Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Jagmohan Sharma Etc. on 26 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI03, (NORTHWEST DISTRICT), ROHINI COURTS:DELHI Case No. CBI87/2016 CNR No. DLNW010000862007 CBI Vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. FIR No. RC2 (A)/2005/CBI/ACUIV/N. Delhi U/s 120B/201/420/467/468/471 IPC Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 CBI Vs. 1. Jagmohan Sharma S/o Late Sh. O.P. Sharma R/o 208AII, Panchkuin Road, Railway Officers Flat, New Delhi. 2. Subhash Rohilla S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh R/o House No.700, Gali No.8, Brahma Nagar, Hanshi Road, Karnal (HR) 3. Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Ratan Singh R/o Quarter No.1, Block No. 226, Railway Colony, Jind Jn. 4. Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Bhikhram R/o H.No.99, Ward No.7, Sunder Nagar, Narwana Road, Patiala Chowk, Jind CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 1 of 255 5. Vishnu Bhagwan S/o Sh. H.C. Khandelwal R/o 23/8, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. Also At H.No.687, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. 6. Soran Singh S/o Sh. Kunwar Pal Singh R/o Village & PO Bhambhori, Distt. Meerut 7. S.K. Singhal S/o Sh. K.C. Singhal R/o 128, Panchwati Colony, GT Road, Ghaziabad (UP) 8. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam Singh R/o H.No.683, Gali No.7, Braham Nagar, Hanshi Road, Karnal 9. Harbhajan Singh (Expired) S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh C/o Smt. Premo Devi, Chalish (40) Quarter, Railway Colony, Jind 10. Sukhdev S/o Sh. Kartara R/o Village & PO Narwana, Distt. Jind CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 2 of 255 11. Ram Ratan (Expired) S/o Sh. Dwarka O/o Sr. Section Engineer (Works) NR Sangrur (Punjab) 12. Ganga Ram S/o Sh. Ram Singh R/o H.No. 219, Gali No.5, Sat Kartar Colony, Near Disposal Pump, Panipat Also At V&PO Madana, Distt. Panipat (HR) 13. Smt. Rajpati W/o Late Sh. Om Prakash R/o H.No.29/763, Idgah Colony, Model Town, Panipat 14. Jangir Singh (Expired) S/o Late Sh. Nikka Singh R/o Gupta Colony, Tohana Distt., Fatehabad, (HR) 15. Km. Sita D/o Late Pancham R/o 8/49, Pakki Sarai, Ambala Cantt (HR) 16. Smt. Sarla Devi W/o Late Sh. Chandrabhan R/o H.No.T80 B, Railway Colony Near Goods Shed, Railwa, Panipat CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 3 of 255 17. Sube Singh S/o Sh. Sheo Chand Mohalla Kachhigarhi, Rohtak. 18. Smt. Mammu (Expired) W/o Late Sh. Chandgi Ram T25, H, Railway Colony, Rohtak. 19. Gordhan S/o Late Sh. Jot Ram R/o VPO Goli, Distt. Karnal 20. Pratap Singh S/o Late Sh. Chandgi Ram R/o VPO Goli, Distt. Karnal 21. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Sh. Satbir R/o H. No. 112 Ward no. 6, Balmiki Mohalla, Gannuar, Distt. Sonipat 22. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Khazan Singh R/o H. No. 239, Ward No. 7, Balmiki Mohalla, Pradhanwasa, Gannuar, Distt. Sonipat 23. Smt. Reshma Devi W/o Late Sh. Bali Ram R/o Saurgaur Basti, Jakhauli Adda, Kaithal CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 4 of 255 24. Smt. Khazani W/o Late Sh. Dhari R/o VPO Ahirka, Distt. Jind 25. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma W/o Late Sh. D.K. Sharma R/o 31/4, Balkeshwar Colony, Agra 26. Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Late Sh. Jagdish R/o Harijan Basti, Jakhal Mandi, Distt. Fatehabad 27. Smt. Sajna (Expired) W/o Late Sh. Ran Singh R/o Nayak Basti, Jakhal Mandi, Distt. Fatehabad 28. Smt. Santosh Rani W/o Late Sh. Khanda Ram R/o VPO Siwan, Distt. Kaithal. 29. Jagat Ram (Expired) S/o Sh. Sheo Lal R/o VPO Kinana, Distt. Jind. 30. Smt. Ram Kali W/o Late Baru R/o H.No.178, Ward No.14, Furlok Colony, Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 5 of 255 31. Smt. Mindro @ Mahindro W/o Late Ishwar Das R/o V&PO Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal 32. Smt. Kasturi Devi W/o Late Sukhbir Singh R/o H.No.108, Mohalla Kasaiwala Near Jeetpal Mandir, Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal 33. Smt. Shobha W/o Sh. Suresh Kumar R/o Indra Colony, Tohana Road, Narwana, Jind 34. Ratti Ram (Expired) S/o Sh. Maman R/o VPO Bambhori, Distt. Hissar 35. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Nand Lal R/o Railway Colony, Barwala, Distt. Hissar 36. Smt. Murti Devi W/o Late Jai Bhagwan R/o V&PO Kohand, Distt. Karnal 37. Smt. Asharfi Devi (Expired) W/o Late Lakhpat R/o C215, Sector11, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 6 of 255 38. Surja Ram (Expired) S/o Nayadar R/o Ward No.2, Balmiki Mohalla, Jakhal Mandi, Fatehabad 39. Smt. Premo Devi W/o Late Om Prakash R/o Chalis (40) Quarter, Railway Colony, Jind 40. Smt. Bhuri W/o Late Mohar Singh R/o School Road, Ward No.3, Jakhal Mandi, Distt. Fatehabad 41. Smt. Bharpai Devi (Expired) W/o Late Ram Chander R/o Ram Nagar Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad (HR) 42. Smt. Rani W/o Late Mangal R/o Chamela Colony, Narwana, Distt. Jind 43. Smt. Krishna Devi W/o Late Mammu Ram R/o Village Kaul, Mohalla Balmiki, Distt. Kaithal 44. Ajmer Singh (Expired) S/o Late Santa Singh R/o Vill & PO Bhalwan, Distt. Sangrur CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 7 of 255 45. Smt. Raj (Expired) W/o Late Ashok R/o Gurudwara Basti, Jakhal, Distt Fatehabad. 46. Smt. Maya Devi (Expired) W/o Late Banta Ram R/o Gurudwara Basti, Jakhal Distt, Fatehabad (HR) 47. Smt. Neelam W/o Late Balbir R/o H.No. 153, Gurudwara Basti, Jakhal Distt. Fatehabad (HR) 48. Smt. Amar Devi (Expired) W/o Late Bahadur Singh R/o 2976A, Sadar Bazar, Ambedkar Nagar, Karnal (HR) 49. Jai Singh S/o Late Gyasan R/o Mohalla Pradhanwas Ward No.7, Gannuar Distt. Sonipat 50. Smt. Madho Devi W/o Late Ram Saran R/o Ward No.5, Mirdha Patti, Narwana, Distt. Jind CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 8 of 255 51. Smt. Darshana Devi W/o Late Rajinder Prasad R/o Mohalla Balmiki Nagar, Bareta Distt., Mansa (Punjab) 52. Smt. Bhuri (Expired) W/o Late Surta Singh R/o Village & PO Kahangarh, Distt. Mansa (Punjab) 53. Smt. Birma Devi W/o Late Dharam Singh R/o Tower Colony, Railway Station Jind 54. Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Babu Ram R/o Purani Sabzi Mandi, Tower No.2, Jind 55. Hari Ram S/o Ram Chander R/o Ramrai Gate, Jind. 56. Sant Lal S/o Shyam Lal R/o Roop Nagar, TV Tower, Jind 57. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ranjit Sharma R/o 199, Panchwati Colony, Ghaziabad And 31/4, Balkeshwar Colony, Agra. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 9 of 255 58. Dilbag S/o Om Prakash R/o Nai Basti near Chalis Quarter, Railway Colony, Jind 59. Mohan Giri S/o Kaloo Ram R/o Village & PO Kohand, Distt. Karnal 60. Shashi Bhushan S/o Raghuvir Singh R/o Ravidas Road, Near Amar Bhawan Chowk, Panipat 61. Ram Kumar S/o Manphool R/o Village Kishanpura, Distt. Jind Date of institution of the case 31.08.2007 Date on which, case has been 31.08.2007 received in this court Arguments concluded on 24.02.2018 Date of pronouncement of judgment 26.04.2018 JUDGEMENT:
Indian Railways provides pensionary benefits to its employees or their dependents under various schemes. Pensions being given by it are categorized as CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 10 of 255 under: I) Invalid Pension II) Family Pension III) Pension on Superannuation Invalid pension is meant for railway employees, who are declared unfit by the medical board for service, on account of any bodily or mental disability. This scheme is governed by Rule 55 of The Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993.
Family pension has been described in Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 and is provided under Family Pension Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964. It is regulated through Board's letter No. F(P)63 PN1/40 dated 02.01.1964 which has been incorporated in Rule 75 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993.
Pension is granted to permanent Railway employees on their retirement after attaining age of superannuation. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, issued a circular No. 4/1/87P&PW(PIC) on 30.06.1988 introduced a scheme called exgratia payments. According to this circular, railway employees who had subscribed to the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and had completed 20 years of service, prior to their retirement were entitled for exgratia payment of Rs.150 per month, with admissible dearness allowances. This payment was to be made from 01.01.1986, irrespective of their actual date of retirement. In case an employee was not alive, the exgratia payment was to be made to the spouse/dependent children of CPF beneficiary. Said amount of Rs.150 per month was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 11 of 255 enhanced to Rs.600/ per month, w.e.f. 01.11.1997, on the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission.
On the basis of its source information, CBI registered FIR in this case on 14.02.2005 for offences punishable under section 120B read with Section 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, the then Assistant Divisional Finance Manager (ADFM), Northern Railway, Delhi Division, Sh. V.K. Sharma (since died), the then Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Sh. Subhash Rohilla, Accounts Assistant, Northern Railway, Delhi Division, Sh. Kalu Ram, FitterI and Sh. Jagdish Rai, FitterIII, working in the office of Coaching Depot Officer (CDO), Northern Railway, Jind, Haryana on the allegation that aforesaid officers of Indian Railways hatched a conspiracy with each other as well as some other persons and illegally issued pension payment orders in favour of 52 ineligible persons, causing a loss to the tune of Rs.1.15 crores to the Government of India and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves, as well as some other persons.
After investigation, I.O. came to conclusion that accused namely Subhash Rohilla hatched a conspiracy with Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Junior Accounts Assistant, Sh. Sohan Singh, Accounts Assistant, Sh. S.K. Singhal, Sr. Section Officer apart from Sh. Jagmohan Sharma etc for providing pensions (exgratia, family pension or invalid pension) in favour of 52 persons, who were not eligible to get any pension. Sh. Subhash Rohilla was alleged to have got prepared stamps having impression of (I) Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Rly., New Delhi, (ii) CC/N. Rly/JHI, (iii) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 12 of 255 SSE/DSL/N. Rly. TKD, (iv) AME, Mechanical, DRM office, New Delhi, (v) AME, Electrical, DRM office, New Delhi and (vi) Sr. Section Engineer (TL) New Delhi from Shri Pawan Kumar having shop named as M/s G.D. Dhingra at Panipat through Shri Shashi Bhushan, Sr. Clerk o/O Sr. Crew Controller, N. Rly, Panipat. The former (Shri Subhash Rohilla) used these stamps on the pension papers and himself signed as Kapoor Singh, on the seal of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Rly., New Delhi. Similarly, same (Subhash Rohilla) initialed (signed) on the impressions of other seals, applied on the false and forged pension papers of the pensioners.
IO also found that procedure as was prescribed by law for sanction of pension was not followed. Pension papers were neither forwarded by the concerned Controlling Officers nor same were sanctioned by the competent authority. The files were not processed through the office of DPO/Settlement to Office of DFM (Pension), New Delhi for vetting and issuing Pension Payment Orders (PPOs), Pension Payment Advices (PPAs) and Revised Pension Payment Advice, as were required by rules.
Index Ledgers were used for entering details of settlement files in the pension section. Sh. Subhash Rohilla, in collusion with coaccused Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh, entered details of forged files in the index ledgers relating to Family Pension or Invalid Pension. In respect of exgratia pension cases, they entered details of forged files in fresh PPO Ledgers maintained for entering the details of fresh pension cases. In some cases, no such entry was made either in index ledger or fresh PPO Ledger.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 13 of 255In the index ledger, the applications/files were shown to be allotted to some Accounts Assistants namely Sh. B.K. Buta, Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sh. R.P. Mathur and Smt. Asha Rani etc. for processing, but inspite of being processed by aforementioned Accounts Assistants, same were processed by accused Subhash Rohilla himself. Said accused (Subhash Rohilla) dishonestly and fraudulently gave inputs in datasheets in 52 cases on the basis of forged files, in connivance with Sh. S.K. Singhal, Senior Section Officer, Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Junior Accounts Assistant and Sh. Soran Singh, Accounts Assistant and deposited the same in Electronic Data Processing and Management (EPDM) Centre, Baroda House, New Delhi. On the basis of inputs brought by Sh. Subhash Rohilla, Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan and Sh. Soran Singh, the PPOs/PPAs and Revised PPAs were printed. In some cases Sh. Subhash Rohilla manually prepared Pension Payment Orders and Calculation Sheets. After printing PPOs, PPAs and Revised PPAs from EDPM Centre, the files alongwith printed PPOs etc. were put up before Sh. Jagmohan Sharma (accused), who without lawful authority signed on all printed PPOs, PPAs and Revised PPAs by affixing seal of Senior Division Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi having no authority to do so. As per procedure, only DFM (Pension) and DFM (Admin.) were authorised to sign PPOs, PPAs and Revised PPAs.
After signatures of Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, PPOs/PPAs were sent to Sh. V.K. Sharma (since died), the then Senior Accounts Officer (Pension), Northern Railway, who countersigned the same. Bank copies of PPOs/PPAs were sent back to the Office of Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Delhi Division. Some of revised PPAs were CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 14 of 255 prepared by Sh. Subhash Rohilla himself which were got countersigned by late Sh. V.K. Sharma. After signatures of Sh. V.K. Sharma, PPOs/PPAs were sent to bank by accused Subhash Rohilla. The bank credited the payment in the account of beneficiaries from where the amounts were withdrawn.
Similarly, exgratia pensions in the name of Smt. Mithlesh Sharma, Smt. Ramkali, Smt. Mindro, Smt. Kasturi Devi, Smt. Bharpai Devi and Smt. Birma Devi were fraudulently prepared by Sh. Subhash Rohilla. Entries about these files were made by said accused in the index ledger. Same were put to Sh. Jagmohan Sharma who countersigned the same. After getting signatures of late Sh. V.K. Sharma, Senior Accounts Officer, the bank copies of PPAs were sent to Service Branch of bank concerned. Accused Subhash Rohilla fraudulently mentioned that pensioners were authorized to exgratia pension and competent authority had sanctioned family pensions in their names, however, none from said beneficiaries was entitled to get pension, as per rules.
IO also came to conclusion that Sh. Kalu Ram, Jagdish Rai, Haribhajan Singh, Ram Rattan, Smt. Birma Devi, Hari Ram, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and Mohan Giri who were employees of Indian Railways, acted as middlemen for accused Subhash Rohilla. They helped in bringing the beneficiaries to the terms and got hafty amounts. Accused Naresh Kumar was indulged in filling up pension formats for several beneficiaries, after getting his share in booty.
According to IO, Sh. S.K. Singhal was immediate supervisor of Sh. Subhash Rohilla, Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan and Sh. Soran Singh. Shri Vishnu Bhagwan and Sh.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 15 of 255Soran Singh were assigned the work of sending record files of pension cases to the record room of pension section, but these files were not made available to DFM (Pension) rather the files were destroyed deliberately. By preparing false family pensions, the accused got pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.1,34,11,421.
Vide order dated 12.11.2009, this Court found prima facie case against 55 accused persons (except six namely Harbhajan Singh, Ram Rattan, Jangir Singh, Smt. Sajna, Sh. Ratti Ram and Smt. Bharpai Devi, who had expired till then) for offences of causing illegal act by illegal means between 01.02.2002 to 31.07.2004 in Delhi and some other places, by entering into a criminal conspiracy, due to which accused who are public servants signed 52 PPO's/Revised PPA's on the basis of forged documents, without forwarding the same to concerned Controlling Officers and without getting signed by competent authorities, which was against pension schemes, all punishable under section 120B r/w Section 201/420/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of The P.C. Act. Accused Jagmohan Sharma was charged further for offences punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act nd u/s 420 of IPC. Accused Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan, Soran Singh and accused S.K. Singhal were further charged for offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1(d) of The PC Act as well as under section 420/468/471/201 IPC. Accused Naresh Kumar was again charged for offences punishable u/s 420/468/471 IPC. Further accused Kalu Ram, Sukhdev, Jagdish Rai, Smt. Raj, Hari Ram, Sant Lal, Kamlesh Kr. Sharma, Shashi Bhushan, Dilbagh, Mohan Giri, Ganga Ram, Smt. Rajpati, Kumri Sita, Smt. Sarla Devi, Sube Singh, Smt. Mamoo, Gordhan, Pratap Singh, Smt. Krishna Devi W/O Late CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 16 of 255 Satbir, Suresh Kumar, Smt. Reshma Devi, Smt. Khazani, Smt. Mithilesh Sharma, Smt. Kanta Devi, Smt. Santosh Rani, Jagat Ram, Smt. Ram Kali, Smt. Mindro @ Mahinder, Smt. Kasturi Devi, Smt. Shobha, Smt. Krishna Devi W/O Lt. Nand Lal, Smt. Murti Devi, Smt. Asharfi Devi, Surja Ram, Smt. Premo Devi, Smt. Bhuri W/O Lt. Mohar Singh, Smt. Rani, Smt. Krishna Devi W/O Mammu, Ajmer Singh, Smt. Raj, Smt. Maya Devi, Smt. Neelam, Smt. Amar Devi, Jai Singh, Smt. Madho Devi, Smt. Darshana Devi, Smt. Bhuri W/O Lt. Surta Singh, Smt. Birma Devi, Smt. Shanti Devi and Ram Kumar were also charged for offence punishable under section 420 IPC. Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Nand Lal was also charged again for offences punishable u/s 120 B IPC r/w section 201/420/468/471 IPC r/w section 13 (2) and r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The PC Act.
During trial, following accused persons expired and proceedings against these accused were abated, on dates mentioned below Serial No. Name of Accused Date of Death/Proceedings Abated 18 Smt. Mammu 17.01.2014 29 Jagat Ram 08.03.2011 37 Asharfi Devi 01.10.2011 38 Surja Ram 31.05.2013 44 Ajmer Singh 30.11.2017 45 Smt. Raj 23.08.2013 46 Smt. Maya Devi 08.09.2010 48 Smt. Amer Devi 02.11.2011 52 Smt. Bhuri 31.05.2016 CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 17 of 255 In order to bring home its case, prosecution/CBI examined 139 witnesses. The accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC denied incriminating evidence put to them, alleging the same as false. Accused Jagmohan Sharma claimed that he had joined as ADFM on 01.9.2000. There were two DFMs and two ADFMs at that time under Sr. DFM, New Delhi, who were over all incharge of the office. All the said four officers were given area /charge of the work, which were changed by Sr. DFM/NDLS from time to time. There was no batchmate arrangements amongst officers and all used to lookafter the work of each other as and when need used to arise, due to one being busy in some important work, union /association meetings, on leave or meetings with other departments. The only four officers i.e ADFM/DFM used to dispose of entire day to day work, as there was heavy load of work and the ADFMs being the junior officers were also required to lookafter the work of Sr. Officers i.e DFMS, on routine basis as per the practice followed in the office before his joining the office. He had mentioned this fact in all his Confidential reports (CRs) during his posting in the said department, which were reviewed and accepted by the authorities. He was given very good/ outstanding remarks due to his good performance. On coming to know about registration of this case, his seniors in the office connived with the IO and got him falsely implicated in this case, to make him scape goat in order to save their own skin. During his posting from year 2000 to 2004, he had done 192 cases of pensions and he had forwarded the said cases to HQ/ Pension, which were acknowledged and were countersigned by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 18 of 255 SAO/Pension. The inputs prepared by the Pension Section of Delhi Division and signed by Section Officer in two copies used to be sent to Sr. EDPM Centre for printing of PPOs/PPAs in six copies. The same were checked by staff and Section Officer. When ensured in order, placed before DFM/ADFM for signatures. Cases were sent by Pension Section (Delhi Division) to HQ (SAO Pension ) for counter signatures of SAO /Pension. After counter signatures, the cases were received back by Pension Section (Delhi Division) and never put up again to DFM/ADFMs and directly sent to bank (main branch). In revised cases, revised PPAs were tallied/verified by the bank with old cases /record and sent to Disbursing Branch. In these cases too, he had signed as ADFM /DLI on all PPOs/ PPAs and there was no hand written entries on them at that time. This fact is also confirmed from 23 record copies received by the CBI from Deputy CAO/Pension (HQ Baroda House). It is clear from the record that the handwritten entries were made after signature of ADFM (Delhi Division) and counter signature of SAO / Pension and this is the reason that all 23 record copies do not have hand written entries. After counter signature cases were dealt with by pension section and not at the end of DFM/ADFM. His signatures were accepted by the SAO/ Pension as he was the only authority, for counter signatures on PPOs/PPAs at Northern Railways, Delhi that is why he had put his signatures as SAO/Pension otherwise he would have sent the papers back to Delhi Division, with objections in this regard. He was authorized to sign the PPOs/PPAs.
Accused Subhash Rohilla stated that he was conversant with the pension rules and regulations and hence he was given the work of other staff, to reduce the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 19 of 255 workload of pension section regarding pending & old cases. He handled those cases obediently and without any adverse remarks from his superiors including Jagmohan Sharma, the then DFM, Sr. DFM and SAO (Pension). Even after rejoining of his duty on 05.12.2016, his superiors did not give him any displeasure memo etc. According to accused Kalu Ram, he neither helped anyone, for their pension nor he had received any amount from anyone, as alleged. The FDR which was recovered by the IO, was got prepared by him (accused), after receiving a loan from the N.Z.R.C.T cooperative society. The cheque issued by the society was deposited in his bank account and through it, he got prepared an FDR of Rs.76,000/ in his name.
Accused Jagdish Rai replied that he has got made his mother's pension from railway department as his father was also working with Indian railways. A false case was registered against him and his mother at Jind Haryana. They are acquitted by Ld. CJM, Jind. Present case is a false case. He did not commit any offence, as alleged.
