cbi vs. romesh sharma-chopper hijjack

1CBI Vs. Romesh Sharma & Ors.

IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJIV JAIN : PRESIDING OFFICER : MACT II SOUTH DISTRICT : SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

In R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND

S. C. No. : 55/09

Unique Case ID : 02401R0830112003

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Versus

1. Romesh SharmaS/o Sh. SatyanarayanR/o C30, Mayfair Garden,New Delhi

2. Harish MishraS/o Sh. Satya Narayan MishraR/o 507, Royal Turner Road,Juhu, Mumbai

3. Avtar Singh AhluwaliaS/o Late Sh. B S AhluwaliaR/o Sai Kirpa Behind Sri Krishna Complex,Vasai Road (W), Distt. Thane

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 1/213


4. M D BhowaniS/o Late Sh. D K BhojwaniR/o 61, Mayfair ApartmentMayfair Garden, New Delhi

5. Naveen Budhiraja @ BabooS/o Sh. Amrit Lal BudhirajaR/o 1580/13, Govind Puri,New Delhi

6. IndermaniS/o Sh. D R MishraR/o Vill. Ugrasain Pur, Distt. Phulpur,Allahabad, U.P.

7. AvdeshS/o Sh. Jagdish PrashadR/o Vill. Ugrasain Pur, Distt. Phulpur,Allahabad, U.P.

8. ManojS/o Sh. Shyam LalR/o 69C, Sobatia Bagh,Allahabad, U.P.

9. Laxman SinghS/o Sh. Lal SinghR/o E71, Lok Sabha Rajya SabhaGovt. Flats, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 2/213


Date of Institution : 18.01.1999

Date of reserving of Judgment/Order : 06.07.2012

Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2012

J U D G M E N T :

1. The quest in all criminal trials is to arrive at the truth and therefore, the

role of the Judge is to cull out the true facts from the evidence led

before him and ensure that guilty does not go Scotfree and innocent’s

life and liberty is not jeopardised. This role of the Judge has been

explained in the case of Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State

of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 345 thus :

A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the

cases and its purpose is to arrive at judgment on an issue as a

fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact

in issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution

and the accused have arrived by their pleadings, the controlling

question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the

object is to meet out justice and to convict the guilty and protect

the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 3/213


bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such

rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The

proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt must

depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence,

oral and circumstantial and not be an isolated scrutiny.

2. In the matter of analysing the evidence on record, the Supreme Court

in Inder Singh & Anr. Vs. The State (Delhi Administration) (1998) 4

SCC 161 has observed thus :

Credibility of testimony, oral and circumstantial, depends

considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated

scrutiny. While it is necessary 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, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws,

inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued

that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous

hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being

punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 4/213


guilty man cannot away with it because truth suffers some

infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial

quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of

foolproof concoction. Why fake up? Because the Court asks

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. The case was registered in the CBI office vide R.C No. 1/

(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND and the investigation was taken up. On the

completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the

accused persons namely Romesh Sharma, Harish Mishra, Avtar Singh

Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh,

Manoj, Vinod Kumar Luthra and Laxman Singh on 18.01.99 for their

having been committed offences punishable U/s 120 B read with the

Sections 420, 365, 342, 384, 392, 395 and 506 IPC and substantive

offences.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 5/213


4. After compliance under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 22.04.99.

5. The case of the prosecution is that one Helicopter Model Bell 47 G5

VTEAP was owned by Pushpak Aviation Ltd. It was sold by the

company to its Director (Commercial) H. Suresh Rao for Rs. 50,000/

vide Memorandum of Agreement (in short MOU) dated 25.06.94. Its

ownership was transferred in his name on 19.09.94. To make it

airworthiness, H. Suresh Rao purchased spare parts during the period

from 21.10.94 to 25.02.95 from Summit Aviation for an amount of Rs.

38,81,954.23. Rs. 18,59,913.23 towards principal amount and Rs.

5,95,172.23 were outstanding to Summit Aviation from H. Suresh Rao.

He who was unable to pay the above dues and executed a

Memorandum of Agreement on 20.11.95 for the sale of Helicopter to

Summit Aviation for an amount of Rs. 40 Lacs.

In February, 1996, H. Suresh Rao came in contact with Romesh

Sharma in the office of United India Airways. Sometime in March,

1996, H. Suresh Rao and Mahender Pujara visited Delhi at Romesh

Sharma’s residence where Romesh Sharma expressed his desire to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 6/213


hire Helicopter for his Election purpose as he was going to contest

election from Phulpur constituency in UP.

6. On 24.03.96 H. Suresh Rao received a call from Romesh Sharma to

send his Helicopter immediately to Phulpur for election purpose. H.

Suresh Rao told him that he would be sending terms and conditions in

this regard which have to be entered into before he would give his

consent. Romesh Sharma told him that Rakesh Gupta and his brother

Harish Mishra would contact him in this regard. H. Suresh Rao then

asked Mahender Pujara to fax the terms of hiring of Helicopter to

Romesh Sharma which he faxed as per which the hiring charge of

Helicopter was Rs. 80,000/ per day for 15 days and other charges for

insurance, transport of his crew members etc. total amounting to Rs.

13 lacs. Romesh Sharma asked H. Suresh Rao to send the terms

himself who sent the same vide letter on 25.03.96.

7. On 26.03.96 Romesh Sharma again telephoned H. Suresh Rao and

asked him to despatch the Helicopter immediately assuring that his

brother Harish Mishra would contact him on 27.03.96 in that regard.

He however, expressed his difficulty to H. Suresh Rao that if he

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 7/213


accepted the terms of hiring, he would not be in a position to use the

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

Understanding purporting to show the sale of Helicopter to Reliance

Developers and Investors for Rs. 30 Lacs instead of Rs. 70 lacs, the

cost of the Helicopter assuring that the said MOU would be destroyed

after the election would be over.

8. On 27.03.96, Harish Mishra and Rakesh Gupta contacted H. Suresh

Rao in his office. A MOU on the letter head of Reliance Developers

and Investors purporting to show that the Helicopter had been sold on

24.02.96 by H. Suresh Rao to the said firm was signed by H. Suresh

Rao and Harish Mishra on 27.03.96. H. Suresh Rao signed the MOU

believing the assurance given by Romesh Sharma that the said MOU

would be destroyed after the election. An amount of Rs. 3.0 lacs was

paid by Harish Mishra to H. Suresh Rao on that day as hiring charges.

9. Thereafter, the Helicopter was despatched in two trucks after getting it

dismantled. In other truck, Aviation fuel was sent. The carrier

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 8/213


documents showed Pushpak Aviation as the consignor as well as the

Consignee of the goods. Harish Mishra, being representative of

Romesh Sharma sent his man who accompanied the trucks from

Mumbai to Phulpur. Crew members namely B G Pappara, Capt. A D

Bansod and B R Pappara were sent on 28.03.96 to Ugarsen Pur,

native place of Romesh Sharma. Other crew members namely H C

Demons and Parashuram etc. were also sent to Phulpur. After

despatch, H Suresh Rao demanded more money for hiring charges

from Romesh Sharma who asked him to come to Delhi.

10. On 30.03.96, H. Suresh Rao contacted Romesh Sharma at Delhi who

issued three cheques of Rs. 1.0 lac each and also handed over to H.

Suresh Rao a typed MOU on a Stamp Paper purporting to show that

Helicopter was sold by H. Suresh Rao to Reliance Developers and

Investors on 24.02.96, induced him to sign representing that the

previous MOU was not acceptable as a legal document as the same

was not on a Stamp Paper. The MOU was signed by H. Suresh Rao

and Romesh Sharma and it was witnessed by M D Bhojwani and

others.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 9/213


11. The Helicopter was used for election campaigning of Romesh Sharma

in Phulpur Constituency till 07.05.96 against the initial agreed time till

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

dismantled the Helicopter since it was to be sent to Kerala via Mumbai

in connection with another contract which had been entered into for the

use of the Helicopter for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation.

They contacted Ashok Shukla to arrange for the trucks. The trucks

from SherePunjab roadways were booked for that purpose. One

truck carrying fuel was despatched from Phulpur to Mumbai on

09.05.96.

12. On 11.05.96 truck reported at Ugarsen Pur for carrying the Helicopter

to Mumbai through its driver Sharafat Ullah Khan. The crew members

B G Pappara, H. C Demons, Parshuram, B R Pappara etc. got the

Helicopter loaded in the aforesaid truck. However, before the Truck

could leave, 1015 persons of Romesh Sharma including Avtar Singh

Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja, Indermani, Avdesh and

Manoj came there and threatened the crew members on the direction

of Romesh Sharma not to take the Helicopter to Mumbai and directed

R.C No. : 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

adjacent to the Bungalow of Romesh Sharma under their guard. Avtar

Singh Ahluwalia then contacted Abdul Salam to carry the Helicopter

from Phulpur to Delhi on his truck and its driver carried it to Delhi as

per the documents prepared in the name of Romesh Sharma under the

signature of Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. It was unloaded on 12.05.96 at Jai

Mata Di Farm House of Romesh Sharma.

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

Romesh Sharma at his residence at C30, Mayfair Garden, New Delhi

where Romesh Sharma retorted and told him to forget about his

Helicopter as the same was not his property and asked him to take

more payment for the Helicopter. On the next day i.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 was under so much fear that he 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.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 11/213


Suresh Rao by Romesh Sharma.

14. On return to Mumbai, H. Suresh Rao asked Romesh Sharma to return

his Helicopter but he flatly refused and asked him to have some more

payment for the cost of Helicopter, if the original documents including

registration certificate and affidavit showing the transfer of Helicopter

would be handed over to him. On loosing the hope of getting back the

Helicopter he thought appropriate to hand over the documents to

Romesh Sharma in order to get whatever money he could. He

(H Suresh Rao) contacted R A Shah, his Advocate and apprised him

about the situation requesting him to go to Delhi with him. He left for

Delhi on 04.06.96 and was joined by R. A. Shah on 05.06.96.

15. On 05.06.96, H. Suresh Rao, Rakesh Gupta, R.A. Shah went to the

house of Romesh Sharma. Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh

Sharma also reached there. Mahesh Mehta had a talk with Romesh

Sharma and made some correction in the proposed agreement of sale

produced by Romesh Sharma. Romesh Sharma then asked H.

Suresh Rao to handover the documents. When R A Shah advised H.

Suresh Rao not to handover the documents to Romesh Sharma till the

R.C No. : 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

Sharma then handed over the documents to his associate V K Luthra.

When V K Luthra put the papers on the table, Romesh Sharma got

furious and started beating Luthra. An atmosphere of terror was

created by him. Romesh Sharma physically lifted the complainant from

his seat and took him to his office chamber where he asked him to sign

all the papers in order to enable him to get the Helicopter transferred in

his name. He threatened that in case he did not sign the same, he (H.

Suresh Rao) would not be alive reminding his connection with Dawood

Ibrahim and his associates. H. Suresh Rao then signed the

documents under fear of injury to his body. Romesh Sharma then

brought out the corrected agreement to sell dated 14.05.96 which H.

Suresh Rao also signed. H. Suresh Rao was also forced to sign the

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

pledged as Collateral Security by H. Suresh Rao for payment of dues,

Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation was also called at the house of

Romesh Sharma where he was told that H. Suresh Rao had entered

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 13/213


into an agreement to sell the Helicopter on which Neeraj Bhatia told

him that such an agreement had already been entered into between

him and H. Suresh Rao but the same could not materialise as Summit

Aviation could not make the residue payment. Romesh Sharma then

asked Neeraj Bhatia to deliver the original certificate promising that he

would make the payment of Rs. 18 Lacs to Neeraj Bhatia provided the

Helicopter is transferred in his name and made airworthy.

Consequently, on his inducement, the original certificate of registration

was handed over to Romesh Sharma by Neeraj Bhatia. The affidavit of

H. Suresh Rao was presented before K L Vachhar, Notary Public for

notarising by V K Luthra in the absence of H. Suresh Rao only on his

identification. Romesh Sharma on the basis of the said affidavit, and

registration certificate etc. moved an application on 06.06.96 to

Director General Civil Aviation (DGCA) for transfer of Helicopter in his

name. It was transferred in his name on 08.06.96 on the basis of the

aforesaid documents. A sum of Rs. 1.0 lac in cash was paid by

Romesh Sharma to H. Suresh Rao on 17.06.96 and another amount of

Rs. 1.0 lac was paid to G. Krishnan, representative of H. Suresh Rao

on 05.07.96. Another sum of Rs. 1.0 lac was withdrawn from Harish

Mishra from his account no. 3442 and was paid in cash to H. Suresh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 14/213


Rao. H. Suresh Rao in all received Rs. 12 lacs from Romesh Sharma.

16. Whenever, H. Suresh Rao demanded his money, he was threatened by

Romesh Sharma. H Suresh Rao also received threatening calls from

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

Rakesh Gupta contacted Romesh Sharma on 20.10.98 at his residence

at C30, Mayfair Garden where H. Suresh Rao was manhandled by

Romesh Sharma. They thereafter were abducted by Romesh Sharma

and his muscle man / security man Laxman Singh who kept pointing

his licensed pistol on them in the Mercedes car no. DL 1CC 2272 and

were taken to 16, Mahadev Road, New Delhi. Someone informed the

police. The police rescued them from the clutches of Romesh Sharma

at 16, Mahadev Road and thereafter, H. Suresh Rao lodged the report

at the Police Station Hauz Khas, New Delhi. Accused persons were

arrested. At the instance of accused Romesh Sharma, the Helicopter

was recovered and seized. The relevant documents were seized.

17. An application was moved by H. Suresh Rao for release of Helicopter

on Superdari. Vide order dated 27.11.98, the Helicopter was directed to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 15/213


be released to H. Suresh Rao on certain terms and conditions.

18. Vide detailed order on Charge dated 19.12.2000, accused Vinod Luthra

was discharged of the offences. Accused Romesh Sharma was

charged of the offences punishable U/s 420, 392, 386, 365, 506, 323

and 412 IPC for his dishonestly inducing H. Suresh Rao after hatching

a conspiracy with the coaccused to sign / deliver an MOU purporting

to show that the Helicopter was sold to him though given on hire,

forcibly snatching the documents relating to the Helicopter etc. from H.

Suresh Rao by creating an atmosphere of terror, extorting H. Suresh

Rao by putting him in fear of death forcing him to sign the

documents/affidavit showing the sale of the said Helicopter and receipt

of its sale proceeds, abducting H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta in

the car from May Fair Garden to 16 Mahadev Road, confining them

there intimidating H. Suresh Rao to cause his death beating H. Suresh

Rao causing simple injuries on his person, detaining the aforesaid

Helicopter belonging to H. Suresh Rao fully knowing that possession

had been transferred by the commission of the offence of dacoity.

19. Accused Harish Mishra was charged U/s 420 IPC for dishonestly

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 16/213


inducing H Suresh Rao for entering into the MOU. Accused Laxman

Singh was charged U/s 365 and 506 IPC for abducting and criminally

intimidating H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta on the point of pistol.

Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M D Bhojwani, Naveen Budhiraja,

Indermani, Avdesh and Manoj were charged U/s 395 IPC for their

having been committed dacoity in respect of the said Helicopter which

was in possession and ownership of H. Suresh Rao by creating an

atmosphere of terror using the force against his employees and

bringing it to Delhi. Besides, all the accused were also charged U/s

120 B IPC read with Section 420, 395, 412, 386, 365, 323 and 506 IPC

for their entering into a criminal conspiracy with a common intention to

dishonestly / fraudulently use the Helicopter depriving H. Suresh Rao

of his legitimate dues putting him and his family in the fear of death by

confining/assaulting him.

20.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

21. To substantiate its case against the accused persons, the prosecution

examined as many as 94 witnesses.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 17/213


22. PW1 Sh. P Pathak was a airworthiness officer with the Directorate of

Civil Aviation. He stated that every flying machine is required to be

registered with DGCA (India) for controlling the safety of Aviation. Log

books of every aircraft are also maintained. In order to ensure that

aircraft is airworthy, a physical inspection of aircraft is done and only

then certificate of airworthiness is issued. At the time of change of

ownership, original certificate of registration duly endorsed on its

reverse by the previous owner alongwith an affidavit duly attested by

the Notary Public by the previous owner mentioning his ownership and

the averments that he has received the consideration in full and sold to

the person or the company from whom the sale

proceeds/consideration has so been received alongwith an application

in Form CA28 from the new owner requesting for transfer/change of

ownership is required. He proved the airworthy certificate in respect to

Helicopter in question Ex.PW1/1 and the procedure Ex.PW1/2.

23. PW2 Sh. Charan Das was the Dy. Director Airworthiness, Civil

Aviation, DGCA. He also proved the certificate Ex.PW1/1 in respect of

the Helicopter Bell 47 G5 aircraft S. No. 25015 having registration no.

VTEAP. He stated that it was issued on 27.12.95 and was valid upto

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 18/213


27.01.97. He stated that Sh. N. Ramesh, Dy. Director General had

given three files Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/C including the file Ex.PW2/B

containing the application for registration of Helicopter of which

Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. was the owner. He stated that on the basis

of the application, the Helicopter was registered in its name vide

certificate Ex.PW2/B1. On an application moved by H. Suresh Rao on

15.07.94, the certificate was transferred in his name vide Ex.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

category in certificate of airworthiness of above Helicopter in his favour

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,

copy of agreement and pay order Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A5. It was

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

issue change of first page of journey note book vide dated 26.06.96

Ex.PW2/A13 which request was allowed and the first page was issued

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 19/213


on 02.07.96 in the name of Romesh Sharma vide letter Ex.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

stated that no complaint in respect of the Helicopter was received after

registration and issuance of airworthiness certificate till 1998. A

complaint Ex.PW2/DA was received in his office on 31.08.98 which

was replied to H. Suresh Rao vide Ex.PW2/DC.

24. PW3 Sh. L H Farooqui was the Secretary in Election Commission of

India. He stated that for holding an election for Lok Sabha, Election

Commission issues a press note. The limit of expenses to be incurred

in Parliamentary election in a Constituency in the state of UP was fixed

at Rs. 4,50,000/ during the year 1996. From the date, the candidate is

nominated till the election is complete, the candidate has to maintain

the account in a performa prescribed by the commission and he has to

file all the documents to the District Election Officer within one month

from the declaration of the result of the Constituency. He proved the

press release in respect of the General Election Ex.PW3/A1, Gazette

Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of Election

Ex.PW3/A3 and the original receipt regarding expenditure Ex.PW3/A4

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 20/213


in respect of the candidate Romesh Sharma. He stated that Romesh

Sharma had also given an affidavit of expenditure Ex.PW3/B2 and the

expenditure details Ex.PW3/B1 who had contested the election from

55 Phulpur, Allahabad in 1996 held on 07.05.96 of which the result was

declared on 11.05.96 in which Romesh Sharma got defeat.

25. PW4 Sh. Nageshwar Parsad was the Senior Assistant in District

Election Office, Allahabad. He stated that candidate maintains record

in respect to the expenses incurred during the elections through its

agent. He files a register alongwith an affidavit giving itemwise details.

He proved the register Ex.PW4/A containing the details of the

expenses incurred by Romesh Sharma in the Election and the Affidavit

Ex.PW4/B given by Romesh Sharma in respect of the expenses. He

stated that in the event of purchase of car / Helicopter etc. during the

period of election, price of the said vehicle is not included in the

expenses, however, the amount spent on diesel/fuel/salary of driver is

included in the expenses.

26. PW5 Sh. Mehboob Khan was the Asstt. District Election Officer. He

handed over the documents to CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 21/213


27. PW6 Sh. H. Suresh Rao was the complainant. He in his evidence on

oath has materially supported the case of the prosecution both made

in the complaint as well as the statements made under section 161 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. During his evidence, he proved the

documents which have direct bearing on the prosecution case i.e.

registration certificate Ex.PW2/C1 in the name of Pushpak Aviation,

Application moved to the Director General Civil Aviation for transfer of

ownership in his name Ex.PW2/B2, Form CA28 and the MOU

regarding the same Ex.PW6/23, transfer of registration in his name

vide certificate Ex.PW2/A5, Memorandum of Agreement between him

and Summit Aviation Ex.PW6/5, Airworthiness Certificate Ex.PW1/1,

Fax sent by Mahender Pujara to the accused Romesh Sharma

regarding the terms and conditions of hire Ex.PW6/6, letter sent by him

to the accused Romesh Sharma on 25.03.96 reiterating the terms of

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/LRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 whereby Pushpak Aviation was

shown consignor and the consignee, the MOU Ex.PW6/14 entered into

between Harish Mishra and PW6 on 27.03.96 on the letter head of

R.C No. : 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

helicopter on contract basis, receipt of cheques from Romesh Sharma

on 30.03.96 Ex.PW6/17 to Ex.PW6/19, entering into another MOU

Ex.PW6/20 on a Stamp Paper with the accused Romesh Sharma, air

tickets in respect of his visit on 30.03.96 Ex.PW6/22 and Ex.PW6/23,

Agreement with rubber plantation company Ex.PW6/24B and the

correspondence with them Ex.PW6/24B4 and B5, Air tickets with

respect to his visit on 14.05.96 Ex.PW6/25, demand draft of Rs. 2.0

lacs Ex.PW6/26 given by the accused on 15.05.96, Log books

Ex.PW6/30 and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 as to the receipt of full and

final consideration given on 05.06.96 with respect to transfer of

ownership in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma and the

agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 bearing the date 14.05.96, air tickets of

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.PW6/38 as to the payment made on 05.07.96, another receipt of

16.07.96 as to the payment made by Harish Mishra Ex.PW6/39 and the

accounts of Garuda Aviation Ex.PW6/40 and Ex.PW6/41, the complaint

given to the SHO Police Station Greater KailashI Ex.PW6/43 and the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 23/213


DCP (Crime) Ex.PW6/44 prior to the incident of 20.10.98, complaint

Ex.PW6/46 given to the police station Hauz Khas on the basis of which

the present case was registered, seizure memo of Pajero car and

Mercedes car Ex.PW6/47 and Ex.PW6/48, seizure memo of Helicopter

Ex.PW6/49 and identification of accused Laxman from the

photographs Ex.PW6/57. He also identified the pistol Ex.P1, Pajero

Jeep Ex.P2 and Mercedes car Ex.PW3.

The material portion of his evidence will be discussed when I

will specifically deal with the chain of events leading to its applicability

or otherwise of the offences with which the accused have been

charged.

On being crossexamined, he stated that helicopter is flown

under the guidance and control of Aviation Department, Govt. of India.

He stated that after he was informed by his employees that the

helicopter was detained in UP, he did not inform the Aviation

Department nor informed the Authority when it was taken to Delhi. He

denied that he did not inform because he had entered into an

agreement for sale of helicopter with Romesh Sharma. He stated that

he did not inform Romesh Sharma while agreeing to his proposal of

selling the helicopter to him that he has already entered into an

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 24/213


agreement of sale with two more companies. He stated that he had

made complaint to Civil Aviation that helicopter was forcibly taken by

him but did not inform the authority that he was forced to enter into the

agreement on false promises and assurance. He denied that he had

preserved the air ticket jackets intentionally with a view to create

evidence against the accused. He stated that he did not ask his

employee to lodge report at the police station when the henchmen of

Romesh Sharma snatched the helicopter. He explained that they were

advised by STD Operator Mr. Shukla not to report against Romesh

Sharma and if they reported, he would get them eliminated. He

admitted that when a flying machine is given to the pilot, its physical

possession is given to him. He admitted that movements of flying

machine are recorded in the Log Book.

He stated that for the first time, he received threatening call from

underworld Don about this case in 1998 and prior to that he did not

receive any call. He denied that he was negotiating with Romesh

Sharma in respect of sale of helicopter prior to receipt of alleged threat

or that he was not afraid of Romesh Sharma prior to 1998. He

admitted that, at present, the certificate of registration is in the name of

Romesh Sharma and it was transferred in 1996. He denied that he

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 25/213


desired to sell the helicopter. He denied that he accepted the payment

from Romesh Sharma in furtherance of MOU. He stated that he did

not issue receipt incorporating that the amount has been charged

towards hire, however, he has stated that he had mentioned so in his

books of accounts. He admitted that he did not know Harish Mishra

previously. He met him for the first time on 25.03.96. He denied that

in the meeting held in March, 1996 with Romesh Sharma, he had

suggested Romesh Sharma that he was interested in selling the

helicopter. He denied that Harish Mishra was introduced to him by

Rakesh Gupta whom he knew from before. He stated that Harish

Mishra also met him in July, 1996 in Mumbai where he came to make

payment. He stated that Harish Mishra had given him Rs. 6.0 lacs

approx. in all. He stated that he did not owe any money to Rakesh

Gupta. He stated that he knew Lalit Bagla Chairman of United India

Airways. He stated that the police had showed him the photograph of

Laxman Singh after the accused refused to participate in TIP. He

stated that he had filed a petition in the High Court in respect of the

Helicopter. He denied that he in deliberate connivance with the police

filed a false case against Romesh Sharma or that Romesh Sharma

had purchased the helicopter and made substantial payment either

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 26/213


towards cheque or cash.

28. PW7 Sh. Rakesh Gupta was the Managing Director of United India

Airways. He stated that Ashok Gulati was the Director in his company.

Ashok Gulati had introduced him to Romesh Sharma in February 1996.

Thereafter, there were frequent meetings with him and Romesh

Sharma at his house at C30, Mayfair Garden and office at S41,

Panchsheel Park. He also knew H. Suresh Rao since February 1996.

He stated that H. Suresh Rao had met him in the house of Lalit Bagla

where he came with Mr. Pujara. He stated that PW6 was doing the

business of hiring and chartering Helicopter in the name of Pushpak

Aviation at Mumbai.

He stated that on 26.03.96 at 4.00 PM Romesh Sharma rang

him up and called at his house. At about 7.00 PM he met him. Romesh

Sharma told him that his brother Harish Mishra would see him at the

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. He asked asked him to go with his brother Harish Mishra to

the office of H Suresh Rao to prepare a hiring agreement of the

Helicopter. He handed over an envelope containing blank letter head

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 27/213


of Reliance Developers and Investors on which MOU of hiring was to

be prepared. On 27.03.96 he was received at Mumbai Airport by

Harish Mishra. From there they went to the office of H. Suresh Rao at

Juhu Airport, Mumbai where Romesh Sharma talked to Suresh Rao on

telephone. He stated that from their telephonic conversation, he

gathered that Romesh Sharma was insisting and requesting Suresh

Rao to draw MOU of sale of Helicopter instead of hiring, so that the

hiring charges might not be mentioned in the election expenses stating

that MOU would be destroyed after the election would be over. 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

despatched the Helicopter. He stated that Romesh Sharma had asked

PW6 to draw predated MOU showing it to be executed on 24.02.96.

