To,
Hon’ble the Chief Justice,
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Chandigarh.
Criminal misconduct / abuse of court /
misuse of official position by Sh Darshan Singh
ASJ, Special Judge CBI, Chandigarh.
Respected Sir,
On January 1st, 2010 I had
written a letter mentioning about corruption in lower Judiciary particularly at
ASJ level. I had also mentioned that immorality of a Judge is known by his
Judgment. I give herein below practical proof / example of how Sh Darshan Singh
an ASJ as Special Judge CBI Chandigarh has abused the Court, misused his
official position and thus committed criminal misconduct in case titled CBI VS
Ashish Vajpayee. The case was argued on 22.2.2010. On that very day an unknown
person (hereinafter called the ‘tout’) approaches my client Sh Ashish Vajpayee
and asks him whether he needs an ‘approach’ or ‘contact’ with Darshan Singh
which the tout can arrange. Ashish Vajpayee declines. Written arguments are
filed in court on 23.2.2010. On 25th Judge mentions in court that
case is going both ways. The same day tout again approaches my client who again
declines. Thereafter Judge passes the Judgment Dt 27.2.2010. Before I give
proof of criminal conspiracy of Sh Darshan Singh ASJ, I will like to give the
facts of the case as contained in charge sheet attached as P/1;-
S No Dates Events
3. 08.09.04 HPSIDC gets maximum bid of Rs 116 lacs.
4. 04.10.04 High Court of HP allows re-advertisement.
Bhagwan Saini
states in High Court that he is not interested to buy property which may be
sold to Satish Choudhary. Bid is confirmed in favor of Satish Choudhary. Salient
features of the order are:-
i) 25%
less earnest money to be deposited within 10 days.
ii) 75%
to be deposited within 30 days.
11. 25.7.05 Sh Bhagwan Saini withdraws his earnest
money.
14. 22.9.2005 Clerk issues Notice u/s 138 NI Act,
15. 8.11.2005
Entire payment of Rs 160 lacs received by
DD
16. 1.4.2006 Sale tax Deptt files application for recall of order Dt 7.7.05 of confirmation of sale
17 31.5.06 FIR registered.
19. 11.1.08 Court orders interest for delayed period
to be deposited.
20 15.3.08 Interest for delayed period deposited in
High Court of HP.
20. 4.6.08 High Court of HP condones delay.
21 7.8.06 Charge framed.
22 27.2.10 Convicted for two years for cheating of Rs
5.00 lacs which assumes
payment of Rs 170 lacs by Bhagwan Saini.
How above sequence of events lead to
loss / cheating beats common sense. The Judge is not incompetent but thoroughly
corrupt. It is a common knowledge that a judge speaks through his Judgment and so
does his immorality. (Emphasis supplied). Copy of written arguments is
attached P/2 and Judgment is P/3.
1st
proof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh;-
Sh Darshan Singh ASJ has deliberately
lied at page 23 with intent to mislead and deceive while writing about the
evidence given by PW 15-Bhgawan Saini. He has untruthfully with dishonest
intentions concealed to mislead the reader the actual testimony of Bhagwan
Saini which is:-.
“I and my group members did not have
the financial capacity to pay Rs 127 lacs at the time of auction. I was not an
Income tax payee in the year 2004-2005 though I had obtained PAN number.
Similar was the position in the year 2005-2006. It was not even possible by adding the agriculture income of my father
and brother to pay the auction money in those days. I had deposited a sum
of Rs 46,88,000/- including the earnest money at the time of Bid. I cannot
separately tell from whose accounts the drafts Dt 28.4.2005, 21.5.2005, for
total of Rs 17 lacs were purchased. It is correct that drafts Dt 19.5.2005,
20.5.2005 & 21.5.2005 were purchased from the accounts of Sh Ram Kumar. We
have sold this unit privately after 2/3 days of the Bid to said Sh Ram Kumar
and a written agreement was reduced into writing. The photocopy of the same is
Ex D-4 (Objected to on mode of proof being Photostat copy). I also admit
genuineness of the endorsement marked ‘X’ on the back of the agreement Exhibit
D-4 which also bears my signatures.” D-Ex D-4 was of Rs 139.00 lacs executed in
May 2005.
This testimony demolishes the entire
case of cheating as made out by Judge. The whole case of loss of Rs 10.00 lacs
is based on assumption that Bhagwan Saini had Rs 170.00 lacs to pay. If Bhagwan
Saini did not have Rs 170.0 lacs there is no question of loss. Since tout of Sh
Darshan Singh was not entertained judge has abused the court/ violated his oath
of office / misused his official position to punish Sh Ashish Vajpayee for not
acceding to his tout. Testimony of Bhagwan Saini is attached as P/4.