Accused Vishnu Bhagwan told this Court that he did nothing wrong or illegal, while working in pension section. He has been falsely implicated in this case by CBI. As per duty roaster, task of receiving the files in pension section as well as sending of files to record room of pension section, were assigned to him, however, as per practices prevalent in the pension section, prior to and during the relevant period, the files were used to be received by other dealing assistants as well and further the files were brought and taken to record room, by the Peon of pension section. The key of the record room used to remain with the Peon of the pension section namely Sh.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 20 of 255Surender Singh. It was he i.e. Surender Singh, who used to bring the files from the record room and take back the files to the record room, on the asking of concerned dealing clerks, of the pension section, who were processing the files. As per rules, the dealing clerks/accounts assistants were entitled for honorarium (overtime charges) for processing of each and every file relating to exgratia and pension revision. The statements and depositions of the witnesses of the prosecution, are absolutely false one, in view of the honorarium (overtime charges) claimed by them and received by them for processing those files. Those witnesses have deposed falsely to save their skin and to avoid the heat of their prosecution.
In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C accused Soran Singh told that he did not help anyone in getting pension etc. IO asked him to depose as a witness in this case but he denied being unaware of any such facts regarding the persons in dispute and thereafter he was made an accused in this case.
Accused Shiv Kumar Singhal stated that the file in question on the basis of which the present case was registered against him was never put before him. There were no signatures or endorsement made by him at any stage. He was immediate supervisor of Vishnu Bhagwan, Soran Singh and Subhash Rohilla. Subhash Rohilla remained under his supervision from March 2003 to 11 February 2004 only. As per duty list of Subhash Rohilla, he had to take care of only fresh pension cases and he needed to supervise only those fresh pension cases. All the pension cases involved in this case are of nature 'Revised Pension cases' which was not the duty of Subhash Rohilla. He (Subhash Rohilla) did not put any of the revised pension case to him. So, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 21 of 255 he (accused Shiv Kumar Singhal) was not aware of the Revised Pension cases. Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh directly received pension cases from settlement section of Personal Branch and entered these cases or make entries in the receipt register, directly and also distributed the cases to other staff of the pension section directly for scrutiny of cases. As per office procedure, Supervision of SSO is not involved in this matter of receipt register and records.
Accused Naresh Kumar also claimed that he did not help anyone in getting pension etc. Fivesix blank papers were got signed by the IO from him. He committed no offence, as alleged.
Accused Sukhdev stated that his brother namely Balwan Singh was working in the Railway Department, who expired on 26.10.1998. He was unmarried and his gratuity and other government benefits were lying with the Railway Department for which he was legally entitled to receive, after getting a Succession Certificate from the competent court. In case No. 34/SC dated 14.06.1999 vide order dated 04.02.2002, he received said amount.
As per accused Rajpati, pension was granted to her as per law. She has not committed any offence, as alleged. Her husband was working with the IW Kurukshehtra Railway Station for 14 years. He met with an accident, while coming from the duty. She applied for pension as well as for job on compassionate ground in 1996. Her application was lying pending with the settlement department. She was granted pension in the year 2002. An amount of Rs.78,000/ was lying in her bank account. IO of the case approached her in the year 2006 and directed her to withdraw CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 22 of 255 amount of Rs.40,000/ and as per his directions, she handed over said amount to him. IO never approached competent officer of the Railway Department, who had the correct particulars of the service of her husband nor he approached the Head of the Department, where her husband was in service.
Accused Sarla Devi also alleged that she has not committed any offence. Her husband was working in Railway Department for more than 20 years on a permanent job. He expired in year 1988 on duty and after six months of his death, she also got job on compassionate grounds.
Accused Sube Singh stated that he did not committ any offence, as alleged. He worked with Indian Railways as Khalasi/ Gangman since 1974 till 1990 at Rohtak. Pension granted to him by the Railway Department is genuine and correct.
As per accused Gordhan, he worked with Indian Railways from 1975 to 1992 as Electrician at Panipat, Rohtak & Gohana Railway Stations. He was granted pension by the Railway Department, which is genuine and correct. He has not committed any offence, as alleged.
Accused Pratap Singh also claimed that he had worked in Railway Department as Waterman. He was lastly posted at Panipat Railway Station. The pension granted to him by the Railway Department was correct and genuine, as he was eligible for it. He did not commit any offence, as alleged.
Accused Krishna Devi claimed that the present case is a false case against her. Her husband namely Satbir was working in the Railway Department, who expired on 06.02.1995, during his service.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 23 of 255It was reply of accused Reshma Devi that her husband was working in the Railway Department, who expired during his duty. She has not committed any offence, as alleged.
Accused Khazani Devi blamed prosecution witnesses having deposed falsely, just to prove the case of the CBI, as there is no departmental complaint/ vigilance complaint/ bank complaint against her for fraud. Even her name was not mentioned in the present FIR. She further stated that she is entitled for the pension due to death of her husband, who had worked as a Greaser (LF/Jind) in Indian Railway at Jind Railway Station. He expired on 19.05.1980, and after the death of her husband, she has annexed the relevant/genuine documents for releasing her family/ ex gratia pension.
According to accused Mithlesh Sharma, no witness has deposed against her. She has been cheated by accused Subhash Rohilla. He approached and told her that he would get her widow pension from the State Government, for which he took Rs.70,000/ as initial amount. Later on, she was informed by the prosecution that she was receiving railway pension to which she was never entitled, as her husband never worked in Indian Railways. She returned Rs.1,22,000/ to the IO in CBI office, during investigation on 20.04.2005 against signature of the IO. She is illiterate and a widow aged about 50 years. She always remained under bonafide belief that she was getting widow pension from the State government. Her husband never worked for Indian Railway and therefore, she was never entitled to family pension from the railways. She has become victim of Subhash Rohilla. She handed over an affidavit to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 24 of 255 the I.O. stating all these facts at the time of investigation, but after reading it, he returned the same to her. She applied for widow pension from the State government and now she has been receiving the same.
Accused Smt. Kanta Devi is also of opinion that the witnesses deposed against her, just to prove the case of CBI. There was no complaint against her for getting fraudulent pension. Even her name was not mentioned in the FIR. She is illiterate and entitled for the pension due to death of her husband Sh. Jagdish @ Jissa S/o Sh. Jila, who had worked as Gangman/ Scaled rated Khalasi under PW1/ ROK. He expired on 14.07.1993, so the account was opened for disbursing his pension in her name. She had exchanged various letters/ correspondence in this regard, with the DRM and Divisional Secretary, Divisional Personnel Officer Northern Railways etc. Harbhajan Singh Sidhu, Divisional Secretary responsed to her letter and sent a letter dated 25.08.2007 to Sr. DPO, DRM office, Northern Railways, New Delhi on the subject of appointment on compassionate ground to her son Amit Kumar Accused Santosh Rani told that her husband was working with Railways and he had expired on 24.10.1982 during his service period.
Accused Ram Kali, Mindro @ Mahindro and Kasturi Devi alleged that they have not committed any offence as alleged. Their husbands were working in the Railway Department. Ram Kali told further that she did not give any amount to anyone (middleman).
According to accused Shobha, she has not committed any offence as alleged. Her husband was working in the Railway Department for more than 20 years and he CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 25 of 255 was in permanent job with Railways.
Accused Krishna Devi stated that her husband Late Sh. Nand Lal worked with Railways as Gangman/Trackman and expired in the year 1990 during service. He was posted at Ukhlana, Hisar. The Pension granted to her by the Railways was genuine and she was entitled for the same. She has not committed any offence as alleged.
Accused Murti Devi told that she did not know accused Subhash Rohilla and that he did not help her in getting pension. Her pension was already fixed as her husband had served with Railways. She never paid any amount to any person for getting her pension. She never approached any of the accused persons. She never visited Baroda House at New Delhi or any other office of Railway Department in Delhi. Her husband died of snake bite. She never visited any Railway office and pension was granted to her in regular course. Nature of exgratia pension was explained to her by the IO. She simply designates any pension as simple pension only.
Accused Bhuri and Smt. Premo Claimed that their husbands worked in Railway Department and passed away during duty hours. As per Smt. Bhuri, her husband served Railways for more than 20 years. She had applied many times for grant of pension through Railwayman Union. She handed over death certificate and relevant documents of service record of her husband to the CBI.
Accused Rani stated that her husband was working in the Railway Department for about 22 years and lastly he was promoted as Pointman in Narwana. He was in permanent job with Railways.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 26 of 255Accused Krishna Devi, Madho Devi and Smt. Neelam stated that their husbands worked in Railway Department till their death.
Accused Jai Singh told that he worked with Railways for 2627 years and retired as Head Safaikaramchari from Jind Railway Station. The pension granted to him by the Railways is correct and genuine as he was eligible for the same. He has not committed any offence, as alleged.
Accused Darshna stated that her husband expired on 13.04.1986, while working as a Gangman in Railway Department. Lastly he was posted at Jakhal railway station. As per accused Birma Devi her husband was working in the Railway Department, who expired on duty.
Accused Shanti Devi stated that her husband was working in the Railway Department and lastly posted at Jakhal Railway Station. He expired on duty. Pension granted by the Railway Department is genuine and correct, as she was eligible for the same. She has not committed any offence as alleged.
Accused Hari Ram alleged that he did not help anyone for getting pension etc. He retired from railways in the year 2012. Present case is a false case against him. He has not committed any offence, as alleged.
Accused Kamlesh Kumar Sharma stated that he was working as Sr. Section Officer in Provident Fund Section of Indian Railways. He never worked with Subhash Rohilla, at any time, in pension section. Since, Mithlesh is wife of his deceased younger brother, she told him that she had been cheated by Subhash Rohilla, on the pretext of getting her widow pension by the state government but after she received CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 27 of 255 the summons from the office of CBI, she came to know that she had been getting widow pension from the Railways. In fact, his brother never worked for the Railways and she was not entitled to receive widow pension from the Railways. He introduced her in opening her bank account and witnessed the undertaking and life certificate of the bank under bona fide impression that she was getting widow pension from the state government. He never helped her or anybody else to get Railway pension. A false case has been made against him.
Accused Dilbag also claimed that he did not help anyone in getting pension etc. IO had asked him to depose as a witness in this case but he denied being unaware of any such fact. Thereafter, he was made an accused in this case. He was summoned as a witness in this case. Present is a false case against him. He has not committed any offence, as alleged.
Accused Shashi Bhushan stated that he neither took any money from any one to get pension nor introduced any person to any one. His signatures were obtained on blank papers.
Accused Ram Kumar claimed that he did not committ any offence as alleged. He had worked with Railways and pension issued to him by the Railway Department was on the basis of his genuine documents and service with the railways.
Accused Jagmohan Sharma examined Sh. Tika Singh and Sh. Rohit Jain in his defence as DW1 and DW2. Accused Kanta Devi examined one Sh. Ajay Kumar Azad as DW3 and herself as DW4. Accused Santosh Rani also examined herself as her own witness as DW5.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 28 of 255I heard Ld. Sr. PP representing CBI and also each of accused through his/her counsel.
44 persons/accused are blamed to have illgotten amount in the name of pension from Indian Railways as a result of criminal conspiracy among them as well as accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh etc., who were serving Indian Railways. Let this Court dwell upon the case of each of said beneficiaries, to determine if pension in their favour was granted legally or not.
Ganga Ram s/o Ram Singh (A12) Invalid pension was granted in favour of Sh. Ganga Ram vide PPO no. 0193020690. According to case of prosecution, accused Ganga Ram never worked in Indian Railways and hence was not entitled for any pension. Same was granted as a result of conspiracy amongst Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Ganga Ram himself. Application filed by Ganga Ram seeking pension was marked to Pooran Chand, another accounts assistant, but it was processed by Subhash Rohilla, with ill motive, who was also working as accounts assistant.
Prosecution examined Sh. Inder Kumar as PW53. It is deposed by the latter that in August 2004, he worked as Manager, PNB, G.T. Road, Panipat, Haryana. An account no. SB2086224 was opened in their bank by Ganga Ram s/o Ram Singh on 14.10.2003. Account Opening Form is Ex. PW53/A2 and Form no. 60 is Ex. PW53/A3. This witness verified a letter dated 29.03.2004 (Ex. PW47/A2) having been received in their bank through Main Branch. Alongwith said letter, the bank received PPO no. D/DLI/PTL/0193020690 pertaining to pension of Ganga Ram and CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 29 of 255 calculation sheet both dated 29.03.2004 as well as other pension papers for payment of arrears of pension to Ganga Ram. Said PPA is Ex. PW47/A3, calculation sheet is Ex. PW47/A4 and other pension papers is Ex. PW53/A4. Sh. Inder Kumar further verified statement of account in relation to aforesaid account belonging to Ganga Ram from 14.10.2003 to 18.12.2006 issued by him, which is Ex. PW53/A5. This witness further verified that certain amounts were withdrawn from this account by Ganga Ram through withdrawal slips, which are Ex. PW53/A7, Ex. PW53/A5 and Ex. PW53/A8.
During deliberations, accused Ganga Ram did not dispute that application for pension Ex. PW53/A4, statement of family members Ex. PW137/F3, letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW137/F4, declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits Ex. PW137/F5, form of permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW137/F6 were presented and signed by him. Even otherwise, Handwriting expert (Dr. Ravindra Sharma) PW113 in his report opined that all aforesaid documents were signed by accused Ganga Ram.
As per Ld. Sr. PP, during investigation IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of said Ganga Ram, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar.
Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report further verified that aforesaid documents were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar. Subhash Rohilla attested said application form etc. in the name of Kapoor Singh. Moreover, PPO mentioned above was prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and also signed by accused Jagmohan CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 30 of 255 Sharma.
If application for pension Ex. PW53/A4, statement of family members Ex. PW137/F3, withdrawal of pension from PNB Ex. PW137/F4, declaration of non receipt of pension Ex. PW137/F5 are taken as true, Ganga Ram in these documents claimed himself posted as MCM, Crew Controller, Jind. Similarly, in letter Ex. PW47/A2, stated to have been written to PNB, main branch, G.T Road, accused Ganga Ram has been mentioned as MCM. Prosecution examined Sh. Jagdish Lal as PW86. It is deposed by this witness that he remained posted in Crew Controller Office from from 30.11.2000 till 31.12.2007 as Senior Crew Controller Incharge. There was no post as MCM in the office of Crew Controller, Jind. No person in the name of Ganga Ram ever served as MCM in the office of Crew Controller, during his time. After seeing documents (D9 to D28), this witness told that information regarding posting of Ganga Ram as MCM was not forwarded by him to DRM Office. Such report is not genuine.
Sh. Ram Gopal Mishra, IO of this case, examined as PW137 deposed that during investigation he seized following documents A. Account opening form (Ex. PW53/A2) B. Form 60 (Ex. PW53/A3) C. Voter Icard of accused Ganga Ram (Ex. PW137/F2) D. PPO no. 0193020690 (Ex. PW47/A2) E. Revised PPA (Ex. PW47/A3) F. Calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/A4) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 31 of 255 G. Application for pension and gratuity (Ex. PW43/A4) H. Statement showing details of family members (Ex. PW57/F3) I. Undertaking given by Sh. Ganga Ram (Ex. PW137/F4) J. Declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW137/F3) I. Form of permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/F6) J. Specimen signature form of Ganga Ram (Ex. PW137/F7) K. Statement of account (Ex. PW53/A5) L. Passbook in the name of Ganga Ram (Ex. PW137/G1) Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) deposed that he worked as APO in Settlement Branch in Indian Railways. After seeing pension papers of Ganga Ram (D9 to D
28), it is deposed by this witness that these documents were never produced before him in the office of APO/Bills/Settlement, Delhi Division. Such papers were never forwarded by him. Signatures in the name of Sh. Kapoor Singh under the stamp of Sahayak Karmik Uttar Railways were forged. Moreover, there was no sanctioned post of MCM under CCGM.
Sh. Pooran Chand was examined as PW87. According to this witness, he worked as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager in DRM Office, New Delhi and from July 2003 to July 2007, he remained posted in pension section. His duty was to process pension case files received from settlement section and accounts department. Sh. Subhash Rohilla was serving as Accounts Assistant while Jagmohan Sharma was posted as Assistant Divisional Finance Manager (ADFM). This witness identified signatures of Jagmohan Sharma on documents D1019 to D1051, Pension Payment CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 32 of 255 Advice No. 0183020768 and also handwriting of accused Jagmohan Sharma on aforesaid documents. Similarly, according to this witness calculation sheet PW15/A2 was also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
According to Ld. Sr. PP, revised pension payment advice i.e. Ex. PW47/A3 is shown to have been prepared by Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension), Northern Railways, New Delhi, calculation sheet Ex. PW47/A4 is also shown to have been signed in the name of same officer i.e. Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension), both of these documents were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
From the report of Handwriting expert as well as from the deposition of Sh. Pooran Chand, it is clear that aforesaid documents were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma, showing himself as Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension) but said accused was not Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension).
According to IO, during investigation, he sent a letter to Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi, asking about some persons whether they were employed with Indian Railways or not. Divisional Railway Manager sent reply of his request/letter through letter Ex. PW91/B (D1106) and clarified that no person in the name of Ganga Ram was employed as MCM, CC Jind.
On the basis of evidence as discussed above, it is well proved that pension was provided in favour of accused Ganga Ram (A12) by Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, while Sh. Ganga Ram never served as MCM in the office of Crew Controller Jind. Facts of the case also show that all these accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla and CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 33 of 255 Jagmohan Sharma hatched a conspiracy with Ganga Ram.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Ganga Ram. There is no evidence at all to verify that said accused Naresh Kumar received any consideration from Ganga to fill up said documents. Nothing on record to suggest that he was implicated in any conspiracy with other accused. Simply to say that he filled up these documents is not enough to prove his involvement in any conspiracy. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Smt. Rajpati w/o late Sh. Om Prakash (A13) This is a case of exgratia pension. According to prosecution, husband of accused Rajpati namely Om Prakash served Indian Railways as a temporary employee. At the time of his death, he was serving as khalasi under LOW, Northern Railway, Kurukshetra. Sh. Subhash Rohilla in connivance with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma prepared pension documents, on the basis of which, Smt. Rajpati was able to get pension, despite the fact that a temporary employee like her husband was not entitled to exgratia pension. Sh. Rajpati filed application seeking pension, which was marked to Sh. R.P. Mathur by Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), but it was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, having no authority to do so.
Sh. Ashok Kumar Mahendru (PW9) told that he served as a Manager in PNB, Asand Road, Panipat Branch from June 2004 to July 2005. An account (saving) no. 10712 was opened in that branch in the name of Smt. Rajpati w/o late Sh. Om CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 34 of 255 Prakash. Account opening form is Ex. PW9/A, specimen signature card of Smt. Rajpati is Ex. PW9/A. A PPO No. D/DLI/PEN/0102020540 dated July 2002 (D50) was received in their branch through link branch. The pension was credited alongwith arrears on 09.09.2002. It continued to be received from September 2002 till 29.04.2005. PPA in this regard is Ex. PW9/A2 and calculation sheet received in their branch is Ex. PW9/A3 (D51). Other pension papers (D52 & D53) are Ex. PW9/A4 (Colly.). The letters dated 31.07.2002 for the grant of pension of Om Prakash (since deceased) given to accused Rajpati are Ex. PW9/A5 (Colly.) All of said papers were seized by the IO Sh. Ram Gopal Mishra vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/A6. PW9 further told that certain amounts were withdrawn from said account through 16 withdrawal slips (D34 to D49), which are Ex. PW9/A9 (Colly.).
Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137), the IO of the case, deposed on oath that during investigation he found that a letter dated 31.12.1988 (Ex. PW137/D2) was issued by Head Quarter, Northern Railways mentioning about grant of exgratia pension. Similarly, there was a circular Ex. PW70/C and rules framed by competent authority of Indian Railways (Ex. PW70/D) in this regard. Consolidated sum of Rs. 150/ was allowed to retired/deceased employees prior to 01.01.1996, who had rendered at least 20 years of continuous service, prior to their superannuation and that such employees would have drawn salary upto Rs. 500/ per month. Through circular (Ex. PW70/D) said amount of exgratia pension was enhanced to Rs. 600/ per month w.e.f. 01.11.1997.
Facts as disclosed by PW9 and IO (PW137), are not disputed on behalf of the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 35 of 255 accused Rajpati. Similarly, it is not the claim on behalf of said Smt. Rajpati that her husband served Indian Railways for 20 years or more continuously prior to his death/superannuation.
Sh. Virender Kumar Ahuja (PW64) who was working as Coaching Depot Officer in Indian Railways at Panipat, deposed that he knew Smt. Rajpati. The latter filed application (D52) with a prayer for exgratia pension, it was forwarded by him. Said application is Ex. PW9/A4, bearing thumb impression of Smt. Rajpati at point B. It is also disclosed by Sh. Virender Kumar Ahuja that Smt. Rajpati was appointed by Indiain Railways on compassionate ground i.e. due to death of her husband. PW64 was also a witness of productioncumseizure memo (D55) Ex. PW85/A. Said seizure memo was signed by Smt. Rajpati at point B. Rs. 40,000/ were handed over by Smt. Rajpati to the IO.
It is submitted by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that revised PPA No. 0102020540 was signed by Jagmohan Sharma (A1) as Sr. DAO/Northern Railway, which is Ex. PW9/A2. Similarly, it was Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, who signed calculation sheet of exgratia pension (D51) and again a letter was written by same accused forwarding exgratia pension in the name of Smt. Rajpati to Manager PNB, Panipat i.e. Ex. PW9/A5. Accused Subhash Rohilla (A2) was also involved in conspiracy as same made endorsement on aforesaid mentioned PPA 0102020540 in his handwriting regarding arrear of exgratia pension amounting to Rs. 26,766/ from 28.08.1991 to 31.10.1997. Said document is Ex. PW9/A2. A letter Ex. PW9/A5 (D54) was also written by said Subhash Rohilla to Manager PNB, Panipat. Similarly, endorsement as CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 36 of 255 "DAO/Pension/Northern Railways/New Delhi on Ex. PW9/A5 was also made by this accused. Further letter to Manager PNB Panipat dated 31.07.2002 (Ex. PW47/B2) was also manipulated by accused Subhash Rohilla. Writings of both of those accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla on documents mentioned above is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
According to IO Inspector R.G. Mishra, he took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma for comparison with signatures/handwriting in their names on disputed documents and after examination of the same, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined that following documents were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Endorsement on PPO no. 010202054 about exgratia pension i.e. Ex. PW9/A2.
B. Letter addressed to Manager, PNB, Panipat received from Northern Railways i.e. Ex. PW9/A5.
C. Endorsement as "DAO/Pesnion, N. RLY, New Delhi on document Ex. PW9/A5.
D. Letter dated 31.07.2002 addressed to Manager, PNB, Panipat Ex. PW47/B2.
Similarly, in the opinion of said handwriting expert, accused Jagmohan Sharma signed following documents A. Revised PPA no. 0102020540 as Sr. DAO/NR Ex. PW9/A2.
B. Letter regarding calculation of exgratia pension Ex. PW9/A3. C. Letter addressed Manager, PNB, Panipat about payment of exgratia pension to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 37 of 255 Smt. Rajpati Ex. PW9/A5.
It is not denied during deliberations that a temporary railway employee was not entitled for pension.
On the basis of evidence as discussed above, it is well established that Smt. Rajpati was not entitled to pension, her husband late Sh. Om Prakash being a temporary employee of Indian Railways, but pension was provided to her by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, who hatched a conspiracy in this regard, between themselves as well as Smt. Rajpati.