He stated that an MOU on the letter head of Reliance Developers and

Investors Ex.PW6/14 was drawn up in duplicate on 27.03.96 as pre

dated purporting to have been executed on 24.02.96 which was signed

by H. Suresh Rao and Harish Mishra.

He stated that on 12.05.96 he received a call from Suresh Rao

from Mumbai at Delhi that his Helicopter was ready for despatch from

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 28/213


Phulpur to Mumbai but it was forcibly taken away by the persons of

Romesh Sharma. He sought his help to get back the Helicopter and

the money.

He stated that on 05.06.06 he received a call from Suresh Rao

that he has come at Delhi with his lawyer and was going to the House

of Romesh Sharma to sort out the matter and also requested him to

come there. He went to his house. Romesh Sharma and Suresh Rao

were with their lawyers. He stated that Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of

Romesh Sharma was having a draft of agreement which he showed to

Romesh Sharma. They after discussion suggested some changes

which were incorporated by Mr. Mehta in his writing on the agreement.

Suresh Rao gave the documents to Romesh Sharma which he kept on

the table. Sh. R A Shah, Advocate of Mr. Rao intervened and told that

he should have received the payment first from Romesh Sharma

before handing over the documents. When H. Suresh Rao lifted the

documents from the table, Romesh Sharma got annoyed and told Mr.

Rao not to listen to his lawyer. He took back the documents from Mr.

Rao and handed over to V K Luthra who again put the documents on

the table. On this, Romesh Sharma got very annoyed with Mr. Luthra,

beat him mercilessly and the whole atmosphere became tense and

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 29/213


they felt scared. Romesh Sharma then took the documents and Mr.

Rao to his cabin for obtaining his signatures. After 510 minutes, they

came out. Suresh Rao was in a very bad shape when he came out of

the cabin. Romesh Sharma then forced Suresh Rao to sign the

document/agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 which he signed. Romesh

Sharma also signed the said agreement. He stated that an affidavit

Ex.PW2/A3 was also signed by Suresh Rao where Mr. Shah was

forced to sign as witness.

He stated that on enquiry by Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao told

that the certificate of registration was with Neeraj Bhatia of Summit

Aviation. Romesh Sharma then asked H. Suresh Rao to call Neeraj

Bhatia and request him to bring the certificate at his house. He stated

that after sometime Neeraj Bhatia and Major Gaonkar came alongwith

the certificate. Romesh Sharma asked Neeraj Bhatia to give the

certificate but Neeraj told that H. Suresh Rao owed a sum of Rs. 18

lacs and has also entered an agreement to sell in respect of Helicopter

with him. On this, Romesh Sharma told Neeraj Bhatia that he would

pay 18 lacs to him. He also showed the agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33.

He stated that no amount was paid by Romesh Sharma, however,

Neeraj Bhatia handed over the certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 30/213


Romesh Sharma on which H. Suresh Rao signed on its back.

He stated that he received call from Mr. Rao that he has not

received the payment from Romesh Sharma and he was in financial

difficulty. He stated that on 22.06.96 Suresh Rao telephoned him that

Romesh Sharma had told him that he would make the payment

provided he facilitates the assembly of Helicopter at his Farm and

make it functional. He stated that on 23.06.96 he went to the house of

Romesh Sharma at Mayfair Garden where he found him sitting with

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

from DGCA. On this, Romesh Sharma got angry and started hitting

Pappara. Mr. Girish Rao came to his help but he was pushed aside.

Mr. Pappara started bleeding from his mouth. In the meantime, Mr.

Gaonkar ranged someone at DGCA Office in Mumbai and made

Pappara talked to him. Thereafter, Mr. Pappara and Girish Rao went to

the Farm.

He stated that Suresh Rao telephoned him number of times that

he did not receive any payment from Romesh Sharma and everytime

when he ranged Romesh Sharma, he was threatened that he would be

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 31/213


eliminated if he insisted for payment. Romesh Sharma asserted that

he was very well known to Dawood Ibrahim in Dubai. He stated that

Suresh Rao also told him that he was scared of Romesh Sharma to

lodge report. He stated that on one or two occasion he had heard

Romesh Sharma talking to someone on telephone telling him that he

was talking to Bhai i.e. Dawood.

He stated that on 20.10.98 Suresh Rao came to his house at

about 10/10.30 AM and requested him to accompany to the house of

Romesh Sharma to request him to make the payment as he was in

very bad shape. On his request, he went to the house of Romesh

Sharma at C30, Mayfair Garden at 11.30 AM where they waited for

two hours as Romesh Sharma was upstairs. Romesh Sharma came

down and took them to his cabin. He (PW7) then requested Romesh

Sharma to settle the account of Mr. Rao as much time has passed and

also told that if it is not settled, Suresh Rao would unnecessarily go

and make complaint to the police. On this, Romesh Sharma got very

much annoyed, gave beatings to H. Suresh Rao, lifted a chair to hit

him but he caught hold of his hand and persuaded him to settle the

matter amicably. Romesh Sharma then went to a room at first floor.

He also followed him. When he came down, he did not find H. Suresh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 32/213


Rao sitting there. Romesh Sharma asked him as to where H. Suresh

Rao was. They came out in the corridor where Romesh Sharma

enquired from his man about Suresh Rao. He shouted them to bring

him back. He immediately sat down in his Pajero Jeep and also asked

him to sit down next to him. As soon as they came out on the road

they saw Rao walking. Romesh Sharma asked him to sit down in the

Jeep. He brought him back to his house. He then enquired from Rao

where he was going. Rao told him that he was going to get cigarette.

Romesh Sharma frisked Rao and found a packet of cigarette. On this,

he became annoyed and asked him why he was telling a lie as the

cigarette was already with him. He then slapped and punched him.

He called his bodyguard and asked him to keep a watch and not to

allow them to leave. He then called Mercedes Car parked in his house

and asked them to sit in it. Romesh Sharma sat on the driver seat and

on the front seat one South Indian gentleman was sitting. On the rear

seat he, Suresh Rao and the bodyguard of Romesh Sharma were

sitting. Romesh Sharma called one of his driver and asked him (PW7)

to give the key of his car to him and to bring the car at Mahadev Road.

He stated that the Security Guard was sitting with a pistol in his hand

pointing out towards them. He drove the car to Mahadev Road which

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 33/213


was the party office of Romesh Sharma. He then asked Laxman

Singh and his persons not to allow them to leave from there.

He stated that after 2025 minutes 34 policemen came there,

got them released. He also identified the pistol Ex.P1 which Laxman

Singh was carrying.

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, they did not make enquiry from him but discussed

with the police officers of Police Station Hauz Khas. He admitted that

PW6 owed him Rs. 10 lacs which he has not returned however, he

denied that he helped him out in this case so that he might return his

money. He stated that he had paid Rs. 10 lacs as PW6 had agreed to

lease out a helicopter to him. He admitted that he had helped PW6 in

drafting the complaint. He denied that he had asked the accused

Romesh Sharma to arrange some loan from Lalit Bagla. He denied

that he was not forcibly taken to Mahadev Road or that at no occasion

the accused Romesh Sharma had mentioned about Dawood. He

denied that the accused Laxman Singh did not threaten them or that

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 34/213


he was not present in the car. He stated that the search in the house

of the accused at Mayfair Garden continued till 21.10.98 morning and

during the search, documents such as Agreement to Sell, Helicopter

height map and other documents were seized.

29. PW8 Sh. Mahender Pujara knew PW6 since 1995. He stated that H

Suresh Rao used to give his Helicopter on hire in the name of Pushpak

Aviation. He (PW8) used to charge commission on this work. He

stated that on 19.02.96 he came with Suresh Rao to Delhi and went to

the residence of Bagla, Director of United Airways of which Rakesh

Gupta PW7 was the Managing Director. He met Romesh Sharma in

the office of Bagla. In March, 1996 he again went to Delhi with H.

Suresh Rao. Some talk about hiring of Helicopter between H Suresh

Rao and Romesh Sharma took place for the purpose of campaigning

in election which fact he came to know from Suresh Rao. He stated

that Suresh Rao asked him to send a fax message Ex.PW6/6 on

24.03.96 about hiring the Helicopter by Romesh Sharma which he sent

mentioning the terms and conditions as stated by Suresh Rao.

On being crossexamined he stated that confirmation receipt of

fax message Ex.PW6/6 and original fax message were given by him to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 35/213


PW6. No suggestions were given to this witness that no fax message

Ex.PW6/6 was received by the accused.

30. PW9 Sh. B G Pappara was a qualified Aircraft Maintenance

Engineer/Chief Maintenance Engineer with Pushpak Aviation. He

stated that Pushpak Aviation owned a Helicopter Bell47 G5 VT EAP

being used for pesticide spraying, generally for passengers hiring / film

shooting etc. His job was to maintain the helicopter on the ground. He

stated that when the Helicopter was to be sent out of Mumbai it used to

be dismantled, packed and transported in a truck and reassembled.

He used to go for this purpose and remain there till the operation was

complete. For transportation, company issues a letter for exemption of

Sales Tax certifying that Helicopter is for its own use and not for sale.

Goods receipt is also issued by the Transport company. Maintenance

manual, log books, inspection schedule etc. are maintained when the

Helicopter is despatched from one place to other. He proved the

Journey log book Ex.PW6/29, Engine log book Ex.PW6/30, Aircraft log

book Ex.PW6/31 and aircraft station apparatus log books Ex.PW6/34

of the period upto 07.05.96 including a file Ex.PW6/55 in respect of

daily prefly inspection from 26.03.96 to 09.05.96.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 36/213


He stated that in the month of March, 1996 he proceeded to

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.

They reached Phulpur on 28.03.96. The machines were unloaded on

29.03.96 and assembled on the same day on a ground near the

Bungalow of Romesh Sharma. Information was sent to Director

Airworthiness vide Ex.PW6/15. He stated that Suresh Rao had told

him that the Helicopter was to fly upto 12.04.96 and thereafter it had to

proceed for Kerala for undertaking an aerial spraying contract on

rubber plantation and the rates for election flying was Rs. 80000/ per

day which were to be borne by Romesh Sharma. He stated that

Romesh Sharma used to give them daily programme. The contract

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

election speeches, Romesh Sharma had spoken to the public at large

that the Helicopter was purchased by him and would remain in the

village for their local use. When he enquired from Rao on telephone,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 37/213


he denied this claim of Romesh Sharma telling that he did not sell the

Helicopter to him. On 09.05.96 he sent the fuel and spare parts in a

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

thereafter Captain Demose was the pilot. They used to stay in Hotel

Yatrik at Allahabad from where they used to go to Phulpur.

He proved the entries made in the books from 30.03.96 to

07.05.96 Ex.PW6/30. He proved the entry regarding dismantling of the

helicopter to Mumbai vide memo Ex.PW9/8 and other entries

Ex.PW9/3 to Ex.PW9/9.

He stated that on 11.05.96, the Helicopter was dismantled in the

morning and in this respect an entry Ex.PW9/8 was made. The parts

were loaded in the truck, when the machine and the parts were being

tied, they were surrounded by the persons who were in two vehicles

about 15 in numbers. They were carrying guns/lathis. Those persons

shouted and threatened them saying that Helicopter cannot be taken to

Mumbai and it has to be taken to Delhi as per the orders of Romesh

Sharma and they have to accompany with the truck to Delhi. They

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 38/213


started pulling down the parts loaded in the truck. He stated that the

driver of the truck refused to go to Delhi because he was not having

permit for Delhi. He named the persons in the mob as Ahluwalia,

Bhojwani, Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani and identified them

stating that he knew them as they were working as a team with them

for election purposes. They then decided to leave Allahabad for safety

reasons. They cancelled their tickets, booked new tickets for Mumbai.

He stated that he did not report the matter to the police as they were

more concerned about their safety because they knew that Romesh

Sharma had lot of influence locally and reporting the matter could

trouble them. From Lucknow, on 11.05.96, they informed Suresh Rao

on telephone about what had happened at Phulpur and reached

Mumbai on 12.05.96. He met Suresh Rao and informed him the

incident.

He stated that on 24.06.96 he came to Delhi with Girish Rao to

assemble the helicopter and met Romesh Sharma. He stated that

since the Helicopter was not maintained from 11.05.96 to 26.06.96, he

had to take clarifications from the Director, Airworthiness, Mumbai. Mr.

Gaonkar contacted the Director and sought clarification. He stated that

when the information was being passed on, Romesh Sharma got

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 39/213


annoyed, caught hold of his collar, hit him on his face due to which he

sustained injuries on his upper lip. He stated that Romesh Sharma

threatened him saying that if he did not cooperate, he would cut his

legs. When Girish Rao requested Romesh Sharma not to hit him, he

got annoyed and also punched him. He stated that after getting

permission, they went to Farm House, reassembled the Helicopter

and made an entry Ex.PW9/9.

On being crossexamined, he stated that he had sent a fax

message Ex.PW9/2 in response to the directions of Suresh Rao that

the Helicopter was to be taken to Kerala, however, he did not get any

response. He stated that he did not participate in TIP, however, denied

that he being an associate of Suresh Rao has given the statement on

to the dictates of CBI in connivance with Suresh Rao. He stated that

he did not see the hiring agreement between Romesh Sharma and

Suresh Rao regarding the Helicopter, however, denied that no threat or

intimidation was given by any member or staff of Romesh Sharma or

by the accused persons named in his statement. He admitted that he

did not report to the police at Lucknow/Mumbai of the incident.

31. PW10 R A Shah was the Family lawyer of Suresh Rao. He had gone

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 40/213


with Suresh Rao to the house of Romesh Sharma on 05.06.96 as

Suresh Rao had revealed him that he had given his helicopter on hire

to Romesh Sharma for election campaign which he was not returning.

He stated that he advised Suresh Rao to take legal action but Suresh

Rao told that he was scared of Romesh Sharma and he would do

whatever Romesh Sharma has asked him to do finally. He stated that

Mahesh Mehta, Advocate of Romesh Sharma and one Mr. Gupta also

came there. Romesh Sharma gave Mahesh Mehta a document who

made certain corrections. Suresh Rao was having the original

documents of the Helicopter in his hand. When Romesh Sharma

demanded the documents from him, he intervened and asked Mr. Rao

not to handover the documents till the payment was made to him.

Romesh Sharma got annoyed insulted him and asked Suresh Rao not

to pay heed on his advice. He then snatched the documents from the

hands of Suresh Rao, handed over to his employee who kept in on the

table. Romesh Sharma got up and took up the documents and kept

them inside. He slapped and gave beatings to his employee. He

became terrified. Romesh Sharma then asked Suresh Rao to sign the

document. He (PW10) again told Suresh Rao not to sign the

document. Romesh Sharma got annoyed, took Suresh Rao to another

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 41/213


room. When they came out, the condition of Suresh Rao was scared

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

instance of Romesh Sharma. He stated that neither of them went to

Notary Public for attestation of affidavit. He stated that Romesh

Sharma then asked Suresh Rao to produce the original registration

certificate. He told that it was with Neeraj Bhatia. On the asking of

Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao called Neeraj Bhatia who brought the

certificate and gave it to Romesh Sharma. He stated that no payment

was made to Neeraj Bhatia by Romesh Sharma on that day.

On being crossexamined, he stated that Suresh Rao did not

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

between Romesh Sharma and Suresh Rao. He stated that he did not

make any complaint to Bar Council or the Police qua the insult meted

to him by Romesh Sharma. He denied that Suresh Rao had

sold/transferred the Helicopter to Romesh Sharma in a proper deal.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 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

permission from Airport Station Allahabad and flew the helicopter there

from 02.04.96 to 13.04.96. He handed over to Captain Demose on

13.04.96. He stated that at Ugarsen Pur Sh. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia

had made arrangement for their lodging and boarding. He denied that

his payment was made by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he

received the charges for flying the Helicopter from Suresh Rao

amounting to Rs. 60,000/.

33. PW12 Sh. K L Vachher was the Notary Public at Patiala House

Courts. He stated that on 05.06.96 V K Luthra produced/presented an

affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 for attestation, executant of which was H. Suresh

Rao witnessed by Mr. Shah, however, they were not present at the time

of attestation. Mr. Luthra identified the signatures of Mr. Shah and

Suresh Rao. He put his seal and handed over the document to Mr.

Luthra.

34. PW13 Sh. Pankaj Bhardwaj was the Stamp Vendor at Delhi. As per

record, he had sold the stamp papers bearing S. No. 148281 to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 43/213


148284 to Suresh Rao. On his behalf Ajay Kumar made the entries

Ex.PW13/B. He stated that Stamp Paper Ex.PW6/20 of Rs. 2/ was

sold on 29.03.96 to Suresh Rao and it also carried the stamp of the

date.

35. PW14 Wing Commander H C Demose was engaged by H. Suresh

Rao for flying the Helicopter at Phulpur. He stated that it was agreed

between him and Suresh Rao that he was to get 12.5% of daily

charges, being charged by the company from the hirer besides other

expenses which were to be paid by Romesh Sharma at Phulpur and

hiring charges were Rs. 80000/ per day. He flew the Helicopter on the

places on the instructions of Romesh Sharma from 14.04.96 to

07.05.96. He stated that helicopter was to be removed to Kerala via

Mumbai. They arranged two trucks from SherePunjab Allahabad for

transportation of fuel and helicopter after dismantling. The fuel was

sent to Mumbai. On 11.05.96 another truck came. The technicians

after dismantling loaded the parts of the helicopter. When they were in

the process of tying its parts, two vehicles carrying 1015 persons

arrived there. They got down from the vehicles and shouted loudly not

to take or carry the helicopter to Kerala and asked to take it to Delhi.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 44/213


Some of them were armed with Lathis and some of them were having

some weapons in their pocket as their pockets were swallowing. The

truck driver refused 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

guidance to those persons and helped them to unload the helicopter.

He identified Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Avdesh, Manoj, Naveen

Budhiraja and Indermani. He stated that accused Avtar Singh asked

them to stay in the Bungalow telling that he was going to arrange

another truck and they were not to leave without his permission. They

felt threatened, went in a room and discussed. They decided to leave

one by one. He went to STD booth where Mr. Shukla owner of the

booth advised him to write a complaint. When he was writing the

complaint, Mrs. Shukla intervened and advised not to do so. It could

create trouble for him as he was in the territory of Romesh Sharma.

She also reminded him of the incident in which armed clash had taken

place between the supporters of Romesh Sharma and another party.

He dropped the idea and went to the Hotel. He went to Mumbai on

12.05.96 and narrated the whole incident to Suresh Rao. On being

crossexamined, he stated that Suresh Rao did not ask him to report

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 45/213


the matter to the police at Lucknow nor Suresh Rao called the police.

He stated that he did not see any of the accused persons carrying fire

arms or physically assaulting them. He stated that Suresh Rao never

told him that he had agreed to sell the helicopter to Romesh Sharma

nor Suresh Rao showed him any hiring agreement.

36. PW15 Parsuram was technician on the Helicopter. He also deposed

on the lines of PW9 and PW14. He identified M Bhojwani and

Ahluwalia. He stated that they were looked after well however, he

denied that no such incident took place on 11.05.96. He stated M D

Bhojwani used to arrange their catering.

37. PW16 Sh. Heera Chand was the Transporter at Mumbai. In March

1996 on the asking of Suresh Rao he hired the trucks for transportation

of helicopter from Mumbai to Phulpur for Rs. 30000/, issued the bill in

the name of Pushpak Aviation Ex.PW6/13, lorry receipts Ex.PW6/11

and 12, writing consignor and consignee on the receipts as Pushpak

Aviation, Mumbai and Pushpak Aviation, Allahabad respectively. He

however, admitted that the consignor and consignee names were

mentioned on the directions of the sender.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 46/213


38. PW17 Sh. Mahesh Mehta was the Advocate of Romesh Sharma. He

identified the agreement Ex.PW6/e3 prepared and drafted by him on

14.05.96 at the instance of Romesh Sharma after getting the copy of

MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20. He stated that he received a call

from Romesh Sharma that Advocate of Suresh Rao and Suresh Rao

have come and want to discuss something about the agreement as

they have some reservations. He went to his house where Suresh

Rao, his lawyer Mr. Shah, Rakesh Gupta and some few persons were

present. After discussions, he made some corrections in the

agreement at the instance of both the parties as well as the Advocate

of Suresh Rao. He stated that signatures of the parties were not

appearing on the agreement at the time when the corrections were

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/operation of Helicopter. He stated that during the year

199495 Pushpak Aviation had purchased spare parts of Helicopter

from his firm of the value of Rs. 35 lacs. Pushpak Aviation paid some

advance to his firm. An amount of Rs. 18.5 lacs remained unpaid after

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 47/213


adjustment of payment. After adding the interest, the due amount was

about Rs. 2223 lacs. He stated that an MOU Ex.PW6/5 was entered

into on 20.11.95 between him and Suresh Rao for securing the

aforesaid amount. The value of the Helicopter was determined as Rs.

40 lacs. He stated that the MOU was executed as a collateral security

as he wanted to secure his money. He also obtained original

certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 from Suresh Rao. He stated that

in the first week of June, 1996 / 05.06.96 he was called by Suresh Rao

at the house of Romesh Sharma at Mayfair Garden alongwith the

certificate of registration. He alongwith Mr. Gaonkar reached there at

about 1.00 PM, met Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao, his lawyer and

Rakesh Gupta. There it was decided that Romesh Sharma would pay

him a sum of Rs. 18 lacs and he would handover the certificate of

registration of the Helicopter to him. He then asked Major Gaonkar to

handover the certificate Ex.PW2/A5 to Romesh Sharma on getting the

assurance from him that he would pay him Rs. 18 lacs. He stated that

till date, he did not get the amount of Rs. 18 lacs from Romesh

Sharma.

On being crossexamined he stated that he had met Romesh

Sharma 23 times during the period from 05.06.96 till he was arrested.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 48/213


He however, did not ask him to pay the said amount during that period

but Major Gaonkar had regularly asked him to pay the said amount.

He stated that Major Gaonkar was the Director of the company. He

stated that he did not serve any notice to Romesh Sharma to make the

payment. However, he stated that at the time of agreement, it was

agreed that Suresh Rao would make the Helicopter airworthy and

Romesh Sharma would make the payment. He stated that the

Helicopter was made airworthy and it was checked by Major Gaonkar

at the Farmhouse of Romesh Sharma.

40. PW19 Sh. Prem Narain Puri was the Munshi with Azad Forwarding

Agency, Allahabad which arranged the trucks on hire. He stated that

every goods receipt is prepared in triplicate, one for the driver, second

for the consignor and third for record. He proved the receipt book

Ex.PW19/A issued to the parties during the period from 19.04.96 to

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,

Mayfair Garden. The truck belonged to Abdul Salam and Shehnawaz

was its driver. Its fare was Rs. 6200/. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, had

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 49/213


booked the truck and signed the receipt Ex.PW19/A1.

41. PW20 Ms. Geeta Kashyap was the licensed Stamp Vendor. She

stated that the judicial stamp paper Ex.PW6/33 of Rs. 2/ was sold by

her brother Shankar on 13.05.96 in the name of Romesh Sharma,

S41, Panchsheel Park.

42. PW21 Hayatullah Khan was the son of the Proprietor of Azad Golden

Roadlines, Allahabad. He stated that his company had provided a

truck bearing no. MH 04 C 5336 to Jagdeep Singh, Prop. of Shere

Punjab on 11.05.96 on commission basis for transportation of

Helicopter from Ugarsen Pur to Mumbai. They sent the truck at 8.30

AM. At about 7.00 PM he received a call from his driver that the

helicopter was loaded on the truck but the truck was not being allowed

to proceed by the men of Netaji means Sharma Ji. He asked him to

stop the vehicle there and talked to SherePunjab. It was sent back

empty. He stated that his driver had told him that loaded helicopter

was removed/unloaded from the truck.

43. PW22 Sh. Shahnawaz was the truck driver on the truck no. UP 70

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 50/213


9771 of which Abdul Salam was the owner. It was attached with M/s

Azad Transport Company, Allahabad. He stated that on 11.05.96 at

about 11/12 noon his father handed over two GRs. He was

accompanied by two persons. Out of them one was Avtar Singh. He

went to Ugarsen Pur in the truck. One car was ahead of them in which

23 persons were sitting. The car stopped near a Kothi at Ugarsen Pur

where he stopped his truck. A truck had already been parked there on

which helicopter had been loaded. The helicopter was then removed

from the truck and loaded on his truck. 810 persons present there

helped him in removing the helicopter from other truck to his truck. He

first took the truck to Delhi. His truck was followed by 34 vehicles.

They came at Delhi on 12.05.96 at about 6/7 PM. He parked his truck

near a bungalow and then took it to a Farmhouse. He admitted that he

did not participate in TIP but denied that he identified Avtar Singh at

the instance of CBI.

44. PW23 Sh. Sarafatullah Khan was the employer of Mobin Khan,

driver on truck no. MH 04 C 5333 with its cleaner Kallu Khan. He

stated that he was contacted by the transporter Hayatullah of Azad

Golden Transport in May, 1996, if he could carry a Helicopter from

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 51/213


Phulpur to Mumbai which he agreed. He went to village Ugarsen Pur

with the truck, parked it in front of the house of Netaji where helicopter

was loaded. He stated that 2025 persons came there, raised a noise

and asked him to take the helicopter to Delhi and not to Mumbai. 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

threatened the persons who had loaded the helicopter on the truck.

He informed Hayatullah, who asked him to unload the helicopter and

come to Azad Golden Transport. He stated that the helicopter was

unloaded from his truck and he went to Azad Transport. In cross

examination he stated that he was not made to identify the persons

who had threatened him to take the helicopter to Delhi in his truck nor

he lodged report.

45. PW24 Kallu Khan was the cleaner on the truck. He deposed on the

lines of PW23. He stated that when the helicopter was loaded no

builty/ GR was prepared. He stated that the helicopter was loaded at

about 11.00 AM. 2025 persons came there and told that the helicopter

would be taken to Delhi and not to Mumbai. They also threatened

them. He stated that they told them that they did not have permit for

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 52/213


Delhi so the helicopter was unloaded by 2025 persons. He stated that

he was not made to identify those persons by the police.

