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chander SharmaR/o 72, Krishna Colony, Yamuna Nagar, ITI Road,Haryana.

62. Joginder LalS/o Sh. Ram LalR/o 1026, Dwarka Puri, Jagadhari, District YamunaNagar, Haryana.

O R D E R ON S E N T E N C E

22.01.2013

Most of the convicts are senior citizens and all of them suffer

from various ailments. Some of them are seriously ill. Many of them

have their spouses, children and parents, who suffer from

interminable diseases. Some of the unfortunate convicts have the

burden of supporting their minor grand children due to the death of

their sons. A few of them are physically challenged. Many of these

convicts have been deserted by their children in their old age. In this

background, this judgment of conviction, it is argued, has shattered

them beyond redemption.

2. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. has prayed fervently for showing leniency

in awarding sentence to Om Prakash Chautala due to his old age,

physical challenge and various ailments. It is argued that Om Prakash

Chautala, Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh Badshami have heavily

suffered in terms of their political career because after the registration

of this case, their party had lost the power and individually these

convicts have lost elections successively. It is further argued that even

this conviction is an enough punishment for them because it is

difficult for them to show face to the society.

3. Ld. Counsels for convicts have submitted their medical records

and the medical records of their family members in support of their

submissions. I find no reason not to believe the aforesaid submissions

of Ld. Counsels for convicts. However, these aspects are not relevant

to the question of the quantum of sentence. The relevant points for

considering the sentence are the circumstances attending the offence.

4. The enormity of the offences under consideration today can be

appreciated from the facts that the conspiracy in question took in its

sweep almost all the districts of State of Haryana. As many as 57

Chairpersons/members of 18 District Level Selection Committees were

made to create forged award lists in which the interview marks of

about 8,000 candidates were changed. I have already discussed in the

main judgment that the forging of award lists amounted to forging of

'valuable securities' punishable under section 467 IPC which provides

sentence upto life imprisonment. The gravity of the offences further

enhances in view of the reason that the brazenness with which the

sacrosanct constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity in the

matters of public employment to each citizen of India has been

violated. In AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1548, the full Bench of

Supreme Court had severely castigated the lenient view taken by the

Sessions Court in sentencing a convict in such offences and observed

as under:

“7. Social defence is the criminological foundation of punishment. The trial judge has confused between correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalization of serious social offences. The first is basic, the second pathetic. That Court which ignores the grave injury to society implicit in economic crimes by the upperberth 'mafia' ill serves social justice. Soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victims. It is altogether a different thing to insist on therapeutic treatment, hospital setting and correctional goals inside the prison (even punctuated by parole, opportunities for welfare work, meditational normalization and healthy selfexpression), so that the convict may be humanised and, on release, rehabilitated as a safe citizen. This court has explained the correctional strategy of punishment in Giasuddin's case (1978) 1 SCR 153: (AIR 1977 SC 1926). Coddling is not correctional, any more than torture is deterrent. While iatrogenic prison terms are bad because they dehumanize, it is functional failure and judicial pathology to hold out a benignly selfdefeating nonsentence to deviants who endanger the morals and morale, the health and wealth of society.”

5. Therefore, considering the enormity of the offences and the

manner in which politician bureaucrat nexus has resulted in depriving

such a large number of candidates of their constitutional rights, I do

not find any reason for leniency in sentencing those convicts who

were masterminding the entire conspiracy or assisting them in

execution of the same.

6. It has been argued on behalf of convict Vidya Dhar that he did

not took any benefit from these offences and even his own relatives

could not be selected and that he had not spoken a word in any of the

meetings. Hence, it is prayed that a lenient view should be taken

while sentencing him. I disagree with his submissions. Those who

host a lunch will have to pay the bill, even if they themselves are on

fast. Needless to say that they also serve, who stand and wait silently.

7. It has been argued on behalf of convict M.L. Kalra, Durga Dutt

Pradhan, Bani Singh, Smt. Daya Saini and Ram Singh that their role is

only in respect of their respective districts, and, therefore, they cannot

be compared with those who planned the conspiracy. I disagree with

this submission. If you have jumped in a cesspool, you are in it. It

does not matter whether you are in the center of it or in the corner of

it. Hence, your culpability and liability is same as the main

conspirators. It is like a person planning a terrorist act and the person

executing it. Both deserves same sentence. Hence, I find no

substance for adopting any lenient approach towards these convicts.