Sh. Jangir Singh s/o late Sh. Nikka (A14) According to prosecution, invalid pension was provided in favour of accused Jangir Singh through PPO No. 0188020539 and revised PPA 028816231 by accused Subhash Rohilla, in conspiracy with accused Jagmohan Sharma and Sh. Jangir Singh.
It is pointed out that Sh. Jangir Singh has already expired and proceedings against him have been abated vide order of this Court dated 11.07.2009. Even if said accused has expired, pension in his favour was allegedly granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, having hatched conspiracy between them and latter Jangir Singh himself, accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla are still facing trial and hence it is necessary for this Court to decide, if pension in favour of Sh. Jangir Singh was legally granted or not.
Prosecution examined Sh. Ramesh Kumar as PW3. The latter deposed on oath that in year 2005 he was working in Punjab National Bank Tohana Branch as a CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 38 of 255 Deputy Manager. During investigation of this case, he produced documents pertaining to account of Sh. Jangir Singh with their bank to the IO, Sh. R.G. Mishra. Same were seized vide productioncumseizure memo Ex. PW3/1. According to this witness, an account no. 13407 was opened with their bank in the name of Jangir Singh (A14) on 01.06.1989. Account opening form (D75) was Ex. PW3/2, card bearing specimen signature of said Jangir Singh is Ex. PW3/3, photograph of said customer is affixed at point C on documents Ex. PW3/2 and Ex. PW3/3.
PW3 further told about receipt of revised payment pension advise (PPA) no. D/DLI/PEN/0188020539 dated 23.03.2004 as well as calculation sheet (D53) and other pension papers i.e. D60, D61 to D66) in their bank. Said PPA was issued in the name of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension/Northern Railways, New Delhi and was received by their Fatehabad branch. On the basis of revised PPA and calculation sheet, an amount of Rs. 2,29,004/ was credited in aforesaid account in the name of Jangir Singh, on 30.04.2004. The pension was credited till January 2005, when account was freezed. Statement of account from 01.04.2004 to 30.05.2004 is Ex. PW3/7. Other statement of account belonging to same Jangir Singh from the period 01.06.2004 to 30.04.2005 is Ex. PW3/8. This witness (Sh. Ramesh Kumar) identified signatures of Mr. Bhatia of their branch on both of these statement of accounts. Sh. Jangir Singh was also told to have withdrawn following amounts from the aforementioned accounts i.e. Rs. 1,74,000/ on 05.05.2004, Rs. 32,000/ on 11.05.2004, Rs. 3100/ on each of 03.06.2004, 01.07.2004, 02.08.2004 and 03.09.2004. Withdrawal slips are Ex. PW3/10 to Ex. PW3/15.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 39 of 255According to Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, during investigation, IO took specimen writing and signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. Said PPO No. 0188020539 (Ex. PW3/4) as well as calculation sheet (D59) Ex. PW3/5 were sent for opinion of handwriting expert. The latter i.e. Dr. Ravindra Sharma who is examined as PW113 verified that said PPO and calculation sheet are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, as per said expert, endorsement on PPO No. 0188020539 (Ex. PW3/4) and calculation sheets i.e. Ex. PW3/5 are in handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Again it is also opinion of said expert that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents D61D65 were done by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) told this Court that he got job in Indian Railways in year 1987. He was promoted as Accounts Assistant and in year 2001. He (PW47) was posted in pension section. His duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases and to distribute the same amongst other staff i.e. Sh. Soran Singh (A
6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Sh. Meena and Sh. Satish Chander, all these were also accounts assistants. He is conversant with the handwriting and signatures of aforesaid accounts assistants, as they used to work with him and he saw their signatures and handwriting. After seeing PPA No. 0188020539 dated 23.03.2004 (D58) in respect of pension granted to Jangir Singh, PW47 told that said PPA is prepared in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter signed the PPA at point A. This witness also identified signatures of Jagmohan Sharma on CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 40 of 255 aforesaid PPA and counter signature of Sh. V.K. Sharma at point B. Similarly, according to this witness, calculation sheet (D59) dated 23.03.2004 about payment of arrears of pension to Jangir Singh, was also written in the handwriting of Subhash Rohilla (A2). Calculation sheet is Ex. PW3/5. Further, according to this witness though PPA was in the name of Jangir Singh but entry about same was made in PPO register Ex. PW47/C at Sl. no. 540 in the name of Sunder Lal Arora.
It is deposed by Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) that he joined Indian Railways as Assistant Personnel Officer, Baroda House, New Delhi in year 1998. He (PW46) remained posted as APO in settlement branch of Delhi division from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. According to him, pension forms are required to be filled up in triplicate by the employee and attested by the officer of the concerned department. Same are to be deposited in settlement branch through Welfare Inspector of concerned beat. Personal file alongwith leave record of employee concerned is also handed over to the settlement branch by the department, three months prior to retirement of the employee. The calculation sheet regarding the pensionary benefits of every employee is prepared in the settlement branch. All the original papers after entering in settlement file of the employee in the index register maintained by settlement branch are sent to account department. The file is then received by the account branch by endorsing on the index register. The account branch, after preparing and fixing the pension, uses to send a copy of Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the settlement section for maintaining the record.
After seeing pension papers of Jangir Singh put on record, PW46 told that CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 41 of 255 though these papers bear signature of Kapoor Singh in Hindi, but same are not his signatures. There was no other APO in the Northern Railways, in the name of Kapoor Singh except himself.
As per IO Inspector R.G. Mishra, during investigation, he sent a letter to Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi, asking about some persons stated to be employees of Indian Railways, pensions were claimed on whose behalf, if same actually worked with Indian Railways or not. Sh. Ramesh Chand gave reply on behalf of Divisional Railway Manager (P), New Delhi, which is Ex. PW91/B (D 1106). In said reply, Divisional Railway Manager told that accused Jangir Singh s/o Nikka Ram r/o Gupta Colony, Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad worked as Gangman, but he resigned from Indian Railways from service on 14.12.1972.
According to Rule 55 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, invalid pension can be granted to a employee of Indian railways, who has been declared unfit for service on account of any bodily or mental disability by a medical board. Such railway employee is required to submit his application for invalid pension on prescribed proforma, alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority, to the head of the office of concerned department.
There is nothing on record to show that application seeking pension was filed by Sh. Jangir Singh to the head of deptt. Concerned, where he last worked or any medical certificate was annexed by said accused Jangir Singh having been issued by a duly constituted medical authority/board.
On the basis of evidence as discussed above, it is well estabished that pension CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 42 of 255 was provided in favour of Jangir Singh against prescribed rules by Sh. Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), Sh. Subhash Rohilla was not attached with settlement/bill section, and it was not within the authority of Sh. Subhash Rohilla or Jagmohan Sharma to provide pension to Jangir Singh.
Kumari Sita D/o Sh. Pancham (A15) According to case of prosecution, Kumari Sita is daughter of Pancham Ram, who served Indian Railways. After death of latter, his wife Smt. Leelawati applied for family pension, which was granted to her, but Smt. Leelawati also died on 09.02.1999. Kumari Sita was 25 years of age, a major and not dependent upon her parents. In these circumstances, she was not entitled for any pension, but accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma having conspired with Kumari Sita got an application from her i.e. Kumari Sita, prepared PPO no. 0182020679 and allowed a family pension to her, particularly when application was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta, another accounts assistant.
Prosecution examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Bhandari (PW40). It is deposed on oath by him that from January 2002 to June 2005, he served State Bank of India, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. as Manager, Personnel Banking Division. On 12.05.2005, CBI (IO of case) seized certain documents from him vide productioncumreceipt memo (D78) i.e. Ex. PW40/A. PW40 verified nomination form DA1 (D79) submitted by accused Sita to their bank. A letter to the bank i.e. Ex. PW40/A2 (D80), stated to be written by same Smt. Sita regarding deposition of her pension in bank and again a life CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 43 of 255 certificate submitted by her in the bank on 13.01.2003, which is Ex. PW40/A3 (D81) further letter of undertaking (Ex. PW40/A4) given by said accused. This witness further told about letter dated 23.12.2002 written by Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi, to the Manager, SBI, the Mall, Ambala Cantt., Haryana, which is regarding receipt of revised PPA No. DLI/PEN/0182020679 i.e. Ex. PW40/A6 alongwith pension papers Ex. PW40/A7 (D 81 to D92).
PW40 deposed further that certain amounts were withdrawn by said accused Sita from that account vide withdrawal slips Ex. PW40/A9 (D94 to D131). Statement of account belonging to said Ms. Sita from 23.10.2002 to 31.01.2006 is Ex. PW40/A10, signed by Sh. J.L. Bhagri, Manager of that Branch. Another statement of account from 02.05.1999 to 01.12.2002 is Ex. PW40/A11, signed by Sh. Dharam Pal. A certificate issued about statement of accounts mentioned above is Ex. PW40/A12, signed by Sh. J.L. Bhagri, Branch Manager.
Sh. P.K. Gupta (PW23) was Manager (Govt. Business) in Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar Branch, Ambala Cantt. Haryana verified application (D1685) filed by Smt. Leelawati, wife of Sh. Pancham under family pension scheme for Central Govt. Employees. In that application, Smt. Leelawati declared following LRs of her husband i.e. herself (Leelawati), Sh. Paramjeet Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Neeta Rani and Sushma Rani. Name of Kumari Sita was not in the list of LRs of Sh. Pancham Ram. The form submitted by Smt. Leelawati is Ex. PW23/1.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that as per family pension scheme CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 44 of 255 for Railway Servants and Board Management letter no. F. (P)63 PN1 dated 02.01.1964 which was incorporated in Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 as Rule no. 75 in which widow of Indian Railway employee or dependent children, as the case may be, were entitled for family pension. Kumari Sita was not entitled for pension as she was major and not dependent upon railway employee i.e. Pancham Ram.
It is further contended that application of Kumari Sita was marked to Mr. B.K. Buta, but same was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla with intention to prepare pension in favour of Kumari Sita, who otherwise was not entitled. Further, it was accused Subhash Rohilla (A2), who without following proper procedure prepared PPO No. 0182020679 and got it signed from Jagmohan Sharma (A1).
However, the fact that Kumari Sita applied for such pension, opened an account with State Bank of India, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. and withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW40/A9 are not denied during deliberations. Signatures of said accused on application seeking family pension (D86) are established from the report of Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma.
As per Ld. Sr. PP, during investigation IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Kumar Sita for comparison with their specimen signatures/handwriting on disputed documents. After comparison, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined that PPO through which the pension was provided to accused Sita was signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, according to said Handwriting expert, letter in the name of Sr. Divisional CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 45 of 255 Accounts Officer, addressed to State Bank of India about pension in favour of Kumari Sita, letter of authority and undertaking for drawal of pension through bank were signed by accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, accused Subhash Rohilla also attested the documents of said accused Kumari Sita impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
True, in his report Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) has opined that PPO no. 0182020679 (Ex. PW40/6) was signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. It is further opinion of said Handwriting expert that letter (handwritten) in the name of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension addressed to Manager SBI (Ex. PW40/A5), documents mentioning names of witnesses namely Kanti Prasad & Shiv Dayal and their addresses (D1606), letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW44/A1) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Again, Dr. Ravindra Sharma is also of opinion that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents no. D1606 were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Kumari Sita was provided by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma while said accused i.e. Kumari Sita was not entitled to any pension as after the death of her father namely Pancham Ram, family pension was granted in favour of her mother Smt. Leelawati. The latter has also expired and in her application seeking pension, Smt. Leelawati did not mention name of Kumari Sita as financially dependent upon herself or upon late Sh. Pancham Ram, same i.e. Kumari Sita having more than 25 years of age. Facts of the case, as discussed above, also show that said accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Kumari Sita hatched a conspiracy to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 46 of 255 provide pension in favour of Kumari Sita when she was not entitled to get any such pension.
Smt. Sarla wife of Late Chander Bhan (Accused No.16) According to prosecution, Smt. Sarla was not entitled for any pension. Her husband was a daily wager. He did not complete one year continuous service and was not fulfilling necessary qualifications as prescribed under Rule 75(2) of The Family Pensions Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964. Accused Subhash Rohilla, in connivance with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma as well as Smt. Sarla allowed pension to the latter.
It is not disputed by Smt. Sarla during deliberations that she applied for pension and also got said benefit. According to Sh. Subrota Rai (PW36), he remained posted in State Bank of India, G.T. Road, Panipat as Deputy Manager from July, 2004 to 13.08.2008. IO seized record of Account No. 20200 belonging to Smt. Sarla Devi wife of Late Chander Bhan. Productioncumseizure memo (D133) is Ex. PW36/A. Said documents included Account Opening Form (D145) in the name of Smt. Sarla Devi. The latter opened an account with their bank on 05.03.1988. Account Opening form is Ex. PW36/A1. A letter was received in their branch alongwith which, a revised PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/ 0188020527 dated 31.01.2003, calculation sheets (D
148) and some other pension papers were received. Said PPA is Ex. PW36/A3, calculation sheet is Ex. PW36/A while other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW36/A5. Pension Payment Scroll was prepared by the bank, which is Ex. PW36/A6. Statement of aforesaid account in the name of Smt. Sarla Devi from CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 47 of 255 06.12.1997 to 13.01.2005 is Ex. PW36/A8 and certificate issued under Bankers Book of Evidence Act is Ex. PW36/A7. Aforementioned statement of account was signed by Sh. A.K. Rajpal and Sh. S.K. Mishra. This witness identified signatures of both of said officials of his bank. It is further disclosed by PW36 that certain amounts were withdrawn from aforesaid account in the name of Smt. Sarla Devi through 45 withdrawal slips, which are collectively Ex. PW36/A9.
Seizure of aforesaid documents is verified by Sh. R.B. Mishra (PW137), IO of case. According to rule 75(2) of The Family Pensions Scheme for Railway Servants, 1964, family members of deceased (railway employee) shall be entitled to family pension subject to the provisions of SubRule 18 and without prejudice to the provisions contained in SubRule 4, where a railway servant dies
(a) after completion of one year of continuous service or
(b) before completion of one year of continuous service, provided the deceased railway servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared unfit by that authority for railway service, or
(c) after retirement from service and on the date of death in receipt of a pension, compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules.
The amount of pension shall be determined at a uniform rate of 30% of basic pay subject to minimum of 3500 rupees per mensem and a maximum of 27000 rupees per mensem.
Sh. Pradeep Kumar (PW101) deposed that he was appointed as Khalasi in the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 48 of 255 office of IOW/Section Engineer, West, Northern Railways, Panipat. He was helping the clerk in maintenance of record of store and establishment in the office of IOW for the last 34 years. This witness was shown a register called Assumed Wages Register of permanent staff of IOW and told that he made entries in this register. Said register was handed over to CBI during investigation. Seizure memo in this regard is Ex. PW101/A. Sh. Chander Bhan son of Prahlad Ram was working as Safaiwala in their department. According to said register, Sh. Chander Bhan was appointed on 15.02.1976 as Safaiwala. He expired on 29.02.1988. Entries regarding Sh. Chander Bhan in respect of payment of due etc are from 15.07.1986 to 14.08.1986, 15.12.1986 to 14.01.1987, 15.01.1987 to 14.02.1987, 15.04.1987 to 14.05.1987, 15.06.1987 to 14.07.1987, 15.07.1987 to 14.08.1987 and 15.08.1987 to 28.02.1988. All these entries are in his handwriting and same are Ex. PW101/B. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel Sh. S.S. Saini Advocate, Shri Pradeep Kumar disclosed that he did not know whether pension papers of said Chander Bhan were forwarded by his office to pension department.
As per Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, Sh. Chander Bhan served during periods mentioned by PW101. He never completed one year continuous service or other conditions as required under Subrule 2 of Rule 75 mentioned above. Moreover, the application of Smt. Sarla was marked to Ms. Veena, but pursuing his wrongful design, same was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, the application and documents submitted by Smt. Sarla were attested by said accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla by making signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 49 of 255 Northern Railways, New Delhi.
True, application (Ex. PW137/K1) for family pension submitted by accused Sarla Devi, specimen signatures of applicant Mark PW100/C, letter of authority and undertaking for drawl of pension Mark PW100/E, certificate of identity Ex. PW137/K3, permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW137/K4, all these documents bear signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Northern Railway, New Delhi. According to report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on aforesaid documents are in handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Writings (Q345) on letter dated 17.02.2002 from DAO, Pension to Manager State Bank of India, Karnal, Haryana (Ex. PW54/05), writing (Q346) in document PPO No.2881654 and calculation sheet Ex. PW36/A3, endorsement (Q347) on PPO No.0188020527 (Ex. PW36/A3), writing on calculation sheet (Q350) Ex. PW36/A 4, writing on endorsement "Sr. Divisional A/C Officer/Pension Northern Railways"
(Q352) on calculation sheet mentioned above, all these documents, according to handwriting expert, are in the handwriting of Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, pension papers D149, D152, D153, D151, D150, D150, D145, D145, Q355, Q359, Q 361, Q363, Q367, Q368, Q370 and Q371 respectively are also opined to be in the handwriting of Subhash Rohilla. It is further the report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113) that PPO No. 0188020529 (Ex. PW36/A3) and calculation sheet regarding arrears of family pension (Ex. PW36/A4) are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
According to Sh. Puran Chand (PW87), who was posted as Accounts Clerk in CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 50 of 255 Pension Section, pension files were routed through APO Settlement and other departments, vetting of pension cases were done by Settlement Branch. Duty of posting of entries in register were of Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (Accused No.5) and Soran Singh (Accused No.6).
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well proved that Smt. Sarla (accused no. 16) was not entitled to pension, as claimed by her. Pension granted to her was contrary to rules.
Subey Singh s/o Sheo Chand (A17) This is a case of invalid pension. According to prosecution, Sh. Subey Singh never worked in Indian Railways, but was granted invalid pension, due to conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. Application of said Subey Singh was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla.
It is deposed by Sh. R.P. Arora (PW13) that he served as Deputy Manager in PNB, Babra Branch, Rohtak from May, 2004 till August, 2005. An account No. 2261 was opened with their branch in the name of Subey Singh s/o Sheo Chand r/o Kachigari, Ward No. 2, Rohtak on 04.01.1983. Account opening form is Ex. PW13/A and specimen signature card of said customer is Ex. PW13/A1. PW13 also verified PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0194020714 dated 31.05.2004 and calculation sheet w.e.f. 01.01.1995 to 31.03.2000 and other pension papers, having received in Civil Lines Rohtak branch of their bank and again that on the basis of said documents, pension arrears were credited in aforesaid account of Subey Singh. Said papers were received in their branch vide letter dated 31.05.2004 which is Ex. PW13/A4 (D161) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 51 of 255 and pension papers referred above are collectively Ex. PW13/A5 (D164 to D171).
PW13 stated further that Letter of undertaking was given by accused Subey Singh on 25.06.2014, which is Ex. PW13/A6 and also that certain amounts were withdrawn from said account through seven withdrawal slips, which are collectively Ex. PW13/A7. Two credit and one debit vouchers are collectively Ex. PW13/A8. Statement of account of accused Subey Singh from period 30.06.2004 to 01.04.2005 is Ex. PW13/A12. PW 13 identified signatures of Sh. R.P. Kochar on this statement of account. Said documents were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/A9 (D
158).
Sh. Anand Swaroop (PW37) told that he remained posted in PNB, Babra Branch from 01.09.2002 to 26.09.2007. He (Sh. Anand Swaroop) witnessed seizure of documents Ex. PW13/A to Ex. PW13/A12 (D159 to D182) on 09.03.2005 pertaining to account of accused Subey Singh by the IO from Sh. R.P. Arora, Deputy Manager. Productioncumseizure memo in this regard is Ex. PW13/A9. Sh. Anand Swaroop also verified transfer vouchers Ex. PW13/A8 and debit voucher prepared by him, which were passed by Sh. R.P. Arora, the then Deputy Manager of bank.
The fact that accused Sube Singh applied for pension, opened an account with PNB, Babra Branch, Rohtak and withdrew amount from that account are not disputed by accused Subey Singh.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra verified seizure of aforesaid documents by him during investigation of this case. IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma for comparison of same by handwriting CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 52 of 255 expert with their signatures on disputed documents. Dr. Ravindra Sharma (Handwriting Expert) in his report opined that following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application for pension (Ex. PW13/A5) B. Account Opening Form Ex. PW13/A C. Statement of family members (Ex. PW104/D) D. Declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW104/E) E. Specimen signature of applicant (Ex. PW104/F) G. Thumb and finger impression of claimant Ex. PW104/A. According to report submitted by Dr. Ravindra Sharma, all these documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Aforesaid documents are shown to have been signed/attested in the name of Sh. Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways, New Delhi as well as a photograph of accused Subey Singh on his application form. According to Dr. Ravindra Sharma, signatures on aforesaid documents in the name of Kapoor Singh were made by accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert PPO no. 02922239/DAO/DLI dated 31.05.2004 (Ex. PW13/A4), PPO no. 0194020714 (Ex. PW13/A2) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW13/A3) are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh is examined as PW46 and after seeing aforementioned documents, it is deposed by the latter that signatures found on these documents were never done by him. Even, seal/stamp of Sahayak Karmik Uttar Railway, New Delhi was forged. Moreover, according to this witness, all these documents were supposed CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 53 of 255 to be signed by the officer of department of employee concerned and not by the Assistant Personnel Officer (APO), Settlement.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) told the Court that he was promoted as Accounts Assistant and in year 2001 he was posted in pension section. After seeing revised PPA No. 0194020714 dated 31.05.2004 (D162). This witness told that it was in respect of pension of accused Subey Singh and was prepared in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Revised PPA is Ex. PW13/A2. This witness identified handwriting of Subhash Rohilla at point A, signature of accused Jagmohan Sharma at point A and counter signature of Sh. V.K. Sharma at point B on Ex. PW13/A2. It is further deposed by PW47 that calculation sheet Ex. PW13/A3 (D163) about pension arrears of accused Subey Singh w.e.f. 01.01.1995 was also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla, signed by Jagmohan Sharma at point A. Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was APO in Northern Railway in year 1998. He explained that pension forms are being filed in triplicate by the controlling officer. Same are to be attested by the officer of the department concerned. These papers are deposited in the settlement section through personal inspector of the concerned beat of employee is sanctioned according to qualifying service by the competent authority. The accounts department used to send settlement file alongwith copy of PPA to the settlement section. After seeing documents Ex. PW131/1 (D158 to 182) i.e. pension papers of accused Subey Singh, who was shown as Gang Man under IOW, Rohtak. This witness told that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh were forged. He could identify signatures of Kapoor Singh having seen him writing and signing before him CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 54 of 255 in official course. Moreover, these papers were never produced before him in his capacity as APO, Bills/Settlement, Delhi Division. He neither forwarded these papers nor countersigned the same. PPO and PPA for the pension of Subey Singh were forged.