46. PW25 Jagdeep Singh was partner in SherePunjab, Allahabad. He

produced the GR receipt no. 3854 Ex.PW/25 A1 whereby the fuel was

sent to Mumbai in truck no. UP 72 9705 to the consignor Pushpak

Aviation on 09.05.96.

47. PW25 Sh. B Bala Krishnan was the General Manager with M/s Erry

Sons Maliyalam Ltd., a plantation company. He stated that in

May/June prior to the advent of monsoon, spraying of chemical is done

on rubber plantation to prevent growth of bacteria for which they take

the services of helicopter from Pushpak Aviation and Gardua Aviation.

He handed over a file to CBI Ex.PW26/A containing the

correspondence of Pushpak Aviation and Garuda Avitation with his

company. He stated that Ibrahim Associates was the local agent of

Pushpak Aviations. In 1996 they contacted the aviation company

whether it could place their helicopter for spraying around the rubber

plantation. The company responded vide letter Ex.PW26/B1. They

wrote a letter Ex.PW26/B2 dated 22.01.96 confirming the proposal of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 53/213


aerial spray and the terms and conditions. On 25.03.96 they sent a

letter to Ibrahim Associates Ex.PW26/B4 giving the details of the area

to be sprayed for the period from 22.04.96 to 17.05.96. An advance of

Rs. 2.0 lacs was sent. He stated that they received a letter from

Garuda Aviation that the helicopter would be positioned from 30.04.96.

He stated that vide letter dated 16.05.96 addressed to Ibrahim

Associates Ex.PW26/B10 by Pushpak Aviation, it was informed that

the helicopter was impounded by the hirer/politician and unauthorisedly

removed to Delhi regretting its placement for spraying purposes. He

stated that a fax message was sent on 23.05.96 for refund of advance,

various correspondence took place and legal notice was sent. On

25.01.97 a letter was received from Garuda Aviation for adjustment of

the amount and the matter was settled. In crossexamination he stated

that he has no personal knowledge of the helicopter being forcibly

taken by someone nor he visited that place.

48. PW27 Mrs. K Bhargava was the Secretary of Romesh Sharma. She

identified the MOU Ex.PW6/20 which also bears the signatures of

Romesh Sharma, Suresh Rao and M D Bhojwani. She stated that the

agreement was typed by her on the basis of draft given by Mr. Mehta.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 54/213


49. PW28 Sh. Philip Ibrahim was the Prop. of Ibrahim Associates, the

subagent of various aviation company which leases helicopter for

aerial spray. He deposed on the lines of PW26. He stated that a

letter was sent to him by Suresh Rao that helicopter was taken by

hirer/politician to Delhi vide Ex.PW6/24B (4). Consequently, he sent a

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

Suresh Rao with any person in respect of the helicopter.

50. PW29 Sh. Ashok Kumar Shukla owned a STD/PCO booth at

Allahabad. He turned hostile. He was confronted with the statement

recorded during the investigation Ex.PW29/A but he denied having

narrated the facts containing in the statement. He denied having

arranged the trucks for transportation from M/s SherePunjab.

51. PW30 Sh. Sansar Chand Dubey used to do political work of Romesh

Sharma and stay at S41, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. He stated that

accused Romesh Sharma contested an election from Parliamentary

seat from phul Pur constituency, Allahabad which he lost. In 1998

Romesh Sharma floated a party under the name of All India Bhartiya

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 55/213


Congress Party to contest election in Delhi State. A premises bearing

no. 16, Mahadev Road, Delhi was allotted to Shiv Charan, a former MP

who had retired few months before Romesh Sharma floated the party.

He stated that Romesh Sharma started using the said premises for

official purposes with the permission of Shiv Charan. He stated that

Romesh Sharma used to live at C30, Mayfair Garden and he never

used that premises as office. He stated that Vinod Luthra, Arvind Bali,

Indermani, Avdesh used to come there. He stated that when Romesh

Sharma was removed from All India Congress Committee, he took the

letter of protest given by Romesh Sharma to the office of Congress

Party.

He stated that in March, 1996 helicopter and fuel were brought

to Ugarsen Pur in two trucks. The accommodation was provided to the

staff members of helicopter by Romesh Sharma initially in the

Bungalow at Ugarsen Pur and later in Hotel Yatrik. Arvind Bali, Avtar

Singh Ahluwalia, Naveen Budhiraja, M D Bhojwani, Avdesh, Indermani,

Manoj had gone to Ugarsen Pur for the election of Romesh Sharma.

Avtar Singh was the old friend of Romesh Sharma. He had worked for

Romesh Sharma in his election. Avdesh and Indermani are the

nephews of Romesh Sharma and all of them used to stay in the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 56/213


bungalow of Romesh Sharma at Ugarsen Pur.

He stated that Ex.PW6/20 was executed between H Suresh Rao

and Romesh Sharma on 30.03.96 on which he, M D Bhojwani and

Kashmira Bhargava signed as witnesses. He was declared hostile.

He denied that Suresh Rao had not actually sold his helicopter to

Romesh Sharma and had given it on hire or that in order to hoodwink

the Election Commission, the purchase of this helicopter was shown in

this agreement or that the MOU was got prepared to camouflage and

cover expenditure of election/hiring charges or that Romesh Sharma

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, he admitted that he had seen the helicopter parked in the

farmhouse of Romesh Sharma. He denied that Romesh Sharma used

to allure the people and obtain their properties without making

payment. He was also confronted with the statement Ex.PW30/B

recorded during the investigation. On being crossexamined, he stated

that the MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed with the consent of the parties

in friendly atmosphere and after 1996 on many occasions he had seen

Suresh Rao staying in the house of Romesh Sharma at C30, Mayfair

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 57/213


Garden whenever he came to Delhi.

52. PW31 Sh. M Johnson stated that the Pajero bearing no. DL 1C C

3501 is registered in the name of Romesh Sharma. Mercedes Benz

bearing no. DL 1CC 2272 is registered in the name of Ganpati

Commerce Ltd. Both the vehicles were registered in the year 1992

vide Ex.PW31/A and B.

53. PW32 Sh. G S Krishnan was the Manager Administration with

Pushpak Aviation in 1996. He stated that one helicopter was leased to

Romesh Sharma for election purposes. He proved the receipts of the

amount received from Harish Mishra Ex.PW32/A, Ex.PW6/37 and

Ex.PW6/38. He admitted that none of the receipts find mention as to

on what account money was paid.

54. PW33 Sh. P L Meena was DSP, CBI. He recorded the statement of

witnesses and seized the documents i.e. goods receipt, bills/record of

Hotel Yatrik, air tickets etc.

55. PW34 SI Sameer Kumar was posted at the police station Hauz Khas

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 58/213


in October 1998. In his presence, Inspector Anand Parkash had taken

the specimen signature of accused Romesh Sharma vide Ex.PW34/1

to Ex.PW34/3.

56. PW35 Sh. S S Khanna was the Senior Manager (Deposits) in Bank of

Tokyo Mishi Bishi where Reliance Developers & Investors with its

Proprietor Romesh Sharma had an account vide no. 012206

Ex.PW35/A. He proved the cheque no. 511860 dated 30.03.96 for Rs.

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/. He however, admitted that in the account, name of the Proprietor

Romesh Sharma is not mentioned.

57. PW36 Sh. Gurcharan Singh was the Clerk in the Bank of Tokyo

Mishi Bishi. He also deposed on the lines of PW35.

58. PW37 Sh. Kamal Bhushan was the Senior Manager in Oriental Bank

of Commerce at Hauz Khas branch where Reliance Developers and

Investors had an account vide no. 377. He proved the statement of

accounts for the period from 12.01.95 to 07.02.97 Ex.PW37/A. He

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 59/213


stated that cheque Ex.PW6/17 dated 30.03.96 of Rs. 1.0 lac in favour

of H. Suresh Rao, cheque 223695 dated 15.05.96 of Rs. 2.0 lac Ex.

PW37/B in favour of yourself / bank for bank draft Ex.PW37/C were

debited and the bank draft in favour of H. Suresh Rao Ex.PW6/26 of

Rs. 2.0 lac was issued by the bank.

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

Balasubramaniam at New Friends Colony on 20.10.98, obtained the

documents regarding the helicopter. He stated that Balasubramanium

had told him that some of the documents were with Wing Commander

Manchanda at his office at Le Meridian. He with Mr. Manchanda went

to the office and thereafter to the house of Balasubramanium where

Manchanda handed over those documents to him which were seized

vide memo Ex.PW30/A which he later handed over to I.O Inspector

Anand Prakash.

60. PW39 ASI Neena Devi was the Duty Officer at PS Hauz Khas. She

on receipt of complaint Ex.PW6/46 at about 4.00 PM on 20.10.98 from

H. Suresh Rao recorded the FIR Ex.PW39/A and made the DD entry

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 60/213


Ex.PW39/B. She stated that further the investigation was conducted

by Inspector Anand Prakash. She stated that on 20.10.98 at about

2.00 PM an information was received from the Control Room that

Romesh Sharma was beating two persons at C30 Mayfair Garden.

She entered the information vide DD no. 30B Ex.PW39/D and sent it to

SI Jaswinder Singh through Ct. Kabal Singh. She also brought the

information to the notice of the SHO who alongwith his staff left the

police station at 2.06 PM and in that respect DD no. 32 B Ex.PW39/E

was recorded. She stated that Inspector Anand Prakash alongwith

SHO and staff returned at the police station on 21.10.98 and to that

effect DD no. 24 Ex.PW39/F was recorded. She stated that till she

remained on duty, she had received the information about the beatings

only and not about the proceedings by CBI, Customs, Wild Life, Excise

and Foreign Exchange Department etc. She denied that the entries in

the DD and FIR were made to gain time to make out cases against

Romesh Sharma to falsely implicate him and his employees.

61. PW40 Sh. Parshant Kumar Chattopadhyay was the Director

Airworthiness, Civil Aviation, Mumbai. He handed over the document /

letter no. PAPLOW 96 D2/240 dated 26.03.96 mark X/Ex.PW40

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 61/213


bearing the signature of B G Pappara to the CBI vide seizure memo

Ex.PW40/A. He stated that the fact recorded in the letter was about

the transportation of helicopter and the site where it was to be

transported. On being crossexamined, he stated that the possession

remains with the company which transports it and in this case it was

Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd.

62. PW41 Ct. Leela was posted at PCR. She received the telephone call

at 100 number from the telephone no. 6960219 at 1357 hrs. “Romesh

Sharma do admiyon ke sath maar peet kar raha hai”. She recorded the

information vide Ex.PW41/A.

63. PW42 Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik was the SHO at the police

station Kalka Ji. He stated that, on 20.10.98, he received a message

on wireless that he should reach C30 Mayfair Garden and report to

SHO Hauz Khas. At about 2.30 PM he with SI Ravinder Gill and H. C.

Suraj Bhan went there in his Govt. vehicle where he met Mr. Bakshi,

SHO Police Station Hauz Khas who asked him to go to 16, Mahadev

Road telling that Romesh Sharma has picked up two persons forcibly

and taken them there. He instructed him to rescue them namely

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 62/213


Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta saying that he has already discussed

the matter with the senior officers. He went there and saw two persons

in the captivity of Romesh Sharma and his men. He enquired who

Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta were. They stood up however, they

were very disturbed and terribly shattered. They rescued them and

took them to the Police Station Hauz Khas. He then took Romesh

Sharma to Mayfair Garden and handed over him to SHO Hauz Khas.

On being crossexamined, he stated that SHO Hauz Khas did not give

him any instruction in writing nor showed him any case diary / FIR. He

was not directed by DCP (South) to go to SHO Hauz Khas but

someone from the Control Room had instructed him. He admitted that

Hauz Khas and Mahadev Road area do not fall within his jurisdiction

and the DCP is over all incharge. He admitted that he did not contact

DCP after getting information from PCR nor got recorded this fact to

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

apprehended Romesh Sharma and handed over to SHO Hauz Khas or

that he had rescued Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta from Mahadev

Road. He stated that there were 56 persons at Mahadev road. He

denied that on the instructions of his officers, he manipulated the case

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 63/213


against Romesh Sharma. He stated that he does not remember if any

person was pointed out by Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta that he was

one who had put Pistol on their persons threatening them to kill during

the process of abduction.

64. PW43 Sh. T R Walia was the Manager in Citibank New Delhi where

Reliance Developers and Investors had account no. 0037569003. He

handed over a cheque dated 30.03.96 of Rs. 1.0 lac in favour of H.

Suresh Rao issued from the above account Ex.PW6/18.

65. PW44 Sh. Girish Rao was the Director of Pushpak Aviation alongwith

his brother H. Suresh Rao. He stated that the helicopter was earlier

owned by Pushpak Aviation and thereafter transferred in the name of

H. Suresh Rao. However, it remained available with Pushpak Aviation

for services which included film shooting, charter, election and spray

on plantation.

He stated that in 1996 the helicopter was given on hire/lease to

Romesh Sharma for election purposes. It was sent to Phulpur UP with

few crew members on 26.03.96. It was never sold to Romesh Sharma

at any time. He stated that Suresh Rao had shown him the MOU

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 64/213


Ex.PW6/14. He came to Delhi with Mr. Pappara on 23.06.96 and

assembled the helicopter in the farmhouse of Romesh Sharma. He

stated that he was told by his brother that Romesh Sharma would

make the payment regarding the remaining hire charges. He stated

that Mr. Pappara had some reservation as to the assembling of the

helicopter. He was beaten by Romesh Sharma. When he intervened,

he was also assaulted. He stated that for flying, helicopter is required

to be insured. After the helicopter was snatched by Romesh Sharma,

he did not pay the premium and wrote a letter to the insurance

company Ex.PW6/DA on 26.07.96. He stated that the helicopter was

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

towards insurance could be paid by Romesh Sharma. On being cross

examined, he stated that premium is paid by the registered owner. He

stated that when he and his Engineer were beaten in Delhi in June

1996, he did not make any complaint in Delhi or Mumbai. He denied

that they had sold the helicopter to Romesh Sharma.

66. PW45 Wing Commander Vinod Manchanda was the Manager Co

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 65/213


ordination with Reliance Industries. He was looking after all the

aspects of aviations of Reliance Group and wireless communication.

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

helicopter for checking its authenticity and to assess whether it would

be of any use for the company. He checked the records from the office

of Director, Airworthiness and found the documents correct. He

advised the company that the helicopter was of an old make and lot of

expenditure has to be incurred to make it fully airworthy.

Balasubramanium then asked him to keep the documents with him.

On the directions of Balasubramanium, he handed over the documents

to the police i.e. the journey log book Ex.PW6/29, engine log book

Ex.PW6/30, aircraft log book Ex.PW6/31, aircraft radio apparatus log

book Ex.PW6/34, certificate of registration Ex.PW2/D, certificate of

airworthiness Ex.PW1/1 and a letter addressed to Romesh Sharma by

DGCA Ex.PW2/E. He stated that the helicopter was in the name of

Romesh Sharma.

67. PW46 Captain Ashok Kumar was a Free Lancer Pilot. He joined

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 66/213


Pushpak Aviation in 1995. He proved the entries in the log book. He

stated that in June 1996, he never visited Delhi nor assembled the

helicopter nor gave the certificate in the log book to the effect that it

was inspected and O.K. after reassembling.

68. PW47 Sh. Suresh Kumar Tribhuwan Mishra knew the accused

Romesh Sharma since 1980 and also knew Suresh Rao. He stated

that Suresh Rao had told him in the month of April, 1996 that he has

sent his helicopter to Phulpur Constituency for election purposes and it

was hired by Romesh Sharma who was contesting the election from

there. He then told Suresh Rao that Romesh Sharma “Ek Number ka

cheater hai Aur na to tumhare helicopter ka bhara dega aur na hi

helicopter dega”. He stated that after 1 ½ – 2 months Suresh Rao told

him that he had told him correctly about Romesh Sharma. He had

infact neither paid the hire charges nor returned the helicopter and

beaten him and brought him on to the road (Itna mara hai or sarak pe

laa diya hai). He asked Suresh Rao as to why he was not reporting to

the police. He replied that if he did so, Romesh Sharma would finish

off his family. Thereafter, Suresh Rao met him and sought his help

saying that he was receiving threatening calls from Romesh Sharma.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 67/213


He then told Suresh Rao to ring up Romesh Sharma and he would talk

to him. Suresh Rao telephoned Romesh Sharma. He (PW47) talked

to him and told that he was a good leader/person but he has cheated

an innocent person by not paying the hire charges nor returning his

helicopter and that he forcibly got some documents signed from him.

On this, Romesh Sharma asked him not to interfere in this matter

threatening that he would get him cut into pieces by the evening and

his parts of the body would be thrown in Juhu Dariya i.e. sea. Romesh

Sharma then told him to wait for the next evening when he would come

to know who would ring him up from Dubai. Next day, he received a

telephone call who disclosed his name Irfan Goga claiming himself to

be a man of Dawood Ibrahim giving his telephone number asking him

not to intervene in the matter telling that Romesh Sharma was his

friend and if he intervened, he would be shot dead right in front of his

building. He stated that in many police station of Mumbai, there were

cases against Irfan Goga for extortion, threats etc. He stated that on

the next day, he received a telephone from Dubai from Abu Salem that

he was right hand man of Dawood Ibrahim and asked him to get away

from the matter of Suresh Rao. When he asked his connection with

Romesh Sharma, he replied that Romesh Sharma was his agent in

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 68/213


India. He stated that on 20/30.04.98 Suresh Rao again came to him.

He was very frightened. He was crying. He asked his help as he was

continuously receiving threats. He advised him to report the matter to

the police. He, Suresh Rao and his brother Girish Rao went to Santa

Cruz Police Station Mumbai where Suresh Rao made a complaint.

On being crossexamined, he stated that prior to registration of

this case, as per his knowledge, there were other cases registered

against Romesh Sharma. He stated that he does not know the names

of the persons who were cheated by Romesh Sharma. He stated that

he did not lodge report with the police regarding the threats given by

Romesh Sharma or by Abu Salem or Irfan Goga. However, he had

told the police of Santa Cruz that he had also received threatening

calls. He denied that no such meetings ever took place between him

and Suresh Rao.

69. PW48 Sh. G K Behl was the Stamp Auditor at Tis Hazari Courts. He

handed over the stamp paper sale register to the police maintained by

Pankaj Bhardwaj for the period from 14.03.96 to 06.04.96 and by Rita

Kashyap for the period from 10.05.96 to 22.06.96 which were seized

vide memo Ex.PW48/1.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 69/213


70. PW49 Indermani Tiwari was the Assistant Manager in SAS Travels,

Allahabad. He proved the air tickets issued in the name of Demons for

his journey from Lucknow to Mumbai by Sahara Airlines on 12.05.96.

71. PW50 Sh. H P S Shergill had flown the helicopter of Pushpak

Aviation from 08.03.96 to 14.03.96 and made entries in the log book

Ex.PW6/29.

72. PW51 Sh. Rajiv Jain was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce,

Hauz Khas where Reliance Developers & Investors had a current

account no. 370 being operated by Romesh Sharma, its Proprietor. 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

30.03.96 was issued by Romesh Sharma in favour of H. Suresh Rao

for Rs. 1.0 lac. A draft of Rs. 2.0 lac was prepared in favour of H.

Suresh Rao and the amount which was debited on the strength of

cheque no. 223695 dated 15.05.96.

73. PW52 Ms. Neelam Verma was Manager in Hotel Yatrik, Allahabad.

She brought the record regarding arrival of passengers etc./bills of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 70/213


lodging / boarding of the crew members of Pushpak Aviation who

stayed in the hotel which used to be paid by Romesh Sharma.

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/A to Ex.PW53/10 were taken.

75. PW54 Sh. Ajit Patil was in Uco Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai. He

was also present when the specimen signatures of Harish Mishra were

taken.

76. PW55 Ravi Karan was the front office Manager in Hotel Yatrik

Allahabad. He proved the bills, vouchers etc. which used to be paid by

Romesh Sharma.

77. PW56 Sh. K F Wilfred was the Under Secretary in Election

Commission, India. He proved the letter Ex.PW56/1 dated 23.12.98

sent with the order dated 29.10.98 Ex.PW56/2 passed by the

Commission on the issue of merger of All India Indira Congress with

Indian National Congress as well as the letter from Romesh Sharma,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 71/213


President of All India Indira Congress Secular received in the office on

17.10.98 requesting for the change of office of All India Indira Congress

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. PW56 Sh. Ravinder Shanker Shukla was the Estate Officer in the

Directorate of Estate, Nirman Bhawan. He handed over the file in

respect of the flat at Mahadev Road to CBI vide receipt Ex.PW57/1. He

stated that the premises was allotted to Shiv Charan Singh, MP Rajya

Sabha. A letter was received on 20.08.98 from the Liasion Officer for

eviction of Shiv Charan Singh from the public premises and also from

the Under Secretary Rajya Sabha regarding cancellation of allotment.

He issued the notice Ex.PW57/6 on 25.08.98 and on 09.09.98 Eviction

order Ex.PW57/7 was passed. He stated that when the premises was

not vacated, warrant of eviction was obtained and it was got vacated

on 11.11.98 vide Eviction Report Ex.PW57/10.

79. PW58 Dr. Prasanna Kumar Patsani was the MP Lok Sabha. He was

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 72/213


allotted accommodation at 11, Mahadev Road. He stated that he does

not know how he was introduced to Romesh Sharma by Shiv Charan.

He denied that he had met Romesh Sharma many times.

80. PW59 Vijay Chatrabhuj Bhatia was the Assistant Divisional Manager

in National Insurance Company. He stated that the policy in respect of

helicopter was issued in the name of Suresh Rao vide Ex.PW39/11 for

a period of one year and the company was to pay the premium in

installment. He stated that in response to the demand made by them

for the second installment, M/s Pushpak Aviation informed vide letter

Ex.PW6/DA that the helicopter in question has been sold to Romesh

Sharma. He stated that there was no transit insurance of helicopter

from Allahabad to Delhi.

81. PW60 Sh. Dharam Pal got evicted the premises 16, Mahadev Road

on 10.11.98 after getting warrant Ex.PW57/9. He stated that there was

a Board of All India Bhartiya Congress on the premises.

82. PW61 Sh. Manoj Kumar J Shah was posted in State Bank of

Hyderabad at Mumbai. He brought the statement of account of Harish

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 73/213


Mishra bearing no. 3442 being operated at Juhu branch at Mumbai

Ex.PW61/1 to Ex.PW61/21. He also brought the account of Romesh

Sharma in respect of account no. 4954 Ex.PW61/23 to Ex.PW61/25.

83. Examination of PW62 Sh. G L Sood, Vigilance Officer, MTNL was

given up by CBI.

84. PW63 Sh. Ajay Kumar was serving with Pankaj Bhardwaj Stamp

Vendor. He deposed on the lines of PW13.

85. PW64 Sh. V Balasubramanium was the Group President, 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

Helicopter to the police. He stated that the documents were sent to

him by Romesh Sharma, the owner of the helicopter with the request

whether the said company could use or hire the said helicopter. He

handed over the documents to Wing Commander Manchanda to

check. He after checking found the helicopter in the name of Romesh

Sharma but opined that the helicopter cannot be used by their

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 74/213


company. He then asked Mr. Manchanda to keep the documents in

safe custody and conveyed this fact to Romesh Sharma. He deposed

on the lines of Mr. Manchanda. In crossexamination he stated that

once, Birthday party of his grand daughter was organised by him on

this Farm with the permission of Romesh Sharma where he had seen

the Helicopter parked.

86. PW65 Sh. Ravinder Bhatia was present when the specimen

signature of Romesh Sharma Ex.PW65/1 to 4 were taken by CBI.

87. PW66 Sh. Ravi Prakash Saxena proved the signature of D D Bannett

and Hema Oberoi of Taj Hotel, Lucknow on the documents.

88. PW67 ASI Surya Bhan had accompanied Jasbir Malik to Mayfair

Garden and Mahadev Road. He stated that they stayed at Mahadev

Road for 20 minutes and in his presence, statement of any of the

person was not recorded. He denied that he was introduced as a false

witness in this case.

89. PW68 Sh. R N Singh was the Office Assistant, Air Mail Sorting

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 75/213


Division, Chankya Puri. He knew the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia

from before. He identified his signatures on the sheets Ex.PW68/1 to

Ex.PW68/3.

90. Examination of PW69 Sh. B D Sharma, Sorting Assistant Air Mail

was given up.

91. PW70 Sh. Prakash Bhaskar Majumdar was the Sr. Manager,

Canara Bank, Latur branch, Maharashtra. He was present when one

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

proved the pistol Ex.P1 and the cartridges Ex.PW70/2 to Ex.PW70/8,

the license seized from Laxman Ex.PW70/9 and the cash memo of the

pistol Ex.PW70/10.

92. PW71 Sh. Subhash Chander Gupta, DSP CBI partly investigated

the case, recorded the statement of the witnesses and obtained the

specimen signature of Girish Rao Ex.PW70/1 to Ex.PW70/6.

93. PW72 Sh. Jaswinder Singh was present with Inspector Anand

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 76/213


Prakash when the search of the house of Romesh Sharma at C30

Mayfair Garden was taken on the night of 20/21.10.98 in presence of

Romesh Sharma. He stated that a video cassette Ex.PW72/1 was

recovered and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW72/2. However, it was

not sealed.

94. PW73 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, was the Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis

Hazari. He did the TIP of the accused Laxman Singh where he

refused to participate vide proceedings Ex.PW73/11.

95. PW74 Sh. I Hassan was the Inspector STF CBI. He seized the

documents and recorded the statement of witnesses. He collected the

copy of FIR and the charge sheet of the cases FIR 849/98 and FIR

849/98 and FIR 858/98 registered at the police station Hauz Khas

Ex.PW70/1 and PW71/2. He also obtained the copy of transcript of the

conversation Ex.PW74/A having been taken place between Romesh

Sharma and Abu Salem running into 71 pages from the Inspector

Ishwar Singh.

96. Examination of PW75 Sh. Ram Singh was given up by CBI.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 77/213


97. PW76 Anoop Singh Kumar was the Dy. Commissioner, Income Tax,

Mumbai. He furnished the copy of the income tax returns of H. Suresh

Rao as individual and of Garuda Aviation of the financial year 199495

and 199596 Ex.PW76/1 to Ex.PW76/4 to CBI.