Convict Pushkar Mal Verma and Durga Dutt Pradhan had

maintained that they had never prepared the award lists, but, today

they have come with the written submissions as to how the incident

took place. In the written submission, Durga Dutt Pradhan has

admitted his signatures on the lists but stated that the interview marks

were filled later on. He has not pleaded any pressure upon him.

Hence, his case has to be considered alongwith the convicts namely

M.L. Kalra etc. So far as Pushkar Mal Verma is concerned, he has

written as to how the entire incident took place and how he was

under pressure. Though, this submission has come at a very late

stage, but, better late than never.

8. However, what troubled me was to decide the question of

sentencing Sanjiv Kumar. I have held him to be a 'whistle blower'.

There is no law at present to protect the whistle blowers. Had Sanjiv

Kumar not taken a step to approach the Supreme Court of India and

had he not produced the second set of award lists, this scam would

not have come to light. The dilemma before this court in deciding the

question of sentence is on account of the simple reason that

sentencing such a person may send a message that a whistle blower is

not appreciated by law, rather, he is put to trial and tribulation.

9. In absence of any law for the protection of the whistle blowers, I

feel that following principles may govern them:

1. Law welcomes whistle blowers.

2. If the whistle blower is innocent but only was a victim of

circumstances, he must be cited as a prosecution witness.

3. If whistle blower had a minor role in the commission of the offence or

in the conspiracy for commission of such offences, the courts should come

forward to his rescue and in appropriate cases should not hesitate to make

him an 'approver'.

4. If the whistle blower had a major role in commission of such offences,

he must come up with complete facts before the investigating

officer and during trial he must testify on oath at the stage of defence

evidence and should disclose the truth, the whole truth and nothing but

the truth before the court during trial. The trial court, in such event, must

certify in its judgment about the fact that such whistle blower had come

out with truth and has not concealed anything from the court.

5. On such certification in the judgment, the court can proceed to award

the minimum possible sentence to such convict and if possible, may

release him on probation with recommendation to the government that

no departmental action should be initiated against him in view of the said

conviction.

10. Now, let me see as to whether Sanjiv Kumar had disclosed the

complete truth before this court. I have already stated that his entire

effort in the trial was to show as if he had nothing to do with the

entire offence. His stand as to which was the true award list was

found to be false. He kept on saying that he had prevented the scam

by not implementing the fake lists. The prosecution evidence on the

other hand has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was fully

involved in the scam and had actually implemented the forged award

lists. One of the defence witnesses examined by him was found to be

untrustworthy. He took a wrong stand before the Supreme Court of

India in respect of the fakeness or genuineness of the award lists. He

maintained the same stand before the investigating officer and stuck

to his guns to the last even during trial. Even if, Sanjiv Kumar had

taken a truthful stand, atleast at the stage of final arguments in view

of the over whelming evidence forthcoming before this court, his case

would have been taken entirely on a different footing than the other

convicts. But in view of his consistent false stand in respect of the

genuineness and fakeness of the award lists, I have no option but to

treat him on parity with those convicts who were overseeing the

execution of the entire conspiracy.

11. However, I agree that the convicts who had acted under severe

pressure must be treated leniently. These convicts had been truthful

during the trial. They were aware that they had committed a serious

mistake in their life, but, their conscience did not permit them to

speak falsehood before the court. Their moral values shone like a

guiding lamp for them. During the entire trial, they were truthful and

courageous despite the fact that they knew that by being truthful, they

were inviting their conviction which may entail a long jail term. I

refer to the statement u/s 313 CrPC of Prem Bahal, R.S. Dahiya etc.

and the defence evidences of Sher Singh and D.D. Verma. They had

committed an offence once, but soon the repentance was in their

hearts. They fully cooperated CBI during investigation. They came up

truthfully before this court. A few hesitant convicts soon followed

them. Their remorse for the act exhibited itself frequently during

trial. In such circumstances, their sentences must be highly reduced in

comparison with the other convicts who had no pressure upon them

and were not truthful before this court. In this regard, I would refer

to the case of convict Sudha Sachdeva. She had not taken a truthful

defence but the fact that she did not sign the forged award list is a

circumstance which entitles her to a reduced quantum of sentence.