As per Sh. Om Prakash (PW68), from year 2001 he was posted as Sr. Clerk in the office of Section Engineer (Works), Rohtak. Being Sr. Clerk, his duties were to prepare pay bills and pay arrear bills. No person in the name of Subey Singh ever worked as Gang Man in the office of IOW, Rohtak. There was no such post of Gang Man in that office and he never prepared any pay bill/arrears in the name of any Subey Singh.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension papers in the name of Subey Singh were prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma without following due process and after hatching conspiracy with each other. There was no person in the name of Subey Singh working as Gang Man in the office of IOW, Rohtak, as claimed in the application filed by/on behalf of accused Subey Singh. The latter i.e. accused Subey Singh did not produce any evidence to verify his job in the office of IOW, Rohtak.
Smt. Mamoo W/o Sh. Chandgi Ram (A18) According to case of prosecution, accused Smt. Mamoo got invalid pension for her husband as well as family pension after death of same while she was not entitled to get both of said pensions together. The application was not properly processed. Moreover, it was shown to have been assigned to Mr. B.K. Butta, while processed by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 55 of 255 accused Subhash Rohilla himself. The latter i.e. accused Subhash Rohilla not only processed the file but also countersigned the documents by putting signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik, Uttar Railway, New Delhi, including attesting photo of accused Mamoo, and that in the name of Kapoor Singh.
It is pointed out that Smt. Mamoo has expired during trial and proceedings against her were abated by order of this Court dated 17.01.2014. As said accused Mamoo was blamed to have hatched a conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla, it's necessary to decide if pension in favour of Mamoo was provided illegally or said accused were involved in any such conspiracy.
Ms. Vibha Mittal (PW16) deposed that in year 2004, she was posted as Link Officer, Pension Set in PNB, Civil Lines, Rohtak, Haryana. She handed over documents pertaining to accused Smt. Mamoo to the IO. The latter seized the same vide seizure memo in this regard is Ex. PW16/A1. Said documents are
1. Letter dated 31.12.2003 (D191) in respect of payment of pension of Sh. Chandgi Ram. Said letter was received from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
2. Revised pension payment advice (PPA) no. D/DLI/PEN/01740222071 (D194) received from office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
3. The calculation sheet (D195) received alongwith aforesaid PPA is Ex. PW16/A5.
4. Life Certificate in respect of accused Mamoo w/o Chandgi Ram is Ex. PW16/A7.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 56 of 2555. Affidavit of accused Mamoo i.e. PW16/A8 (D202).
Productioncumreceipt memo about these documents is Ex. PW16/A9, signed by Sh. S.K. Maria, the then Sr. Manager of PNB. This witness further verified that certain amounts were withdrawn from the bank account of accused Mamoo through 12 withdrawal slips, which are collectively Ex. PW16/10 (D205 to D216), statement of account of said accused having no. 26160 for the period 07.11.2003 to 24.03.2005 is Ex. PW16/A11, signed by Sh. S.K. Maria, the then Sr. Manager. Aforesaid account was opened on 17.11.2003 by Smt. Mamoo. Account opening form is Ex. PW16/A12 and account was opened by Sh. Ram Kalan, the then Manager. PW16 identified signatures of latter at point A on account opening form. Specimen signature card of Smt. Mamoo is Ex. PW16/A13. Same is also signed by Sh. Ram Kalan, the then Manager. Accused Mamoo submitted a life certificate of herself in the bank on 17.03.2004 and again letter of undertaking, both of which are Ex. PW16/A14 and Ex. PW16/A15 respectively.
The fact that such an application was signed by accused Mamoo by putting her thumb impression is verified from the report of Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
Sh. S.K. Marya (PW28) also witnessed the production of documents Ex. PW16/A2 to Ex. PW16/A15 i.e. pertaining to account of Smt. Mamoo as well as other pension papers like PPO etc. Sh. S.K. Marya (PW28) also verified withdrawal of amounts by Smt. Mamoo through withdrawal slips.
As per Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) he was posted as Assistant Personnel Officer CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 57 of 255 (APO) in settlement division. After seeing documents of Smt. Mamoo i.e. Ex. PW16/A6, Ex. PW71/A, Ex. PW71/B, Ex. PW71/C Ex. PW71/D and Ex. PW71/E, which were shown to have been signed in his name, PW46disclosed that said documents were not signed by him, signatures in his name were forged. None from aforesaid documents was ever produced before him in his office i.e. APO (Settlement Division), Delhi.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) deposed in this Court that he was Accounts Assistant and was posted in pension section in year 2001. According to this witness, Revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/ 01740222071 (D194) and calculation sheet dated 31.11.2003 (D194) in respect of payment of arrears of pension and family pension to Smt. Mamoo w/o late Chandgi Ram were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Same were signed by accused Jagmohan at point C and countersigned by Vinod Sharma at point D. Revised PPA is Ex. PW47/F2 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW16/A5.
Ld. Sr. P.P submits that during investigation, aforementioned documents were sent for opinion for handwriting expert. The latter after comparing the handwriting/signatures on aforesaid documents and signatures of accused, found that endorsement on payment pension Ex. PW16/A2 (D191), endorsement on PPO no. 01740222071 dated 31.12.2003 i.e. Ex. PW47/F2 (D194), calculation sheet Ex. PW16/A5 were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on application for family pension of accused Ex. PW16/A6 and Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 58 of 255PW71/A were signed by Subhash Rohilla in the name of Kapoor Singh. Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined further that document Ex. PW47/F2 (D194), payment of pendsion dated 31.12.2003 Ex. PW16/A2 (D191) and calculation sheet Ex. PW16/A5 were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Ishwar Singh who is examined as PW71 is son of Chandgi Ram i.e. husband of accused Mamoo. According to this witness, his father late Chandgi Ram worked as Gate Man at Rohtak under AEN, Jind. He retired from Indiain Railways in 1974. He was not getting pension. In October 2003, one Sh. Harbhajan and Subhash Rohilla came to his house and assured his mother to arrange pension from Indian Railways in her name. They (Harbhajan and Subhash Rohilla) brought with them pension application form which was filled by accused Subhash Rohilla in his presence in the name of Mamoo. Application form is Ex. PW16/A6, signed by his mother by putting thumb impression at point A2 and A6. She filed letter of authority and undertaking for drawl of pension (D198) through public sector bank, form no. 10 i.e. permanent address and mode of payment which is Ex. PW71/D, form no. 8 i.e. specimen signature on which she affixed her photo and put thumb impressions as well as an affidavit sworn by his mother. Smt. Mamoo had a saving bank account in PNB, VCC Rohtak having no. 261160. An amount of Rs. 2,55,394/ was credited as pension amount. He took his mother to the bank for the purpose of withdrawal of amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ on 22.03.2004, withdrawal slip is Ex. PW16/A10. Subsequently, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ was withdrawn on 24.03.2004 through withdrawal slip Ex. PW71/F. Certain other amounts were CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 59 of 255 withdrawn later on through withdrawal slips D209 to D261 collectively Ex. PW71/J, signed by her mother at point A. An amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ which was withdrawn by her mother was handed over to Harbhajan Singh for the purpose of giving the same to Subhash Rohilla.
As per Ld. Counsel, it is not proved that said amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ was actually handed over to accused Subhash Rohilla. This witness (PW71) in his cross examination admitted that he did not remember the date on which the said amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ was handed over to Harbhajan Sigh or at which place said amount was given to Harbhajan or even if same was given in day time or in night. None was present at the time when said amount was given. He did not remember the denomination of currency notes, handed over to Harbhajan Singh.
I find weight in said contention. Prosecution failed to prove that said amount of Rs. 1,30,000/ was actually paid to accused Subhash Rohilla.
There is no evidence on record as to what infirmity Sh. Chandgi Ram was suffering. There is no medical certificate of said Chandgi Ram on record. It is pointed out that during investigation I.O seized entire record about pension granted in favour of accused Mamoo.
From the evidence on record, it is well established that Smt. Mamoo was not entitled for invalid pension as well as family pension. Her application was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla despite the fact that same was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta. Proper procedure was not followed. Accused Subhash Rohilla signed the documents including photograph of the applicant by impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. All CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 60 of 255 this shows his bad intention. Similarly, accused Jagmohan Sharma approved/signed those papers knowing well that accused Smt. Mamoo was not entitled for pension and those papers were not processed as per law. Similarly, Smt. Mamoo applied for the pension knowing well that she was not entitled to get such pension. All this is evident that said three accused were involved in a criminal conspiracy to allow pension in favour of Smt. Mamoo illegally.
Gordhan Dass s/o Sh. Jotram (A19) This is case of invalid pension. According to Rule 55 of The Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, any employee of Indian railways was entitled for invalid pension, who was declared unfit for service on account of any bodily or mentally disability by any board. Such an employee was obliged to apply for the pension on prescribed proforma alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority to the head of the office of concerned department.
According to Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, there is no evidence to show that any medical disability was suffered by said Gordhan Dass. Application of said accused was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, in connivance with said accused as well as Jagmohan Sharma, without following prescribed procedure. Sh. Subhash Rohilla signed the documents as well as photo of accused Gordhan Dass, by impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Sh. Paramjeet Grover (PW2) was Deputy Manager in PNB, Salwan Branch, Karnal, Haryana. It is told by this witness that he produced certain documents to Sh. R.G. Mishra, IO of this case on 28.02.2005. Productioncumreceipt memo is Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 61 of 255PW2/1, signed by him at point A. Said documents included 'Account Opening Form' in respect of account no. 8916 in the name of Gordhan s/o Jotrom, which was allowed to be opened by him i.e. PW2. Account opening form is Ex. PW2/2, signed by accused Gordhan Dass Nain at points B. Photographs of said accused was also identified by this witness, having been affixed on account opening form at point C. It is further disclosed by this witness that PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0195020911 dated 31.05.2004 was received in their office issued by Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi. Said PPO is Ex. PW2/3. It was forwarded to Salwan Branch on 21.06.2004 alongwith calculation sheet. Statement of account pertaining to that account from 05.05.2004 to 20.09.2004 is Ex. PW2/4. Another statement of account from 05.05.2004 to 08.09.2005 issued by their Manager Sh. B.S. Saini is Ex. PW2/7. Certificate u/s 2A of The Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1881 is Ex. PW2/8. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account vide 12 withdrawal slips Ex. PW2/6 (Colly.). He (PW2) identified signatures of Sh. R.K. Bansal, Officer of said bank as well as of Gordhan Dass at point A and B respectively on Ex. PW2/6 (Colly.). Accused Gordhan Dass was told to have furnished an affidavit Ex. PW2/9 and also an undertaking on 26.06.2004 (D259) which are Ex. PW2/10, both signed by him at points A. Specimen signatures were given by accused Gordhan Dass on a slip which is Ex. PW2/11, same is signed by him (PW2) at point A. IO Sh. Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137) verified seizure of pension documents (D 249 to D276) from Punjab National Bank alongwith payment vouchers used by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 62 of 255 accused Gordhan. All of same are Ex. PW131/3. Seizure memo prepared in that regard is Ex. PW2/A. According to IO, during investigation he came to know that said accused worked as Electric Khalasi shown to have medically retired on 30.06.1995. Pension was issued to him w.e.f. 01.07.1995 and arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.07.1995 to 31.03.2004, amounting to Rs. 1,74,235/. Calculation sheet is Ex. PW2/3. Various entries were made manually by accused Subhash Rohilla which are forged.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) after seeing documents Ex. PW2/3 (D251, D252 to D256, D258), Ex. PW46/A66 to Ex. PW46/A73 told that signatures on these documents were put in his name but same were not done by him. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him in his official capacity as APO, Bills/Settlement, Delhi Division.
The fact that signatures on aforesaid documents i.e. in the name of Kapoor Singh were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla is verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). Similarly, according to said handwriting expert, document Ex. PW2/3 (payment pension), Ex. PW46/A6 (PPO No. 019502091) Ex. PW46/A67 (calculation sheet), Ex. PW46/A68 to Ex. PW46/A73 including photographs to Gordhan Dass were also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Further, according to report given by Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113) Ex. PW2/3 (payment of pension), Ex. PW46/A6 (PPO No. 019502091) and Ex. PW46/A67 (calculation sheet) bear signature of Jagmohan Sharma.
The fact that accused Gordhan Dass s/o Sh. Jot Ram applied for pension, signed CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 63 of 255 documents mentioned above and also withdrew amount from PNB through 12 withdrawal slips described above, is not disputed on behalf of said accused during arguments. There is nothing on record to show that accused Gordhan Dass became medical unfit to claim pension on medical ground i.e. invalid pension. From deposition of Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131), who was APO in Settlement Branch, it is established that application of accused Gordhan Dass was not processed properly. Processing the application in such a manner, preparing PPO etc. when accused Gordhan was not entitled for invalid pension and signing the documents impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh shows wrongful intention of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, accused Jagmohan Sharma signed the PPO and calculation sheet, without verifying that the claimant i.e. Sh. Gordhan was entitled or not, shows conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Gordhan Dass.
Sh. Partap Singh s/o Sh. Chandgi Ram (A20) As per prosecution, Sh. Partap Singh, who served as Water Man in the Indian Railways was granted invalid as well as pension on superannuation, which was contrary to rules. Moreover, application for pension was not submitted or processed from the office of head of Deptt., where accused Partap Singh, last served, rather taken up by accused Subhash Rohilla in Accounts Branch directly.
According to Rule 55 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, any employee of Indian railways was entitled for invalid pension, who is declared unfit for service CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 64 of 255 on account of any bodily or mental disability by a medical authority. Such an employee was obliged to apply for the pension on prescribed proforma alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority, to the head of the office of concerned department. Superannuation pension is granted to an employee of Indian railways, who opted for such pension. The claimant employee was required to submit his application on prescribed proforma to the head of office where he last served.
Sh. L.C. Chaudhary (PW55) was posted at Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Village Balla, Karnal. According to this witness, he produced certain documents relating to account no. 6495 belonging to Partap Singh (accused) to IO of this case, on 09.05.2005. Productioncumreceipt memo (D308) in this regard is Ex. PW55/A. Documents produced by him included statement of account (02 pages) and certificate u/s 2A of The Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891, signed by Sh. P.K. Gupta, the then Branch Manager. Statement of aforestated account is Ex. PW5/A1. He (PW55) identified signature of P.K. Gupta, the then Branch Manager on it, at points A, on each page.
PW55 further told about withdrawal of certain amounts from aforesaid account on 05.07.2004, 14.07.2004, 22.07.2004, 03.08.2004 and 07.09.2004 (D309 to 313) through withdrawal slips, which were handed over to IO vide productioncumreceipt memo Ex. PW55/A. Said withdrawal slips are collectively Ex. PW55/A2. Aforesaid account was opened by Sh. Partap Singh by filling up 'Account Opening Form' which is Ex. PW55/A3 alongwith specimen signature of said Partap Singh. Sh. L.C. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 65 of 255 Chaudhary also deposed about receipt of letter from Indian railways in respect of PPO No. D/DLI/PEL/0195020912 dated 31.05.2004 as well as calculation sheet for the payment of arrears of pension dated 31.05.2004, forwarding letter (Ex. PW55/A5), revised PPA (Ex. PW55/A6) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW55/A7). Further, life certificate (Ex. PW55/A9) was also submitted by said customer i.e. Partap Singh. All these documents were handed over by him to the IO.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) deposed that he served as APO in Northern Railway, in year 1998. He explained that pension forms are being filed in triplicate, by the controlling officer. Same are to be attested by the officer of the department concerned. These papers are deposited in the settlement section through personnel inspector of the concerned beat.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) told that he was posted as APO settlement, Delhi Devision. After seeing pension papers in the name of Partap Singh i.e. Ex. PW55/A8, Ex. 46/A57, Ex. PW46/A58, Ex. PW46/A59, Ex. PW46/A60 and Ex. PW46/A61 as well as photographs of Partap Singh on aforesaid documents said PW46 disclosed that these documents including photo of Partap Singh were purported to be signed in his name, but he never signed these documents. Signatures in his name were forged. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him in his officiating capacity as APO, Bills/Settlement, Delhi Division.
According to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), PPO no. 0195020912 regarding superannuation/retirement pension of Partap Singh and other PPO as well as calculation sheet regarding invalid pension were in the handwriting of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 66 of 255 accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, statement of family member (D300), declaration of nonreceipt of pension benefit (D301), specimen signatures of Partap Singh (D303), letter of authority (D304) and affidavit in the name of Partap Singh were signed by accused Subhash Rohilla. It is further the opinion of said handwriting expert that PPO mentioned above as well as calculation sheet about arrears of pension of Partap Singh were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
PW129 Sh. Manoj Kumar identified signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma on documents relating to pension of Partap Singh mentioned above.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, one Sh. Naresh Kumar was also involved in this conspiracy. The latter filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Partap Singh. This fact is verified from opinion of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma. According to latter, application form, statement of family member (D300), declaration form (D301) and letter of authority were in the handwriting of Naresh Kumar.
On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of Naresh Kumar that latter simply filled up application form, as claimant Partap Singh was not so literate. There is no evidence that Naresh Kumar accepted any gratification. He simply helped claimant Partap Singh and hence no offence is made out.
I am in consonance with aforesaid plea of Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor. There is no evidence at all to verify that Naresh Kumar accepted any gratification to fill up said form or was involved in any conspiracy, to facilitate pension in the name of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 67 of 255 Partap Singh, for which he was not entitled to.
At the same time, it is well established that pension papers for Partap Singh were processed without following due procedure, by accused Subhash Rohilla, who signed those documents including photograph of Partap Singh by impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. There is no evidence like medical certificate, issued by medical board, having decleared accused Pratap Singh unfit for job. Even otherwise, an employee like Partap Singh was not entitled to both of invalid pension as well as pension on superannuation. It is also proved that accused Jagmohan Sharma approved pension by signing PPO as well as calculation sheet for the arrears of pension in the name of Partap Singh, who was apparently not entitled to the same. All this shows conspiracy among said accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Partap Singh.
Krishna Devi w/o late Satbir (A21) Pension was granted to accused Krishna Devi through PPO/PPA No. 0195020872 dated 30.09.2003. According to accused, she is wife of late Satbir who served Indian Railways as S.S. Fitter, Diesel Shed.
Sh. Satish Chander Gupta (PW1) was Deputy Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Regional Office, Panipat. It is deposed on oath by this witness that an account no. 01190006604 was opened in their bank on 24.09.2003 in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi (A21). Said customer was introduced by Smt. Lajwanti having account with their bank. A revised payment pension (PPO) no. 0195020872 dated 30.09.2003 was received in their bank alongwith calculation sheet for an arrear of Rs. 3,00,728/, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 68 of 255 signed by Sr. DAO, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi and countersigned by Financial Advisor/Chief Account Officer, Pension. Signatures of aforesaid railway officials were verified from the record and amount of pension was disbursed to Smt. Krishna Devi. Statement of account belonging to aforementioned account from 24.09.2003 to 23.02.2005 is Ex. PW1/16. Smt. Krishna Devi had furnished an affidavit with the bank, same is Ex. PW1/17, signed by customer at point A. He (PW
1) submitted 17 withdrawal slips to the IO during investigation of this case which are Ex. PW1/9 (Colly.). Productioncumreceipt memo in this regard is Ex. PW1/18. This witness identified signatures of Smt. Krishna Devi on all of such withdrawal slips at point A. The facts that Smt. Krishna Devi applied for pension by filing application Ex. PW44/A and submitted documents i.e. specimen signatures of applicant, letter of authority and undertaking, permanent address and mode of payment, certificate of identity and affidavit Ex. PW1/17 and again she opened account with State Bank of Patiala and withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW1/9 are not disputed by accused Smt. Krishna Devi, during arguments, signatures of said accused on withdrawal forms/slips, application form for opening the account, specimen signatures, letter of authority, detail of permanent address and affidavit dated 09.10.2003 are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). According to Ld. Sr. PP, late Satbir was not employed with Indian Railways. Pension in the name of said accused was wrongfully allowed by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma in connivance with said accused i.e. Smt. Krishna Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 69 of 255 and one Naresh Kumar, the latter acted as an agent of accused Subhash Rohilla and charged hefty amount from Smt. Krishna Devi. He (Naresh Kumar) filled up application form etc. in the name of accused Smt. Krishna Devi and arranged pension in her favour.
In her application for family pension, Smt. Krishna Devi claimed that her husband Satbir served Indian Railways as SS Fitter with SSE, Diesel Shed, Tuglakabad. Application filed by accused Smt. Krishna Devi i.e. Ex. PW44/A, specimen signatures of applicant, letter of authority and undertaking, form no. 10 (permanent address of mode of payment), certificate of identity, all these documents bear seal of SSE/DSL. Shed/N. RLY/TKD having initials over the seal. Prosecution examined one Sh. R.B. Singh (PW44) who deposed that he is working in Diesel Shed, Northern Railways, TKD since 1978 and presently working as Chief Superintendent. He further deposed that he did not know anyone in the name of Krishna Devi w/o late Satbir having worked as SS Fitter. After seeing pension documents (D331) mentioned above, he stated that he never signed any such document relating to pension of accused Krishna Devi. Stamp of SSE/DSL/Shed/N. RLY. TKD was forged. There was no post of SS Fitter in Diesel Shed, Tuglakabad and no person in the name of Satbir s/o Sh. Mange Ram was working as SS Fitter in Diesel Shed, Tuglakabad, Northern Railway.
Aforesaid documents related to pension in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi/Satbir Singh (D331) described above are signed in the name of Kapoor Singh. Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) after seeing documents Ex. PW131/6 i.e. pension file of Satbir CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 70 of 255 Singh stated that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh under the stamp of Sahayak Karmik, Uttar Railway at point A are not of Kapoor Singh and same are forged. Having worked with Kapoor Singh, he could identify signatures of latter having seen him writing and signing in official course.
On letter of authority and undertaking, there are columns for signatures of two witnesses. Although names and addresses of two witnesses are mentioned, but there appears no signatures of any of these witnesses, which shows incompleteness of said document. Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor contended that before issuing PPO, the officer concerned was obliged to see that complete documents were filed. Claimant was required to file an affidavit about job of her husband, date of his death and the facts mentioning that same was not receiving any other pension and further her undertaking that she will return the excess amount (if any). Smt. Krishna Devi prepared such an affidavit on 09.10.2003 but PPO no. 0195020872 had already been issued by accused Subhash Rohilla and accused Jagmohan Sharma on 30.09.2003, which shows their wrongful intention.
Although it is not denied during deliberations that said PPO and calculation sheet etc. were prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by Jagmohan Sharma, their handwriting/signatures on PPO no. 0195020872 and calculation sheet i.e. D329 and D330 are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert, endorsement on aforesaid PPO dated 30.09.2003, writing in Hindi (D329), calculation sheet were the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report stated that signatures in CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 71 of 255 the name of Kapoor Singh on application form, specimen signature form, letter of authority, permanent address, mode of payment, certificate of identity submitted by accused Krishna Devi were signed by accused Subhash Rohilla, in the name of Kapoor Singh. Similarly, photo of accused Krishna Devi is also attested by same accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla "writing as Kapoor Singh".