98. PW77 Sh. S S Dagar was the Inspector STF, CBI. He seized the file

of the car from the MLO. He also collected the original cheque

Ex.PW6/18 from Citibank, Parliament Street, cheque Ex.PW6/19 from

Bank of Tokyo, Parliament Street, copy of DDs and recorded the

statement of witnesses.

99. PW78 Sh. K S Nayar was in STF, CBI as DSP. He arrested the

accused Naveen Budhiraja on 18.01.99 from his house.

100.PW79 Sh. A M Thakur was Inspector CBI, STF Mumbai. He

collected the statement of accounts in the name of Garuda Aviation

from September 1993 to December, 1997 running into 27 pages

Ex.PW19/2 and the account of Suresh Rao Ex.PW79/3 from the Chief

Manager, SBI. He also collected cheque no. 948400 of

Rs.1.0 lac Ex.PW60/27 issued from the account of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 78/213


Harish Chand Mishra Ex.PW79/4.

101.PW80 Sh. H C Samuel was the Lockup Incharge Tis Hazari. He

was handed over the custody of accused Laxman by CBI officer in

muffled face.

102.PW81 Inspector Anand Prakash was the Addl. SHO in the Police

Station Hauz Khas. He on receipt of information at about 2.00 PM on

20.10.98 vide DD no. 30B Ex.PW39/D went to Mayfair Garden

alongwith the SHO and police force to rescue the persons. He stated

that no one met them and from the residents of the locality, they came

to know that the persons confined there were taken away by Romesh

Sharma to his Party office at Mahadev Road. He stated that Inspector

Jasbir Singh Malik also reached there alongwith his staff whom

Inspector Bakshi, SHO PS Hauz Khas asked to go to Mahadev Road

to rescue the persons. He stated that two persons namely H. Suresh

Rao and Rakesh Gupta met him in the police station at about 4.15 /

4.30 PM. One lady officer Neena Devi recorded the FIR. At about

5.00/5.15 PM the FIR was assigned to him alongwith the complaint.

He interrogated H Suresh Rao, went to Mayfair Garden with H Suresh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 79/213


Rao and Rakesh Gupta where he met Inspector Malik who was with

Romesh Sharma. He seized the Pajero Jeep and Mercedes car vide

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

Helicopter Ex.PW72/1. He stated that he had viewed the cassette on

which registration number was written. Four registers were also

recovered from the Almirah of the garage including some documents

and 45 rubber stamps which were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He

stated that Suresh Rao remained with them till 9.30 / 9.45 PM. Since

he had complained of body pain, he was sent for medical examination.

He also seized the registers relating to Helicopter and original MOU

Ex.PW6/20. He also went to Jai Mata Di Farm, 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

Sharma to Allahabad on 25.10.98 on remand, obtained his specimen

signatures Ex.PW34/1 to 3 and did the investigation till 06.11.98 i.e. till

the time it was handed over to CBI. He handed over the documents to

CBI vide memo Ex.PW81/2. On being crossexamined he stated that

R.C No. : 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 not see the senior officials i.e.

ACP/DCP on the spot to monitor the investigation nor saw the officials

of Wild Life Protection, Income Tax, FERA, Revenue Intelligence,

Excise during the course of investigation at night. He denied that he

got the video cassette Ex.PW72/2 prepared in respect of helicopter on

the directions of senior officers. He stated that no photographer was

called to take the photographs of helicopter at Jai Mata Di Farm.

He stated that he was the witness in three cases registered

against Romesh Sharma, one on the complaint of Charles Dinkey

Mechrshenas, record on the complaint of Malik and the third one under

Wild Life Protection Act. He also seized the documents concerning the

above case. He denied that he obtained false complaint against the

accused Romesh Sharma. He stated that the documents connected

with the case of complainant Sanjay Sabharwal were also recovered

from there relating to the premises C30 Mayfair Garden and Jai Mata

Di Farm. He denied that he pressurised the complainants to lodge

false complaints against Romesh Sharma.

103.Examination of PW82 H.C. Kishan Pal was given up by CBI.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 81/213


104.PW83 Sh. Pramod Mud Bhatkal was DSP STF CBI in Mumbai. He

seized the documents from Harish Mishra on 14.11.98.

105.Examination of PW84 Satender Sanghwan, SI Special Cell was

also given up by CBI.

106.PW85 Inspector Ishwar Singh was the Inspector in AntiExtortion

Cell, Crime Branch. He used to process information concerning the

commission of extortion in the office of Crime Branch. He stated that

in the last week of September 1998, an informer gave a tip that men of

Dawood Ibrahim are frequent in Delhi and one of his gangmen known

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

Dubai and other in Pakistan. He stated that in those days, Dawood

Ibrahim used to operate from Dubai and Pakistan. Abu Salem was his

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

01.10.98 to 20.10.98 and recorded its transcript Ex.PW74/3. He then

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 82/213


got registered two cases vide FIR no. 849/98 and 850/98 at the police

station Hauz Khas Ex.PW74/1 and Ex.PW74/2 which were investigated

by the Crime Branch of which charge sheets were filed. He stated that

during the course of investigation, he came to know that mostly the

accused Romesh Sharma had talked to Abu Salem.

In his crossexamination, he stated that he had taken the voice

sample of Romesh Sharma, however, could not obtain the voice

sample of Abu Salem, so he could not compare the voice of Abu

Salem recorded during taping of the phone with any other voice. He

stated that one Ramesh Malik of Lajpat Nagar had complained that he

was criminally intimidated by Abu Salem.

107.PW87 Inspector G.P. Singh, was present when the accused Naveen

Budhiraja was arrested on 18.01.99 vide arrest memo Ex. PW86/1.

108.PW88 Dr. R. Kalanjiam was associated with Shiv Sena, a political

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. He had met him through his friend Najimuddin. He wanted to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 83/213


join his party. He stated that one day before Diwali, in 1998, he had

met Romesh Sharma in Delhi. He went to his party office from his

residence and came back in his car. He stated that there were many

persons in his house. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. He

admitted that in the case FIR802/98, Police Station Hauz Khas, he

had testified in favour of Romesh Sharma as defence witness that he

had stayed in the house of Romesh Sharma at May Fair Garden on the

night of 19/20.10.1998. and the office of his party was at 16, Mahadev

Road. He denied that on 20.10.1998 two persons were taken away by

Romesh Sharma with the help of his gunman Laxman from his

residence to the party office. He admitted that he had given a

statement before the Ld. MM. He admitted that when he reached the

residence of Romesh Sharma from his party office, he found the police

and Romesh Sharma in the custody of police. He was also confronted

with the statement Ex. PW88/1. He was read over the statement Ex.

PW91/1 given to Ld. MM. He stated that at that time the questions put

to him were in Hindi which he could not follow and it was not read over

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

witness box.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 84/213


109.PW89 SI Atul Kumar was posted at the Police Station Lajpat Nagar.

He did the investigation of the Case FIR No.756/98 registered at the

Police Station Lajpat Nagar Ex. PW89/1 and filed the chargesheet

against Romesh Sharma and Ashok Malik placing Abu Salem in

column no.2 as proclaimed offender.

110.PW90 Dr. Prashant Kulshrestha was the Sr. Forensic Doctor in

AIIMS, he proved the MLC of Suresh Rao Ex. PW90/1 prepared by Dr.

Monika Gupta. He admitted that name of the assailant is not

mentioned in the MLC.

111.PW91 brought the statement of Dr. R. Kalinjam, PW88 recorded in

the court of Sh. S.S. Rathi in the case FIR802/98 registered at the

Police Station Hauz Khas Ex. PW91/1.

112.PW92 was the DSP, CBI. On the transfer of investigation to CBI vide

orders Ex. PW92/1 he reregistered the case vide FIR92/2 and did

the investigation. He collected the documents, recorded the statement

of witnesses, viewed the video cassette of helicopter, arrested the

accused Laxman, seized the pistol and cartridges, got conducted his

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 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. On being crossexamined he admitted that on the day the

investigation was assigned to him, the helicopter was registered in the

name of Romesh Sharma in the record of Director General Civil

Aviation.

113.PW93 Sh. M.P. Sharma was DSP S.P. Branch, CBI. He had assisted

PW92 in the investigation.

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

detailed reasons stating that the writings on the questioned documents

tally with the specimen writings.

115.Accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied

the incriminating evidence against them and pleaded their innocence.

116.Accused Romesh Sharma admitted that Shiv Charan had permitted

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 86/213


All India Bhartiya Congress Committee to use the premises 16,

Mahadev Road, Delhi as its office and that he had been residing at

C30, Mayfair Garden and that he had floated All India Bhartiya

Congress Party in the year 1997 and that Avdesh and Indermani are

his nephews and Avtar Singh is his well wisher. He also admitted that

he had contested election from Phulpur parliamentary constituency

held on 07.05.96 and lost the election. He also admitted that in the

event of purchase of car/helicopter, by a candidate during election

period, its price is not included in the expenses incurred during the

election and in case candidate hires car / helicopter for election

purpose, the hire charges are included in the expenses and that the

candidate was required to maintain account of expenses incurred in

connection with the election and that after the election, he had filed the

accounts of expenses to the District Election Office.

He stated that he had purchased the helicopter with an idea that

it may not reflect in its hire charges in his election expense since the

expense was not to exceed Rs. 4,50,000/. Some of the questions,

he answered that he is not aware. He stated that Lalit Bagla might

have introduced him with H. Suresh Rao in February, 1996 as politician

and Property Dealer. He also admitted that S41, Panchsheel Park is

R.C No. : 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

proposed that he wanted to sell the above helicopter since he was in

need of money urgently for making payment to some party in Delhi and

during his visits, he had told H. Suresh Rao that he was going to

contest election from Phulpur Parliament constituency and for that

purposes services of helicopter were required. Earlier he quoted the

price as Rs. 60 lacs but after the enquiry he quoted the price as Rs. 30

lacs. He admitted that on 24.03.96 he gave a call to H. Suresh Rao to

send the helicopter to Phulpur. He stated that since he had purchased

the helicopter so there was no necessity to agree that he would pay

Rs. 80,000/ per day as hiring charges for the said helicopter and other

miscellaneous expenses. He denied having received the fax message

either from H. Suresh Rao or Mahender Pujara. He stated that since

the terms for purchase of the helicopter were already finalised by him

and accepted by H. Suresh Rao, there was no occasion for him to tell

H. Suresh Rao that his brother Harish Mishra and Rakesh Gupta would

meet him at Bombay office for finalisation of terms and conditions. He

denied having given any understanding to H. Suresh Rao that pre

dated MOU would be destroyed after the elections were over nor gave

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 88/213


an assurance that helicopter would be returned. He stated that he did

not know whether Suresh Rao had paid Rs. 30,020/ to Central Carrier

Corporation, Mumbai for transportation of helicopter and fuel from

Mumbai to Phulpur or Parsuram and other staff were deputed by H.

Suresh Rao with the truck. He denied having given an envelope

containing blank letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors on

which MOU of hiring of helicopter was to be prepared. He stated that

he had paid full amount to H. Suresh Rao in respect of the sale of

helicopter. He stated that all the papers in respect of the sale of

helicopter were prepared by H. Suresh Rao and the MOU Ex.PW6/20

on 30.03.96 was signed with the mutual consent of his Advocate and

the Advocate of H. Suresh Rao. He stated that after the election it was

to be transported to Delhi. He stated that his men were well behaved

and they had good relations with H. Suresh Rao and his men. They

had arranged their boarding and lodging and were given VIP

treatment. He stated that his men were aware that he had purchased

the helicopter so there was no question of their damaging the

helicopter. He stated that it was agreed that the log book was to be

handed over to him by the technician of Suresh Rao. He stated that it

was the responsibility of H. Suresh Rao to send the helicopter to Delhi.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 89/213


His relations with Suresh Rao were cordial He stated that Suresh Rao

did not ask him to pay hire charges or return the helicopter however,

had demanded the sale consideration. He denied having links with

underworld Don. He stated that he had relations with politicians and

upper strata of society. He stated that at the time of delivery of

helicopter, H. Suresh Rao had handed over him the necessary

documents. He stated that some of the documents were not given by

him, however, he had assured that they would be given later since they

were mortgaged to someone. He stated that Rakesh Gupta had

visiting terms with him. He had arranged a finance of Rs. 40 lacs for

Rakesh Gupta for his airlines through one of his friend and Rs. 10 lacs

from some person for H. Suresh Rao. He admitted that Suresh Rao

had brought an Advocate at his residence however, denied that R A

Shah had objected the manner as to signing of documents or that he

abused R A Shah or snatched the documents from him. He stated that

H. Suresh Rao had given the documents to him willingly. He denied

that agreement to sell and affidavits had been signed by H. Suresh

Rao out of fear. He stated that it was H. Suresh Rao who got the

affidavit notarised. He stated that he had made the payment to H.

Suresh Rao and did not call Neeraj Bhatia to bring registration

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 90/213


certificate at his residence. He stated that when certificate of

registration was handed over to him by H. Suresh Rao, he introduced a

person Neeraj Bhatia to him and told that he had entered into an

Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5 with Neeraj Bhatia to sell the

helicopter for Rs. 40 lacs and that some amount was owed by him to

Neeraj Bhatia. He denied that he assured Neeraj Bhatia to pay Rs. 18

lacs. He stated that he had made it clear that when certificate of

airworthiness of helicopter would be given to him, he would make the

balance payment to H. Suresh Rao. He stated that he had made the

entire payment of Rs. 30 Lacs towards the sale consideration of the

helicopter. He stated that H. Suresh Rao had assured him as and

when his engineers would be free he would send them to his Farm

House to reassemble the helicopter. He denied having beaten /

threatened Pappara. He stated that he does not know any person by

the name of Suresh Mishra. He denied that on 20.10.98 Rakesh Gupta

or Suresh Rao had come to his house or such incident took place. He

stated that police had forced him to sign some blank documents. He

denied having snatched the helicopter from Suresh Rao. He stated

that the premises S41 was taken by him on rent and the vehicles were

registered in his name. He stated that he used to make the payment in

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 91/213


installments. He stated that he had given the documents of the

helicopter to Reliance Industries with an understanding that Reliance

Industries may use the said helicopter on hire. He stated that Reliance

company after checking had told him that the helicopter was not useful

for them. He stated that Suresh Rao had informed the insurance

company that the helicopter has been sold to him. He denied having

talked to any person namely Abu Salem or having connection with the

mobile no. 9811197600 or that Laxman Singh was his associate. He

stated that there was no cassette on which the word helicopter was

written. He stated that on 20.10.98, the police officials and other

agencies had raided his house.

He stated that H. Suresh Rao had an intention to get the

helicopter back from him. With that motive, he fabricated the story and

lodged this case. The police officials have testified against him under

the influence of NDA Government as he was having video

clips/cassettes regarding involvement of Ministers of NDA Government

and senior police officers of Crime Investigation Agency. He had also

formed a new party and was in process of exposing corrupt officers

and ministers. He was National General Secretary of Indian Socialist

Party and Lok Dal Party. He remained in Congress from 1984 to 1987,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 92/213


held several important post and created a new political party in 1987

under the name of All India Bhartiya Congress Party. He had a

political clean image. He had bought the properties lawfully. The idea

to purchase the helicopter was suggested by Suresh Rao in one of the

meetings. He stated that the helicopter was two seater which Suresh

Rao had bought for Rs. 50,000/. He has paid Rs. 30 lacs to Suresh

Rao in installments and he after receiving the entire amount of Rs. 30

lacs got the helicopter registered in his name and handed over the

documents. He stated that it was Suresh Rao who enjoyed a bad

reputation in the circle as he had cheated number of persons. He

stated that it was a blatant conspiracy against him.

117.Accused Harish Mishra stated that he was framed in this case since

he happened to be the brother of Romesh Sharma. CBI wanted him to

become witness against Romesh Sharma and when he refused, he

was framed in this case. He denied having visited to the office of

Suresh Rao. Most of the questions, he answered he does not know.

He stated that payment was made towards the sale of helicopter and

not for the hire charges.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 93/213


118.He examined Sh. Lalit Kumar Bagla as DW1. He stated that he

knew Romesh Sharma. He deals in sale and purchase of imported

cars. Romesh Sharma had purchased an imported car from him. He

also knew Rakesh Gupta of United India Airways, who knew H. Suresh

Rao of Pushpak Aviation. He stated that Rakesh Gupta had taken Rs.

30 lacs from him. He issued him a cheque which on presentation was

dishonoured. He filed a case and got the money back. He stated that

he never purchased any helicopter nor dealt with H. Suresh Rao. He

stated that two FERA cases are pending against him regarding Hawala

transaction of purchase of a Mercedes car.

119.Accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia in his statement admitted his

signatures on the GRs. He stated that he had gone to Phulpur for

campaigning in the election of Romesh Sharma. Since the Engineers

received instruction not to bring the helicopter to Mumbai from Ugarsen

Pur, he and his technicians themselves unloaded the helicopter from

the truck and loaded on a truck for Delhi. There, the atmosphere was

cordial. Other questions he answered, he does not know. He stated

that Romesh Sharma had told him that he has purchased the

helicopter. He had also seen the MOU Ex.PW6/20 at Phulpur,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 94/213


Allahabad. He stated that the helicopter was dismantled on 11.05.96.

He denied having accompanied with the truck. He stated that CBI

wanted him to be an approver which he refused, so he was falsely

implicated in the case.

120.Accused Laxman Singh stated that CBI wanted to make a strong

case against Romesh Sharma, so included his name. He stated that

he did not participate in the TIP since he was shown to the witnesses

prior to his identification. He stated that police had seized the pistol

and cartridges from him but he was having a license for the same. He

denied having threatened H. Suresh Rao or Rakesh Gupta with the

pistol or accompanied them to Mahadev Road in the car of the

accused Romesh Sharma.

121.Accused Manoj stated that he was engaged as a cook by Romesh

Sharma. He used to remain in his bungalow and cook meals for the

employees of H. Suresh Rao and his persons who were campaigning

for Romesh Sharma.

122.Accused Avdesh stated that he was engaged in canvassing in favour

R.C No. : 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

purchased by Romesh Sharma. He stated that he was not present at

the site of transportation of helicopter but his name was included

maliciously by CBI under the influence of H. Suresh Rao. He stated

when CBI came to know that he was nephew of Romesh Sharma, it

falsely included his name and the names of other relatives and friends.

He came to know during canvassing that Romesh Sharma was his

uncle since he had left the village even prior to his birth. He stated that

Romesh Sharma was making speeches in the area during election that

he has purchased the helicopter which Pilots and technicians were

also listening and never objected.

123.Accused Naveen Budhiraja stated that he was not present at the

spot when the helicopter was unloaded. He was in Delhi.

124.Accused Indermani stated that the witnesses who have named him

were the employees of H. Suresh Rao. They have deposed under the

influence of H. Suresh Rao. He stated that he had been canvassing in

the election for Romesh Sharma, therefore, he was named and might

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 96/213


have been known by name however, he was not present when the

helicopter was transported to Delhi. He stated that after canvassing,

he used to return to his village and never stayed at Ugrasenpur. He

stated that the CBI has falsely implicated him being the nephew of

Romesh Sharma. CBI wanted to implicate all the relations of Romesh

Sharma including himself so that no person is left out to do pairvi of

Romesh Sharma.

125.Accused M D Bhojwani stated that he was not present at the spot.

He had gone to Allahabad Railway Station for reservation for Delhi.

He stated that he had signed the MOU as witness. He had remained

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

Declaration and Injunction before Hon’ble High Court against Romesh

Sharma and Others in the year 1999 Ex.DX2 praying for cancelling the

MOU dated 14.05.96 and other documents used for the transfer of said

helicopter by declaring that he is the owner of the helicopter and

directing the Director General of Civil Aviation to transfer the helicopter

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 97/213


in his name and also directing the Income Tax Department to remove

the attachment orders in respect of the helicopter.

127.Romesh Sharma contested the suit and denied the averments made

in the plaint vide written statement Ex.DX3. Replication was also filed

by H. Suresh Rao wherein he reiterated the facts as stated in the plaint

vide Ex.DX4. In that suit, following issues were framed vide order

dated 12.01.06 :

1. Whether the suit against defendant no. 3 is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act? OPD

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 41(H) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD

3. Whether defendant no.1 had purchased the helicopter bearing registration no. VTEAP Model No. Bell47, G5? OPD

4. Whether the MOU dated 14.05.96 and other documents used for transfer of the helicopter in question were got executed from the plaintiff under pressure or coercion? OPP

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 98/213


5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.2 to transfer the helicopter in his name? OPP

6. Relief.

128.Matter was thereafter listed for plaintiff evidence. H. Suresh Rao did

not file evidence despite number of opportunities including last and

final opportunity and therefore, his suit was dismissed for want of

evidence vide order dated 11.01.08 by the Hon’ble High Court. The

accused Romesh Sharma placed on record the order sheets of the

proceedings of the civil suit which were exhibited as DX5/1 to DX5/35

(colly.) vide order dated 22.12.11.

129.I have heard the arguments advanced by Learned Special Public

Prosecutor (P.P.) Sh. S K Saxena for CBI, Learned Counsels Sh. Prem

Kumar alongwith Sh. Jaswinder Singh for the accused Romesh

Sharma and Harish Mishra and Sh. S P Kaushal for the other accused

persons.

130.Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused Romesh

Sharma and the accused Harish Mishra conspired and cheated the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 99/213


complainant Suresh Rao, PW6 of his helicopter by practicing deception

upon him initially inducing him to give on hire his helicopter and then

by forcibly dispossessing him and then detaining it by force with the

help of the coaccused. They not only deprived him of the helicopter

but also did not pay him his legitimate dues or its price. Learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that vide certificate of registration

Ex.PW2/B1, the helicopter bearing registration no. VTEAP was initially

owned by Pushpak Aviation Pvt. Ltd. It was transferred in the name of

H. Suresh Rao and consequent thereto, the certificate Ex.PW2/C2 was

issued in his name. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that H. Suresh Rao

had purchased the spare parts of Rs. 38,81,964/ from Summit Aviation

and also spent Rs. 6,21,659/ for its assembly out of which he paid Rs.

23,42,310/ and pledged the helicopter with Summit Aviation as a

collateral security. Ld. Public Prosecutor referred the testimony of

PW85 stating that accused used to make calls at Dubai and Pakistan.

He also placed on record the transcript of the talks which took place

between Romesh Sharma and Abu Salem Ex.PW74/3. Ld. Public

Prosecutor stated that the accused had contested the election from

Phulpur, Allahabad for which the maximum expenditure limit was Rs.

4,50,000/. Ld. Public Prosecutor stated that the helicopter was given

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 100/213


on hire at Rs. 80000/ per day and to that effect a fax Ex.PW6/6 was

sent. The GR receipts show Pushpak Aviation as consignor and

consignee. The MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed on a stamp paper

purchased on 29.03.96 showing to have been executed on 24.02.96.

Two more MOU/agreements were prepared and the signatures of

PW6 were taken by deception / use of force / coercion. No sale deed

about the sale of helicopter was executed. Only an agreement to sell

was prepared. The affidavit from PW6 regarding full and final

payment on 05.06.96 was obtained by inducing threat. Ld. PP stated

that PW6 had already entered into an agreement with a company at

Kerala for aerial spraying of pesticides and received Rs. 2.0 lacs in

advance but since the helicopter was forcibly retained by the accused,

PW6 could not execute the agreement and also faced the legal

proceedings. Ld. PP stated that initially the helicopter was given on

hire upto 12.04.96 but the period was unilaterally extended by the

accused Romesh Sharma till 09.05.96. The fuel was sent to Mumbai

on 09.05.96, however, when the helicopter was being loaded in a truck

on 11.05.96 for Mumbai, it was off loaded by the accused persons who

arrived there and threatened the crew members with dire

consequences. Ld. PP stated that it was loaded on a truck for Delhi,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 101/213


which was arranged by the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. Ld. PP

stated that before 11.05.96, the physical possession of helicopter was

PW6 and it was never transferred to Romesh Sharma. Ld. PP stated

that PW7 has corroborated the testimony of PW6 on all material

aspects. Ld. PP stated that when Romesh Sharma had made full and

final payment to PW6 before the transfer of helicopter and if it was

true, there was no reason for him to make part payment of the amount

on 24.06.96 and 16.07.96.

Ld. PP stated that the accused Harish Mishra was party to the

conspiracy with Romesh Sharma in acquiring the helicopter by illegal

means. He had signed the first MOU and made part payment from his

account. If the helicopter was scheduled to be sent to Delhi as claimed

by the accused, then why B G Pappara would hire a truck from Shere

Punjab for sending the helicopter to Mumbai. Ld. PP stated that facts

and circumstances show that the helicopter was taken on hire and the

agreement to sell was executed by the accused persons to limit the

election expenses, otherwise, Election Commission could have

disqualified him for exceeding the financial limit.

Ld. PP stated that in the election speeches, the accused had

spoken that he has purchased the helicopter and it would be used for

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 102/213


the people of Phulpur, then there was no purpose in taking the

helicopter to Delhi. Ld. P.P stated that statement of accounts of the

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

purchase of helicopter. Ld. PP stated that his intention was dishonest

to grab the helicopter by illegal means. He threatened PW6 and

others with dire consequences to forget about the helicopter claiming

that it was his property. Even otherwise, he did not pay Rs. 18 lacs to

Neeraj Bhatia when he got the registration certificate from him who

had estimated the cost of helicopter as Rs. 40 lacs when he got the

registration certificate as a collateral security. Ld. Counsel stated that

whenever PW6 tried to contact the accused with regard to return the

helicopter or make payment of his dues, he was threatened by

Romesh Sharma through Irfan Goga and others for which he lodged

the report at the police station Santa Cruz with PW47 Suresh Mishra.