2nd
proof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh.
Sh Darshan Singh ASJ has deliberately lied at page 23
with intent to mislead and deceive. He has manipulated the statement of PW 17-
Avinash Saini. He has dishonestly untruthfully concealed to mislead the reader
the actual testimony of Avinash Saini is:- copy of his statement is attached as
P/5.
“I
did not verify the antecedents of Bhagwan Saini about his occupation and
financial position. I did not verify
in my investigation as to what Bhagwan Saini was actually doing for earning his
livelihood. .. I have not verified
the fact that whether Bhagwan Saini was financially sound to pay the remaining
sale price. I did not verify the
bank accounts of Bhagwan Saini to ascertain the balance therein. I cannot say that there had been never
even a balance of Rs.1 lac in his bank accounts as I had not inspected his bank accounts ... did not verify that Bhagwan Saini had stage managed a drama for
keeping the bid and for projecting the bid money without having any financial
position to purchase the unit. .. I have
not investigated the case from the angle that in fact Bhagwan Saini the other
bidder had played the fraud with the system and had given the bid without
having the requisite money to purchase the unit and also lodged the false claim
before the Hon'ble High court. …. “It
is correct that as per the rules it is the duty of the official liquidator to
obtain maximum amount for sale of the assets of the unit. It is correct that if accused Ashish Vajpayee could not have brought
to the notice of the Hon'ble High court about the higher bid the bid of Rs.1.27
crore would have been confirmed by the Hon'ble H.C. .. It is correct that
accused Ashish Vajpayee had acted as per the rules and regulations of the
department, .. I had not even came to know about the order dated 4.6.08
after filing of the challan. This order has been shown to me today in the court
by the learned defence counsel.” EX D 13. …Accused
official liquidator had made the efforts and as a result of that the bid of
Rs.1.27 crore has increased to Rs.1.75 crore in the Hon'ble High court” …
The above testimony demolishes the entire
investigation and supports A-1. Hence the Judge has lied about the testimony of
Avinash Saini at page 23 of his order. Lies by a judge in his order tantamount
to criminal misconduct involving moral turpitude, abuse of official position
and abuse of court. The judge has lied in his order to give a false impression
to a reader to derive pecuniary benefit.
3ndproof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh
Sh Darshan Singh ASJ has deliberately
lied at page 23 with intent to mislead and deceive. He has manipulated the
statement of PW 17- Avinash Saini. He has untruthfully concealed to mislead the
reader about collusion of A-1. A-2. IO Avinash Saini stated:-
“I have also investigated the
allegations concerning sale of assets of M/s sun Fill oil Pvt. Ltd. Village
Masana, G.T. Road Kurukshetra, against the accused. In the course of that
investigation was found that accused Satish Chaudhary was the highest bidder
for the purchase of that unit for the bid of Rs.2.55 crore. It was also
revealed during the investigation that Markendeshwar Education Society has
offered Rs.50 thousand more over the bid of accused Satish Chaudhary after the
close of the bid and the bid of the Satish Chaudhary was stayed by the Hon'ble
High Court. It is correct that accused Ashish
Vajpayee has recommended for cancellation of bid of Satish Chaudhary and for
confirming the bid in favour of Markendeshwar Education Society.”
The above testimony demolishes alleged
collusion between Ashish Vajpayee and Satish Choudhary. The Judge has lied
about the testimony of Avinash Saini at page 23 of his order. Lies by a judge
in his order tantamount to criminal misconduct involving moral turpitude, abuse
of hi official position and abuse of court. The judge has lied in his order to
give a false impression to a reader. Testimony of IO Avinash Saini is P/5.
4thproof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh
Sh Darshan Singh has untruthfully
mentioned the order of High Court of HP Dt 7.7.2005 at page 49-50 of his order.
He has deliberately lied with intent to mislead and deceive. He has
deliberately concealed that part of the order which is pari materia. He has
indulged in deception to mislead the reader. In the order of High Court Dt
7.7.05, it is recorded;-
“Mr Bhagwan Saini states that assets of
the Company may be sold to Mr Satish Chaudhary and money deposited by him be
refunded alongwith interest accrued thereupon”
…..
The statement was accepted and the
Court ordered;- “Amount of Rs 48.00 lacs which has been deposited by Mr.
Bhagwan Saini shall be refunded to him along with interest which may have
accrued on this amount immediately after one week from today.”
The above part of the order coupled with
the action of Bhagwan Saini to withdraw his earnest money precludes any offer
to be made to Bhagwan Saini. The Judge has lied at page 49-50 of his order
about the Order of High Court of H P Dt 7.7.05. Lies by a judge in his order
tantamount to criminal misconduct involving moral turpitude, abuse of official
position and abuse of court. The judge lied in his order to give a false
impression to a reader with intent to derive pecuniary benefit. Copy of High
Court order is P/6.