It is further the plea of Ld. Sr. PP that Sh. Naresh Kumar (A8) was also involved in this conspiracy, who filled up application form, letter of authority, permanent address, mode of payment form, certificate of identity etc. after taking consideration amount from accused Krishna Devi. His writing on aforesaid documents is duly verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
According to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, application for family pension etc. as discussed above were filled up on the handwriting of Naresh Kumar. There is no evidence to substantiate that said accused took any consideration amount from accused Krishna Devi or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused.
Sh. Suresh Kumar s/o Khazan Singh (A22) This is a case of invalid pension granted to accused Suresh Kumar through PPA No. D/DLI/PAN/0103020624 dated 01.08.2003. According to case of prosecution, said accused i.e. Suresh Kumar was not employed with Indian Railways as calimed by him. Even then pension was provided to him due to conspiracy among him i.e. Suresh Kumar, Jagmohan Sharma (Accused No.1), Subhash Rohilla (Accused No.2) and Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8).
Sh. Satish Chander Gupta (PW1) told that he was posted in State Bank of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 72 of 255 Patiala, Regional Office, Panipat as Dy. Manager. During investigation of this case, he produced documents relating to pension of accused Suresh Kumar (A22) which were seized by IO Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra vide production cum seizure memo (D324) Ex. PW1/1. This witness also verified that Account No. 01190006493 was opened in their bank by Sh. Suresh Kumar son of Khazan Singh by submitting account opening form Ex. PW1/2 signed by him (PW1) at point A. Pension Payment Advice/Pension Payment Order No. 0103020624 dated 01.08.2003 was received in main branch of their bank at Sonepat duly signed by Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi and forwarded to their branch. They requested railway authority to provide DA rates which, through calculation sheets from 01.02.1999 to 31.08.2003, were received by their bank, along with a letter dated 09.09.2003 (D359). The calculation sheet was signed in the name of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension. A total sum of Rs.3,33,547/ was disbursed to accused Suresh Kumar including arrears plus pension till 17.09.2004. Statement of account in this regard from 28.07.2003 to 23.02.2005 is Ex. PW1/3 signed by him at point A. At the time of disbursement of payment, accused Suresh Kumar submitted letter of undertaking Ex. PW1/4, which was witnessed by Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8). Certain amounts were withdrawn by said Suresh Kumar through withdrawal slips Ex. PW1/7 to Ex. PW1/14, which bear signatures of Suresh Kumar at point A. IO Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137) verified aforesaid documents having been seized by him. As per this witness, Pension Payment Advice (Ex. PW137/L032), in the name of accused Suresh Kumar was a document forged by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 73 of 255 accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter i.e. Subhash Rohilla wrote a letter to Manager State Bank of Patiala in his own handwriting which was a forged document. During investigation I.O. took specimen writing and signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla, signatures of accused Suresh Kumar, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison with their writings/signatures on disputed documents.
The facts that said Pension Payment Advice/Revised Pension Payment Advice in the name of Suresh Kumar, letter dated 09.09.2003 (D359), calculation sheet (Ex. PW137/L36) and letter dated 22.08.2003 (Ex. PW137/L34) were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), after comparing signatures in his name along with his specimen signatures. Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined further that Withdrawal Form, declaration about non payment of pension benefit, statement of family members, specimen signatures of applicant, permanent address and mode of payment, letter of authority (Ex. PW72/B), letter of undertaking to Branch Manager (Ex. PW1/4) and a letter written to Branch Manager, Gannaur (Ex. PW1/5), all these documents were signed by accused Suresh Kumar.
The facts that aforesaid documents were signed by accused Suresh Kumar as well as the fact that same opened an account with State Bank of Patiala, Gannaur where amount of payment was deposited, are not disputed on behalf of accused Suresh Kumar during deliberations.
Aforesaid documents i.e. withdrawal form etc submitted by accused Suresh Kumar are shown to have been signed in the name of Kapoor Singh. According to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 74 of 255 handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, all these signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined that PPA 0103020624 (Ex. PW137/L32), letter of State Bank of Patiala, Sonepat (Ex. PW137/L33), letter written to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Gannaur (Ex. PW137/L35) and calculation sheet of arrears of pension to Suresh Kumar (Ex. PW137/L36) are signed by Jagmohan Sharma (A1).
In this way, it is well established that accused Suresh Kumar submitted application seeking pension, same opened account with State Bank of Patiala, Gannaur in which amount of pension was credited on the basis of PPA 0103020624 and letter of calculation sheet etc prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and duly signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Accused Subhash Rohilla also signed pension papers of Suresh Kumar impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
It is pointed out that during investigation, on being asked by IO, Divisional Railway Manager (P), New Delhi, sent a letter No. 720E/3/Misc./P13 (D1106). After seeing this letter, Sh. Lalit Kumar Gupta (PW91) who worked as Head Clerk in Settlement Section of DRM(P), Northern Railways, New Delhi, verified that said letter was written by Sh. Ramesh Chand to the IO of the case. He identified signatures of Sh. Ramesh Chand on this letter stating that having worked under Sh. Ramesh Chand, he could identify his signatures. The letter is Ex. PW91/B. According to Divisional Railway Manager, Sh. Suresh Kumar shown as Head Clerk, DRM(M) DLI was not employed with Indian Railways. Accused Suresh Kumar did not contradict aforesaid fact during cross examination of IO or Lalit Kumar Gupta CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 75 of 255 (PW91).
Considering evidence as discussed above, there remains no doubt in coming to the conclusion that accused Suresh Kumar was not employed as Head Clerk DRK(M) DLI stating which same sought invalid pension from Indian Railways. Even otherwise, invalid pension is granted to an employee of Indian Railway who became incompetent on medical grounds, there is no evidence on record to verify aforesaid fact.
As per Ld. Sr. PP, accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in this conspiracy. He filed up application form etc. for accused Suresh Kumar after taken hafty consideration amount. Handwriting expert, in his report opined that following documents were filled up in his (Naresh Kumar) handwriting
(a) Application form for pension.
(b) Declaration of Nonreceipt of Pensionary benefits. (c) Statement of family members. (d) Permanent address and mode of payments. (e) Letter of authority
Even if it is established that aforesaid documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence to show that said accused took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused.
Reshma Devi W/o Bali Ram (A23) According to case of prosecution, late Sh. Bali Ram never worked with Indian Railways. Even then, accused Reshma Devi, who claims to be wife of Sh. Bali Ram CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 76 of 255 applied for grant of family pension, which was granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma in connivance between themselves as well as with beneficiary Smt. Reshma Devi. The case was marked to Mr. B.K. Butta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla deliberately, to favour the applicant.
According to Sh. M.L. Kakkar (PW14), in year 2004 he was posted as Deputy Manager, State Bank of India Branch. Smt. Reshma Devi opened an account with their branch by submitting account opening cum specimen signature (D382), pension payment scroll (D383) about said accused is Ex. PW14/A1, signed by Sh. Chaman Lal, Accountant at point A. A revised PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0194020716 dated 31.05.2004 was received in the name of Bali Ram from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi alongwith calculation sheet. Revised PPA is Ex. PW14/A3 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW14/A4. Letter through which said PPA and calculation sheet were received is Ex. PW14/A6.
It is further the deposition of this witness (PW14) that certain amounts were withdrawn from aforesaid account by Smt. Reshma Devi through withdrawal slips (D375 to D381), which are collectively Ex. PW14/A2. Statement of account of said accused from 26.04.2004 to 10.01.2006 is Ex. PW14/A7. Certificate issued u/s 2 of The Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891 is Ex. PW14/A8. He (PW14) identified signatures of Sh. O.P. Gupta on statement of account as well as certificate mentioned above at points A. Letter of undertaking, nonemployment certificate as well as life certificate were submitted by accused Smt. Reshma Devi to their bank. Letter of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 77 of 255 undertaking is Ex. PW14/A10 and nonemployment and life certificate is Ex. PW14/A11. Documents relating to pension in favour of accused Reshma Devi were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW14/A9. In her application for family pension, accused Smt. Reshma Devi claimed pension on the basis of services rendered by her husband to Indian Railways as Gang Man, CC, Jind. She also filed letter of authority and undertaking, certificate of identity as well as an affidavit where she claimed that her husband worked in Indian Railways as Gang Man, CC Jind. Application of accused Reshma Devi i.e. Ex. PW14/A5, thumb and finger impression of said applicant is Ex. PW137/M2 letter of authority and undertaking is Ex. PW125/B, certificate of identity Ex. PW137/M3 and specimen signature form is Ex. PW137/M5. All of these documents are shown to have been signed by CC, Norther Railways (name of signing authority is not legible) and are certified/attested by Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway (Assistant Section Officer, Northern Railways, New Delhi).
Prosecution examined Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131), who was APO in Northern Railway. After seeing aforesaid documents, deposed that signatures of Sh. Kapoor Singh as well as stamp of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari on these documents are forged. According to him (PW131), these pension papers were never produced before him by any official of APO/Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division and he never forwarded these papers. Signatures on these documents were not of him. Signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh as well as seal in the name of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways are also forged.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 78 of 255Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) also told about procedure of forwarding pension papers. According to him, pension forms are filed in three copies by the controlling officer. After the same were attested by the officer of the concerned department, the forms are deposited in the settlement section through personnel inspector of the concerned beat. The pension is sanctioned according to qualifying service by the competent authority. The accounts department used to send settlement file alongwith copy of PPO to the settlement section.
As per Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, no such procedure was followed in this case. Application form Ex. PW14/A5, letter of authority Ex. PW125/B, thumb and finger impression of application Ex. PW137/M5 and permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW137/M4, all these are processed directly by accused Subhash Rohilla, by signing all these documents. Similarly, photo of accused Reshma Devi was attested by accused Subhash Rohilla by impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. It was accused Subhash Rohilla who signed pension papers of accused Reshma Devi mentioned above in the name of Kapoor Singh.
The facts that signatures in name of Kapoor Singh are mad by accused Subhash Rohilla is verified from the opinion of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113). In the same way, according to handwriting expert, handwritten endorsed on letter to Manager SBI asking him to credit pension amount i.e. Ex. PW14/A4 and handwritten endorsement about correctness of PPO no. 0194020716 i.e. Ex. PW14/A3 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. From the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), it is also established that letter CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 79 of 255 written to SBI, Thanesar requiring payment of pension to accused Reshma Devi i.e. Ex. PW14/A6, PPO mentioned above dated 31.05.2014 and calculation sheet mentioning arrears of pension amount Ex. PW14/A4, all these were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. There appears no contradiction in the report given by Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
As per I.O, during investigation, he asked Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi to tell about some pensioners, whether same were employed with Indian Railways or not. In his reply, Divisional Manager (P), New Delhi (D1106) Ex. PW91/B, disclosed about some of such persons including Bali Ram, as that he was not employed with Indian Railways. None from accused adduced any evidence to verify service of said Bali Ram with Indian Railways, particularly as Gang man, CC Jind, as claimed by accused Reshma Devi, in her application seeking pension. It is thus well proved that Smt. Reshma Devi (A23) was not entitled for any pension and pension in her favour was falsley prepared by accused Subhash Rohill and Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Reshma Devi. From the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), it is proved that application form for family pension (Ex. PW14/A5), letter of authority for withdrawal of pension (Ex. PW125/B), thumb + finger impression of applicant form Ex. PW137/M2, permanent adress and mode of payment form Ex. PW137/M4 and certificate of identity Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 80 of 255PW137/M3, all these were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar.
There is no evidence at all to verify that said accused Naresh Kumar received any consideration from Smt. Reshma Devi to fill up said documents. Nothing on record to suggest that he was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. Simply to say that he filled up these documents is not enough to prove his involvement in any conspiracy. Needless to say that Smt. Reshma Devi is stated to be an illiterate lady. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Smt. Khazani wife of Late Dhari (A24) This is a case of family pension. According to prosecution, late Sh. Dhari was never employed with Indian Railways as there was no post of Greaser in CC Jind where same (Late Dhari) is stated to have been posted by his widow Smt. Khazani. Pension in her name was prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla in connivance with co accused Jagmohan Sharma and Smt. Khazani, without following due procedure. File was directly taken to Accounts Branch and was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla for preparation of pension.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) was Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Branch, Delhi Division and served there from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. According to this witness, pension form are filled up in triplicate by the employee and the same are attested by the officer of the concerned department. From department concerned, same are sent to Settlement Branch through Welfare Inspector. Personal files along with leave account of employee are handed over to Settlement Branch by the department concerned, three months prior to his/her retirement.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 81 of 255Settlement Branch prepares calculation sheet regarding pensionary benefits of every employee. Leave account is also verified by concerned branch and then by accounts branch. File thereafter is sent to Settlement Branch. Pension is prepared and sanctioned according to qualifying service. The original papers belonging to pensions are entered in Index Register maintained by Settlement Branch and then sent to accounts branch. Accounts branch, after preparing and fixing the pension, used to send copy of pension payment order to the settlement section for maintaining the records.
After seeing pension papers submitted by Smt. Khazani wife of Late Dhari i.e. Ex. PW30/A6, Ex. PW46/B24, Ex. PW46/B26, Ex. PW46/B27 & Ex. PW46/B28, this witness disclosed that signatures on these documents in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh were forged. He did not sign any such pension paper. Said documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division, Delhi.
As per Sh. S.C. Tayal (PW30), in year 2005, he was posted as Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, Jind City, Haryana. Various documents pertaining to account No.13402 in the name of Smt. Khazani were seized by the IO during investigation of this case. Seizure Memo in this regard is Ex. PW30/A. PW30 explained that said documents seized by I.O., included account opening form and specimen signature card in the name of Smt. Khazani wife of Dhari Ram. The account was opened on 03.06.2003. The account holder i.e. Smt. Khazani was introduced by one Sh. Mahender Singh, having account in their bank. Account CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 82 of 255 Opening Form is Ex. PW30/A1. PPO No. D/DLI/PEN/0180020469 dated 30.06.2003 was received by their branch on 22.09.2003. Said PPO is Ex. PW30/A3. An amount of Rs.2,65,699 was credited in that account on 31.10.2003 and regular pension was credited till 01.01.2005. Collection sheet (perhaps mistakenly written as collection sheet in place of calculation sheet) is Ex. PW30/A4. Statement of account of Smt. Khazani Devi pertaining to said account is Ex. PW30/A5. Certain amounts were withdrawn by said accused through withdrawal slips (D419426) collectively Ex. PW30/A7. Production cum receipt memo about withdrawal slips is Ex. PW30/A8. A letter dated 04.08.2003 was received from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension) Indian Railways. Same is Ex. PW30/A9.
Ex. PW30/A6 is application for family pension, Ex. PW46/B24 is thumb and finger impression of applicant, Ex. PW46/B25 is letter of authority and undertaking, Ex. PW46/B26 is specimen signature of applicant, Ex. PW46/B27 is form of permanent address and mode of payment while Ex. PW46/B28 is certificate of identity. All these documents are shown to have been signed in the name of Kapoor Singh, shown as Sahayak Karmik Adhikari (Assistant Executive Officer), Uttar Railways, Delhi as well as CC/N. Railways. According to Sh. Kapoor Singh neither these papers were ever produced before him nor he signed the same in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh. Signatures in his name were forged. Similarly, according to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), photo of Smt. Khazani on documents Ex. PW46/B24 and Ex. PW46/B25 were not signed by him. Signatures in his name were forged.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 83 of 255Prosecution examined Sh. Jagdish Lal as PW86. According to this witness from 30.11.2000 to 31.12.2007, he remained posted in Locoloby Jind in CC Office as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing application of accused Smt. Khazani (Ex. PW30/A6), it is stated by this witness that there was post of Greaser in CC Jind before year 1995. The aforesaid appliction seeking pension was forwarded through the office of Crew Controller, Jind, Haryana. Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor submits that perhaps due to typographical mistake word "no" remained to be typed here. PW86 had disclosed that no such application was forwarded by Office of Crew Controller, Jind. Seeing the evidence of PW86, in entirety, it appears that due to clerical mistake word 'no' was not typed. The witness told clearly that there was no post of Greaser in CC Jind before 1995 and meant to say that said application of accused Khazani Devi was not forwarded through office of Crew Controller, Jind.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was posted as APO, Settlement Branch and after seeing documents from pension file of Late Dhari shown as Greaser under CC Jind, disclosed that these papers were never produced before him as APO/Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. He neither signed these papers nor forwarded the same. PPO and PPA in these papers were forged documents. Same are not signed by Sh. Kapoor Singh. Signatures of latter are also forged.
Thumb impressions of accused Khazani Devi on withdrawal slips, permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW46/B27, letter of undertaking Ex. PW137/M 14 are verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). Even otherwise, execution of these documents by accused Khazani Devi as well as CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 84 of 255 application for pension are not disputed on behalf of accused Khazani Devi during arguments.
Aforesaid documents including photo of accused Khazani Devi, are shown to have been signed/attested in the name of Kapoor Singh. According to handwriting expert, said signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, in the opinion of said handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, hand written endorsement on PPO No. 0180020469 (Ex. PW30/A3), hand written calculation sheets of arrears (Ex. PW30/A4), hand written letter dated 10.07.03 (Ex. PW137/M11), letter dated 22.09.03 (Ex. PW137/M12), letter dated 08.12.03 & 04.08.03 (Ex. PW137/M15), all shown to have been issued from Sr. DAO, Pension to Manager, Central Bank of India, Jind, endorsement on hand written letter dated 18.03.2003 written to Manager, Central Bank of India, Jind and endorsement on letter dated 18.08.2003 to Manager, Central Bank of India, all these are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Similarly, said handwriting expert opined that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. application form for family pension (Ex. PW30/A6), thumb and finger impressions of applicant (Ex. PW46/B24), letter of authority (Ex. PW46/B25), specimen signatures of applicant (Ex. PW46/B26), permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/B27) and certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/B
28) were written by accused Subhash Rohilla.
PPO mentioned above i.e. 0180020469 (Ex. PW30/A3) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW30/A4) are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma is also established from CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 85 of 255 report of aforesaid handwriting expert. No contradiction/discrepancies appeared in the opinion of said handwriting expert. I have no reason to disbelieve his report.
There is no evidence to prove that Sh. Dhari husband of accused Khazani, late Dhari was ever employed as Greaser in CC Jind. On the other hand, it is well proved that pension was granted to Smt. Khazani Devi by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma without following due procedure. Accused Subhash Rohilla even impersonated himself as Kapoor Singh, while signing pension papers of said accused.
Mithlesh Sharma w/o late D.K. Sharma (A25) Two pensions i.e. an exgratia as well as family pension were allowed in favour of accused Smt. Mithlesh Sharma vide PPO no. 0102020539 issued in July 2002 (ex gratia pension) and through PPO no. 0185020676 dated 30.10.2002 (family pension). Revised PPA no. 028513008 was also issued. According to prosecution, said Smt. Mithlesh Sharma was not entitled to any pension as her husband late D.K. Sharma never served Indian Railways as Cleaner Diesel Shed as claimed by her. Pension in her favour was granted due to conspiracy among herself, accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. Said application of said accused was marked to Sh. R.P. Mathur, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla deliberately. The latter forged papers by signing in the name of Kapoor Singh.
According to Sh. J.P. Sharma (PW4), in year 2002 he was posted as Assistant Manager in Central Bank of India, Belunganj Agra, UP and remained posted there till 2006. IO of this case seized documents relating to the account in the name of Mithlesh Sharma. Productioncumseizure memo dated 21.04.2005 in this regard is CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 86 of 255 Ex. PW4/A. Aforesaid documents included account opening form in respect of accused Mithlesh Sharma, about saving bank account no. 18868 opened on 11.06.2002. Account opening form is Ex. PW4/A. He identified signatures of Sh. R.P. Singh, Assistant Manager, who opened that account. Specimen signature card of said accused is Ex. PW4/A2, signed by Sh. R.P. Singh at point A and by accused Mithlesh Sharma at point C. A revised pension payment advise no. D/DLI/PEN/0102020539 dated 15.07.2002 was received in their branch from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi which was issued for a sum of Rs. 39,430/ alongwith calculation sheet. Said PPA is Ex. PW4/3 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW4/4, signed by him at point B. Another revised pension payment advise no. 0185020676 dated 30.10.2002 was received in their branch from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, New Dehi for Rs. 71,951/ which is Ex. PW4/A5. This witness further verified letter dated 15.07.2002 (D451) received from same office i.e. Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension on 17.07.2002 which is Ex. PW4/A6. Smt. Mithlesh Sharma submitted an affidavit in the bank Ex. PW4/A7 as well as a life certificate on 08.11.2004 (D437), which is Ex. PW4/A9, signed by him (PW4) at point B and by accused Mithlesh Sharma at point B. Calculation sheet about arrears (D438) is Ex. PW4/A10. PW4 further told about letter dated 26.12.2002 (D440) received from office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension and calculation sheet, which is Ex. PW4/A12 and Ex. PW4/A13 respectively. Photocopy of calculation sheet of Dearness Allowance rates in respect of family pension received by said accused CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 87 of 255 alongwith other pension papers is Ex. PW4/A14. Accused Mithlesh Sharma filed an undertaking (D450) which is Ex. PW4/A17 signed by her at point A. Certain amounts were withdrawn by said accused from this account through withdrawal slips (D456 to 481) which are collectively Ex. PW4/A18. These withdrawal slips are signed by accused Mithlesh Sharma at point A. IO Sh. R.G. Mishra (PW137) verified to have seized aforementioned documents on being produced by Sh. J.P. Sharma (PW4) Ex. PW4/A14 (D443).
In her application seeking family pension, accused Mithlesh Sharma has claimed her husband had served Diesel Shed Tuglakabad as Cleaner. Same fact is mentioned by her in 'certificate of identity' i.e. Ex. PW137/M32, in permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW137/M33 and in specimen signatures of applicant Ex. PW137/M34. Signatures (which are not legible) above the seal in the name of SSE, DSL Shed. N. Railways are made. According to Sh. R.B. Singh examined as PW44, he worked in Diesel Shed, Northern Railways, TKD since 1978. He does not know anyone in the name of D.K. Sharma or Mithlesh Sharma. He did not sign any pension paper in the name of Sh. D.K. Sharma, Diesel Cleaner, Diesel Shed TKD. His signatures appearing on pension papers at point B are not of him. Even stamp of SSE, DSL Shed N. Railways, TKD is forged. So far as he remembers, Sh. D.K. Sharma was never posted in Diesel Shed, Northern Railways, TKD. This witness further told about signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh, Assistant Personnel Officer on these documents as not genuine. Sh. R.B. Singh claimed that he could identify signatures of Kapoor Singh having seen him writing and signing before him. He never used to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 88 of 255 sign the way as signatures on these documents at point Y. Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) after seeing entry in respect of PPO no. 0185020676 in PPO register (D1680) in the name of Dinesh Sharma disclosed that said entry was made in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and same is Ex. PW47/H1. Similarly, PW47 identified handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla on letter dated 26.12.2002 (Ex. PW4/A12) over stamp of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension stating that said seal does not belong to any other officer including accused Subhash Rohilla.