Ld. PP stated that when the helicopter was taken to Delhi after

unloading and then loading in another truck hired for transporting it to

Delhi, no intimation was sent to the Director Aviation. Ld. PP stated

that when PW6 alongwith PW7 came at the house of the accused at

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 103/213


Mayfair Garden, they were threatened and were taken to 16, 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

possession of accused alongwith the cassette of helicopter. Ld. PP

stated that the accused had contacted Reliance Industries and given

papers showing his intention to sell the helicopter. Facts and

circumstances show that he had illegally taken the possession of the

helicopter without paying full and final consideration. Ld. Public

Prosecutor stated that the accused did not dispute their signatures on

the documents. Ld. PP stated that intention of the accused from the

beginning was to grab the helicopter and not to purchase which fact is

evident from the documents Ex.PW6/6 i.e. the fax message,

Ex.PW6/18 insurance dated 26.03.96, Ex.PW6/9 regarding purchase

of fuel, Ex.PW6/14 MOU, GRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12 on which

consignor and consignee were mentioned as Pushpak Aviation not

Romesh Sharma, letter of B G Pappara Ex.PW6/16 informing Civil

Aviation that helicopter was given on contract and the agreement with

Ibrahim for spraying pesticides in Kerala. Ld. PP stated that Harish

Mishra, Bhojwani and other accused persons were party to the criminal

conspiracy with the accused Romesh Sharma.

R.C No. : 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

controversy in this case between the accused and the complainant is

of civil nature as is indicative from the facts that accused Romesh

Sharma had purchased the helicopter from the complainant for the

value of Rs.30.00 lacs and has even paid Rs.12.0 lacs towards the sale

price on different occasions; that the present case has been concocted

to coerce the accused and to accelerate the remaining payment; that

the other coaccused persons have been falsely implicated in this

case; that there is no evidence to show that the accused Romesh

Sharma and the coaccused persons had entered into conspiracy to

forcibly take the possession of the helicopter in order to deprive the

complainant of its legitimate dues; that the incident of snatching the

helicopter forcibly is concocted; that the helicopter was in possession

of the accused Romesh Sharma as he had purchased it; that there is

no evidence regarding the terms of hire agreement and even the

alleged fax message vide which the terms were sent and settled has

not been procured and produced; Ld. Counsel submitted that the

golden rule of criminal jurisprudence is that there should be reasonable

certainty to connect the accused with the crime. Ld. Counsel stated

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 105/213


that the accused had a political career of about 35 years. He remained

in custody for about 13 years although it is a case of unfair

investigation by CBI. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Ran Bahadur

Vs. State of UP AIR 2000 SC 1209 and State of West Bengal Vs.

Shew Mangal Singh AIR 1981 SC 1917 to contend that the prosecution

has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt which it failed.

Ld. counsel contended that there is delay of about 900 days in

registration of the case as the alleged incident of snatching happened

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

placed reliance on the case State of AP Vs. Madhu Sudan (2008) 15

SCC 582, Dilawar Singh Vs. State of Delhi 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709 (i),

Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal AIR 2010 SC 3624 to contend that delay must

be sufficiently explained. Ld. Counsel stated that the complainant

belongs to an upper strata of society. His father was in the business of

aviation. He used to move in High Society. He had contacts with

influential persons. The helicopter was registered in the name of the

accused in the record of Director of Civil Aviation in 1996 but challenge

to that effect was made by the complainant in a civil suit filed in 1999

which also failed when the complainant did not lead evidence. Ld.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 106/213


Counsel stated that the Civil Court decides the civil rights in respect of

movable / immovable property and it brings finality in regard to the right

of the parties. Ld. Counsel stated that the helicopter is still with the

accused. Ld. Counsel stated that the case was registered at the police

station Hauz Khas on 20.10.98 and it was transferred to CBI to end the

political career of the accused. There was no written contract of hire.

The MOU was for the sale of helicopter. Part consideration was paid

on 27.03.96. The complainant had purchased the helicopter in 1994

i.e. after 24 years for Rs. 50,000/ in accidental condition. He made it

airworthy by spending Rs. 38 lacs. Before entering into MOU with the

accused, he had entered into agreement with two more persons, thus

concealed the vital information from the accused. He had pledged the

certificate of registration with Neeraj Bhatia of Summit Aviation as a

collateral security.

Ld. counsel stated that the hiring expenses were allegedly Rs.

13 lacs and its cost was Rs. 30 lacs. No sensible person would pay

the hire charges of Rs. 13 lacs for hiring a helicopter for 30 days when

its cost was Rs. 30 lacs. There is nothing to indicate that there was

threat from the side of the accused when the MOU was entered into

nor there was anything in writing that the MOU would not be acted

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 107/213


upon after the election. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section

23 of the Contract Act and submitted that the complainant himself was

guilty of cheating the Authorities by showing that it was sold out and

not given on hire.

Ld. counsel stated that when there is documentary evidence on

record i.e. Agreement to sell, Affidavit as to the sale of helicopter by

PW6 and receipt of full and final consideration from the accused and a

letter written by Girish Rao to the insurance company as to the sale of

helicopter, the oral testimony does not have any meaning. The

prosecution did not file any proof as to the receipt of fax message sent

by PW8 to the accused Romesh Sharma giving the terms and

condition of hiring of helicopter, nor any safeguard was taken by the

complainant to ensure that the MOU shall not be acted upon. The

complainant did not mention the fact in the MOU that the helicopter

was pledged as collateral security with Summit Aviation. Ld. Counsel

stated that when the maximum limit prescribed for incurring the

expenditure on election was Rs. 4.5 lacs why a person would take the

helicopter on hire. The prosecution did not file any document to show

that the value of the helicopter was Rs.70 lacs although in the MOU

Ex.PW6/5 with Summit Aviation the value of the helicopter was shown

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 108/213


as Rs.40 lacs. That being the position, the figure of Rs. 30 lacs as

appearing in the MOU appeared to be reasonable.

Ld. counsel stated that on 20.10.98, more than 350 policemen

came in the house of the accused. It was a preplanned move. The

accused was floating a party at Mahadev Road and he was implicated

for scoring a political vendetta. It assumes importance as earlier a

report was lodged by the complainant in the police station Greater

Kailash PartI, New Delhi but no action was taken by the police on the

report. There was no threat from Dawood Ibrahim at the time of MOU.

Irfan Goga had allegedly threatened the complainant over telephone in

1998 for which report was lodged at the police station Santa Cruz in

April, 1998 so why Irfan Goga / Dawood Ibrahim were not made

accused in the present case.

Ld. counsel stated that the accused persons have been charged

for criminal conspiracy for the period from March, 1996 to October,

1998. The question arises who were the conspirators in 1996 when the

helicopter was allegedly taken on hire. In this case, no confession of

the coaccused was recorded nor there was any recovery from them or

at their instance. Ld. Counsel referred the case of Kali Ram Vs. State

2010 VI AD (Delhi) 45 to contend that there should be evidence of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 109/213


conspiracy and some object behind that conspiracy. Ld. Counsel

stated that when the agreement was entered into on 30.03.96, there

was no fraudulent/dishonest intention/undue influence. It was

genuinely executed. Harish Mishra had taken the MOU since he was

already in Mumbai. He paid Rs. 3.0 lacs. The signatures of PW6 on

the MOU were not obtained by threat, so he was not a party to the

conspiracy. He was not involved in any other incident so, how

conspiracy/cheating was done by him as alleged in the Charge. He

was not the party of second MOU dated 30.03.96.

As to the incident dated 05.06.96 that there was an atmosphere

of terror, Ld. Counsel contended that all the documents i.e. log book,

insurance etc. were given by PW6. PW18 did not say that the

registration certificate was taken from him by threats. PW6 had come

alongwith his counsel in Delhi with the affidavit on a Stamp Paper

which he got prepared in Mumbai. So no case U/s 386 IPC is made

out. The helicopter came at the farm house on 14.05.96 and its

possession with the accused was lawful. No case U/s 365/506 IPC is

made out as there was no abduction or wrongful confinement of PW6

or danger to the life of PW6. Ld. Counsel also referred the allegations

levelled in the FIR and the Civil Suit filed in the High Court. Ld.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 110/213


Counsel submitted that the registration of helicopter clinches the issue

that Romesh Sharma was the owner of the helicopter. The story of

hiring was imaginary and after thought. Ld. Counsel contended that

any contract entered voluntarily is a primary evidence. If the amount is

not received as per contract, it would be a case of civil liability as any

breach of contract entails civil action. Ld. Counsel stated that facts

and circumstances and the documents placed on record go to show

that Romesh Sharma wanted to purchase the helicopter and not to

take on hire. As provided under Aircraft Rules, there should be pure

and clear sale of helicopter which was there in the present case. The

accused in election speeches had openly spoken that he has

purchased the helicopter and would use for the people. Ld. Counsel

stated that Resjudicata U/s 11 CPC is applicable in the present case.

Ld. Counsel referred the case of Daya Sapra Vs. Vishnu Dutt Sharma

2008 II AD (Delhi) 84 to contend that the judgment of the Civil Court is

binding on the Criminal Court. Ld. Counsel stated that the Civil Court

has dismissed the suit containing similar allegations, so no cause of

action lies before the Criminal Court. Reliance was also placed of the

case K G Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002 SC 3372 and

Gulab Chand Sharma Vs. H P Sharma ILR (1974) I Delhi 190. Ld.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 111/213


Counsel referred the Sections 40, 43 and 13 of the Evidence Act to

contend that once a finding has come from the Civil Court, the matter

cannot be reagitated. DGCA has already declined the request of

Suresh Rao to change its ownership. Ld. Counsel stated that the

information was to the extent that Romesh Sharma was beating two

persons, why DRI, Wild Life, Income Tax Officers and Police from the

Police Station Kalka Ji came in the house of the accused and searched

his house for the whole night. Ld. Counsel stated that CBI had already

ceased of the matter as it was enquiring about the helicopter even prior

to the alleged incident. Ld. Counsel stated that Suresh Rao was made

puppet by the Government to score its political vendetta and it was a

larger conspiracy of the Government to end the political career of the

accused Romesh Sharma. Ld. Counsel stated that after the MOU, any

entry in the GR showing consignor and consignee as Pushpak Aviation

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,

Nagpur 359, Lakshman Govind and Another Vs. Amrit Gopal & Others

ILR 24 Bombay 691, Maroli Laxman Koshi Vs. Jagannathdas

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 112/213


Lachmandas Gadewal AIR 1939 Nagpur 12 and Dilavar Singh Vs.

State of Delhi 2007 Cri.L.J. 4709 (1).

132.Learned Counsel then summed up his arguments with the following

submissions :

i) There is no proof whatsoever that there was any contract for hiring of the helicopter between Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma.

ii) MOU for sale of the helicopter was entered into between Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma twice i.e. on 27.03.1996 and 30.03.1996. The complainant Suresh Rao has not given any reason whatsoever to show how he got persuaded by simple or empty assurance.

iii) Complainant Suresh Rao did not obtain any safe guard in the form of any writing from the accused Romesh Sharma to ensure that MOUs entered into between Suresh Rao and accused Romesh Sharma are not acted upon.

iv) Suresh Rao had already entered into MOU with Summit Aviation for sale of the helicopter and did not disclose this fact to the accused Romesh Sharma.

v) Complainant Suresh Rao had kept the registration certificate of the helicopter with Summit Aviation as a collateral security apart from entering into the MOU. This fact was also not disclosed by

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 113/213


Suresh Rao to the accused Romesh Sharma.

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.

vii) If it was a hiring contract then it was cheating the election commission because the expenses far exceed the limit of the election expenses. If it is sale of helicopter then it is not at all cheating the election commission. Hence sale through MOU is a genuine sale of the helicopter.

viii) Complainant Suresh Rao is making a false assertion that the value of the helicopter was Rs.70,00,000/. Nothing has been brought on record that the value of the helicopter could be Rs.70,00,000/ particularly when it was an old helicopter purchased in 1970 and the helicopter even met with an accident. The helicopter was purchased by Suresh Rao only for Rs.50,000/. Moreover the MOU entered by complainant Suresh Rao with Summit Aviation shows its value to be Rs.40,00,000/. Thus its value could be anywhere between Rs.30,00,000/ to Rs.35,00,000/ and hence the description of the sale price of Rs.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/ as is sought to be made out by the complainant in his oral deposition.

ix) The complainant has not brought anything on record to show that so called fax message was actually received by Romesh Sharma hence Suresh Rao has made a false statement that the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 114/213


terms of hiring were faxed to Romesh Sharma.

x) Suresh Rao did not talk of his own complicity in the matter. Such a character cannot be believed. Suresh Rao cannot be believed for the reason that action is highly belated for having filed the complaint after 947 days of the alleged incident.

xi) PW6 is an expert in aviation line and preparing documents of transfer. How he could have executed documents of sale not once but twice and doing everything for making it legally executable but not getting executed a document of hiring in his favour.

xii) 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 Romesh Sharma decides to act upon the alleged MOU.

133.Ld. counsel Sh. S P Kaushal contended that the accused M. D.

Bhojwani did not enter into criminal conspiracy with the accused

Romesh Sharma; no overt act can be attributed to him with regard to

the incident of 11.05.1996 as he has not been named in the FIR; his

signature on the MOU as witness does not suggest any complicity with

the accused in this case; the act of the accused persons Avtar Singh

Ahluwalia, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja, Avdesh and Indermani and

others as to the incident of 11.05.1996 was bonafide and exempted

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 115/213


under the General Exception under section 79 IPC as they believed

bonafide and in good faith the statement of accused Romesh Sharma

made during his election campaign that he has purchased the

helicopter for the services of the people of his constituency; there is no

deception and no knowledge can be attributed to them; that the

accused persons have been named out of memory as they used to be

present with the accused in the election campaign; that the accused

were not named in the complaint Ex.PW6/46; No TIP of the accused

persons was got conducted, nor their photographs were shown for

identification; Ld. Counsel argued that it was a case of political rivalry.

A raid was conducted in the house of the accused Romesh Sharma on

20.10.98. His entire house was ransacked and number of cases were

registered involving him and his relations. Ld. Counsel stated that

there was no evidence of conspiracy in Mumbai and other parts of the

country as stated in the Charge. Ld. Counsel contended that there are

material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses as to

the presence of persons on the spot on 11.05.96 or whether they were

armed with weapons or not. Ld. Counsel stated that there was no

evidence of conspiracy against them prior to 11.05.96. Documents

placed on record show that the helicopter was sold to Romesh Sharma

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 116/213


and its ownership was also transferred in his name. Ld. Counsel

stated that when the helicopter was loaded, there was no threat to any

of the crew members. Everyone was free to move. No report was

lodged by any of the crew members when the helicopter was allegedly

detained. Name of Abu Salem or Dawood came later. There was a

delay of 863 days in lodging the FIR. Ld. Counsel stated that the

witnesses were the employees of PW6 and were the interested

witnesses. There was no confinement or extortion or fear on 11.05.96.

As per the agreement with the plantation company, the helicopter was

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. Police met the accused persons for the first time on or after

16.11.98. PW14 has stated that he had informed Suresh Rao about

the incident but no report was lodged. This itself shows that helicopter

was not given on hire but it was sold to Romesh Sharma.

For accused Laxman, it was contended that the accused was

only a guard at Mayfair Garden. None of the witnesses i.e. PW6,

PW7, PW42 and PW67 said about the presence of accused Laxman

at Mayfair Garden. The prosecution did not examine SI Ravinder Gill.

PW42 was posted as SHO at Police Station Kalkaji and not at Hauz

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 117/213


Khas or Cannaught Place. So what made him conduct the raid at Hauz

Khas or Mahadev Road. There were no instructions from the senior

police officials. The accused had simply done his duty and provided

protection to his master accused Romesh Sharma; that he was having

a licensed pistol; however, no intention can be attributed to him that he

has committed any offence in this case punishable under section 120B

or 365 or 506 IPC. He was not arrested from the place of incident. He

was arrested on 29.12.98. Ld. Counsel argued that accused Romesh

Sharma was in valid possession of helicopter. The crew members had

advance programme to leave the station.

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

offence of conspiracy.

134.Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in rebuttal argued that the accused

Romesh Sharma was contesting the election and did not want the hire

charges to be included in the election expenses, so to circumvent the

same, he induced PW6 to enter into the MOU, so that he might not be

disqualified from the election. His intention was to grab the helicopter.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 118/213


The intention is to be seen from the circumstances. PW6 could have

not sold the helicopter to Romesh Sharma, even if he had intended

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

purchase the helicopter. He had given a bald statement that he had

made the entire payment to PW6. His intention was not to purchase

but to deprive its possession from PW6. No findings have come from

the Civil Court that the helicopter in question belonged to Romesh

Sharma, so principle of resjudiceta is not applicable. PW6 had a

constructive possession of the helicopter but the accused by use of

force and threats took away the helicopter. There was no act of due

care and caution by the accused persons. As to holding of TIP, 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

accused with Dawood Ibrahim are established as two more cases were

registered against him by the police. The transcript of accused

Romesh Sharma with Abu Salem also corroborates this fact. Ld. PP

stated that the delay was due to the fact that the complainant was

under fear. Ld. PP stated that the delay in FIR does not give immunity

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 119/213


to the offender, if the facts appeal to judicial conscience. Reliance was

placed on the case Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma Vs. State of Bihar 2000

Cri.L.J. 2983, V. Y. Jose & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat I (2009) CCR 246

(SC) where the distinction between the pure contractual dispute of civil

nature and offence of cheating was discussed.

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

sequence as under :

Ownership of the Helicopter and its use :

136.It emerges from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses namely

PW1, PW2, PW40, PW6 and PW44 and the documents that PW6

was in the business of Aviation in the name and style of Pushpak

Aviation Pvt. Ltd. for a long time. Pushpak Aviation owned a helicopter

Bell 47 G5 in the year 1970 vide registration no. Ex. PW2/C1. PW6

and PW44 were inducted as Directors in the company on or about

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 120/213


199394. In 1988, it met with an accident and was severely damaged.

PW6 purchased the helicopter from Pushpak Aviation in the year 1994

for Rs. 50,000/. He then moved an application to DGCA for transfer of

its ownership in his name and the ownership was transferred in his

name vide registration certificate Ex.PW2/A5 on 19.09.94.

137.To make it airworthy, PW6 purchased spare parts worth Rs. 40 lacs

from PW18. He made part payment to PW18 and for a balance

payment of Rs. 18 lacs, he entered into a Memorandum of Agreement

Ex.PW6/5 on 20.11.95 with Summit Aviation of which PW18 was the

Managing Director. He pledged his original certificate of registration

Ex.PW2/A5 with it. When the MOU was entered into, the value of the

helicopter was determined as Rs. 40 lacs and it was executed for

securing the due amount as a collateral security.

138.The helicopter became airworthiness in 1995 and to that effect PW6

obtained the airworthiness certificate Ex.PW1/1 on 27.12.95 which was

valid till 27.01.97. Since PW6 was not having a nonschedule

operator’s permit for leasing the helicopter and the company Pushpak

Aviation was having the same, he entered into an agreement with

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 121/213


Pushpak Aviation for leasing out the said helicopter. The company

used to engage freelance pilots on commission basis for a particular

job. It also had permanent technical staff which included PW9 Sh. B

R Pappara Senior Technician, PW15 Sh. Tukaram Technician, Sh.

Verma and Sh. Dutta, helpers. According to PW44, the helicopter

remained available with Pushpak Aviation for services which included

film shooting, charter, electioneering and aerial spraying on plantation.

PW26 was the General Manager of Erry Sons Maliyalam Ltd. a

plantation company. He has stated that in May/June prior to advent of

Monsoon, they take the services of helicopter from Pushpak Aviation

and Garuda Aviation for spraying chemicals on rubber plantation to

prevent growth of bacterias. He placed on record the correspondence

Ex.PW26/A in this regard and stated that Ibrahim Associates PW28

was the local agent of Pushpak Aviation. In 1996 his company had

contacted the aviation company to take the services of helicopter for

spraying chemicals on the rubber plantation to which the company

responded vide letter Ex.PW26/B1 and also wrote a letter Ex.PW26/B2

dated 22.01.96 confirming the proposal and the terms and conditions.

On 25.03.96 PW26 sent a letter to PW28 Ex.PW26/B4 giving the

schedule and the area for aerial spraying from 22.04.96 to 17.05.96

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 122/213


and paid an advance. An agreement was also entered into vide

Ex.PW6/24B2. PW9 had also contacted PW28 showing his intention

to visit the places at Kerala vide letter dated 12.02.96 Ex.PW28/B. The

correspondence between Pushpak Aviation and Ibrahim Associates

shows that the spraying work was to be completed by the last week of

April or the first half week of May 1996. PW6 could not honour his

commitment and vide letter dated 11.05.96 it was communicated to the

company by PW44 that the helicopter was being despatched on

11.05.96 from Phulpur to Mumbai and it would be immediately

transported to Kerala en route Mumbai and would reach by 17.05.96.

Pushpak Aviation could not execute the agreement and wrote a letter

dated 16.05.96 Ex.PW6/24B to PW28 that due to unforeseen

circumstances beyond their control that after electioneering in UP, the

helicopter was impounded by the High Politician and unauthorisedly

removed to Delhi and that the helicopter has also suffered damages

due to mishandling by unauthorised persons during transportation and

unloading at Delhi, they would not be in a position to make the

helicopter available for this season. The company then initiated a legal

action against Pushpak Aviation for recovery of dues. PW26 sent a

fax on 23.05.96 for refund of advance and also sent a legal notice.

R.C No. : 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. On 25.01.97 he received a letter from Garuda Aviation as to

the adjustment of advance. The aforesaid amount was adjusted and

the matter was settled.

Election of Romesh Sharma and matters relating to helicopter :

139.Testimony of PW3, PW4 and PW5 show that the accused Romesh

Sharma contested the election in 1996 from 55 Phulpur constituency,

Allahabad as an independent candidate. The general elections to Lok

Sabha were announced on 19.03.96 but the actual notification was

issued on 27.03.96. As per the letter Ex.PW3/B, the maximum limit of

election expenditure for a contesting candidate at that time was Rs.

4,50,000/. According to PW3, from the date, the election was notified

till it was complete, the candidate had to maintain an account in a

proforma prescribed by the Commission and file all the documents to

the District Election Office within one month from the date of

declaration of result. He proved the press release Ex.PW3/A1, Gazette

Notification Ex.PW3/A2, Form containing the result of election

Ex.PW3/A3. According to PW3, Romesh Sharma had given an

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 124/213


affidavit of expenditure Ex.PW3/B2 on 09.06.96 and the details

Ex.PW3/B1. Perusal of it reveals that he had used the helicopter in the

election and paid the charges for fuel etc. According to PW4, in the

event of purchase of car/helicopter during the period of election, the

price of the vehicle is not included in the expenses and only the

amount spent on diesel/salary of driver is included in the expenses.

The accused has admitted to have knowledge of this fact. PW3 has

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.It has come in the testimony of PW6 that he was introduced to the

accused Romesh Sharma as politician/property dealer by Lalit Bagla

DW1 and PW7 Rakesh Gupta of United India Airways during his visit

in Delhi in February, 1996 at their office at S41, Panchsheel Park. He

was accompanied by his Marketing Executive Mahender Pujara PW8.

PW7, the Managing Director of United India Airways has corroborated

his testimony as to the meeting of PW6 and PW8 with the accused

Romesh Sharma. Their testimony do not reveal that any talk as to the

purchase/hiring of helicopter took place between PW6 and the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 125/213


accused Romesh Sharma in February, 1996.

141.Testimony of PW6 further reveals that in March, 1996 during his visit

at the house of the accused, the accused expressed his desire to

contest the election and take the services of his helicopter for that

purpose and also enquired about its cost which was Rs. 70 lacs. On

24.03.96 evening, he received a telephone call from the accused

asking him to send the helicopter to Phulpur whom he asked to enter

into an agreement of hiring with him on the terms and conditions

mutually agreeable. PW6 has stated that after the negotiations, rates

were settled as Rs. 80,000/ per day as hiring charges and other

miscellaneous expenses. PW6 then asked PW8 to send the hiring

terms by fax. PW8 has stated that on the asking of PW6, he sent a

fax message Ex.PW6/6 on 24.03.96 to Romesh Sharma mentioning

the terms and conditions as stated by PW6. Perusal of it reveals that it

was sent at about 10.15 PM on the fax no. 6852828 from the fax no.

91228073440 mentioning the hire charges, insurance charges,

transportation charges and air tickets for their staff total amounting to

Rs. 13 lacs. Crossexamination of these witnesses on this aspect is

conspicuous by its absence. Although the accused denied having

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 126/213


received the fax message but it was held in the case of Bal Kishan

(Supra) that if there is no crossexamination on this aspect, the

evidence shall be deemed to have been admitted. It has further come

in the testimony of PW6 that the accused had told him on telephone

that his brother accused Harish Mishra and PW7 would contact him at

his Mumbai office for finalisation of hiring terms confirming the receipt

of fax message and asked him to despatch the helicopter. PW6 vide

letter Ex.PW6/7 dated 25.03.96 making reference to his telephonic

conversation regarding charter/hire of helicopter also reiterated the

terms as stated in the fax and informed that it would be positioned on

28.03.96 and would be available for operation from 29.03.96 to

12.04.96. PW6 has stated that on 25.03.96 accused Harish Mishra

came to his office and enquired as to whether the helicopter was

despatched to Phulpur. He told the accused that the transport was

being arranged. DGCA was informed regarding despatch of helicopter

to Phulpur and transit insurance was got done. PW9 corroborated this

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

apparatus log book Ex.PW6/34. He has stated that the helicopter was

dismantled, packed and loaded in a truck on 26.03.96. The Machines

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 127/213


were unloaded at Phulpur on 29.03.96 and assembled on the same

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. PW6 has stated that the accused Harish Mishra had also

sent his man who accompanied with the truck to Phulpur. PW9 has

stated that Suresh Rao had told him that helicopter would fly there upto

12.04.96 and thereafter, it would proceed to Kerala for undertaking an

aerial spray contract on rubber plantation. Perusal of the information

Ex.PW6/16 reveals that the helicopter had gone out on outstation

contract for flying at Phulpur Allahabad by road transport and it would

remain till 12.04.96. The correspondence placed with Mesco Airlines

Ltd. dated 07.08.96 also goes to show that the hire charges at that time

were Rs. 72,000/ per day. PW6 has stated that Rs. 17,000/ were

incurred towards transit insurance policy Ex.PW6/8, Rs. 50,000/

towards purchase of fuel and two trucks were engaged from Central

Courier Corporations for transportation of helicopter and fuel for Rs.