12. I, therefore proceed announce the sentences as under:

1. Om Prakash Chautala (A4) and Sanjiv Kumar (A3)

(i) I sentence both of them to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years

and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo

simple imprisonment for six months each.

(ii) Both the convicts are further sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ each

u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall

undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.

2. Vidya Dhar (A1), Sher Singh Badshami (A2), Ajay Singh

Chautala (A5).

(i) I sentence all these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for 10

years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w

Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of


simple imprisonment for six months each.

3. Madan Lal Kalra (A32), Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38), Bani

Singh (A39), Smt. Daya Saini (A40) and Ram Singh (A41).

(i) I sentence Madan Lal Kalra (A32), Durga Dutt Pradhan (A38),

Bani Singh (A39) and Smt. Daya Saini (A40) to rigorous

imprisonment for 7 years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ each u/s

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine,

they shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months each.

(ii) All the five convicts are further sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 10 years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s

120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of


undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

(iii) All the five convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for

three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s

467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,

they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I

further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s

471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment

of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

4. Pushkar Mal Verma (A37)

(i) I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a

fine in the sum of Rs.1,000/ u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple

imprisonment for six months each.

(ii) He is further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years

and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ u/s 120B IPC r/w Section

418/467/471 IPC r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment

for six months each.

(iii) This convict is also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for

three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s

467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine, he

shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. I further

sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 471 IPC

and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,

he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

5. Smt. Prem Bahal (A6), Smt. Shashi Malhotra (A7) and Smt.

Krishna Gupta (A8).

(i) I sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a

fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of


simple imprisonment for one month.

(ii) I further sentence these convicts to rigorous imprisonment for

four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w

Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption

Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple

imprisonment for one month.

(iii) All these three convicts are also sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment

for four years u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of

payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one

month each. I further sentence them to rigorous imprisonment for

three years u/s 471 IPC and fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each. In

default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment

for one month each.

6. Brahmanand (A9), Ms. Vinod Kumari (A10), Maman Chand

(A11) and Sawan Lal (A12).










(iii) All these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

for three years u/s 418 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years

u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine,





7. Smt. Kanta Sharma (A13) and Smt. Phool Khurana (A15).










(iii) Both these convicts are also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment







8. Harbans Lal (A16), Ram Saran Kukreja (A17).

















9. Chand Singh Verma (A20), Yogesh Kumar Sharma (A21)

and Smt. Abhilash Kaur (A22).

















10. Sher Singh (A23), Anar Singh (A24), Smt. Kailash Kaushik

(A25).

(i) I sentence Anar Singh (A24) and Smt. Kailash Kaushik (A25)

to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.

100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of


month.

(ii) I further sentence Sher Singh (A23), Anar Singh (A24) and

Smt. Kailash Kaushik (A25) to rigorous imprisonment for four years

and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w Section

418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In

default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment

for one month.








11. Ajit Singh Sangwan (A26), Ram Kaur (A27) and Mahavir

Singh (A28).

















12. Narain Singh Ruhil (A29), Krishan Lal Narang (A30), Smt.

Usha Rani(A31).

















13. Veer Bhan Mehta (A33), Dilbag Singh (A35), Ram Kumar

(A36).

(i) I sentence Veer Bhan Mehta (A33) and Ram Kumar (A36) to

rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine in the sum of Rs.

100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of


month.

(ii) I further sentence all these three convicts to rigorous

imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each

u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 r/w Section 13(2) of


undergo simple imprisonment for one month.








14. Sheesh Pal Singh (A43), Smt. Rekha Sharma (A44), Smt.

Raksha Jindal (A45).

















15. Jeet Ram Khokhar (A46), Amar Singh (A48), Nirmal Devi

(A47).

















16. Smt. Sudha Sachdeva (A49), Darshan Dayal Verma (A50),

Smt. Saroj Sharma (A51), Tulsi Ram Bihagra (A52).