Further, according to Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47), letter Ex. PW4/A12, revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020676 dated 30.10.2002, calculation sheet dated 26.12.2002 in respect fo family pension payable to Smt. Mithlesh Sharma were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. PW47 identified signatures of accused Jagmohan Sharma on these documents at points B and countersignature of Vinod Sharma at point C. It is again deposition of Sh. B.K. Butta that letter (D451) dated 15.07.2002 which is Ex. PW4/A6, revised PPA No. D/DLK/PEN/0102020539 (D
452) and calculation sheet dated 02.07.2002 (D453) in respect of exgratia payment to Smt. Mithlesh Sharma were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma as well as Sh. Vinod Sharma. Said revised PPA is Ex. PW4/A3 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW4/A4.
During investigation I.O took specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma for comparison of same by Handwriting Expert with their writings/signatures on disputed documents. As per report of handwriting CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 89 of 255 expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) two handwritten letters Ex. PW4/A11 and Ex. PW4/A12 addressed to Manager, Central Bank of India, handwritten calculation sheet Ex. PW4/A13, handwritten endorsement on PP0 no. 0185020676 Ex. PW4/A5 and handwritten endorsement on PPO no. 0102020539 Ex. PW4/A3 and handwritten calculation sheets Ex. PW137/M36 and Ex. PW4/A4 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, as per said expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. application for family pension (Ex. PW4/A14), death certificate (Ex. PW137/M31), specimen signature of applicant (Ex. PW137/M34), certificate of identity (Ex. PW137/M32), permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/M33), letter of authority and undertaking as well as signatures on photographs of accused Mithlesh Sharma in the name of Kapoor Singh are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Aforementioned documents i.e. letter addressed to Manager, Central Bank of India (Ex. PW4/A12), calculation sheet (Ex. PW4/A13), PPO no. 0185020676 (family pension) (Ex. PW4/A5), documents i.e. revised PPA no. 0102020539 (exgratia) Ex. PW4/A3, calculation sheet (Ex. PW137/D36) are shown to have been signed by Sh. Jagmohan Sharma. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined that signatures on said documents tally with the signatures of accused Jagmohan Sharma.
During investigation, IO asked Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi to tell about some pensioners whether same were employed with Indian Railways or not. In his reply, Divisional Manager (P), New Delhi (D1106) Ex. PW91/B, disclosed about D.K. Sharma as that he was not employed with Indian Railways. Even accused CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 90 of 255 Mithlesh Sharma in her statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C admitted the evidence that her husband was not employed with Indian Railways and she was not entitled for pension from Railways. According to her, she was mislead by accused Subhash Rohilla.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that Smt. Mithlesh Sharma was not entitled to get any pension. Pension in her favour was allowed by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma as part of conspiracy between them as well as accused Mithlesh Sharma.
Smt. Kanta Devi w/o Jagdish @ Jeesa (A26) This is case of family pension granted in favour of Kanta Devi through PPO no. 0193020684 dated 12.04.2003 and revised PPA no. 029321389. According to case of prosecution, husband of said accused was employed with PWI, Jakhal, Jind as a temporary Gang Man on 15.02.1984. On 15.05.1989, he was transferred to ADEN, Rohtak again as a temporary Gang Man. Having temporary employee, he or his dependents (after his death) were not entitled to any pension. Family pension through PPA/PPO mentioned above was granted by accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar as a result of conspiracy among them as well as Kanta Devi. The application of said accused was marked to Ms. Poonam, but malafidely processed by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. Bhupender Jindal (PW15) is stated to be employed with State Bank of India. This witness verified account no. 01190005124 having been opened in favour of Smt. Kanta Devi on 25.08.1993. Account opening form in this regard is Ex. PW15/A10. Sh. Bhupender Jindal further deposed about revised pension payment CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 91 of 255 advise no. D/DLI/PEN/0193020684 (D517) having been received from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi as well as calculation sheet, both dated 12.04.2003 and other pension papers in the name of accused Kanta Devi. Said PPA is Ex. PW15/A11 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW15/A12. Again, according to this witness, accused Kanta Devi submitted her affidavit in the bank on 20.03.2002 which is Ex. PW15/A14 and letters dated 28.07.2003 (D513) and 12.04.2003 (D516) received in their bank from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi, which are Ex. PW15/A16 and Ex. PW15/A17 respectively. Again, according to this witness, certain amounts were withdrawn from aforesaid account through 26 withdrawal slips by accused Kanta Devi. Said withdrawal slips are collectively Ex. PW15/A18. Statement of account (12 pages) in respect of aforementioned account of Kanta Devi from 12.10.2003 to 31.12.2004 is Ex. PW15/A15. This witness identified signatures of Sh. Chet Ram, the then Deputy Manager on each page of said documents at points A. Documents mentioned above were seized by IO against a receipt memo dated 19.04.2005 which is Ex. PW15/A19.
The fact that such an account was opened by accused Kanta Devi and she withdrew certain amounts from that account through 26 withdrawal slips mentioned above, is not disputed on behalf of said accused, during arguments. Even otherwise, signatures in the name of right thumb impression of accused Kanta Devi on following documents are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) A. Withdrawal forms (D486 to D511) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 92 of 255 B. Application form (Ex. PW15/A13) C. Permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/M47) D. Specimen signatures form (Ex. PW137/M14) E. Letter of authority (Ex. PW137/M45) F. Affidavit in the name of Kanta Devi dated 20.03.2003.
Sh. Pooran Chand (PW87) was posted as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Railways, DRM Office, New Delhi. According to him, from July 2003 to July 2007, he remained posted in pension section. His duty at that time was to process pension case files received from settlement section and accounts department. Settlement section used to take authenticity of details containing in pension files which was forwarded to their section. The head of department of employee concerned was authorized to certify particulars of that employee and thereafter same were verified by APO, Settlement.
It is submitted by Ld. Sr. PP that no such authentication was done by head of the department, where husband of Kanta Devi i.e. Sh. Jagdish @ Jeesa was working at the time of latter's death. Accused Subhash Rohilla with malafide intention prepared PPA, without following due procedure.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) was posted as Accounts Assistant in Pension Section in year 2001. According to said witness, his duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases and to distribute the same among other staff, who included Sh. Soran Singh (A6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Sh. Meena and CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 93 of 255 Sh. Satish Chander, who are also accounts assistants. This witness identified handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla, signatures of Jagmohan Sharma and countersignature of Vinod Sharma on revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0193020684 dated 12.04.2003 at point A, B and C respectively. He further identified signature of accused Jagmohan Sharma on said PPA. Revised PPA is Ex. PW15/A11 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW15/A12. According to this witness, said calculation sheet is in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohill and signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma also.
Specimen signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla as well as Jagmohan Sharma were taken by IO during investigation of this case. Same were sent for the opinion of handwriting expert alongwith pension papers of accused Kanta Devi. As per report given by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), handwritten letters, both addressed to Manager, State Bank of India, Jakhal, Haryana i.e. Ex. PW15/A16 and Ex. PW15/A17, endorsement on PPO no. 0193020684 dated 12.04.2003 (Ex. PW15/A11) and handwritten calculation sheet (Ex. PW15/A12), these documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to aforesaid handwriting expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla I. Application form of Kanta Devi Ex. PW14/A13 II. Permanent address and mode of payment form Ex. PW137/M47.
III. Certificate of Identity Ex. 137/M46
IV. Specimen signatures form Ex. 137/M48
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 94 of 255
V. Letter of authority Ex. 137/M45
Apart from these documents, photographs of Smt. Kanta Devi on documents Ex. 137/M48 and Ex. 137/M49 are attested by accused Subhash Rohilla, writing as "Kapoor Singh".
PW113 in his report opined further that letter addressed to Manager, State Bank of India Ex. PW15/A16, PPO no. 0193020684 (Ex. PW15/A11) and calculation sheet Ex. PW15/A12, all these are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that pension granted in favour of Kanta Devi was apparently wrong. As per statement of account of said accused, salary in the name of Jeesa @ Jagdish was credited on 01.07.2003 whereas PPO for family pension had already been issued before that date and that on 12.04.2003.
It is deposed by Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) on oath that during investigation he received a letter dated 03.10.2006 (Ex. PW137/J) from Sr. Section Engineer. The latter replied that Jagdish @ Jeesa was employed as a temporary Gang Man, in his office on 15.02.1984 and was transferred to ADEN, Rohtak as temporary Gang Man.
True, if document Ex. PW137/J is taken as true Sh. Jeesa @ Jagdish s/o Jaila was posted under this office (Office of Sr. Section Engineer) P. Way N.R. Jakhal JN on 15.02.1984 as temporary Gang Man and he (Jeesa) was transferred to ADEN, Rohtak as temporary Gangman.
Considering the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that Smt. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 95 of 255 Kanta Devi was not entitled for any pension. Pension was wrongfully granted in her favour by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. All this shows that accused Kanta Devi was also involved in criminal conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma.
As per Ld. Sr. PP for CBI, accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy, as according to report of handwriting expert (PW113) it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar, who filled up application form of accused Kanta Devi (Ex. PW15/A13), permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/M47) and form of withdrawal of pension (Ex. PW137/M45).
Even if as per handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) aforesaid documents were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence to show that said accused received any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Sajna W/o late Ran Singh (A27) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Sajna through PPO no. 0172020053 dated 30.11.2003 and revised PPA Ref. No. E/P/2579. According to case of prosecution, late Ran Singh though served Indian Railways, but resigned. Neither he nor his LRs including Smt. Sajna (after death of Govt. Employee) were entitled for any pension, but pension was provided to Smt. Sajna accused by accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar having hatched conspiracy among them and Smt. Sajna. The application was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta, but was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 96 of 255 processed by accused Subhash Rohilla in furtherance of his illegal design.
It is pointed out that Smt. Sajna has already expired and proceedings against her have been abated vide order of this Court dated 23.10.200. Even if said accused has expired, according to case of prosecution, pension in favour of said Smt. Sajna was granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma having hatched conspiracy between them with one Sh. Naresh Kumar and accused Sajna herself. Other accused namely Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Naresh Kumar are still facing trial and hence it is necessary for this Court to decide if pension in favour of Smt. Sajna was legally granted or not.
Sh. Bhupender Jindal (PW15) deposed that between August 2004 to December 2006, he remained posted as Assistant Manager in State Bank of India, Jakhal Branch. During investigation of this case, on being asked by IO, he handed over documents pertaining to Smt. Sajna, which were seized by IO vide production cum seizure memo (D527) which is Ex. PW15/A32. Said documents are collectively Ex. PW15/A33.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) told that during investigation he seized file no. 18 relating to Smt. Sajna (D527 to D546) same is Ex. PW131/9. These documents are specimen signature card of Smt. Sajna (Ex. PW15/A33), withdrawal form of different dates (D529 to D536) [Ex. PW137/M53 (Colly.)], statement about account of account no. 01190/003776 in the name of Sajna (D537) (Ex. PW137/M54), life certificate of pension holder (Ex. PW137/M55), letter of undertaking submitted by Smt. Sajna (Ex. PW137/M56), revised pension payment CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 97 of 255 advise stated to be in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla i.e. (Ex. PW47/FX1), calculation sheet (D541) (Ex. PW47/FX2), application for family pension (Ex. PW137/M57), letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW137/M58), permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/M59), specimen signature card of Smt. Sajna (Ex. PW137/M60), Thumb and finger impression of Smt. Sajna (Ex. PW137/M61) and production cum seizure memo (Ex. PW15/A32) dated 19.04.2005.
I.O stated further that he took specimen signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, which were sent to handwriting expert for opinion as to whether documents i.e. PPO no. 0172020053 (Ex. PW47/FX1) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/FX2) were prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by Jagmohan Sharma or not. After examining signatures in the name of said accused as well as their specimen signatures/handwriting, Dr. Ravindra Sharma i.e. handwriting expert, who is examined as PW113, opined that handwritten endorsement on aforesaid PPO (Ex. PW47/FX1) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/FX2) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and again that both of said documents were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert, word "Kapoor Singh" on following documents i.e. application form for family pension, permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW147/M59) and letter of authority (Ex. PW147/M58) as well as on the photographs of Smt. Sajna are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Considering all this, it is well established that pension was granted in favour of Smt. Sajna by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 98 of 255IO, Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) in his deposition further disclosed that during investigation he sought some information from Sr. Section Engineer, Northern Railway, Jakhal and the latter gave reply (D1105) which is Ex. PW137/V2. According to him, as per record of their office, Sh. Ran Singh s/o Sarwa Singh worked as Gang Man, but resigned from his post on 07.07.1970.
It is also contended by Ld. Sr. PP that during investigation IO gave a list to Divisional Railway Manager of certain employees asking if same were employees of Indian Railways. Divisional Railway Manager (P), New Delhi, through his letters Ex. PW91/A and Ex. PW91/B gave information, according to which, Sh. Ran Singh, husband of Smt. Sajna was not employed as Gang Man, CC Jind, as claimed by Smt. Sajna through in her application seeking family pension. Testimony of I.O in this respect was not contradicted by accused. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
On the basis of aforesaid discussed facts, it is well established that Smt. Sajna was not entitled to any pension as her husband had resigned on 07.07.1970 and was not retired as Gang Man CC Jind, as claimed by her. It is not disputed by any of accused during deliberations that a railway employee, who voluntarily resigned from his job, was not entitled to any pension, unless specifically allowed by the employer. Pension in her favour was thus wrongly granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma.
It is further plea of Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 99 of 255 application form Ex. PW137/M57, permanent address form PW137/M59 and letter of authority Ex. PW137/M58 and this fact is well proved from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
Even if, according to handwriting expert, aforesaid documents were filled by Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence that said accused received any consideration or was involved in any conspiracy with coaccused. No offence is made out against said accused.
Santosh Rani w/o late Kanda Ram (A28) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Santosh Rani vide PPO no. 0182020687 dated 16.04.2003 and revised PPA no. 02828249.
According to case of prosecution, pension was granted in favour of said accused by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma as part of conspiracy between them and one Naresh Kumar as well as Smt. Santosh Rani herself. Accused Subhash Rohilla processed application without following due procedure and attested the pension papers including photograph of claimant Smt. Santosh Rani impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari (Assistant Personnel Officer), Northern Railway.
It is deposed by Sh. Bal Kishan (PW5) that he was working in Punjab National Bank, Sivan, District Kaithal, Haryana, as Special Assistant. After seeing documents on record, PW5 reminded that a saving account no. 10254 was opened in their bank, in the name of Smt. Santosh Rani w/o late Kanda Ram on 24.03.2003 by Sh. Charanjeet Singh, an Officer of their branch. He (PW Bal Kishan) identified CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 100 of 255 signatures of said Charanjeet Singh on account opening form (Ex. PW5/A1) at points A, specimen signatures card of said customer i.e. Smt. Santosh Rani (Ex. PW5/A2). This witness told further that a revised PPA no. D/DLI/Pension/0182020687 dated 16.04.2003 was received in their bank, alongwith calculation sheet and other papers through PNB, Kaithal Link Branch. There was following endorsement made in hand "arrear of family pension w.e.f. 25.10.1982 to 31.12.1995 for Rs. 83,576/ as per calculation sheet attached may be paid to Smt. Santosh Rani". Signatures of PDA/FA & CAO, NR, New Delhi were verified by their branch. In view of said revised PPA and other documents, an arrear of Rs. 1,54,392/ were credited in the account of said accused (Santosh Rani) on 29.07.2003. A regular monthly pension was also credited in this account upto March, 2005. Revised PPA (D553) is Ex. PW5/A3, calculation sheet (D554) is Ex. PW5/A4 and other pension papers (D555 to 559) are collectively Ex. PW5/A5.
It is further deposition of PW5 that said Santosh Rani filed an affidavit with their bank (D560) is Ex. PW5/A6, life certificate (D561) is Ex. PW5/A7, letter of undertaking (D562) is Ex. PW5/8, revised PPA was received vide letter dated 02.07.2003 (D563) is Ex. PW5/9. This witness (Sh. Bal Kishan) verified letters dated 01.07.2003 (D564), dated 30.06.2003 (D565) and dated 16.04.2003 (D566) having been received from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, in their bank. All of which are Ex. PW5/A10, Ex. PW5/A11 and Ex. PW5/A12. He told further that letter dated 28.07.2003 was also received (D568) from said office i.e. Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, regarding sanction and release of arrears of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 101 of 255 family pension w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to 30.04.2003. Said letter is Ex. PW5/A14. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through 21 withdrawal slips (D570 to D
588) which are collectively Ex. PW5/A16. Statement of account of said accused Santosh Rani (D550) is Ex. PW5/A18, another statement of account of arrears (D
549) in respect of same accused is Ex. PW5/A19. All these documents were produced to the IO, who seized the same vide production cum receipt memo (D569) dated 29.04.2005.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) stated to have seized account opening form of Smt. Santosh Rani (Ex. PW5/A1), specimen signatures card (Ex. PW5/A2) having affixed photo of herself at point X1, certified copies of pension payment Ex. [PW5/A19 (Colly.)], statement of account (Ex. PW5/A18), revised payment advise (Ex. PW5/A3), calculation sheet (Ex. PW5/A4) application for family pension (Ex. PW5/A5), certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/A40), permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/A41), thumb and finger impression of Smt. Santosh Rani (Ex. PW46/A42, authority letter (Ex. PW46/A44), affidavit of accused Santosh Rani (Ex. PW5/A6), life certificate (Ex. PW5/A7), letter of undertaking submitted by accused Santosh Rani (Ex. PW5/8), forwarding letter addressed to Manager, PNB, Branch Sivan, Kaithal, Haryana (Ex. PW5/9), letters dated 01.07.2003, 30.06.2003, 16.04.2003 and 28.07.2003 (Ex. PW5/A10, Ex. PW5/A11, Ex. PW5/A12 and Ex. PW5/A14), 21 withdrawal slips which are (collectively Ex. PW5/A16), from Special Assistant, PNB Sivan Branch, Kaithal through seizure memo dated 29.04.2005.
During arguments, it is not disputed that aforementioned documents i.e. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 102 of 255 application for family pension etc. were submitted by accused Santosh Rani or she received family pension on the basis of said documents. Even otherwise, signatures of said accused on these documents i.e. application form for family pension (Ex. PW5/A5), permanent address form (Ex. PW46/A4), specimen signature sheet (Ex. PW46/A43), affidavit (Ex. PW5/A6) as well as withdrawal slips mentioned above are well established from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113).
Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) is stated to have compared signatures on aforementioned documents allegedly done in the handwriting of Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, with their specimen signatures and handwriting. Said witness opined that endorsement in English on PPO no. 0182020687 (Ex. PW5/A3), calculation sheet of arrears of pension (Ex. PW5/A4), letter dated 01.07.2003 addressed to Manager, PNB, Kaithal, Haryana (Ex. PW5/A10), letter dated 30.06.2003 (Ex. PW5/A11), letter dated 16.04.2003 (Ex. PW5/A12) and letter dated 28.07.2003 (Ex. PW5/A14), all of which were written in hand, were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, PPO no. 0182020687 (Ex. PW5/A3), calculation sheet (Ex. PW5/A4), letter to Manager PNB, Kaithal (Ex. PW5/A11) and letter dated 28.07.2003 addressed to Manager PNB, Sivan (Ex. PW5/A14) were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was also of opinion that application for family pension (Ex. PW5/A5), certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/A40), permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW46/A41), authority letter as well as photographs of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 103 of 255 Santosh Rani on documents Ex. PW46/A42 and specimen form (D558) were also written by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. Kapoor Singh was examined by prosecution as PW46. According to this witness, he served Indian Railways as Assistant Personnel Officer, Baroda House, New Delhi in year 1998 and remained posted as APO in settlement branch of Delhi division from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. This witness explained the procedure about process of application for pension. According to him, pension forms are filled up in triplicate by the employee and attested by the officer of the concerned department. Thereafter, same are deposited in settlement branch through Welfare Inspector of concerned beat. Personal file alongwith leave record of employee concerned is also handed over to the settlement branch by the department, three months prior to retirement of the employee. The calculation sheet regarding the pensionary benefits of every employee is prepared in the settlement branch.
After seeing documents Ex. PW5/A5, Ex. 46/A40, Ex. PW46/A41, Ex. PW46/A42, Ex. PW46/A43 and Ex. PW46/A44 i.e. pension papers in the name of Santosh Rani, it is deposed by PW46 that these documents are shown to have been signed in his (Kapoor Singh) name, but same were not actually signed by him. His signatures were forged on these documents. Aforementioned documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division, Delhi.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is proved that application form for pension filed by Smt. Santosh Rani was not processed as per rules. Application was not filed before Head of Officer where late husband of accused Santosh Rani last CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 104 of 255 served but directly taken by accused Subhash Rohilla. Same also signed pension papers and attested photo of accused Subhash Rohilla impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Moreover, it is not clear if late Kanda Ram had opted for pension.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application form (Ex. PW5/A5), permanent addresss and mode of payment (Ex. PW46/A41), thumb and finger impression form (Ex. PW46/A42) and letter of authority (Ex. PW46/A44), were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar and this fact is very well established from the report of handwriting expert. Said accused (Naresh Kumar) was also involved in conspiracy with other accused.
Even if, according to handwriting expert, said application form etc. in the name of accused Santosh Rani were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence that said accused accepted any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with coaccused. No offence is made out against said accused simply due to fact that he filled up application form etc. for Santosh Rani, who is stated to be an illiterate lady.
Jagat Ram S/o Sheo Lal (A29) This is a case of invalid pension. As per Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, application filed by accused Jagat Ram seeking pension was marked to B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla with ill intention to provide pension to said accused, who was not legally entitled. Subhash Rohilla hatched a conspiracy with co accused Jagmohan Sharma and Jagat Ram, the claimant himself. He (Subhash Rohilla) prepared PPO No. 0194020708 dated 23.03.2004 and revised PPA No. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 105 of 255 029422681, signed the documents of accused Jagat Ram and attested his photographs impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Accused Jagat Ram died during trial and proceedings against him were abated. As accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla are still facing trial and hence its necessary to decide if pension in favour of Sh. Jagat Ram was granted legally or not.
Prosecution examined Sh. Ved Prakash Mittal as PW26. According to latter i.e. PW26, he remained posted as Assistant in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kinana from June 2003 to August, 2009. During investigation of this case, on 15.04.2005 he handed over various documents to IO of this case which were seized by the latter. The production cum receipt memo in this regard is Ex. PW26/A. Said documents were pertaining to Account No.1768 of accused Jagat Ram opened on 06.08.1998 by Sh. V.K. Garg, the then Manager. Account Opening Form(D592) is Ex. PW26/A1, signed by Sh. V.K. Garg at point A. This witness also verified signatures of accused Jagat Ram as well as of Sh. V.K. Garg, the then Manager of Bank on specimen signature card of said accused.