30,030/ vide receipt Ex.PW6/13 and GRs Ex.PW6/11 and Ex.PW6/12

wherein on the GR Pushpak Aviation was shown as Consignor and the

Consignee.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 128/213


142.It has come in the evidence of PW7 that on 26.03.96 at about 7.00

PM he was called by Romesh Sharma and told that his brother Harish

Mishra would see him at the airport at Mumbai on 27.03.96 as he was

hiring helicopter from PW6 who probably had despatched it on

26.03.96 and also asked him to go with Harish Mishra to the office of

PW6 to prepare a hiring agreement giving an envelope containing

blank letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors on which the

MOU of hiring was to be prepared. He has stated that on 27.03.96 he

was received at the Airport by Harish Mishra. From there they went to

the office of PW6 where Romesh Sharma talked to PW6 over phone

requiring PW6 to draw an MOU for sale of helicopter instead of hiring

so that the hiring charges might not be reflected in the election

expenses and also assured that MOU would be destroyed after the

election would be over. He stated that initially PW6 was reluctant but

then acceded to his request and agreed to draw an MOU telling that he

has no option since he has already despatched the helicopter.

Testimony of PW6 reveals that on a letter head of Reliance

Developers an MOU Ex.PW6/14 was prepared in duplicate on which

accused Harish Mishra and he signed. He gave one copy to Harish

Mishra and retained the other. Harish Mishra paid him Rs. 1.0 lac in

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 129/213


cash and handed over Rs. 2.0 lacs to PW32 towards hire charges.

Perusal of the agreement would show that it was predated purporting

to be executed on 24.02.96. The total consideration was fixed as Rs.

30 lacs. As per the terms, on despatch Rs. 3.0 lacs were paid, Rs.7.0

lacs would be paid on or before 29.03.96 and the balance of Rs. 20

lacs would be paid before the commencement of first flight and the

transfer of ownership would be effected only after the payment of full

and final amount. The accused Harish Mishra at no stage disputed his

signatures on the aforesaid predated agreement. The elections were

announced on 19.03.96. It is difficult to visualise from these facts as to

what prompted the accused enter into a predated MOU showing the

date of execution as 24.02.96.

143.It has further come in the testimony of PW6 that after departure of

the helicopter he telephoned Romesh Sharma to make further

payment towards the hire charges. Accused Romesh Sharma asked

him to come to Delhi on 30.03.96. PW6 went to Delhi. He received

three cheques of Rs. 1.0 lac each Ex.PW6/17 to 19. Accused Romesh

Sharma produced another MOU Ex.PW6/20 on a stamp paper to sign

and when he questioned, he answered that the earlier MOU was not a

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 130/213


legal document and might be objected by the Election Commission as

it was not on a stamp paper. He then signed the agreement in the

presence of M D Bhojwani and Sansar Chand and then left for Mumbai

on 30.03.96 by air. He proved the air tickets Ex.PW6/22 and

Ex.PW6/23. PW30 Sansar Chand who used to do the political work of

Romesh Sharma also corroborated this fact that the agreement

Ex.PW6/20 was executed on 30.03.96 on which he and M D Bhojwani

had signed as witnesses. Perusal of MOU Ex.PW6/20 reveals that the

MOU was entered showing the date of its execution as 24.02.96,

although the stamp paper was purchased on 29.03.96 from PW13 and

the agreement Ex.PW6/20 did not have the reference of earlier MOU

Ex.PW6/14 which was executed on the letter head. PW27 who was

the Secretary of Romesh Sharma has also admitted to have typed it on

that day. Question now arises, as per the earlier MOU Rs. 3.0 lacs

were shown to have been paid and the said MOU was shown to be

executed on 24.02.96 so why on the same day i.e. 24.02.96 vide MOU

Ex.PW6/20, the payment was shown as Rs. 8.0 lacs. The fact of the

matter is that no payment was made on 24.02.96 by the accused which

date was shown on the above MOUs. The cheques and the statement

of accounts produced by PW35, PW36, PW37, PW43, PW51,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 131/213


PW53, PW54 and PW61 also show that before 27.03.96 no payment

was made to PW6 and only Rs. 6.0 lacs were paid till 30.03.96. PW6

has also filed the Ledger accounts duly audited Ex.PW6/41 maintained

by Garuda Aviation visavis the transaction with the accused Romesh

Sharma showing the aforesaid payment towards the hire charges and

not towards the sale consideration. Even the correspondence placed

on record and the testimony of PW9 show that the helicopter was

given on hire and was not sold to the accused Romesh Sharma. As is

apparent from the record that the maximum expenses to be incurred in

election by a candidate was limited upto Rs. 4.5 lacs but the charges

itself for hire of the helicopter would be around Rs. 13 lacs.

Transportation of Helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai which did not

happen :

144.Testimony of PW3 shows that the election at Phulpur Constituency

was held on 07.05.96 and the result was declared on 11.05.96. PW9

on 10.05.96 sent a fax to PW6 that Romesh Sharma has not reached

Allahabad and the arrangements to despatch the machine and to start

the work of spraying at Kerala was at stake. PW9 sent a fax to Girish

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 132/213


Rao PW44 on 10.05.96 vide Ex.PW9/2 that he has booked a road

carrier to carry the helicopter and requested him to arrange transit

insurance. On 11.05.96 a Truck bearing no. MH 04 C 5333 vide GR

No. 3862 from SherePunjab Roadways Allahabad reached there.

145.Perusal of the documents would show that in the Log book, last entry

of flying the helicopter was shown upto 07.05.96 vide Ex.PW9/14. The

flight commenced from 30.03.96 at Ugarsen Pur vide entry

Ex.PW11/A. The entry Ex.PW9/8 on the log book of Aircraft reflects

that the helicopter was partially dismantled on 11.05.96 for road

transportation to Mumbai. The testimony of PW21, the Prop. of Azad

Golden Roadlines shows that the truck was provided to PW25, the

Proprietor of SherePunjab on 11.05.96 for transportation of helicopter

from Ugarsen Pur to Mumbai at 8.33 AM. PW23 was the driver on the

said truck with PW24 as Cleaner. The truck was parked in front of

house of the accused Romesh Sharma where the helicopter was

loaded. Fuel and spare parts had already been sent to Mumbai in

another truck on 09.05.96 as is evident from the testimony of PW9

who sent it vide GR Ex.PW9/1.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 133/213


Transportation of helicopter from Phulpur to Delhi :

146.The testimony of the witnesses PW9, PW14, PW15, PW19 PW21,

PW22, PW23 and PW24 and the documents and the GR/LR reveal

that when the truck was loaded from Mumbai to Phulpur, the consignor

and the consignee of the helicopter were Pushpak Aviation. The

transit insurance was from Mumbai to Phulpur and not for Delhi. In

order to transport the helicopter from Phulpur to Mumbai after the

election, PW9 had requested PW6 to arrange transit insurance. The

helicopter during the election remained in the physical possession of

crew members / technicians of PW6 and it was never parted with.

They made all the relevant entries in the log book/journey book of the

helicopter. On the programme given by PW44, arrangement was

made to take the helicopter to Kerala en route Mumbai. PW9 had

arranged two trucks from SherePunjab Roadways. On 09.05.96, in

one of the truck, fuel and spare parts were sent. On 11.05.96 the other

truck of SherePunjab came at Ugarsen Pur in front of the bungalow

of Romesh Sharma where the helicopter was parked. PW9 and his

crew members dismantled the helicopter and got it loaded for carrying

to Mumbai. When it was being loaded, none of the persons objected.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 134/213


The testimony of the witnesses and the record further show that the

accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, 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

Romesh Sharma. M.D. Bhojwani was his neighbour and had arranged

the food and lodging for the persons who had campaigned for Romesh

Sharma in the election. Avdesh and Indermani were the nephew of

Romesh Sharma. The accused persons in their statements recorded

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have also admitted to have campaigned for the

accused Romesh Sharma in the election. The testimony of PW9 and

other crew members reveal that when they were tying the parts of the

helicopter, none of the accused persons objected. After some time,

the accused persons alongwith some more persons came in two

vehicles armed with lathis and weapons. They got down from the

vehicles and threatened that helicopter would not be taken to Mumbai

and it would go to Delhi as instructed by Romesh Sharma. They were

more in numbers and also climbed on the truck to unload the

helicopter. They also threatened them to remain in Bungalow and to

accompany them to Delhi with the truck. When the truck driver told

them that he did not have the permit to go to Delhi, accused Avtar

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 135/213


Singh Ahluwalia arranged another truck and brought it there. The

helicopter was unloaded from the truck and loaded in another truck

arranged by Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. It was escorted from Phulpur to

Delhi by 34 vehicles. When PW14 went to STD booth at Hotel Yatrik,

Allahabad and told the incident to PW29, he advised him to lodge the

complaint but his wife intervened and told him that the accused had a

great influence at Allahabad as there had already been incident of arm

clash in the election. Their testimony show that the accused persons

took law in their hands, got unloaded the dismantled helicopter from

the truck and took it to Delhi by use of force, though the record

indicates that the constructive/physical possession of the truck was

with PW6/his men.

Transfer of Ownership in the name of Romesh Sharma and assembly of

Helicopter at his Farm House :

147.The testimony of PW6 shows that on 11.05.96 he was informed by

PW9 that the henchmen of accused Romesh Sharma off loaded the

helicopter from the truck and tried to take captive the Engineers and

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 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

telephoned Romesh Sharma who told him not to worry and asked him

to come to Delhi on 14.05.96 stating that by that time the helicopter

would also reach Delhi. On 14.05.96 he reached Delhi via air ticket

Ex.PW6/25, went to the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden and

enquired to which the accused told him that helicopter is his property

and it is in his possession. After few hours when he again asked him

to return his helicopter and make payment towards the hire charges,

the accused told him to forget about the helicopter as the same has

become his property now and at the most he would be entitled to the

payment relating to the helicopter. On 15.05.96 he again requested the

accused to return the helicopter and make payment towards the hire

charges but the accused did not budge and threatened that he was

connected with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and if he did not

follow his instructions, he would face dire consequences and also

scared him of his proximity with Abu Salem and Irfan Goga. He was

scared and thought to recover whatever money he could get. The

accused gave him a demand draft of Rs. 2.0 lacs Ex.PW6/26. He

returned to Mumbai on 15.05.96 via air ticket Ex.PW6/27. After some

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 137/213


time, he again telephoned Romesh Sharma who asked him to bring

the original documents of helicopter alongwith an affidavit required for

its transfer and told that he would make the payment thereafter. He

discussed the matter with his Advocate R A Shah PW10 as to what

should be his course of action which should be as per law. He got

prepared the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 and came to Delhi on 04.06.96 with

the affidavit and the log books. R A Shah came on 05.06.96. Both of

them went to Mayfair Garden where they met Rakesh Gupta PW7.

Accused Romesh Sharma was also with his Advocate Mahesh Gupta

PW17. Mahesh Gupta was writing something on a document who left

thereafter. Accused Romesh Sharma then asked him to sign an

agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33. PW6 has stated that his Advocate

(PW10) had also advised him to take the payment first and then sign

the documents but the accused got furious, snatched the documents

from PW6, took him in a room and reminded of his connection with

Dawood Ibrahim gang. PW6 got scared of him and signed the

affidavit on which his Advocate (PW10) also signed.

148.PW7 corroborated the testimony of PW6 on all material aspects. He

has stated that on 11.05.96 he received a call from PW6 that the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 138/213


helicopter was forcibly taken by the men of Romesh Sharma. He was

called by Suresh Rao to come at the house of the accused Romesh

Sharma on 05.06.96 to sort out the matter. PW17, the Advocate of

Romesh Sharma was having a draft of agreement. PW17 discussed it

with Romesh Sharma and on the suggestions of Romesh Sharma, he

made some changes and thereafter he left. The agreement after

corrections remained with the accused Romesh Sharma.

149.PW10 also corroborated the testimony of PW6. He has stated that

on knowing from PW6 that the accused was neither returning the

helicopter nor paying the hire charges, he advised PW6 to take legal

action. He was told by PW6 that the accused had asked him to forget

about the helicopter and sign the documents. He again advised him to

take action but PW6 told him that he was scared of the accused and

would do whatever the accused wanted him to do. He asked him to

come to Delhi on 05.06.96 as PW6 wanted to execute some

documents, which he wanted to show to him before signing. He came

to Delhi via air ticket Ex.PW6/35 and went with PW6 to the house of

accused where PW17 also came whom the accused asked to make

corrections in the agreement . PW17 left after making corrections in

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 139/213


the agreement. PW17 has stated that the agreement Ex.PW6/33 was

drafted by him on 14.05.96 on the instructions of accused Romesh

Sharma after seeing the earlier MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20. On

receipt of call from Romesh Sharma, he went to his house where PW6

and PW10 were present. They wanted to discuss something about

the agreement as they had some reservations. After discussion, he

made some corrections in the agreement Ex.PW6/33, however, the

said agreement was not signed by the parties in his presence.

150.Testimony of PW6 further shows that the accused wanted to see the

documents. When his Advocate PW10 objected and advised that they

should part with the agreement only on receiving the payment, the

accused got angry and abused PW10, snatched the documents from

him (PW6). He then called V K Luthra. When Luthra put the

documents on the table, the accused got furious. He scolded and beat

Luthra. He (PW6) and PW10 got scared. The accused then lifted

him to his office chamber where he reminded him of his connection

with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and threatened that in case

he would not sign the document, he would kill him. He has stated that

from the office chamber, accused brought him to the place where his

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 140/213


Advocate (PW10) was sitting. He asked him to sign the documents

and the agreement. In these circumstances, he had no choice but to

sign the documents. His Advocate PW10 also signed on the affidavit

as witness. PW6 has stated that the certificate of registration was

with PW18 which fact has also come in the testimony of PW18 who

had taken it as a collateral security against the payment of the spare

parts of the helicopter vide Memorandum of Agreement Ex.PW6/5.

PW6 has stated that when he told this fact to the accused, he told him

to ask Neeraj Bhatia PW18 to bring the certificate to his house. PW6

then requested PW18 to bring the certificate of registration, who after

some time came with the certificate. The accused then asked him to

hand over the certificate of registration stating that he has purchased

the helicopter. When PW18 told the accused that Rs. 18 lacs were

due to him towards the cost of spare parts and that PW6 has already

entered into an agreement with him and showed the accused the

agreement Ex.PW6/5, the accused told PW18 that he would make the

payment of Rs. 18 lacs. On his assurance, PW18 handed over the

certificate of registration Ex.PW2/A5 to the accused on which he also

signed as it was one of the requirement for its transfer. However, no

money was paid by the accused to PW18 on that day or thereafter.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 141/213


PW6 has stated that on the assurance given by him to the accused

that they would not lodge any report with the police, they flew out via

air ticket Ex.PW6/35. The accused in his statement has also admitted

of his entering into the agreement Ex.PW6/33, taking in the affidavit

and log books from PW6 and receiving the registration certificate from

PW18 on 05.06.96.

151.I have seen the agreement Ex.PW6/33. It is shown to have been

executed on 14.05.96 bearing the signature of the accused and PW6

containing some corrections. The handwriting Expert report

Ex.PW94/8 also proves the signatures of the accused on the

agreement. In para 4 of the said agreement, it has been agreed that

the purchaser shall pay to the seller balance sale consideration of Rs.

18 lacs upon execution of documents of transfer. The said agreement

was not witnessed by anyone nor was got attested from anyone. The

testimony of witnesses show that the said agreement was signed by

the parties not on 14.05.96, the day of its execution but on 05.06.96. It

also finds a reference of an MOU dated 24.02.96 Ex.PW6/20. The

said agreement to sell is contrary to the facts containing in the affidavit

Ex.PW2/A3 wherein it was written that the helicopter has a clear title

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 142/213


and PW6 has received the sale proceeds towards the helicopter in full

and final. The affidavit also bears the date of 05.06.96 and the

signature of PW6. The record shows that the accused had paid Rs. 8

lacs only by that time. The affidavit has an attestation of a Notary

Public although PW6 has stated that he did not go to any Advocate or

the Notary Public for its attestation. Record shows that V K Luthra

had identified PW6 Suresh Rao and it was attested by PW12. PW12

has also admitted this fact in his testimony that the executant PW6

and the witness PW10 were not present when he attested the affidavit.

152.It has come in the testimony of PW1 that for change of ownership,

original certificate of registration duly endorsed on its reverse by the

previous owner alongwith an affidavit by the previous owner that he

has received the consideration in full and an application in Form CA28

from the owner, is required. In this case, the accused with the

application had submitted all these documents on the basis of which

the ownership was transferred in his name vide certificate Ex.PW2/D.

The accused had also requested to issue change of the first page of

the Journey log book which request was also allowed and the first

page was issued on 02.07.96 vide letter Ex.PW2/A16.

R.C No. : 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, the accused Romesh Sharma made part payment of Rs. 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

Lac on 05.07.96 vide receipt Ex.PW6/38 and Rs. 1.0 Lac on 16.07.96

vide receipt Ex.PW6/39.

154.On the manner of execution of documents by PW6, the testimony of

PW7 and PW10 is cogent and consistent. Nothing can be inferred

from their testimony that they have deposed at the behest of PW6 to

falsely implicate the accused. It has also come in the testimony of

PW18 that till date he did not get the amount of Rs. 18 lacs, although

his Director Major Gaonkar had regularly asked the accused to make

the payment.

Assembly of the Helicopter at Jai Mata Di Farm House at Chattarpur,

New Delhi :

155.It has come in the evidence of PW6 that the accused Romesh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 144/213


Sharma had asked him to send his Engineers to the Farm House to

assemble the helicopters stating that he would make the payment

thereafter. His Engineer PW9 and his brother PW44 came to Delhi

on 24.06.96, of whose, the air tickets were arranged by Harish Mishra.

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, Mumbai as his permission was required. When he told

the accused Romesh Sharma that he was advised by Director

Airworthiness to remain in touch, the accused got annoyed, caught

hold of his collar and hit on his face. He sustained injuries on his lips

and bled. He stated that Romesh Sharma also threatened him that if

he did not cooperate, he would get his legs cut. When PW44

requested the accused not to hit PW9, accused Romesh Sharma also

punched him. He stated that after obtaining permission, he with the

help of two technicians assembled the helicopter and made entry in

the log book given by the accused Romesh Sharma. He stated that he

did not lodge the report since he was frightened. PW44 also deposed

on these lines and stated that he was also assaulted. He stated that

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 145/213


he did not make further payment of insurance and had written to the

insurance company vide letter Ex.PW6/DA that the helicopter was sold

to Romesh Sharma, so that the further premium could be paid by the

accused.

156.It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the story

of hiring the helicopter was concocted by PW6, who was made puppet

by CBI which investigated the matter on the directions of the

Government which had political vendetta against the accused as the

accused wanted to expose the corrupt ministers of the Government.

Ld. Counsel stated that the MOUs Ex.PW6/14, Ex.PW6/20 and the

agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33, affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 and the payments

made by the accused go to show that the helicopter was purchased by

the accused and was not taken on hire. It failed to explain as to why

the accused would pay Rs. 13 lacs as hire charges to PW6 when the

cost of the helicopter was Rs. 30 lacs. Ld. Counsel further argued that

PW6 at no stage produced the hire agreement and the entries made

in the ledger do not bear the signature of the accused at the point of

time. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section 91 of the

Evidence Act to contend that when there are written documents, the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 146/213


oral testimony does not have any meaning. The aforesaid agreements

clearly show that the helicopter was sold to the accused by PW6 and

was not given on hire. Ld. Counsel stated that if PW6 had to take any

dues from the accused, he would have filed a civil suit for recovery of

the said amount. Ld. Counsel stated that the dispute, if any is of civil

nature and no criminality can be fastened on the accused persons.

157.Ld. Counsel further contended that the PW6 had filed a suit for

Declaration and Mandatory Injunction before Hon’ble High Court which

suit was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court for want of evidence. Ld.

Counsel stated that the matter in the Civil Suit and the allegations in

the present case directly or substantially are the same. Finding has

already come from the Civil Court which is binding on the Criminal

Court as to the title. Ld. Counsel referred the provisions of Section

4042 of the Evidence Act and the case titled Veer Prakash Sharma

Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. JT 2007 (10) SC 57, Joseph Zacharia

Vs. Joseph Kuriakose AIR 1992 Kerala 103, Bishnudeo Narain Vs.

Seogeni Rai AIR (38) 1951, SC 280, Ramadoss Vs. 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 Hon’ble

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 147/213


Supreme Court, Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thadani AIR 2003 SC 2418,

K G Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002 SC 3372, Kishan

Singh (D) Vs. Gurpal Singh AIR 2010 SC 3624, Daya Sapra Vs.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma 2008 II AD (Delhi) 84 and Ramesh Chand Gupta

Vs. Union of India 2009 (2) JCC 826 to contend that no case of

cheating is made out against the accused.

158.In order to appreciate the rival stand, it would be useful to notice the

statutory provisions. Section 420 IPC provides punishment for

cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. To constitute an

offence under section 420 IPC, following ingredients must exist:

i) That the representation made by the accused was false;

ii) That the accused knew that the representation was false at the

very time when he made it;

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

property or to do or to omit to do something which he would

otherwise not have done or omitted.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 148/213


159.It was held in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Others

Vs. State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168 that in determining the question,

it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of

contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the

intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be

judged by his subsequent conduct. Mere breach of contract cannot

give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or

dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction,

that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.

Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence.

160.The above observations were reiterated in the case of Indian Oil

Corporation (Supra). In the case of Joseph Zacharia (Supra) there

were allegations of undue influence and coercion and the party had

sufficient time and opportunity to dispute the validity of agreement but

did not take any action. It was held that the agreement was not vitiated

by undue influence or coercion. In the case of Bishnudeo (Supra), it

was held that though pleas of undue influence and coercion may

overlap in part in some cases, they are separable categories in law

and must be separately pleaded. In the case of Ramadoss (Supra), it

R.C No. : 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

debtor who repudiates his civil liability, on some false pretext or the

other, would be guilty of cheating and that is not the law. In the case of

Indian Oil Corporation (Supra), it was held that a given set of facts

may make out purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or civil

wrong as well as criminal offence. The criminal proceedings are not a

cut short of other remedies, if the matter is essentially of civil nature.

The intention of the person who induces the victim of his

representation and not the nature of the transaction is paramount.

161.From the above proposition of law, it is clear that it is only where a

dishonest misrepresentation or fraudulent representation leads to

delivery of property or dishonestly retention of property, the ingredients

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 is the intention of the

person who induces the victim by his representation and not the nature

of the transaction which would be decisive. The intention of the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 150/213


accused may be inferred from his subsequent conduct also.

162.Section 91 of Evidence Act relates to evidence of terms of contract,

grants and other disposition of properties reduced in the form of

document. It merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise

then by writing itself. In the case of Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thadani

AIR 2003 SC 2418 it was held that when a jural act is embodied in a

single memorial, all other utterance of the parties on the topic are

legally immaterial for the purpose of determining what are the terms of

their act. This rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of

contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of written contract to

place themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a

disinclination of the Courts to defeat this object. It is likewise a general

and most inflexible rule that wherever written instruments are adopted ,

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

contradict or alter them.

163.In the case of K G Prem Shankar Vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2002

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 151/213


SC 3372 it was held that (i) the previous judgment which is final can be

relied upon as provided U/s 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act; (ii) in Civil

Suits between the same parties principle of resjudicata may apply; (iii)

in a criminal case Section 300 Cr.P.C. makes a provision that once a

person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the

same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied; (iv) if

the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause,

judgment of Civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of the

sections 40 to 43 are satisfied but it cannot be said that the same

amounted to conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41

provides, which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated

therein. The Court has to decide to what extent, it is binding or

conclusive with regard to the matter decided therein. It was held in the

case of M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad Vs. Union of India 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

criminal case is permissible. In the case of Daya Sapra (Supra), the

case of Jaeger Co. Ltd. Vs. Jaeger (1929) 46 RPC 336 was referred

where it was held that every judgment is conclusive proof as against

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 152/213


the parties and privies of facts directly in issue in the case actually

decided in the Court and appearing from the judgment itself to be the

ground on which it was based. The principles laid down in K G

Premshankar (Supra) case were also followed in the case of Ramesh

Chand (Supra).

164.Here, the question is as to whether the civil suit dismissed simplicitor

for want of evidence binds a Criminal Court even if the parties were the

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

evidence was led by PW6 and the suit was dismissed simplicitor for

want of evidence. There was no finding on merit from the Civil Court

between the parties that the helicopter in question was legally

purchased by the accused or the agreement or the MOUs or the

documents used for transfer of the helicopter were not got executed

from PW6 under undue influence or coercion. That being the position,

it cannot be said that the matter directly or substantially has been

decided by the Court of competent jurisdiction and it has attained its

finality. It was simplicitor a dismissal and therefore, would not operate

as resjudicata on this Court. Section 41 of the Evidence Act is also

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 153/213


inapplicable here. The criminal case in the present case was

registered in the year 1998 and the Civil Suit was instituted in the year

1999.

165.As regards the applicability of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, it is to

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

accused mentioning the terms and conditions of hire of the helicopter.

Another letter was written by PW6 to the accused reiterating the terms

and conditions of hire. The first MOU i.e. PW6/14 was executed after

the helicopter was despatched. The correspondence made by PW9

with the Director Aviation shows that the helicopter was sent to Phulpur

on contract upto 15.04.96 which was extended till 07.05.96. PW6 had

also entered into an agreement with PW26 and PW28 for sending the

helicopter for spraying the chemicals on rubber plantation in Kerala

and had received an advance. The MOUs Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20

were executed predated. The testimony PW6, PW7, PW8, PW9,

PW11 and PW14 and the entries in the Account books of Garuda

Aviation Ex.PW6/41 show that the helicopter in question was given on

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 154/213


hire only. PW6 had already an agreement with PW18 where the cost

of the helicopter was estimated as Rs. 40 lacs. There appears no

basis as to why should PW6 sell the helicopter at the price of Rs. 30

lacs to the accused Romesh Sharma. There were repeated

assurances from the accused that after the election, the helicopter

would be returned and the hire charges would be paid and that the

agreement/MOUs had been executed just as a smoke screen to

camouflage the election expenses, for which the limit of expenses was

fixed as Rs. 4.5 lacs by the Election Commission. The part payments

were made by the accused either by him or through Harish Mishra, his

brother even after the agreement Ex.PW6/33 and the affidavit

Ex.PW2/A3. The accused had promised PW18 to pay Rs. 18 lacs but

did not pay anything. PW18 recovered the amount from PW6 by filing

a case.