5thproof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh
The judge has lied in para 52 of the
order to state that it is a practice to receive payments in cash in government
departments. I have yet to see even a single department which receives payment
of 1.00 crore in cash, neither it has ever been done in office of Official
liquidator. Again payment is insisted in DDs where on receipt of DDs
consideration is parted with. On receipt of cheques no consideration was parted
with.
6thproof of abuse of court/Judicial/criminal misconduct by Darshan Singh
Sh Darshan Singh
ASJ has deliberately lied at page 48-49 of the order with intent to mislead and
deceive. He has indulged in large scale deception and in blatant abuse of court
he has intentionally concealed the evidence that on 2.5.2005, Sh Bhagwan Saini
had sold the property to Sh Ram Kumar for Rs 1.39 Crores. Demand drafts of
earnest money bearing SBOP draft No 736235 & 736214 both Dt 20.5.2005 DW
6/1-4, PNB Nalagarh Draft No 806977
& 806998 Dt 19.5.2005 & Dt 20.5.2005 for Rs 5,00,000/- and Rs
2,00,000/- DW 5/1-7, PNB Baddi drafts No 965824, 414653 & 414654 Dt
19.5.2005 & Dt 20.5.2005 for Rs 6,00,000/- and Rs 1,00,000/-, DW7/1-7, PNB
Chandimandir Draft No 52516 Dt 19.5.2005
DW 1/1-3 received by Bhagwan Saini (seller) from Sh Ram Kumar (purchaser) are
deposited by Bhagwan Saini with the HPSIDC/ High Court vide Exhibit PW14/9.
Same drafts Numbers are tendered by HPSIDC to official Liquidator. Statement of
Bhagwan Saini :- PW 15 – “We have sold this unit privately after 2/3 days of
the Bid to said Sh Ram Kumar and a written agreement was reduced into writing.” (Agreement to sell is only for Rs
139.0 lacs is attached as P/7).
If this single
evidence was mentioned in the order, the outcome would have been different. ASJ
Sh Darshan Singh has indulged in wholesale fabrication of evidence to draw the
conclusions unwarranted by evidence.
7th
proof of abuse of court/criminal conspiracy by Darshan Singh ASJ;-
That Sh P K Dogra & Sh Negi PP for
CBI had also stated to ASJ Darshan Singh that Ashish Vajpayee is a moneyed
person. His family owns 15 acres of land in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. His wife had
purchased property worth seventy lacs and owns gas agency. We failed to
understand relevance of this argument to case or why a stranger (tout) had
approached us. We could draw the conclusion only after the reading the
judgment. Another proof of criminal conspiracy, blatant abuse of court is not
recording statement of counsel as made in court. On arguments on sentence PP
argued that huge loss has been caused to state as per his statement contained
in para 4 at page 72. I had referred to statement of witnesses as below and
contended that these is no loss but
gain of fifty lacs;-
Statement of IO Avinash Saini PW 16;-
“It is correct that as per the rules it is the duty of the official liquidator
to obtain maximum amount for sale of the assets of the unit. It is correct that if accused Ashish
Vajpayee could not have brought to the notice of the Hon'ble High court about
the higher bid the bid of Rs.1.27 crore would have been confirmed by the
Hon'ble H.C. .. It is correct that accused Ashish Vajpayee had acted as per the
rules and regulations of the department, ..
Statement of PW 14 Sh Chetan Sharma;-
“It is correct that if the Official Liquidator would not have moved the
petition for the higher bid before the Hon'ble HP High Court the auction of
Bhagwan Saini of Rs.127 lacs may have been confirmed by the Hon'ble HP High
Court.”
Statement of Bhagwan Saini PW 15:- ”in
the year 2005-2006. It was not even
possible by adding the agriculture income of my father and brother to pay the
auction money in those days.”
The judge dishonestly with intent to
derive pecuniary benefit refused to record my statement and PP himself dictated
the answer.
Similarly Material evidence and
arguments have not been discussed in the order. We understand that whenever
demands are not met, material part of judgment is written by PP P K Dogra which
is delivered at home of judge in form of pen drive.
It is therefore prayed that a case for
criminal / Judicial misconduct, abuse of court/ moral turpitude, misuse of
official position with intent to derive pecuniary benefit be registered against
accused Darshan Singh ASJ Special Judge CBI, Chandigarh and he be tried and convicted
in accordance with law.
6th March 2010 K
D Aggarwal
Advocate
No comments:
Post a Comment