PW26 further told about PPO No. NR/95029422681/DAP/DLI dated 23.03.2004, Revised PPA NO. D/DLI/PEN/0194020708 dated 23.03.2004, calculation sheet and some other papers (D597 to D603), all sent to Link Branch of their bank situated at Jind through their bank. PPO referred above is Ex. PW26/A3, Revised PPA is Ex. PW26/A4, calculation sheet is Ex. PW26/A5 and other papers are collectively Ex. PW26/A6. According to said witness, certain amounts were withdrawn from aforesaid account through seven withdrawal slips and two cheques, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 106 of 255 which are collectively Ex. PW26/A8, statement of account in relation to said account from 01.05.2004 to 02.01.2006 issued by Sh. D.R. Bhatia, the then Manager, is Ex. PW26/A9 and certificate under section 2A of The Bankers Book of Evidence Act issued in this regard is Ex. PW26/A10. This witness identified signatures of Sh. D.R. Bhatia on statement of account as well as certificate mentioned above at points B. Filing of application seeking pension (Ex. PW26/A6), opening of account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kinana and withdrawal of amounts through seven withdrawal slips and two cheques by him are not disputed by accused Jagat Ram during arguments. Even otherwise, signature of said accused on documents i.e. application for pension (Ex. PW26/A6), Permanent Address Form (Ex. PW46/A1), Thumb & Finger Impression Form (Ex. PW46/A3), specimen LTI of claimant Jagat Ram (Ex. PW46/A2), Declaration Form (Ex. PW46/A4), Permanent Address Form (Ex. PW46/A), authority letter (Ex. PW137/M65) and affidavit (Ex. PW137/M66) are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, who is examined as PW
113. Apart from documents mentioned above i.e. application form of accused Jagat Ram etc., certain other documents were sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion about signature/handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma after comparison with their specimen signature/handwriting taken during investigation. Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), in his report, opined that letter to Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jind, Haryana (Ex. PW26/A3), PPO No. 094020708 (Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 107 of 255PW26/A4), calculation of arrears on pension (Ex. PW26/A5) are signed by accused Jagat Ram. Similarly, in the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma, letter written to Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jind (Ex. PW26/A3) and written endorsement on PPO No. 0194020708 (Ex. PW26/A4), calculation sheet of arrears of pension in favour of accused Jagat Ram (Ex. PW26/A5) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Further, according to said expert word 'Kapoor Singh' on following documents is in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla:
a) Application form for pension (Ex. PW26/A6).
b) Statement of family members (Ex. PW46/A1) c) Specimen LTI of accuserd Jagat Ram (Ex. PW46/A3) d) Specimen signature form (Ex. PW26/A2) e) Declaration form (Ex. PW46/A4) f) Permanent address form (Ex. PW46/A) g) Letter of authority (Ex. PW137/M65)
Photographs of accused Jagat Ram on Ex. PW46/A2 and Ex. PW46/A3 are shown to have been attested in the name of Kapoor Singh. In the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma, said words i.e. 'Kapoor Singh' are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) deposed that he served Indian Railways as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) and was posted in Settlement Branch, Delhi Division w.e.f. October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. According to this witness, pension forms are filled up in triplicate by the employee and the same is attested by the officer of the concerned CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 108 of 255 department. From department concerned, same are sent to Settlement Branch through Welfare Inspector. Personal files along with leave account of employee are handed over to Settlement Branch by the department concerned, three months prior to his/her retirement. Settlement Branch prepares calculation sheet regarding pensionary benefits of every employee. Leave account is also verified by concerned branch and then by accounts branch. File thereafter is sent to Settlement Branch. Pension is prepared and sanctioned according to qualifying service. The original papers belonging to pensions are entered in Index Register maintained by Settlement Branch and then sent to accounts branch. Accounts branch, after preparing and fixing the pension, used to send copy of pension payment order to the settlement section for maintaining the records.
After seeing documents relating to pension granted in favour of accused Jagat Ram (D594 to D602), it is claimed by this witness that signatures in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh were not genuine rather forged. Moreover, there was no other person in the name of Kapoor Singh apart from him who served as Sahayak Karmik Adhikari (Assistant Executive Officer), Northern Railways. Aforesaid documents for grant of pension in favour of Jagat Ram were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) also told about aforesaid documents (D591 to D
613) i.e. Ex. PW131/10 as forged, same were never produced before him as APO, Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. Moreover, no such documents were forwarded by him.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 109 of 255It is pointed out by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that accused Jagat Ram, in his affidavit Ex. PW137/M66, has mentioned that he joined Indian Railways as Gangman on 11.03.1965 and medically retired on 31.12.1994. For invalid pension, the employee concerned was required to file certificate given by medical board, to show that same had become medically unfit. No such medical certificate was filed by said accused. Even otherwise, pension is granted to an employee immediately after his retirement and it was for the department concerned to forward pension papers. It is unbelievable that Sh. Jagat Ram retired on 31.12.1994. No pension was provided to him till March, 2004 when PPO No. 0194020708 was sent by accused Subhash Rohilla providing pension in his favour.
From the evidence, as discussed above, it is well established that it were accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagat Ram who provided pension to accused Jagat Ram without following due procedure and there is no evidence to show that accused Jagat Ram had actually become medically unfit for job or was entitled to invalid pension.
Ram Kali w/o Baru Ram (A30) Exgratia pension as well as family pension were granted in favour accused Ram Kali through PPO no. 0102020817 and PPO no. 0185020683. According to case of prosecution, these pensions were granted in favour of accused Ram Kali by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma having conspired with each other as well as said Ram Kali and one Naresh Kumar (A8) otherwise Smt. Ram Kali was not entitled for these pensions. Inspite of sending application for pension through proper procedure, accused Subhash Rohilla took the same for himself directly in accounts CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 110 of 255 section particularly when it was marked to Ms. Veena i.e. other account's assistant.
Sh. Sunil Kumar Bansal (PW34) deposed that in year 2005 he was posted as Head Cashier, State Bank of Patiala, Gharonda Branch, Distt. Karnal, Haryana. An account no. 01190011700 was opened in their bank in the name of Smt. Ram Kali w/o Baru Ram r/o VPO Gharonda. A PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0102020817 dated 27.09.2002 (Ex. PW34/A2) was received in their branch, alongwith calculation sheet of pension arrears (Ex. PW34/A3). Another revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020683 dated 28.02.2003 alongwith calculation sheet and a letter of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, was also received in that branch. Said revised PPO is Ex. PW34/A4, calculation sheet is Ex. PW34/A5 and forwarding letter is Ex. PW34/A6. An amount of Rs. 88,830/ was credited in account of Smt. Ram Kali on 22.10.2002. Apart from it, regular pension was also received in this account till April 2003. Statement of account in this regard is Ex. PW34/A8. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account vide withdrawal slips (D627 to D662) which are collectively Ex. PW34/A9. Withdrawal slips were seized by IO on 09.05.2005, through seizure memo Ex. PW34/A10. This witness verified production of all documents in relation to pension papers of Smt. Ram Kali and seizure of same by IO, through productioncumseizure memo Ex. PW34/A. Although, opening of such an account, withdrawal of certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW34/A9 (Colly.). etc. not denied by/on behalf of the accused Ram Kali. Signatures (right thumb impression) of said accused on documents i.e. letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A7), specimen RTI (Ex. PW46/A5) and on withdrawal CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 111 of 255 slips are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
In specimen signature form, applicant/Ram Kali disclosed about her husband late Baru Ram being employed as Gang Man PWI, Panipat. There is nothing on record to verify that application form was forwarded by the department, where late Baru Ram was employed or same was dealt by settlement branch.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) disclosed that he served Railway Department as Accounts Assistant and during year 2001 he was posted in pension section. After seeing PPO register (D1678) pertaining to year 2001, this witness disclosed that said register (Ex. PW47B) belonged to his department. At Sl. no. 817 in this register, there is entry in respect of PPO no. 0102020817 in the name of Baru Ram. This entry is in the handwrting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Being coemployee, he can identify signature of accused Subhash Rohilla, having seen him writing before him (PW47). Entry is Ex. PW47/BX.
Sh. P.R. Gautam (PW92) told that he joined Northern Railways on 06.04.1989. After seeing register Ex. PW92/C, this witness disclosed that at Sl. no. 13 page no. 204, there is entry regarding employee Baru s/o Sukher, where the latter has been shown as casual khalasi.
According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), he remained posted as APO in Settlement Division, Delhi from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. He explained the procedure of determination of pension to an employee. According to him, pension forms are filled up in triplicate by the employee and attested by the officer of the concerned department. Same are deposited in settlement branch through Welfare CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 112 of 255 Inspector of concerned beat. Personal file alongwith leave record of employee concerned is also handed over to the settlement branch by the department, three months prior to retirement of the employee. The calculation sheet regarding the pensionary benefits of every employee is prepared in the settlement branch. All the original papers after entering in settlement file of the employee in the index register maintained by settlement branch are sent to account department. The file is then received by the account branch by endorsing on the index register. The account branch after preparing and fixing the pension, sent a copy of Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the settlement section for maintaining the record.
After seeing pension papers in the name of accused Ram Kali (Ex. PW34/A) and Ex. PW46/A5, it is deposed by this witness that signature on these documents in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh were not genuine, rather forged. There was no other person in the name of Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Northern Railways, posted there, except himself. Aforementioned documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
As per Ld. Sr. PP, during investigation of this case, IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla as well as Jagmohan Sharma for comparison with the pension papers in the name of accused Ram Kali. According to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), endorsement on PPO no. 0102020817 dated 27.09.2002 (Ex. PW34/A2) in respect of exgratia pension, calculation sheet of arrear of exgratia pension (Ex. PW34/A3), endorsement on PPO no. 0185020683 dated 28.02.2003 about family pension (Ex. PW34/A4), endorsement CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 113 of 255 about same i.e. family pension w.e.f. 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995 (Ex. PW34/A5) and letter dated 13.03.2003 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala (Ex. PW34/A6), all these documents were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. It is further opined by Dr. Ravindra Sharma (GEQD) that name Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A7), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A5), application form for pension (Ex. PW137/Q7), certificate of identity form (Ex. PW137/Q8), thumb and finger impression form (Ex. PW137/Q9) and form of permanent address (Ex. PW137/Q10) are written by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Dr. Ravindra Sharma further opined that documents i.e. PPO no. 0102020817 (Ex. PW34/A2), calculation sheet of arrear of exgratia pension (Ex. PW34/A3), PPO no. 0185020683(Ex. PW34/A4), calculation sheet about arrears of family pension (Ex. PW34/A5) and letter dated 13.03.2003 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road (Ex. PW34/A6), are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that exgratia pension as well as family pension was provided in favour of Ram Kali, without following due procedure. Application was marked to Ms. Veena, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter also signed pension documents of said accused impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Being a senior officer, accused Jagmohan Sharma was required to verify that pension papers were duly processed, but latter signed the same having reason to believe that same were not duly processed. All this shows conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma as well as accused Ram Kali i.e. the beneficiary.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 114 of 255Ld. Sr. PP contends that application form etc are filled up by accused Naresh Kumar. The latter was also involved in the conspiracy to provide pension in favour of Smt. Ram Kali, illegally. According to him, documents i.e. application form form for family pension (Ex. PW137/Q7), certificate of identity form (Ex. PW137/Q8), thumb and finger impression form of Smt. Ram Kali (Ex. PW137/Q9) and form of permanent address and made of payment (Ex. PW137/Q10), all these were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar. This fact is verified by handwriting expert, Dr. Ravindra Sharma.
Even though, aforestated documents are opined to have been filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence on record that latter received any gratification to fill up these documents or was in conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Mindro @ Mahindro w/o late Ishwar (A31) Two pensions i.e. exgratia and family pension were granted in favour of accused Smt. Mindro @ Mahindro through PPO No. 0102020541 in July, 2002 and PPO No. 0185020682 dated 28.02.2003 respectively. Revised PPA was also issued, being No.028513018.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that no dependent of Railway employee was entitled to ex gratia pension as well as family pension together, when such an employee had already expired. Same were illegally granted in favour of Smt. Mindro @ Mahindro by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, having hatched a conspiracy with said accused Mindro @ Mahindro as well as one Naresh Kumar (A CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 115 of 255
8). The application for pension was marked to Ms. Meena, another accounts assistant but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla without following due procedure. Even according to accused Mindro, her husband died on 24.07.1989, but family pension was started in her favour w.e.f. 22.07.1985, when her husband was still alive. Accused Subhash Rohilla signed application form etc submitted by accused Mindro, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. All this shows wrongful intention on his part.
Prosecution examined one Sh. Sunil Kumar Bansal as PW34. According to this witness, in year 2005, he was posted as Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala, Garonda Branch, District. An account No. 10657 was opened in their bank in the name of Smt. Mindro, resident of 225/10, Garonda, account opening form is Ex. PW34/A13. This witness verified further that PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/010202541 (Ex. PW34/A14) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW34/A15), were received in their branch along with a forwarding letter of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, Delhi. An amount of Rs.1,46,842/ and Rs.92,765/ towards pension arrears were credited in said account of Smt. Mindro. Apart from said amounts, regular pension was also credited till January, 2005. Statement of account in this regard is Ex. PW34/A20. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account vide withdrawal slips collectively Ex. PW34/A21. Said withdrawal slips were seized by IO, on being produced by him vide production cum seizure memo dated 09.05.2005, which is Ex. PW34/A22, A letter of undertaking was given by said account holder/Smt. Mindro same is Ex. PW34/A23.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 116 of 255This witness again told a letter dated 31.07.2002 received in their branch from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railways, Delhi regarding exgratia pension of Sh. Ishwar Dass which is Ex. PW34/A24. Documents pertaining to pension granted in favour of Smt. Mindro along with similar documents of Smt. Ramkali and Kasturi Devi were seized by the IO vide seizure memo collectively exhibited as PW34/A25.
However, the fact that accused Mindro Devi applied for pension, opened an account with State Bank of Patiala, Garonda Branch and also withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW34/A21 are not disputed during deliberations, the signatures of said accused (Mindro @ Mahindro) on documents i.e. letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A19), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A6) and withdrawal slips Ex. PW34/A21 are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
It is contended that during investigation, IO took specimen handwriting and specimen signature of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and also of accused Mahindro for comparison of same with signatures in their names on disputed documents. In his report, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113) opined that hand written endorsement on PPO 0102020541 (Ex. PW34/A14) about ex gratia pension, endorsement on PPO No. 0185020682 (Ex. PW34/A16) about family pension, letters dated 13.03.2013 (Ex. PW34/A18), dated 31.07.2002 (Ex. PW34/A24) and dated 19.07.2002 (Ex. PW47/X1), all addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Karnal as well as calculation sheet of arrears of pension Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 117 of 255(PW34/A17) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Further according to said handwriting expert, words "Kapoor Singh" on letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A19), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A6) and application form of Mindro (Ex. PW137/Q1toQ6) are written by accused Subhash Rohilla. It is again the report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) that documents i.e. PPO (Ex. PW34/A14), PPO (Ex. PW34/A16), calculation of arrears (Ex. PW34/A15) (about exgratia pension), another calculation of arrears (Ex. PW34/A17) (about family pension), letters dated 31.07.2002 and 13.03.2003 referred above are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) disclosed that he remained posted as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division w.e.f. October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. He was transferred from Delhi Division to Baroda House in April, 2003. After seeing documents Ex. PW34/A14 to PW34/A17 and Ex. PW34/A19 related to pension in favour of Smt. Mahindro, it is disclosed by this witness that said documents were purported to have been signed by him but signatures in his name on these documents are not genuine, but forged. He never signed these documents. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division Delhi.
Considering evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension granted in favour of accused Mindro @ Mahindro through PPO No. 0102020541, PPO No. 0185020682 and revised PPA No.028513018 was not as per law. Said accused was not entitled for both of exgratia and family pensions together. It is also CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 118 of 255 proved that pension in favour of said accused was granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, in conspiracy with each other as well as said accused Mahindro @ Mindro. Accused Subhash Rohilla also signed pension papers i.e. letter of authority, specimen signature form and application form of accused Mindro impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, which shows his wrong intention.
As per Ld. Sr. PP, accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in conspiracy with other accused, as he filled up application form etc. for accused Mindro after taking hafty amount from her. Handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar on said documents is well proved from report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma i.e. handwriting expert.
Even if according to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), application form for family pension (Ex. PW137/Q1), permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW137/Q2), certificate of identity form (Ex. PW137/Q3), thumb and finger print application form (Ex. PW137/Q4) and application for family pension (Ex. PW137/Q7) were filled up in the handwriting of Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8), there is no evidence to show that said accused was involved in any such conspiracy. Simply by contending that accused Naresh Kumar filled the forms, does not make him a conspirator. No offence is made out against him.
Kasturi Devi w/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh (A32) Two pensions i.e. exgratia as well as family pension were granted in favour of accused Smt. Kasturi Devi through PPO no. 0102020818 dated 27.09.2002 (exgratia) and PPO no. 0185020684 dated 28.02.2003 as well as revised PPA no. 28513020 (family pension). It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that no employee of Indian Railways CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 119 of 255 or dependents of such employee were entitled to both of said pensions together. Malafide intention of this accused (Kasturi Devi) is clear as family pension is granted to the dependents of a public servant after latter's death, but even as per accused Kasturi Devi, her husband (Sukhbir Singh) died on 02.08.1986 and family pension was granted in her favour w.e.f. 01.08.1985. The application was marked to Ms. Veena, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, with malafide intention. The latter (Subhash Rohilla) having hatched conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan, one Naresh Kumar and Smt. Kasturi Devi, allowed pension in latter's favour, without adopting due procedure. Accused Subhash Rohilla attested documents as well as photographs of accused Kasturi Devi, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined Sh. Sunil Kumar Bansal as PW34. According to this witness, in year 2005 he was posted as Head Cashier, State Bank of Patiala, Gharonda Branch, Distt. Karnal, Haryana. IO of this case, seized various documents pertaining to accused Kasturi Devi w/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh. Revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0102020818 dated 27.09.2002 (D716) was received in their branch alongwith a calculation sheet, both of which are Ex. PW34/A28 and Ex. PW34/A29 respectively. This witness further verified receipt of another PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020684 dated 28.02.2003 and calculation sheet through forwarding letter dated 13.03.2003. Aforesaid revised PPA is Ex. PW34/A30, calculation sheet Ex. PW34/A31 & forwarding letter is Ex. PW34/A32. Other pension papers about said accused are collectively Ex. PW34/A33. Statement of account in this regard from 16.10.2001 to 22.04.2005 is Ex. PW34/A34. PW34 further told that certain CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 120 of 255 amounts were withdrawn from said account vide withdrawal slips (D726 to D758) which are Ex. PW34/A35. Said slips were seized by IO vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW34/A36. Accused Kasturi Devi had given a letter of undertaking before the bank, which is Ex. PW34/A37.
The fact that accused Smt. Kasturi Devi applied for pension, it was granted in her favour, she opened an account with State Bank of Patiala and withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW34/A35, are not denied on behalf of said accused, during arguments. Even otherwise, her signatures on aforesaid documents are verified from report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). According to latter, letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A33), specimen signature form and withdrawal forms (D726 to D757) were signed by accused Kasturi Devi.
During investigation I.O. is stated to have taken specimen signatures/ handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla as well as Jagmohan Sharma also apart from Smt. Kasturi Devi for comparing the same, with signatures of said accused on pension papers of accused Kasturi Devi. After comparison, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra (PW113) opined that PPO no. 0102020818 (Ex. PW34/A28), handwritten letter dated 13.03.2003 addressed to Manager State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal (Ex. PW34/A32), endorsement on PPO no. 0185020684 (Ex. PW34/A30), calculation sheet (Ex. PW34/A31) and calculation of arrears about exgratia pension dated 27.09.2002 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on letter of authority (Ex. PW34/A33), on specimen signature form (Ex. PW34/A7) are CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 121 of 255 in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined further that PPO Ex. PW34/A28, letter dated 13.03.2003 Ex. PW34/A2 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Karnal, PPO Ex. PW34/A30 and calculation sheets Ex. PW34/A31& Ex. PW34/A29 are signed by accused Jagmoha Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that accused Subhash Rohilla took up the application directly in account section, against prescribed procedure, and dealt with it himself despite the fact that same was marked to Ms. Veena.
According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), he remained posted as APO in Settlement Division, Delhi from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. According to him, pension forms are filled up in triplicate by the employee and attested by the officer of the concerned department. Same are deposited in settlement branch through Welfare Inspector of concerned beat. Personal file alongwith leave record of employee concerned is also handed over to the settlement branch by the department, three months prior to retirement of the employee. The calculation sheet regarding the pensionary benefits of every employee is prepared in the settlement branch. All the original papers after entering in settlement file of the employee in the index register maintained by settlement branch are sent to account department. The file is then received by the account branch by endorsing on the index register. The account branch after preparing and fixing the pension, sent a copy of Pension Payment Order (PPO) to the settlement section for maintaining the record.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 122 of 255After seeing documents Ex. PW34/A28 to Ex. PW34/A31 i.e. pension papers in the name of accused Kasturi Devi, it is disclosed by this witness that said documents are purported to be signed in his name, but same are not his signatures. His signatures are forged. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
As per Ld. Sr. PP application form etc. of accused Kasturi Devi were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar. The latter was also involved in the conspiracy to provide pension in favour of Smt. Kasturi Devi illegally. According to Dr. Ravindra Sharma (handwriting expert) said documents i.e. application form for family pension (Ex. PW137/Q13), permanent address form (Ex. PW137/A14), certificate of identity (Ex. PW137/Q15), thumb and finger print impression form (Ex. PW137/Q16), were in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar.
Even if, these documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence on record to show that latter received any gratification to fill up these documents or was in conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Shobha Devi w/o late Sh. Suresh Kumar (A33) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Shobha Devi through PPO No. 0192020689 dated 30.09.2003 and Revised PPA No. 02922091.
As per Sr. PP, said accused was not entitled to any pension as her husband late Suresh Kumar was employed as Substitute Safaiwala (Sweeper). He was not a regular/permanent employee. The application of said accused was marked to Sh.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 123 of 255B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, who in conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma as well as Smt. Shobha Devi granted pension in favour of latter, otherwise she was not entitled to any pension. Malafide intention of accused Subhash Rohilla is apparently clear when he signed the application form and photo of accused Shobha Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined one Sh. Jagpal Singh as PW33. According to this witness, in year 2002 he was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana. An account No. 01190014277 was opened in their bank in the name of Smt. Shobha Devi wife of Sh. Suresh Kumar, resident of Indira Colony, Narwana, Jind, Haryana on 10.09.2003 by Sh. S.K. Bansal, the then Dy. Manager of their branch. Account opening form is Ex. PW33/A11, specimen signature card of said customer i.e. Shobha Devi is Ex. PW33/A12. A PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0192020689 dated 30.09.2003 was received in their branch along with calculation sheet. Said PPA is Ex. PW33/A13 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW33/A
14. An amount of Rs.2,02,633 towards pension arrears was credited in account of Smt. Shobha Devi on 29.11.2003. Regular pension was also credited in the said account till July, 2002. Statement of account is Ex. PW33/A15 signed by Sh. S.K. Bansal, Branch Manager, at point A. Other pension papers (D786 to D790) are collectively Ex. PW33/A16. It is further deposition of this witness that certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through withdrawal slips Ex. PW33/A17 which were seized by IO vide production cum receipt memo dated 28.04.2005 which is Ex. PW33/A18. Sh. Jagpal Singh also verified a letter dated 13.08.2004 written by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 124 of 255 said Smt. Shobha to Manager of their branch. Same is Ex. PW33/A19.