166.As regards contention, why the accused would pay Rs. 13 lacs

towards the hire charges when the cost of the helicopter was Rs. 30

lacs, the record shows that when PW6 entered into an MOU with

PW18 and pledged the registration certificate as a collateral security,

he had estimated the value of the helicopter as Rs. 40 lacs. The

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 155/213


helicopter further required recurring maintenance and operation which

work in normal circumstances is done by the Aviation company. To

avoid recurring expenses of maintenance, operation and other running

expenses, generally, it seems reasonable for a person to go for hiring

of the aircraft. Facts and circumstances show that PW6 never agreed

to sell the helicopter to the accused Romesh Sharma for Rs. 30 lacs.

167.Facts and circumstances further show that there was no transit

insurance from Phulpur to Delhi. There were instructions to the crew

members and technicians from PW6 that the helicopter after the

election was to be taken to Kerala en route Mumbai for undertaking

another work. There was no obstruction/resistance from the accused

Romesh Sharma when the fuel and spare parts of helicopter were sent

to Mumbai on 09.05.96. It was PW9 who arranged the truck for

carrying the helicopter to Mumbai and when it was being tied, PW9

and others were obstructed by the accused persons who came in two

vehicles armed with lathis. They were threatened with dire

consequences. Accused Avtar Singh hired another truck for carrying

the helicopter to Delhi which was escorted by 45 vehicles. The

accused Romesh Sharma on every occasion had assured PW6 that

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 156/213


the helicopter was taken on hire to hoodwink the election expenses.

When the helicopter was finally taken to Delhi, even then the accused

did not tell PW6 that it has become his property. When PW6 came at

the house of the accused on 14.05.96, the accused made his

dishonest intention clear that the helicopter has become his property

and threatened him with dire consequences that he was the man of

Dawood Ibrahim. He had further threatened that if PW6 would not

follow his instructions, he would eliminate him. The accused had

further told him to come with the original documents, log books and the

affidavit. The accused on 05.06.96 by extending threats to PW6 and

PW10, obtained the signatures of PW6 on the agreement Ex.PW6/33

and an affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 interalia that he has received the full

consideration from the accused though fact of the matter was that even

at that time he had to pay Rs. 22 lacs to PW6. The bank account of

the accused Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra showed negligible

balance which also cast doubt as to the intention or the capacity of the

accused Romesh Sharma to purchase the helicopter.

168.It is no doubt true that PW6 had executed all the documents of sale

but the above facts make it abundantly clear that the aforesaid

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 157/213


documents were not executed voluntarily by PW6 but were obtained

by using force, fraud, coercion and imminent threats to PW6.

169.I am of the view that the case of the accused is not covered under

Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The oral evidence is relevant and has

direct bearing on this case and it will also have precedence on the

documents / MOUs executed by PW6. A bare look at Section 90 of

the Indian Penal Code states the circumstances when consent ceases

to be valid consent and is vitiated. Section90 provides: ‘A consent is

not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the

consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a

misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has

reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such

fear or misconception.’

170.That is to say, that the parties should be ad idem, i.e. must be of the

same intention concerning the matter agreed upon. If consent is

obtained by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or

mistake, the very contract is vitiated.

171.Testimony of PW6 clearly shows that his consent to enter into MOU

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 158/213


Ex.PW6/14 and Ex.PW6/20 was obtained by dishonest mis

representation by the accused. The agreement to sell Ex.PW6/33 and

the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 were obtained by extending threats / coercion

by terrorising him by the accused Romesh Sharma by the names of

Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and his connection with them.

172.Dishonest intention of accused Romesh Sharma is also clear from the

facts that during elections speeches he had allured the people of

Phulpur that he has purchased the helicopter for them and it would be

used for them. But after the election, he never used it for the people of

Phulpur as claimed by him in the election speeches. He immediately

directed his men to take the helicopter to Delhi and also contacted

PW45 and PW64, the senior persons of Reliance Industries giving

the papers of the helicopter for the use of Reliance Industries or for its

sale. The testimony of the witnesses show that those papers were

handed over by PW45 and PW64 to CBI during the investigation.

Facts and circumstances further show that the intention of accused

Romesh Sharma was to grab the helicopter by using all illegal means

by giving allurement to PW6 and later by extending threats that he

was the man of underworld Don and coerced him to execute the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 159/213


documents purporting to have sold the helicopter, though it was given

on hire and agreed PW6 to admit having been received full and final

consideration and got the ownership transferred in his name, though

he had to pay substantial amount in respect of the helicopter either to

PW6 or PW18, the Proprietor of Summit Aviation and also got him

threatened from Irfan Goga and Abu Salem not to lodge report with the

police.

173.Facts and circumstances further show that it was not a case of civil

dispute rather the act and the subsequent conduct of the accused

establish that the accused had a dishonest intention to cheat and he

succeeded in accomplishing it.

174.From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the

helicopter was taken on hire but the accused Romesh Sharma and

Harish Mishra dishonestly induced PW6 to enter into an MOU of sale

making him believe that the said MOU was being entered to hoodwink

the election expenses as the maximum limit for incurring the expenses

by an independent candidate was Rs. 4.5 lacs and the said MOU

would be destroyed after the election would be over. Subsequent

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 160/213


conduct of Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra also go to show that

the said MOU Ex.PW6/20 was entered into on 30.03.96 when the

helicopter had already left for Phulpur. The testimony of PW6 further

goes to show that another agreement Ex.PW6/33 was prepared on

15.05.96 regarding sale when the helicopter instead of sending to

Mumbai was brought at Delhi by the men of Romesh Sharma. The

correction in the MOU Ex.PW6/33 was made by the Advocate of

Romesh Sharma PW17 Sh. Mahesh Gupta when PW6 and his

Advocate PW10 were called by the accused Romesh Sharma at his

residence at Mayfair Garden on 05.06.96. In the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3

given by PW6, it was got written that he has received full and final

payment towards the helicopter. Record shows that after the said

agreement and affidavit, further payment was made by the accused

Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra by cheque, draft or cash. The

testimony of PW18 also shows that Rs. 18 lacs were yet to be paid by

the accused to him. It is difficult to comprehend as to why a person

would sell helicopter for Rs. 30 lacs when in an agreement earlier

executed with Summit Aviation Ex.PW6/5 the price of Rs. 40 lacs was

offered by Summit Aviation for the said helicopter.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 161/213


175.On appreciation of the evidences, it is clear that accused had at the

very outset dishonest intention to cheat by making into believe his

representations which were false to his knowledge with intent to cause

wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

176.It will not be out of place to mention here from the sequence of events

that Romesh Sharma was not alone in cheating PW6 but there was a

definite conspiracy between him and his brother, Harish Mishra, who

from the outset was party in getting the signature of PW6 on the MOU

on 27.03.1996 Ex. PW6/14 when he knew that MOU was not for hiring

but for sale making deceitfully PW6 believe that it was a sham MOU

and also he advanced part consideration towards the charges which at

that time PW6 was made to believe was towards hiring of the

helicopter. He sent his men to accompany the truck loaded with

helicopter from Mumbai to Phulpur to ensure its safe transportation to

further the intention of the accused Romesh Sharma to take

possession of the helicopter though constructively possession

continued with PW6. He paid part consideration to PW6 even after

the transfer of registration of helicopter in favour of the accused which

registration was done on the basis of the affidavit Ex.PW2/A3 which

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 162/213


PW6 was made to sign and deliver under physical threat by the

accused, Romesh Sharma that he has received the entire

consideration for sale of the helicopter.

177.From the aforesaid, I am of the view that the accused Romesh

Sharma has committed the offence of cheating by playing fraud on the

person of PW6 by dishonestly inducing him to enter into the MOU and

subsequently retained its possession after obtaining an affidavit from

PW6 that he has received full and final payment from the accused,

though the helicopter was given on hire and the accused had to make

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

namely Romesh Sharma and Harish Mishra.

178.Now, coming to the incident of dacoity which allegedly occurred

on 11.05.96, Ld. Counsel argued that the accused persons were under

the belief that the helicopter was purchased by the accused Romesh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 163/213


Sharma and further the accused during the election speeches had also

spoken that he has purchased the helicopter for the people of Phulpur

and would use it for them, so, under this bonafide belief, the helicopter

was taken to Delhi being the property of the accused Romesh Sharma

and thus were justified in law in preventing his helicopter to be taken

from Phulpur to Mumbai and their action was covered under the

general exception containing in Section 79 IPC. They did not commit

robbery and the question of dacoity did not arise.

179.For an offence under section 395 IPC which provides punishment for

dacoity, following ingredients must exist:

a) That the robbery was committed or attempted;

b) That five or more persons committed or attempted to commit

robbery; or aiding such commission or attempt; or that the whole

number of persons committing or attempting to commit robbery

was five or more.

c) That such persons were acting conjointly.

d) In robbery, there is either theft or extortion. Theft is robbery if in

order to the committing of the theft or in carrying away or

attempting to carry away property obtained by theft, the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 164/213


offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to

any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant

death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. Extortion

is robbery if the offencer, at the time of committing the extortion,

is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the

extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, or

instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to

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.PW9 has stated that on 11.05.96 the helicopter was dismantled and

the parts were loaded in the truck. When the machine and the parts

were being tied, two vehicles loads of people appeared. They were

about 15 persons who surrounded the truck. Some of them were

carrying guns and most of them were having lathis. Those persons

shouted and threatened them that the helicopter cannot be taken to

Mumbai, it has to be taken to Delhi as per the orders of Romesh

Sharma and the staff including Engineers and Pilot have to accompany

the truck to Delhi. They started pulling down the parts loaded in the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 165/213


truck. They were aggressive and more in numbers with arms and if

resisted they would have been physically harmed. He stated that the

driver of the truck refused to go to Delhi because he was not having

permit for going to Delhi which fact is also evident from the testimony

of PW23. PW9 has stated that he advised those persons that they

would help them in unloading the parts and machine safely. He stated

that accused Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Budhiraja, Manoj, Advdesh and

Indermani were part of the group. He identified them correctly stating

that he knew the accused persons since they were working as a team

for election purpose with them. He stated that those persons unloaded

the parts and machine on to the ground and thereafter, the empty truck

left the spot which fact has also come in testimony of PW21 who

arranged the truck. PW9 has stated that his brother B P Pappara

removed the documents i.e. log books from the truck which they

brought to Mumbai. Since they were told not to leave the bungalow,

and had apprehension about their safety since they were threatened to

be taken to Delhi forcibly, they decided to leave the place one by one.

Captain Demose left on the pretext of buying a cigarette. He then left

in a car and went to Allahabad where he met Captain Demose at Hotel

Yatrik. They decided to leave Allahabad and cancelled their earlier

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 166/213


tickets. PW9 has stated that they did not report the matter to the

police because they were more concerned about their safety given the

fact that Romesh Sharma had large clout in the area. From Lucknow

they telephoned to H Suresh Rao. They reached Mumbai on 12.05.96.

However, the other staff reached Mumbai on 14.05.96. He denied that

no threat was given by any of the accused persons. PW14 Wing

Commander Demose also deposed on the lines of PW9. He has

stated that after dismantling when they were tying the parts and the

machine on the truck, two vehicles loaded with 1015 people arrived at

the spot. They shouted loudly not to take or carry the helicopter to

Kerala but asked them to take it to Delhi. Some were armed with

lathis. Some of the persons climbed on the truck and started untying

and unloading the helicopter. They were very unruly. They

apprehended physical assault from those persons in case they tried to

stop them. He stated that accomplishes of the accused unloaded the

parts of the helicopter from the truck. He identified the accused Avtar

Singh Ahluwalia, Bhojwani, Avdesh, Manoj, Naveen Budhiraja and

Indermani and stated that they were amongst those persons. He has

stated that they were shouting menacingly. The accused Avtar Singh

had asked him to stay in Bungalow as he was going to arrange another

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 167/213


truck. They required him not to leave the Bungalow without their

permission. In these circumstances, he left the place on the pretext of

buying cigarette and reached Allahabad. He went to a STD booth

where he met PW29, Mr. Shukla who advised him to write a

complaint. But Mrs. Shukla intervened and advised him not to do so

as it would create trouble for him since he was in the territory of

Romesh Sharma. She also feared arms clash between the supporters

of Romesh Sharma and the other party. PW15 also deposed on the

lines of PW9 and PW14 and stated that there were 1015 persons of

Romesh Sharma who came and unloaded the helicopter saying that

they have instructions to send the truck to Delhi. PW15 identified the

accused Avtar Singh and M.D. Bhojwani amongst those persons

stating that the accused M.D. Bhojwani used to arrange their catering.

181.PW23 and 24 who were driver and cleaner on the truck which was

hired from SherePunjab have stated that after the helicopter was

loaded, 2025 persons came, raised a noise and required them to take

the helicopter to Delhi and not to Mumbai. When they said that they

were not having permit for Delhi, 2025 persons threatened the

persons who had loaded the helicopter in the truck and asked them to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 168/213


take the truck to Delhi. PW23 has stated that due to fear he

telephoned PW21 who asked him to unload the helicopter and come

there. PW24 has stated that the helicopter was loaded at about 11.00

AM. 2025 persons came there and told them that the helicopter would

be taken to Delhi and not to Mumbai. They also threatened them with

dire consequences. He stated that the helicopter was unloaded by

those 2025 persons which they took about 10 hours to load.

182.PW19 who was the Munshi of Azad Forwarding Agency has stated

that the dismantled helicopter was taken in the truck on behalf of

Romesh Sharma from Ugarsen Pur to Delhi at Mayfair Garden, via

number UP 70 9771 on which PW22 was the driver. Accused Avtar

Singh had booked the truck and paid the fare in advance. PW22 also

corroborated his testimony and stated that on 11.05.96, he was handed

over the GRs. Avtar Singh Ahluwalia was there. He has stated that a

truck was standing there on which helicopter parts and machine had

been loaded. Thereafter, the parts and the machine were removed

from the truck and loaded in his truck. 810 persons present there

helped him to unload the helicopter and load it in his truck. 34 car/jeep

escorted their truck. On 12.05.96 they reached Delhi and stopped the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 169/213


truck in a Farm House where the helicopter was unloaded.

183.In the instant case, PW23 and PW24 did not say that those persons

had not threatened them to unload the helicopter or to take it to Delhi.

It is not the case that PW23 or PW24 knew the accused persons from

before or were interested in their false implication. Had this sort of

incident not taken place, PW23 and PW24 would have not deposed

about this incident of threat, use of force for taking away the helicopter

from Phulpur to Delhi. Although no recovery of any weapon was

effected from accused persons but it is also to be seen that the case

was registered after about two years of incident, so in these

circumstances, it was not practicable for the investigating agency to

seize the lathis.

184.Facts and circumstances show that the accused persons were armed

with lathis. They were more than five in number. They were present at

the place of the commission of the crime with arms/lathies, carried

away forcibly the dismantled helicopter, possession of which they

obtained by force by putting PW9 and his crew members in fear of

hurt or wrongful restrain so as to take the physical possession of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 170/213


helicopter from the crew members etc. on the directions of the accused

Romesh Sharma. The act of the accused persons amounted to

dacoity in respect of the said helicopter which was owned and

possessed by PW6 by creating terror at the place of occurrence and

by using force against the crew members of PW6 who were in charge

of the said helicopter at Phulpur and forcibly taking possession thereof

for its transportation to Delhi instead of Mumbai.

185.Regarding the applicability or otherwise of Section 79 of Indian Penal

Code, the word “good faith” has been defined U/s 52 of IPC as

“Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or

believed without due care and attention”. PW9 has stated that he had

heard the accused Romesh Sharma speaking to the public at large

during the election speeches that the helicopter was purchased by him

and would remain in the village for the local use of the farmers. When

he made enquiry from PW6, he replied in negative regarding the claim

of the accused Romesh Sharma. PW6 also telephoned the accused

Romesh Sharma and enquired about this fact who told him that it was

only an election gimmick to attract the people and after the election he

would return the helicopter. There is no evidence and circumstance on

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 171/213


record except bald and uncorroborated statement of accused persons

to substantiate their versions. No prudent person on earth can believe

such a bald statement until and unless he makes enqiry and finds it to

be correct. It was held in the case of Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of

Punjab 1966 Cr.L.J. 82 that simple belief or actual belief by itself is not

enough. Appellant mush show that the belief in the impugned

statement has rational basis and was not just a bald simple belief.

186.In the present case, the accused Romesh Sharma, whose statement

the accused claimed to have believed in good faith, was himself the

accused of playing deception upon the complainant (PW6). It has

come in the testimony of PW6 that MOU Ex.PW6/20 was executed on

a stamp paper dated 29.03.96 purporting to be entered predated i.e.

on 24.02.96, on the assurance given by the accused Romesh Sharma

that it was just a document on paper never agreed to be acted upon

just to camouflage the election expenses and it would be destroyed

after the election would be over. It was also signed by the accused

M.D. Bhojwani. It is also to be noted that earlier an MOU Ex.PW6/14

was written on the letter head of Reliance Developers and Investors

which also bears the date 24.02.96 but it does not bear the signatures

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 172/213


of the accused M D Bhojwani. It goes to show that no MOU as alleged

was entered into between Romesh Sharma and PW6 on 24.02.96. It

is also significant to note that the accused persons were armed with

lathis when the machine and its parts were being loaded by the men of

PW6. They threatened PW9 and others to take the helicopter to

Delhi and forced them to accompany. They took the law in their hands

and never reported the matter to the police, 45 vehicles also escorted

with the helicopter. Had they been under bonafide belief, they would

not have acted in such a manner and taken law in their hands. The

facts and circumstances show that they under the directions of the

accused Romesh Sharma illegally and unlawfully took the possession

of helicopter from PW9 and others and took it to Delhi. This very act

on the part of the accused shows that their action was not in good faith

and thus they cannot claim immunity from their criminal liability.

187.During the course of arguments, it was contended by Ld. Counsel for

the accused persons that no TIP of the accused persons was held, the

accused were not named in the FIR and they were arrested after about

2 ½ years of the incident. I find this contention sans merit since it has

come in the testimony of PW9 and other witnesses that the above

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 173/213


accused persons had campaigned for the accused Romesh Sharma in

the election and remained with PW9 and his crew members for about

40 days which was the sufficient period when PW9 and his crew

members/technicians could know the accused persons well. It is not

the case that PW9 and others had a glimpse of the accused persons.

They have specifically named the accused persons in their testimony

and identified them correctly. Although the accused have stated that

they were not present at the time of incident but no such suggestions

came in the crossexamination. It was held in the case of Dana Yadav

@ Dalhu Vs. State of Bihar 2002 JT (7) page 68 that if the accused is

well known to the prosecution witnesses from before, no test

identification is called for. It would be meaningless and shall be the

waste of public time to hold the same.

Keeping in view the facts of the present case, it can safely be

said that not conducting of TIP by the investigating agency is not at all

fatal to the case of the prosecution.

188.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the

prosecution witnesses namely PW9, PW14 and PW15 were the

employees of PW6 and were the interested witnesses. On going

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 174/213


through their testimony, I find that they were subjected to anvil of cross

examination but their testimony remained intrinsically worth believing.

Their testimony stand corroborated from PW23 and PW24. Further,

there is no evidence to show that PW9 and others were interested in

their false implication or they had enemity with those persons. In the

case of Daulat Ram Sadhram Teli Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2009

AIR SCW 6273 it was held that merely because eye witnesses are

family members of the deceased, their evidence cannot be perse

discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to

be established. It would not by itself be sufficient to discard their

evidence straightway unless it is proved that their evidence suffers

from serious infirmities which raises considerable doubt in the mind of

the Court (See State of Gujarat Vs. Nagin bhai Dhula Bhai Patel AIR

1983 SC 839). In the present case, the testimony of the prosecution

witnesses remained consistent and cogent.

189.As regards contradictions, some of the witnesses have stated that

they were 2025 persons and some said that they were 1015 persons,

testimony of PW9 and PW14 would show that there were about 15

persons who came in two vehicles. They were armed with lathis and

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 175/213


threatened them. They also pressurised them to remain in Bungalow

and accompany them to Delhi with the helicopter. There minor

contradictions do not appear to be material to have bearing on the

outcome of the case. It was held in the case of Siddiqua Vs. NCB

137 (2007) DLT 500 that a small contradiction here and there could not

make the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful. Minor discrepancies

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. Minute details of incidents with the passage of time go out

of memory. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental

screen. Sometimes the witness cannot anticipate the occurrence

which so often has an element of surprise. It was held in the case of

Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC

753 that no value is to be pinned with minor and insignificant

contradictions.

190.In the case of Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 2002

(2) CC Cases (SC) 58 it was held that : It is the duty of the Court to

separate grain from chaff – when chaff can be separated from grain, it

could be open to the Court to convict the accused notwithstanding that

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 176/213


evidence is found difficult to prove guilt of other accused persons –

falsehood of particular material witness or material particular would not

seclude it from the beginning to end – the maxim Falsus in

uno falsus in omnibus’ has no application in India and the

witnesses cannot be branded as liar”.

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

Singh Ahluwalia, Naveen Budhiraja, M D Bhojwani, Manoj, Indermani

and Avdesh.

192.The other substantive charges against the accused Romesh Sharma

are that he had committed offence of extortion against PW6 by putting

him under the fear of death/grievous hurt, forcing him to put his

signature on the agreement purported to be dated 14.05.1996 to sell

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

and the valuable security to him.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 177/213


193.Section 383 defines extortion for which punishment is prescribed

under section 384 and the aggravated form of extortion is punishable

under sections 385 and 386.

194.To constitute an aggravated offence of extortion punishable under

section 386 IPC, the following ingredients must exist :

a) The extortioner put the complainant or any other person in fear

of death or of grievous hurt;

b) The extortioner did so intentionally.

195.The offence of extortion u/s 383 consists in intentionally putting a

person in fear of injury to himself or another; or dishonestly inducing

the person so put in fear to deliver to any person, property or valuable

security.

196.Testimony of PW6 shows that when he was informed by his crew

members PW9 and PW14 that the helicopter was taken away to Delhi

from Phulpur by use of force by the men of the accused Romesh

Sharma, he contacted the accused Romesh Sharma on phone who

asked him to come to Delhi saying that by the time the helicopter would

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 178/213


also reach Delhi. On 14.05.1996 he reached Delhi and contacted the

accused and enquired to which the accused told him that the helicopter

is his property and it is in his possession. When he asked him to

return his helicopter and make payment towards the hire charges, the

accused told him to forget about the helicopter as the same has

become his property now and at the most he would be entitled to the

payment relating to the helicopter. On 15.05.1996, when PW6 again

requested the accused to return his helicopter, he threatened of his

connection with Dawoud Ibrahim gang and to follow his instructions

otherwise he would face dire consequences. He also revealed his

proximity with Abu Salem and Irfan Goga. Thereafter, he asked PW6

to bring the original documents of the helicopter alongwith an affidavit

required for its transfer and told that he would make the payment

thereafter. The testimony of PW6 further reveals that he came with

his advocate, PW10 on 05.06.1996, also called PW7 where the

accused asked him to sign an agreement to sell Ex. PW6/33

purported to be of dated 14.05.1996. When PW10 advised PW6 to

take the payment first and then sign the documents, the accused

became furious, snatched the documents from PW6 and also

threatened his connection with Dawood Ibriham Gang. Being scared of

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 179/213


the threats given by the accused Romesh Sharma, he signed on the

agreement and the affidavit Ex.PW2/A5 and also handed over him

the log books of the helicopter which was the requirement for transfer

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 helicopter as a collateral security for

payment of dues of Rs.18 lacs which were outstanding against PW6

towards the cost of the spare parts of the helicopter. On the request of

PW6, PW18 came at the house of the accused who also reiterated

the fact but on the assurance given by the accused Romesh Sharma

that he would pay him Rs.18 lacs, he handed over the registration

certificate of the helicopter Ex.PW2/A3. The accused on the basis of

the aforesaid documents got transferred the ownership in his name.

PW10 and PW7 have duly corroborated this fact and nothing material

came in their crossexamination to draw an inference that they have

deposed at the instance of PW6.

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.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 180/213


name of accused Romesh Sharma without the production of the same

as is evident from the statement of PW1 and PW2. The Supreme

Court in Abhayan and Mishra Vs. State of Bihar 1961(2)Crl.L.J. 822

has held that it is not necessary that a property (document) should

have any pecuniary value and thus held that admission card to sit in

examination is a property as defined in the Indian Penal Code. In the

case the affidavit Ex. PW2/A3 and the log books, both in original are

the property as contemplated u/s 22 of the IPC.

198.From the above facts, it is established that on 05.06.1996, the

accused Romesh Sharma committed the extortion by putting PW6 in

the fear of death, forced him to put his signature on the agreement

Ex.PW6/33 purported to be dated 14.05.1996 to sell the helicopter and

also forced him to put his signature on the affidavit dated 05.06.1996

Ex.PW2/A3 showing the receipt of the sale proceeds of the helicopter

in full and final from the accused Romesh Sharma which was being

carried by PW6 and dishonestly induced him to part with the

possession of the said documents and deliver the affidavit and log

books being the property and the valuable security to the accused and

thereby he committed the offence punishable under section 386 IPC.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 181/213


199.Now, coming to the charge under section 412 IPC against the accused

Romesh Sharma, the allegations are that on 14.05.1996 the accused

Romesh Sharma received the stolen property i.e. the helicopter

belonging to H. Suresh Rao at his residence and Jai Mata Di Farm,

Chattarpur, Delhi knowing fully well that the possession thereof has

been transferred on commission of the offence of dacoity by his

accomplices.

200.The important elements of section 412 IPC are :

a) The property is stolen property;

b) The said property was concerned with dacoity;

c) The accused dishonestly received it;

d) The accused knew or had reason to believe that the said

property was stolen in dacoity.

e) A property will be designated as stolen if possession of such

property has been transferred by theft or extortion, or robbery or

the property which has been criminally misappropriated or in

respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed.

201.The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly establish that the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 182/213


accused persons Avtar Singh and coaccused on 11.05.1996, after the

machine and the dismantled parts of the helicopter which had been

loaded for Mumbai, reloaded the same in another truck arranged by

Avtar Singh to hand over the stolen property to the accused Romesh

Sharma. The accused persons were more than five in number, armed

with weapons and lathis. They forcibly unloaded the helicopter from

the truck and got it loaded in other truck and took it to Delhi. All they

did was on the directions of accused Romesh Sharma. They took the

helicopter to the farm of Romesh Sharma at Chatter Pur, Delhi where

on 24.06.1996 the accused got reassembled the helicopter from PW9

and PW44. He also got the documents executed from PW6 as to the

receipt of full consideration towards the helicopter for its transfer by

extending threats as to his connection with Dawood Ibrahim Gang, got

the ownership of the helicopter transferred in his name and retained its

possession unlawfully and further contacted PW45 and PW64 for its

use by the Reliance Industries.

