The seriousness of the offenses and the appellant's repeated similar convictions were key factors in the court's decision to dismiss the appeal for suspension of sentence.

ANU MALHOTRA, J.

Crl. M. (Bail) 73/2018

1. The appellant/applicant seeks grant of interim suspension of the sentence imposed on him vide order on sentence dated 04.01.2018 of the learned Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03, (North West District), Rohini Courts, Delhi in case no. CBI-102/2016 CNR no. DLNW-01-000070-2006 whereby the appellant/applicant vide the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2017 was convicted for the commission of the offences punishable

under Sections 419/468/471 as well as 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to 3 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh for offence punishable under Section 15 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of the payment of fine, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment;

was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.2 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment;

was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs.2 lakhs for the offence punishable under Section under Sections 468/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 1 year of Simple Imprisonment. The appellant has been in custody for a period of four months and two days.

2. The period of detention undergone by the appellant was directed to be set off in terms of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. At the outset, it is essential to observe that vide the impugned judgment, six accused persons including the appellant were convicted with two other co-accused Sunanda Malik and Gokul Singh Bisht having been acquitted. The appellant who was on bail as reflected vide order dated 22.12.2017 of the Trial Court during the trial was taken into custody on 22.12.2017 along with the co-convicts Gokul Chand Aggarwal, P.K. Thirwani, Faiz Mohammad, U.S. Bhatnagar and N.S. Khatri. The accused Maan Singh has expired.

4. The status report of the State was submitted pursuant to the orders of this Court dated 02.08.2015. The CBI submits that it had conducted a thorough investigation in the matter of 135 Co-operative Group Housing Societies involved in a scam of getting land allotted to them at pre determined rates and not on the basis of market value of the land and that ‘The Service Officers CGHS’, being one of such CGHS, was also enquired into along with other societies. A PE 3(E)/05/EOW-1/DLI is stated to have been registered against six societies including the Service Officer Co-operative Group Housing Society (CGHS) on 06.08.2005 by CBI/EOW-1/DLI. On the basis of the enquiry report, the present case no. RC: 09(S)/05/SCB-II/ND was registered against Gokul Chand Aggarwal, Narayan Diwakar, the appellant herein and 10 other accused persons. The accused persons are thus alleged to have conspired to set a defunct society revived so that the land be allotted to it, at commercial rates and they may make money by selling membership of the society.

5. The allegations levelled against the appellant were to the effect that he was the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (RCS) and along with some officers of the RCS abused their official positions and, in collusion with Gokul Chand Aggarwal and others, fraudulently revived the Service Officers (CGHS) on the basis of forged and false documents without proper enquiry/verification and recommended the case for allotment of land to the DDA.

6. The Service Officers Group Housing Society was registered with the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 23.11.1973 vide registration no. 162-H, with the address as C/o Major T.S. Sethi, Kashmir House, DHQ, New Delhi and remained dys-functional for several years and was ordered to be wound up vide order 2007/2118 dated 16.05.1979 passed by the then Dy. Registrar, C