(iii) All these convicts (except Sudha Sachdeva A49) are also

sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 418 IPC and

rigorous imprisonment for four years u/s 467 IPC with fine of Rs.

100/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple

imprisonment for one month each. I further sentence them to

rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 471 IPC and fine in the

sum of Rs. 100/ each. In default of payment of fine, they shall

undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

17. Om Prakash Tiwari (A54) & Bihari Lal (A55).

















18. Rajender Singh Dahiya (A56), Dalip Singh (A57).

















19. Rajender Pal Singh (A59), Sarwan Kumar Chawla (A60),

Urmil Sharma (A61) and Jogender Lal (A62).

(i) I sentence Rajender Pal Singh (A59), Sarwan Kumar Chawla

(A60) and Urmil Sharma (A61) to rigorous imprisonment for two

years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 100/ each u/s 13(2) of Prevention

of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo


(ii) I further sentence all the above mentioned four convicts to

rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.

100/ each u/s 120B IPC r/w Section 418/467/471 r/w Section

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine,

they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.








13. All the sentences of all the convicts mentioned in this order

shall run concurrently.

14. I would be failing in my duty if I do not refer to some more

points raised during this trial. Sh. S.K. Saxena, Adv. for Om Prakash

Chautala, Ajay Singh Chautala and Sher Singh Badshami had argued

while addressing arguments on sentence as to why the candidates

who reaped the benefit of the scam are still in the job. I fully agree

with his submissions. During investigation as well as during this trial,

it has very clearly come on record that the favoured candidates were

given 17 or more than 17 marks in the interviews. Therefore, such

candidates who have been so favoured have adopted unfair means for

getting their selections. In Rakesh Kumar Chhabra V. State of

Himachal Pradesh, 2012 Cr.L.J., the Himachal Pradesh High Court

had held such persons to be the coconspirators. Hence, such

candidates should not be allowed to remain in job. Regarding the

remaining candidates, it would be appropriate if the District Wise

merit list on the basis of Supreme Court lists is prepared. I may

mention that as per Rule 11 issued by the Directorate Primary

Education which has been exhibited as Ext.PW52/B, it was directed

that District Level Selection Committees would prepare the merit list

after conclusion of the interviews which would be sent to the

Directorate Primary Education. The vacancies of each district should

be filled up on the basis of District wise merit list. Where the

Supreme Court list is not available like district Kurukshetra, Panipat

and Rohtak, such merit list should be prepared purely on the basis of

the academic marks etc. or their interviews should be held afresh.

15. I hasten to add here that this is only a suggestion to the

government and not a direction. Since, this issue has been raised

before this court, hence, it has been dealt with.

16. I would further like to add here that the Dy. Commissioners and

the SDMs etc. had actively compelled the Chairpersons and the

Members of the District Level Selection Committees to sign affidavits

on a preprepared proforma. This is a serious matter because these

affidavits were being taken for the purpose of filing a reply by the

government in the Supreme Court of India. I recommend CBI to hold

an inquiry and to identify those officers who had indulged in such

activities and if sufficient material is found, departmental action

should be recommended against those officers.

17. I may point out that Sanjiv Kumar in his Writ Petition no.

93/2003 had specifically mentioned that the same scam had taken

place in the selections of the teachers under the DirectorateSecondary

Education during the same time. Some evidence to that effect has

been led during trial which indicates the possibility of such a scam.

One award list Ext.PW24/L has been shown to this court which

reflects the same pattern of marks as available in the Directorate lists.

The CBI should not close its eyes on this aspect on the ground that the

second set of award lists is not available. I may point out that even in

JBT scam, the original award lists of some of the districts are not

available, but, this court has held the Directorate Lists of those

districts to be fake on the basis of the marking pattern. Therefore, I

recommend that CBI should start investigation u/s 173(8) CrPC in

respect of the selections of teachers under Directorate of Secondary

Education which happened during the same time, of course, after

fulfilling the necessary requirements.

Announced in the open court (Vinod Kumar)on this 22nd day of January, 2013. Special JudgeII

Prevention of Corruption ActCBI, Rohini, Delhi

former chief minister om parkash chautala convicted with others - abhishek kadyan

Documents