202.I am of the considered view that prosecution has established its case

against the accused Romesh Sharma of his having committed the

offence punishable under section 412 IPC.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 183/213


203.Now coming to the charges U/s 365, 506 and 323 IPC against the

accused persons namely Romesh Sharma and Laxman Singh, the

allegations are that on 20.10.98, from C30 Mayfair Garden they

abducted H. Suresh Rao and Rakesh Gupta in his Mercedes car and

forcibly brought them to the office at 16, Mahadev Road with intent to

cause them to be secretly and wrongfully confined and also committed

criminal intimidation by pointing a licensed pistol towards H. Suresh

Rao to cause injury to H. Suresh Rao with intent to keep him forcibly

sitting in the car and voluntarily caused hurt on to the person of H.

Suresh Rao.

204.Section 365 provides punishment for kidnapping or abducting with

intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person. Abduction in common

language means the carrying away of a person by force or fraud.

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

infirmity to the complainant;

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 184/213


(ii) He did such act intentionally or with knowledge that it would

cause hurt, etc.

206.Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation. This

section has the following essentials:

1) Threatening a person with any injury:

a) To his person, reputation, or property, or

b) To the person, or reputation of anyone in whom that

person is interested;

2) Threat must be with intent:

a) To cause alarm to that person, or,

b) To cause the person to do any act which he is not legally

bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of

such threat, or

c) To cause that person to omit to do any act which that

person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding

the execution of such threat.

207.Testimony of PW6 reveals that on 20.10.98 he came to Delhi, met

PW7 and requested for his help in retrieving his legitimate dues. They

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 185/213


went to the house of the accused at Mayfair Garden at 11.30 AM where

they were made to wait for two hours. Accused then called them in the

cabin where PW7 requested the accused to settle the account of Mr.

Rao (PW6) stating that PW6 was in great difficulty. PW6 has stated

that the accused then told them that the helicopter has become his

property. When PW7 requested the accused to settle the account of

Mr. Rao as much time has passed and told that if it is not settled, PW6

may unnecessarily go and make complaint to the police, the accused

got angry and told that he was telling a lie. He knew that PW6 has

already filed a complaint. Accused then started beating him giving

punches and kicks. He also lifted a chair and tried to hit him which

PW7 prevented. Accused then told them to sit and not to move. It has

further come in the testimony of PW6 that he thought to run away. He

told the personnel of accused Romesh Sharma in the house that he

was going to buy a cigarette. He came out and started running. He

then saw someone following him. When he was trying to take a taxi, he

saw the accused in Pajero jeep, driving it himself, PW7 sitting by his

side and another person sitting on his back. PW6 has stated that

accused shouted at him and asked him to sit in the car. The accused

enquired from him if he was going to the police station. When he told

R.C No. : 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

security man, accused Laxman Singh and a South Indian man and

asked them to sit in his Mercedes Car. The accused Laxman Singh

had a pistol with him who pointed it out towards him in the car. PW6

has also stated that accused had told Laxman to shoot if he (PW6)

tried to run away. The accused then took them to 16, Mahadev Road,

his party office from where they were not allowed to leave. They

remained confined there for some time and were rescued by the

police. He identified the pistol Ex. P1. He stated that on the same day

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. Testimony of PW6 shows that he was examined on the same

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 found cigarettes in the pocket of of H. Suresh Rao

slapped and punched him (H. Suresh Rao). Someone informed the

control room at Tel. No. 100 regarding his beating.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 187/213


The said information was received by PW41 lady constable

Reena. PW41 has stated that she had received a call at 100 No. at

1357 hrs. that Romesh Sharma was beating two persons. She

recorded the information vide Ex.PW41/A. No suggestions were given

to PW41 that no such information was received or she recorded the

false information. She has stated that the information was passed on

through the communication set. PW39 has stated that she recorded

the information in the Rojnamcha vide DD 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

Garden and report to the SHO Police Station Hauz Khas. He went

there and met the SHO Hauz Khas who asked him to go to 16,

Mahadev Road saying that accused has picked up two persons forcibly

and taken them there. He went there and found PW6 and PW7 in the

captivity of Romesh Sharma. He rescued them. They at that time

were very disturbed and terribly shattered. He took them alongwith the

accused to the police station Hauz Khas. He then took the accused

Romesh Sharma to Mayfair Garden and handed over his custody to

the SHO Hauz Khas.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 188/213


208.It has also come in evidence that 16, Mahadev Road was allotted to

Shiv Charan Singh against whom an eviction order Ex.PW57/7 was

passed after the allotment was cancelled. Since the premises was not

vacated by Shiv Charan, so it was got vacated on 11.11.98 vide Eviction

Report Ex.PW57/10. It has come in the evidence of PW56 that the

accused had given an application requesting for change of his office

from Churiwalan, Sita Ram Bazar to Mahadev Road. PW10 has

stated that there was board of All India Bhartiya Congress on the

premises. From the testimony of above witnesses, it is clear that the

accused was operating from the premises at 16, Mahadev Road at the

time of incident which was his party office.

209.PW6 also identified the accused Laxman from the photograph

Ex.PW6/57, after the accused Laxman refused to participate in TIP.

PW7 also deposed on the lines of PW6. No material contradictions

came in the testimony of PW7 as to the incident which happened on

20.10.98.

210.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused Laxman Singh that

the accused was simply a security guard of the accused Romesh

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 189/213


Sharma and has nothing to do with the alleged incident.

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 any person that too at the point of pistol on the

instructions of his master. There is nothing to indicate that the accused

Romesh Sharma had threat from them. Testimony of PW6 and PW7

go to show that he had accompanied the accused Romesh Sharma in

his car and had put pistol on to PW6 and confined them in a room at

16, Mahadev Road. This shows his complicity with the accused

Romesh Sharma in abducting and wrongfully confining PW6 and

PW7 at Mahadev Road.

Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, it is proved that

the accused Romesh Sharma abducted PW6 and PW7 with intent to

wrongfully restrain them at 16, Mahadev Road at the point of pistol with

the help of coaccused Laxman Singh and also gave beatings to PW6

when PW6 tried to retrieve the helicopter or his legitimate dues from

the accused thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 365/506

and 323 IPC.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 190/213


Criminal Conspiracy :

212.It was contended by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there is

no material on record to show that the accused Romesh Sharma had

hatched criminal conspiracy with the coaccused or they agreed to

commit such offences as alleged.

213.The essential ingredient for an offence of conspiracy U/s 120A is that

there should be an agreement between two or more persons to commit

an offence. The agreement to commit an offence or an illegal act

between two persons or more is the essence of conspiracy. Such an

agreement is designated as criminal conspiracy. It is relevant to quote

the relevant observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kehar

Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1988 SC 1883 (known as

Indira Gandhi murder case) which are as follows :

Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be

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

common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 191/213


upon circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can

undoubtedly be proved by such evidence direct or

circumstantial. But the Court must enquire whether the two

persons are independently pursuing the same end or they

have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object. The

former does not render them conspirators, but the latter

does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy

requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement.

The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor

actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor it is

necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The

evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful

design may be sufficient.

It is unnecessary to prove that the parties “actually came

together and agreed in terms” to pursue the unalwful object;

their need never have been an express verbal agreement, it

being sufficient that there was a “tacit understanding

between the conspirators as to what should be done.”

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 192/213


214.From perusal of the above, it comes out that in order to prove the

conspiracy, prosecution is not required to prove the agreement and to

adduce the direct evidence/agreement of conspiracy or that the parties

should come together actually to agree to pursuit the unlawful object,

there may be, it is not necessary that there was an express verbal

agreement but what is necessary to show is that there was some sort

of tacit understanding between the conspirators as to what should be

done. It will also be appropriate to refer to observations made in para

no. 276 wherein it is stated that “the relative acts or conduct of the

parties must be conscientious and clear to mark their concurrence as

to what should be done. The concurrence cannot be inferred by a

group of irrelevant facts artfully arranged so as to give an appearance

of coherence. The innocuous, innocent or inadvertent events and

incidents should not enter the judicial verdict.” In the case of E. G.

Barsay Vs. State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 195 it was held that the

gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. In a case of Eran

Eliav Vs. State 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 98 it was held that

both abetment and criminal conspiracy are fiendishly difficult to

establish by virtue of direct evidence, it can be established by indirect

or circumstantial evidence which is of an impeccable nature.

R.C No. : 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

knowledge of what the conspirators wanted to achieve and thereafter

having the intend to further the illegal act takes recourse to a course of

conduct to achieve end or facilitate its accomplishment.

216.The evidence and the circumstances of the present case clearly show

that the accused Romesh Sharma had dishonest intention to grab the

helicopter from the first day to the last day. In order to accomplish it, he

took various illegal steps. He with dishonest intention made PW6 to

believe that helicopter was required for election purposes on hire, so

that it could reach Phulpur, his place of constituency from where it

could be safely transported to Delhi at his farm house. The accused

Romesh Sharma despite having received the fax message regarding

the terms and conditions of hiring did not commit anything in writing

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

stamp paper on 30.03.96 vide Ex.PW6/20. He roped in Harish Mishra,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 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. Harish Mishra sent his man with the helicopter on the truck

from Mumbai to Phulpur. He also arranged tickets for PW44 and

PW8 when they came to Delhi on 24.06.96 to assemble the helicopter.

217.The accused Romesh Sharma made PW6 to believe that the said

MOUs were only meant for election purposes and would be destroyed

after the election was over since the hire charge expenses could not be

shown in the Election expenses, limit of which was Rs.4.5 lacs and it

could disqualify him. He dishonestly induced PW6 to part with the

possession of the helicopter. The aforesaid MOUs were recovered

from the accused which clearly show that accused never destroyed the

MOUs and his intention from the beginning was sinister to the

knowledge of his brother Harish Mishra who can safely be said to be

the party to the said conspiracy by his conduct. The record and

affidavit as discussed above also show, under what circumstances the

helicopter was transferred in the name of the accused Romesh

Sharma in June, 1996. Other accused persons were his colleagues

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 195/213


and had gone to Phulpur Allahabad to help him in his electioneering.

They even not only obstructed the employees of PW6 from carrying

the helicopter to Mumbai but also retained its possession and forcefully

loaded the same in another truck and brought it to Delhi. Accused

Avtar Singh got unloaded the dismantled helicopter and loaded in the

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

called by Romesh Sharma at Delhi. There he was threatened with

dire consequences. In June, 1996 he got the documents executed

from him by extending threats claiming his connection with the

underworld dons. In all Rs. 12 lacs were paid but the affidavit was got

executed from PW6 to the effect that full and final payment towards

the helicopter has been received by him. The accused obtained the

registration certificate from PW18 on false assurance that he would

make the payment as it was one of the precondition for getting the

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.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 196/213


make towards the cost of spare parts. He forced PW9 and PW44 to

assemble the helicopter to make it airworthy. In the accounts of

accused Romesh Sharma, there was no sufficient balance to purchase

the helicopter. All these facts and circumstances show his complicity

with the coaccused to grab the helicopter by unlawful means.

218.He threatened and abducted PW6 and PW7 in his car forcibly with

the help of his muscle man Avdesh who put pistol on PW6 when they

came at the house of accused to retrieve the helicopter or the dues.

He beat PW6 and took them to Mahadev Road and wrongfully

confined them there. They were rescued by the police subsequently.

The services rendered by the accused Laxman Singh in abducting

PW6 and PW7 can not in anyway be said to be the security given to

the accused Romesh Sharma.

219.Facts and circumstances show that all the accused were party to the

criminal conspiracy which the accused Romesh Sharma hatched with

them with the common intention to grab the helicopter by illegal means

from PW6. The conspiracy was at two stages, first with his brother

Harish Mishra to cheat and the second with the other accused when

the election was over to take forcible possession of the helicopter from

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 197/213


the employees of PW6 with intention to grab it.

220.The facts of the case also make it abundantly clear that it is not a

case of civil nature at all as criminal offences in question have been

committed at various stages, starting with the conspiracy to cheat and

thereafter by committing various other offences referred to above. The

same continued at various stages upto 20.10.98. Hence, the version of

the defence that it is a case of civil nature is not at all tenable keeping

in view the number of features of the case and the offences which took

place at various stages under criminal conspiracy.

Delay in FIR :

221.It was argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons that there was

delay in recording the FIR. The helicopter was alleged to have been

taken, as per prosecution case, snatched and forcibly taken away from

the possession of PW6 / complainant in the month of May, 1996 but

the FIR in this case was registered only on 20.10.98 after delay of more

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 is extremely vital and valuable

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 198/213


piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence

adduced at the trial. The object of lodging report to the police in

respect of commission of offence is to get early information regarding

the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the name of the

actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the name of the

witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. The delay in lodging of

first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a

creature of afterthought.

222.Ld. Public Prosecutor on the contrary submitted that the complainant /

PW6 in his statement has given explanation of the reasons as to why

he did not complain in 1996 or immediately thereafter.

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

house of accused at Delhi on 14.05.96 to retrieve the helicopter and

the hire charges. Part payment was also made by the accused on

15.05.96. After the incident of 05.06.96, he discussed the matter with

his parents that the accused has threatened to eliminate him and his

family members through his connections such as Dawood Ibrahim and

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 199/213


Abu Salem. His parents got worried and advised him not to file any

complaint against the accused as Abu Salem and Irfan Goga at Dubai

were dreaded criminals and they could eliminate them. He was very

much scared and afraid of the accused Romesh Sharma who in clear

terms had revealed his connections with the underworld don Dawood

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

telephoned Romesh Sharma but the accused flatly refused and asked

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. He has stated that he also got threatening calls from Dubai

from the person of Irfan Goga, asking him not to intervene in the

matter of Helicopter between H. Suresh Rao and Romesh Sharma. He

also received threatening calls from Abu Salem who asked him to get

away from this matter. PW6 also lodged report at the police station

Santa Cruz, Mumbai on 24.04.98 of which a DD entry was recorded.

224.Testimony of PW6 & PW7 further reveal that PW6 had made every

effort to retrieve the helicopter and his legitimate dues. Even after the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 200/213


incident of 05.06.96, time and again he telephoned the accused to

make payment. He also lodged report with the Deputy Commissioner

of Police, Delhi vide Ex.PW6/43 and a complaint with the SHO Police

Station Greater Kailash, New Delhi on 04.05.98 vide Ex.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

Sharma with the police. On 20.10.98 PW6 went to the house of the

accused at Mayfair Garden with PW7 and requested him to settle his

dues. PW7 who had accompanied PW6 had also persuaded the

accused to make payment to PW6 failing which he may be

constrained to file a complaint with the police. On that, the accused got

annoyed. He gave him fist and kicks, lifted the chair to hit PW6 and

threatened him with dire consequences stating that he knew that PW6

has already lodged a report against him with the police. It is not the

case that PW6 after the incident of 11.05.96 and 05.06.96 slept over

the matter.

225.Facts and circumstances further show that PW6 had also written to

the Director Aviation to cancel the ownership in favour of the accused.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 201/213


Even otherwise on the day of alleged incident i.e. on 20.10.98 he came

at the house of the accused to retrieve his helicopter or his legitimate

dues. When the incident of his abduction came to the notice of police

through someone, and the police rescued him, he then gave the

complaint to the police on the basis of which the present case was

registered. I do not find anything to infer that PW6 roped the accused

persons in this incident or he manipulated the story. I am of the view

that the prosecution has sufficiently explained the reasons as to why

PW6 did not lodge the complaint in May/June 1996 or thereafter.

226.As regards the contention that CBI had already investigating the

matter before the registration of the case, a perusal of record would

show that the CBI on a source information had enquired about the

helicopter even prior to the registration of the case but at that time it

did not have any clue whether the helicopter was acquired legally or

illegally by the accused.

227.It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused

was falsely implicated to score political vendetta. Ld. Counsel made

reference to the proceedings of the Election Commission stating that

the accused had floated a party and many great leaders/politicians

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 202/213


were planning to join his party and he was also going to expose the

criminals / corrupt politicians.

228.On going through the Election Commission proceedings, I find that

the accused was the President of All India Indira Congress Secular. He

had written a letter to the Election Commission regarding change of its

office from Churiwalan Sitaram Bazar to 16, Mahadev Road, New

Delhi. There was also an issue as to the merger of his party with

Indian National Congress. The Election Commission had considered

the matter and passed an order Ex.PW6/52. The essence of the order

dated 29.10.98 Ex.PW56/2 for which a hearing was given on 23.10.98

was that the President and the Office Bearers were not accepted as

the representatives of All India Indira Congress Secular in accordance

with the constitution. The election proceedings in no way show that

the aforesaid action was taken by the CBI on the directions of the

Government to score political vendetta as no evidence of this sort was

brought by the accused in his defence. Nothing can be inferred from

the proceedings and the testimony of PW6 that he was targeted by the

Government to implicate the accused in false cases. Record rather

shows that accused was found involved in number of cases relating to

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 203/213


grabbing of properties of number of persons by using the influence of

Dawood Ibrahim and his associates. It has also come in the testimony

of PW85 that he on an intelligence had tapped the mobile phone

bearing no. 9811197600 on which phone accused Romesh Sharma

used to talk to someone in Dubai and Pakistan. The transcript version

Ex. PW74/3 revealed his talks with Abu Salem.

229.Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that it was a simple call that

the accused was giving beatings, so why so much police force went to

the house of the accused and why SHO Police Station Kalkaji with his

staff went there when the Mayfair Garden Area and Mahadev Road

Area did not fall within his jurisdiction.

230.From the testimony of PW42, it is clear that he had received the

message on wireless to reach Mayfair Garden with his staff. It is no

body’s case that he went there on his own. Since, the police had

information and the transcript / record of the links of the accused with

underworld Don even prior to the incident, which fact made the police

to act swiftly on receiving the call and to ensure presence of sufficient

police force. PW67 who had accompanied PW42 also corroborated

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 204/213


the testimony of PW42 as to how PW6 and PW7 were rescued from

the captivity of the accused persons. Testimony of PW31 shows that

the Pajero Jeep was in the name of the accused Romesh Sharma and

the Mercedes Car was in the name of Ganpati Commerce Ltd. He

proved their registration certificate Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B.

231.In the present case, prosecution has examined all the link witnesses

i.e. PW34 and PW81 who had joined the investigation and PW39

who had recorded the FIR after getting the complaint from PW6. The

Prosecution has also examined PW89 who did the investigation of the

case FIR 758/98 registered at the police station Lajpat Nagar in which

Romesh Sharma and one Ashok Malik were accused of giving threats

to the owner of the property at Lajpat Nagar boosting their proximity

with Dawood Ibrahim and his associates and in that very case, Abu

Salem was also made an accused.

To Sum up :

232.The charge of criminal conspiracy for the commission of offence for

which the accused persons have been charged, spreads in two stages,

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 205/213


i.e. from March, 1996 to October, 1998. Firstly, with respect to the

offence of cheating and secondly, with respect to the other offences as

discussed above. The initial conspiracy was hatched between

Romesh Sharma and his brother Harish Mishra sometime in March,

1996. Thereafter at a later stage accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M.D.

Bhojwani, Naveen Budhraja, Indermani, Avdesh Kumar, Manoj and

Laxman Singh joined the conspiracy to commit dacoity etc.

233.The existence of the criminal conspiracy between Romesh Sharma

and Harish Mishra can be inferred firstly from the fact that as per

evidence of PW6, accused Harish Mishra, brother of accused Romesh

Sharma, contacted PW6, H. Suresh Rao, in his office and enquired as

to whether the helicopter has been dispatched or not and also

informed that one of the person of Romesh Sharma would accompany

the machine to Phulpur. Secondly, from the circumstances that Harish

Mishra at the behest of Romesh Sharma agreed to execute MOU

Ex. PW6/14 on 27.03.1996 purporting to show as if the same has been

executed on 24.02.1996. The blank letter head of Reliance Investors

and Developers of which Romesh Sharma was the proprietor, was

given by the accused Romesh Sharma. The MOU purporting to be an

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 206/213


Agreement to Sell was typed on the said letterhead as required by the

accused Romesh Sharma. It was signed by H. Suresh Rao and the

accused Harish Mishra. H. Suresh Rao was induced to sign the said

MOU on the assurance of Romesh Sharma that the said document

was only meant for the purpose of Election Commission’s office and

would be destroyed after election is over. One of the signed copy of

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. If such inducement and false representation would have not

been made by the accused persons to PW6 H. Suresh Rao, he would

not have signed this predated MOU. The offence of cheating

punishable U/s 420 IPC is further established from the fact that PW6

was called by the accused at Delhi on 30.03.96 where another typed

MOU on a stamp paper was given to PW6 to sign. He signed the

MOU on his inducement that the previous MOU was not acceptable as

the same was not a stamp paper. Neeraj Bhatia was induced to part

with the possession of the original Certificate of Registration of the

helicopter to Romesh Sharma on the assurance that Rs. 18 lacs wold

be paid by Romesh Sharma in respect of which the said certificate was

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 207/213


kept by Neeraj Bhatia as a collateral security from PW6 (H. Suresh

Rao).

234.Facts and circumstances show that the helicopter VTEAP had been in

the constructive possession of PW6 H. Suresh Rao through his crew

members who had carried it to Phulpur and were looking after its

operation and maintenance etc. When the election was over, crew

members wanted its transportation. They loaded the helicopter in the

truck hired by them and when they were in the process of finalising its

transportation to Mumbai, the accused persons came in two vehicles.

They were carrying the lathis. They at the behest of accused Romesh

Sharma threatened the crew members, offloaded the helicopter from

that truck and loaded in another truck which was arranged by the

accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia. They took the forcible possession of

the helicopter and transported it to Delhi. The identity of the aforesaid

persons among those 10 to 15 persons who had snatched the

helicopter VTEAP and forcibly unloaded the dismantled parts from the

truck has been established from the evidence of PW9 B.G. Pappara,

PW14 Capt. H.C. Demose and PW15 Parshu Ram. The accused

persons were very well known to aforesaid witnesses who had seen

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 208/213


them during the entire election campaign being carried out by the

accused Romesh Sharma. Thus, they knew the aforesaid accused

persons by name and face.

235.Testimony of PW6 shows that on 05.06.1996, the affidavit and the Log

books of the helicopter were forcibly snatched by the accused Romesh

Sharma from him. He (H. Suresh Rao) was put in the fear of instant

hurt as Romesh Sharma started beating his employee Vinod Kumar

Luthra when he put the documents on table. At the same time the

accused Romesh Sharma also abused PW10 R.A. Shah, who was

present there. Accused Romesh Sharma, thereafter, carried PW6 H.

Suresh Rao to his chamber and threatened him with dire

consequences and thereafter got his signatures on various documents

like Ex. PW6/33 and obtained the affidavit and the Log books which

were required for the purpose of transferring the ownership of the

helicopter in his name (Romesh Sharma). Accused Romesh Sharma

also asked PW6 H. Suresh Rao to call PW18 Neeraj Bhatia to come

along with the original certificate of registration. He came at the

residence of Romesh Sharma with the certificate as required. PW6 H.

Suresh Rao signed all those papers as aforesaid and asked Neeraj

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 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.Facts and circumstances show that the helicopter was forcibly brought

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

PW9 and PW44. He got the documents executed from PW6 as to

the receipt of full and final consideration towards the helicopter for its

transfer by extending threats. He got the ownership of the helicopter

transferred in his name and retained its possession unlawfully. He

further contacted PW64, Group President of Reliance Industries

giving the papers of the helicopter for the use of Reliance Industries or

for its sale.

237.The testimony of PW6 H. Suresh Rao and of PW7 Rakesh Gupta

establish that they were kidnapped by the accused Romesh Sharma

from C30 Mayfair Garden on 20.10.1998 and were brought by the

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 210/213


accused Romesh Sharma in his Mercedes Car and kept confined at 16

Mahadev Road. Accused Laxman Singh who was the bodyguard of

the accused Romesh Sharma kept a watch over them and was a party

to such abduction. The accused Laxman Singh kept on pointing his

licensed pistol on PW6 H. Suresh Rao throughout the way at 16

Mahadev Road and kept PW6 and PW7 captive in the said bungalow.

The rescue of the aforesaid persons from their captivity has been

established from the testimony of PW42 Inspector Jasbir Singh Malik.

238.Testimony of PW6 and PW7 show that when on 20.10.98, they tried

to retrieve the legitimate dues from the accused and told that PW6

may file a complaint in the Police Station, the accused got angry and

told, ‘he knew that PW6 has already filed a complaint’. He started

beating PW6 giving punches and kicks. He also made him sit. When

PW6 on the pretext of taking cigarette came out, the accused got him

sit in the car, frisked his pocket and found the cigarette. He again got

angry and beat him. He abducted them to Mahadev Road. They were

rescued by PW42. PW6 was then taken to AIIMS where he was

examined by the Doctor vide MLC Ex.PW90/1.

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 211/213


CONCLUSION :

239.The net result of the proceedings before me based on oral and

documentary evidence and also the rival contentions of the parties are

that :

The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the accused Romesh Sharma of the offence of cheating

punishable under section 420 IPC, extortion by putting PW6 in fear of

death or grievous hurt under section 386 IPC, dishonestly receiving

stolen property in the commission of offence of the dacoity under

section 412 IPC, abduction with intention to wrongfully confine under

section 365 IPC, criminal intimidation under section 506 IPC,

voluntarily causing simple hurt under section 323 IPC, and hatching

the criminal conspiracy under section 120B (1) read with sections 420,

395, 365 and 506 IPC.

240.The prosecution has also proved its case beyond reasonable doubt

against the accused Avtar Singh Ahluwalia, M.D. Bhojwani, Naveen

Budhiraja, Manoj, Avdesh and Indermani for their having been

committed the offence punishable under section 395 IPC and under

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 212/213


section 120B (1) read with section 395 IPC.


against the accused Harish Mishra under section 420 and under

section 120B (1) read with section 420 IPC.


against the accused Laxman Singh under sections 365 and 506 IPC

and under section 120B (1) read with section 365 and 506 IPC.

243.I hold all the accused persons guilty of the above offences and convict

them thereunder.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTTODAY ON 20th JULY, 2012 (SANJIV JAIN)

Presiding Officer MACTII South Distt. : Saket Courts

New Delhi : 20.07.2012

R.C No. : 1/(S)/98/STF/CBI/ND 213/213