The fact that accused Shobha Devi applied for family pension, account in her name was opened with State Bank of Patiala, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana by her as well as withdrawal of certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW33/A17, are not disputed on behalf of accused Shobha Devi. Even otherwise, her signatures on said withdrawal slips etc. are verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
During investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla as well as Jagmohan Sharma for comparison of same with signatures in their name on pension papers of Smt. Shobha Devi as described above. According to handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), endorsement on PPO No. 0192020689 (Ex. PW33/A13) and calculation sheet of arrear (Ex. PW33/A14) are written in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said expert i.e. Dr. Ravindra Sharma, words "Kapoor Singh" on application form of Ms. Shobha Devi (Ex. PW33/A16), thumb and finger print impression form (Ex. PW46/A19), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A21), permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/A18) and letter of authority (Ex. PW46/A20) are in the handwriting of same Sh. Subhash Rohilla (Accused No.2).
It is further the opinion of said Dr. Ravindra Sharma, that PPO No. 0192020689 (Ex. PW33/A13) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW33/A14) bear signature of accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) disclosed that he remained posted as Assistant CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 125 of 255 Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division w.e.f. October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. He was transferred from Delhi Division to Baroda House in April, 2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Smt. Shobha Devi i.e. Ex. PW33/A13, Ex. PW33/A14 and Ex. PW33/A16, again exhibited as Ex. PW46/A18 to Ex. PW46/A21, it is disclosed by this witness that said documents were purported to be signed by him but signatures in his name on these documents are not genuine, but forged. He never signed these documents. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division Delhi.
As per Sh. B.K. Buta (PW47) he served Indian Railways as Accounts Assistant. According to him, during year 2001 he was posted in pension section. His duty as Account Assistant was to receive pension cases and to distribute the same among staff i.e. Sh. Soran Singh, Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Sh. Subhash Rohilla, Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Smt. Meena and Sh. Satish Chander, all of whom were Accounts Assistants. After seeing revised PPA Ex. PW33/A13 and calculation sheet Ex. PW33/A14, both dated 30.02.2003, this witness identified signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla on both of these documents at points A and also of accused Jagmohan Sharma at point B. This witness further identified handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla on calculation sheet as well as signature of accused Jagmohan Sharma on it at point A. PW131 Sh. Ramesh Chandra told that he was promoted as APO in Northern Railways in year 1998. After seeing documents (D782 to D809) relating to pension file of Suresh Kumar shown as Safaiwala under SHI, Jagadari Workshop. This CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 126 of 255 witness disclosed that these papers were never produced before him by any official of APO Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. He never forwarded the same. Moreover, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on these documents were forged.
According to Sh. Virender Singh, examined as PW106, he was working as Sr. Health Inspector in Jagadari Workshop of Northern Railways since 1998. Assumed Wages Register of Class IV employees/Safaiwala (Sweeper) employed in this workshop used to be maintained in their office. All salary details, dates of transfer, dates of retirement etc were maintained in that register. He handed over said Assumed Wages Register to the IO, during investigation in this case which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW106/A. This Register was maintained in their office in regular course from August 1983 to August 1985. There was an entry regarding Suresh Kumar son of Ram Swaroop on Page No.78, according to which said Suresh Kumar was employed on 29.07.1983. There was no entry about payment of any salary/wages to said employee i.e. Suresh Kumar from the month of December, 1984 or thereafter. Said Suresh Kumar worked as a Substitute Safaiwala. After seeing pension papers submitted by accused Shobha Devi wife of Suresh Kumar Ex. PW33/A13, Ex. PW33/A14, Ex. PW33/A16, Ex. PW33/A18, Ex. PW33/A20, Ex. PW33/A21, it is disclosed by this witness that no such pension papers were forwarded or verified by Health Inspector/ Medical Superintendent of their department. It is further told by this witness that pension papers of all retired employees of their office used to be forwarded by Health Inspector and duly verified by Medial Superintendent.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 127 of 255It is not denied that application of accused Shobha Devi seeking pension was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. No explanation in this regard is given except that it was practice of the office that application form marked to any account assistant could be dealt with by other accounts assistants also.
It is not disputed that as per rules, a temporary railway employee like substitute Safaiwala was not entitled to any pension. Considering all this, it is well proved that Smt. Shobha Devi was not entitled to any pension and pension was provided to her by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma illegally without following due procedure. Accused Subhash Rohilla also impersonated himself as Kapoor Singh in signing application form etc filed by accused Smt. Shobha Devi.
Ratti Ram s/o Maman (A34) Invalid pension was provided to accused Rati Ram through PPO no. 0189020466. According to prosecution, there is no evidence to show that said accused was medically unfit. He was not entitled to any such pension. The application was taken up by accused Subhash Rohilla, directly in accounts branch, where he was posted and same was not processed properly.
It is pointed that accused Ratti Ram has already expired and proceedings against him have been abated vide order of this Court dated 20.03.2009. As pension is alleged to have been provided in favour of accused Ratti Ram as a part of conspiracy between him, accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla. The latter accused are still facing trial its necessary to proceed with the case.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 128 of 255Prosecution examined Sh. J.S. Wadhwa as PW6. According to this witness, in year 2005, he was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Barwala, District, Hisar, Haryana, an account no. 01170064018 in the name of Sh. Ratti Ram s/o Maman was opened by Sh. K.L. Chopra, the then Branch Manager. Account opening form is Ex. PW6/A14, specimen signature card in the name of said Ratti Ram is Ex. PW6/A14, specimen signature card in the name of said accused is Ex. PW6/A15, signed by Sh. K.L. Chopra at points B. This witness further disclosed that a revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0189020466 dated 31.05.2004 alongwith calculation sheet and pension papers was received in their bank, through a forwarding letter dated 28.06.2004. On the basis of said PPA, arrear of pension was credited in aforementioned account of Sh. Ratti Ram. Regular pension was also credited in this account. Revised PPA is Ex. PW6/A16, calculation sheet is Ex. PW6/A17 and a letter dated 22.06.2004 is Ex. PW6/A18, all these were received in their bank sent by railways authorities. Said pension papers are collectively Ex. PW6/A19. Affidavit executed by accused Ratti Ram is Ex. PW6/A20. Statement of account in this regard is Ex. PW6/A21. Certificate was issued under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act 1891 which is Ex. PW6/A22, signed by him at points A. This witness further told that certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through 09 withdrawal slips which are collectively Ex. PW6/A23. All these documents were produced by him to the IO, during investigation of this case and same were seized by him (I.O) vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW6/A13.
IO, Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137) seizure of said documents in file CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 129 of 255 no. 23 pertaining to Ratti Ram s/o Maman Ram vide Production cum receipt memo Ex. PW6/A13. Documents of that file were seized by him through Sh. A.K. Saini, the then SubInspector, CBI.
According to Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, during investigation of this case, specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Ratti Ram, Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma were collected by I.O and sent to handwriting expert for comparing the same with their signatures on disputed documents. These were examined by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). The latter after comparison gave a report and opined that account opening form (Ex. PW6/A14), application for pension (Ex. PW6/A19), statement of family members Ex. (PW137/Q40), thumb and finger impression of applicant (Ex. PW137/Q41), specimen signature form of applicant (Ex. PW137/Q42), declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW137/Q43), permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW137/Q44), letter of authority given to bank (Ex. PW137/Q45), all these documents bear thumb impression of Ratti Ram.
The handwriting expert (PW113) opined further that letter dated 31.05.2004 (Ex. PW6/A25) was written by accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said expert (Dr. Ravindra Sharma), signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. application form for pension (Ex. PW6/A19), statement of family members (Ex. PW137/Q40), thumb and finger impression form (Ex. PW137/Q41), specimen signature form of applicant (Ex. PW137/Q42), declaration form for nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW137/Q43), permanent address form (Ex. PW137/Q44) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 130 of 255 and letter of authority (Ex. PW137/Q45), are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Photo of claimant Ratti Ram is shown to have been attested in the name of Kapoor Singh. According to Dr. Ravindra Sharma, Handwriting Expert (PW113), said signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh are also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Letter to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Hisar regarding pension to Ratti Ram (Ex. PW6/A25), PPO no. 0189020466 (Ex. PW6/A16), calculation sheet (Ex. PW6/A17) and letter dated 22.06.2004 addressed to Manager State Bank of Patiala, Hisar (Ex. PW6/A18) are found by said Dr. Ravindra Sharma to have been signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Pooran Chand (PW87) deposed in Court that he was posted as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Railways, DRM Office, New Delhi. He remained posted in pension section from July 2003 to July 2007. During his tenure in pension section, his duties were to process pension case file received from settlement section and accounts branch. While dealing with such pension cases, he used to check particulars regarding pendency of disciplinary action or vigilance case against the employees, date of appointment, date of retirement, date of birth etc. Settlement branch used to check the authenticity of details contained in the pension files, which were forwarded to pension section. Head of the Department of employee concerned was obliged to certify the particulars of the employee and thereafter same were verified by APO, Settlement. According to this witness, he knew Subhash Rohilla. The latter was posted as Accounts Assistant and Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, who was posted as Assistant CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 131 of 255 Divisional Finance Manager (ADFM).
According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), he remained posted as APO in Settlement Division, Delhi from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. This witness also told about the procedure how pension applications were to be processed. According to him, pension forms are filled up in triplicate by the claimant and attested by the officer of the concerned department. The calculation sheet regarding pensionary benefits of every employee is prepared in settlement branch.
As mentioned above, Sh. Ratti Ram was granted invalid pension. As per Ld. Sr. PP, there is no evidence on record to verify that said Ratti Ram suffered any medical disability. Original record has been seized by I.O which forms part of record. No medical certificate as required by rules is annexed with the application. Invalid pension was prepared in favour of said Ratti Ram as part of conspiracy between him, Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. The file was directly taken up in accounts branch by Subhash Rohilla without being forwarded to it.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is very much clear that pension in favour of Ratti Ram was prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. There is no evidence on record to show that said Ratti Ram suffered any medical disability, there is no medical certificate etc. put on file. Moreover, procedure as disclosed by Sh. Pooran Chand (PW87) and Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) as reproduced above was not followed. Manner in which pension was granted in favour of accused Ratti Ram tells that ll these accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Ratti Ram had hatched a conspiracy to provide pension in favour of latter CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 132 of 255 i.e. Ratti Ram for which he was not entitled.
Krishna Devi w/o late Nand Lal (A35) Family pension was granted in favuor of accused Krishna Devi w/o late Nand Lal through PPO no. 0191020626 dated 21.12.2002 and revised PPA no. 029119211. As per Ld. Sr. PP, said pension was granted against rules. Application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi was marked to Mr. R.P. Mathur, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. Having conspired with Subhash Rohilla, accused Jagmohan Sharma allowed said pension without following due procedure. Subhash Rohilla even signed application form etc. and attested photo of Krishna Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways, New Delhi.
Prosecution examined Sh. J.S. Wadhwa as PW6. According to this witness, in year 2005, he was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Barwala, Distt. Hisar, Haryana. A saving bank account no. 01190006830 was opened in their bank on 05.12.2002 in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi w/o late Nand Lal by Sh. Sunil Jain, Assistant Manager of their branch. Account opening form is Ex. PW6/A1, signed by Sh. Sunil Jain at point A. A revised PPA no. D/DLI/Pension/0191020626 dated 21.12.2002 alongwith calculation sheets and other papers was received in their bank, through forwarding letter. Said PPA is Ex. PW6/A2. Calculation sheet regarding arrears is Ex. PW6/A3 and letter dated 21.12.2002 mentioned above is Ex. PW6/A4. Calculation sheet dated 30.11.2002 is Ex. PW6/A5 and letter dated 18.02.2003 is Ex. PW6/A6. Smt. Krishna Devi submitted personal life certificate Ex. PW6/A7 and affidavit Ex. PW6/A9. Statement of account about said account is Ex. PW6/A10. A CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 133 of 255 certificate has been issued under the Banker's Book of Evidence Act, 1891 in this regard, same is Ex. PW6/A11. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through 09 withdrawal slips which are collectively Ex. PW6/A12. All these documents were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/A. Seizure of aforesaid documents is verified by IO Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW
137).
The fact that application Ex. PW6/A8, certificate of identity Ex. PW137/Q48, specimen signatures form Ex. PW137/Q49, thumb and finger impression form Ex. PW137/Q50 were submitted by her to Indian Railways are not disputed on behalf of accused Krishna Devi. Similarly, the latter did not deny that a saving account was opened by her with State Bank of Patiala, Barwala and she withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips mentioned above. The fact that aforesaid documents are signed by accused Krishna Devi is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
During investigation of this case, IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla, apart from Krishna Devi for their comparison with their writing/signatures of said accused on disputed documents. According to Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), said documents Ex. PW6/A2, Ex. PW6/A5 and Ex. PW6/A6 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) has opined that endorsement on PPO Ex. PW6/A2, calculation sheet Ex. PW6/A3, letter dated 21.12.2002 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala Ex. PW6/a4, calculation sheet of arrears of pension CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 134 of 255 Ex. PW6/A5 and letter dated 18.02.2003 in the name of Manager, State Bank of Patiala Ex. PW6/A6, all these are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. It is again opinion of handwriting expert that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. application form Ex. PW6/8, certificate of identity Ex. PW137/Q48, specimen signature form Ex. PW137/Q49, thumb and finger print impressions form Ex. PW137/Q50, letter of authority Ex. PW115/D and permanent address form in the name of Krishna Devi Ex. PW137/Q51 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Similarly Dr. Ravindra Sharma is of opinion that PPO no. 019102066 Ex. PW6/A2, calculation sheet Ex. PW6/A5 and letter Ex. PW6/A6 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) was posted as Accounts Assistant in Pension Section in year 2001. According to him, his duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases and to distribute the same among other staff who included Sh. Soran Singh (A6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Sh. Meena and Sh. Satish Chander, who are also accounts assistants. After processing by accounts assistants, pension papers were to be looked after by SSO for final approval.
After seeing PPA no. 0191020626 and calculation sheet in respect of arrear of family pension payable to Krishna Devi, this witness identified handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla at points A and signatures of Jagmohan Sharma at points B. Further, calculation sheet Ex. PW6/A3 is told by this witness as in the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 135 of 255 handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW125/D 2was required to have been witnessed by two persons. Although names of two witnesses Hans Raj and Kalu Ram Tak have been mentioned but none of these signed the said letter of authority.
It is pointed out by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that according to Rule 55 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, to obtain family pension, the dependent of railway servant was required to submit application on prescribed proforma to the Head of Office of department concerned where railway employee had served in last. The application was to be processed from the department concerned, but nothing such happened in this case.
There is no evidence that husbad of Smt. Krishna opted for pension. Moreover, it is apparent that Smt. Krishna Devi did not file application seeking family pension on a prescribed proforma to the head of office, where her husband last served.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi was granted by Sh. Subhash Rohilla and Sh. Jagmohan Sharma having hatched conspiracy between them as well as accused Krishna Devi. Proper procedure was not followed in process of said file. The fact that accused Subhash Rohilla signed application form etc. impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh shows ill intention of said accused.
Murti Devi w/o Jai Bhagwan (A36) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Murti Devi through PPO no. 0178020278 dated 18.08.2003. According to prosecution, said Smt. Murti Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 136 of 255 claimed pension stating that her husband Sh. Jai Bhagwn was employed with Indian Railways as Gangman, CC Jind, but Sh. Jai Bhagwan was not so employed. Family pension in favour of Murti Devi was wrongfully prepared and sanctioned by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, as a part of conspiracy among them, Mrs. Murti Devi and Naresh Kumar. Stamp paper on which accused Murti Devi typed her affidavit was purchased on 24.09.2003, but PPO had already been issued in her favour on 18.08.2003. All this shows that said affidavit was procured later on.
Prosecution examined Sh. K.L. Batra as PW32. According to this witness, in year 2005, he was posted as Officer, PNB, Kohand Branch, Distt. Karnal, Haryana and an account no. 8129 was opened in their bank on 29.07.2003, in the name of Murti Devi w/o late Jai Bhagwan, by Smt. Jitender Kaur, an officer of their branch. Account opening form is Ex. PW8/A1 and specimen signature card of said customer is Ex. PW8/A2.
PW32 told further that PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0178020278 dated 18.08.2003 was received in their branch alongwith calculation sheet. The signatures of pension disbursing authority were verified by the officers of their link branch. An amount of Rs. 2,39,722/ was credited in the account of Smt. Murti Devi on 29.09.2003. Apart from it, regular pension was also credited till January, 2005. Aforesaid PPO is Ex. PW32/A while calculation sheet is Ex. PW32/A1. Said PPA and calculation sheet were received through a forwarding letter Ex. PW32/A3.
It is further the deposition of PW32 that certain amounts were withdrawn from said account through 19 withdrawal slips, which are collectively Ex. PW32/A5. A CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 137 of 255 life certificate was submitted by accused Murti Devi, which is Ex. PW32/A8. Statement of account was issued in respect of said account by Sh. S.P. Bansal, Special Assistant of their branch and same is Ex. PW32/A2.
Sh. Ramesh Khatri was also an officer in PNB, Narwana and verified withdrawal of Rs. 30,000/ on 04.05.2004, Rs. 10,000/ on 11.06.2004, Rs. 3,000/ on 06.07.2004 and Rs. 2,000/ on 04.08.2004 from above stated account through withdrawal slips passed by him i.e. PW8. These withdrawal slips are Ex. PW8/A. IO, Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) in his statement told to have seized aforementioned documents relating to pension granted in favour of Murti Devi. Sh. Digamber (PW110) also verified the fact that certain documents (D854 to D
888) were seized by IO through production cum seizure memo Ex. PW110/D. Opening of such an account in PNB Kohand (Karnal) by accused Murti Devi, withdrawal of certain amounts from it as well as filing of application for family pension are not disputed on behalf of said accused. It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that during investigation of this case specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Murti Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar were sent to Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) for comparison of same alongwith their signatures on disputed documents. The fact that following documents are signed by accused Murti Devi by putting right thumb impressions, is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) A. Account Opening Form (Ex. PW8/A1) B. Annexure to Account Opening Form (Ex. PW137/Q53) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 138 of 255 C. Declaration Form (Ex. PW137/Q54) D. Specimen RTI of Murti Devi (Ex. PW46/A86) E. Affidavit in name of accused Murti Devi Ex. PW137/Q55; and F. Withdrawal slips (D869 to 885) Said Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) in his report opined further that letter dated 18.03.2003 addressed to Manager, PNB G.T Road Karnal Ex. PW32/A3, calculation of arrears of family pension Ex. PW32/A1 and PPO no. 0178020278 (Ex. PW32/A), all these were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, according to said expert, he found that handwritten endorsement on letter dated 18.08.2003 (Ex. PW32/A3), calculation sheet for arrears of pension (Ex. PW32/A1) and handwritten endorsement on PPO no. 02785271 (Ex. PW32/A) were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) told the Court that he remained posted as APO in Settlement Division, Delhi from October 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing documents Ex. PW32/A3, Ex. PW32/A1, photo on documents Ex. PW32/A3 and Ex. PW18/A12, PW46 disclosed that signatures in his name i.e. Kapoor Sigh on these documents and on photo were not genuine. He did not sign any such document or photo. Someone forged his signatures. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131), was also posted as APO in Northern Railways. After seeing documents i.e. Ex. PW131/11 (D854 to 888) said witness told that these documents belong to pension file of Jai Bhagwan, shown as Gangman, CC Jind.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 139 of 255Signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp of Sahayak Karmik, Uttar Railways are forged. These papers were never produced before him as APO/Bill Settlement, Delhi and he neither forwarded these papers nor same were countersigned by him.
During investigation, IO sent a letter to Divisional Railway Manager (P), New Delhi seeking clarification if some persons shown as employees of Indian Railways were actually employed or not. Sh. Ramesh Chand, APO (Bills) for Divisional Railway Manager (P) gave a reply which is Ex. PW91/B. According to him, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, husband of Murti Devi stated to be Gangman, CC Jind, was not employed, as claimed by said accused.
On the basis of facts discussed above, it is well established that Murti Devi was not entitled for family pension, as applied by her . It was granted in her favour as part of conspiracy among Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Jagmohan Sharma and Smt. Murti Devi.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that accused Naresh Kumar was also part of conspiracy as application for family pension Ex. PW32/A4, permanent address and mode of payment form Ex. PW46/A84, thumb and finger impression form Ex. PW46/A85, specimen signature form Ex. PW46/A87, certificate of identity Ex. PW46/A87 and letter of authority Ex. PW46/A88 were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar and this fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
Even if as per report of handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 140 of 255 accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence that Sh. Naresh Kumar took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Asharfi Devi w/o Lakhpat (A37) According to prosecution, application filed by Smt. Asharfi seeking pension was marked to Sh. R.P. Mathur, but it was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter in conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma and Smt. Asharfi, allowed two pensions one exgratia pension through PPO No. 028917798 and other family pension through PPO No. 0170020041 and also revised PPA No. E/P1263.
Accused Asharfi Devi died during trial and proceedings against her were abated. As accused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla are still facing trial and hence its necessary to decide if pension in favour of Smt. Asharfi Devi was granted legally or not.
Prosecution examined Sh. U.S. Mayal as PW42. According to this witness, between 200407, he was posted in Bank of India, Pratap Vihar Branch, Sector12, Leelawati Public School, Ghaziabad as an Officer. On 25.04.2005, IO of this case seized various documents pertaining to account of Smt. Asharfi Devi, vide seizure memo Ex. PW42/A. This witness also verified that following documents were received in their bank from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway :
a) Letter dated 01.10.2002 along with PPA in favour of Smt. Asharfi Devi (Ex. PW42/A1).
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 141 of 255b) Revised PPA No. E/P1263 (D893) c) Letter dated 23.12.2003 (D891) d) Annexure I to V (D892) in respect of reference of DA on family pension. e) Calculation sheet (D892) f) Letter dated 26.08.2002
It is further deposition of this witness that cetain amounts were withdrawn from this account in the name of Smt. Asharfi Devi vide withdrawal slips, which are collectively Ex. PW42/A9 and cheques (D923 to D925) i.e. Ex. PW42/A10. Statement of account in this regard from 01.07.2002 to 21.07.2005 is Ex. PW42/A11 which was issued by him and signed at point A. Vide entry dated 04.09.2002, an amount of Rs.2,94,380/ was credited in that account. This witness further verified letter Ex. PW42/A12 written by him which bears his signatures at point A. It is submitted by Ld. Sr. PP that during investigation of this case IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Smt. Asharfi Devi, Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla for comparison of same with signatures/handwriting of aforesaid accused on documents put on file. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW
113) in his report verified signatures of Smt. Asharfi Devi on following documents : I) Application form for family pension (Ex. PW42/A6)
ii) Form for permanent address (Ex. PW137/R4)
iii) Specimen signatures form (Ex. PW137/R4)
iv) Signatures on death certificate of Lakhpat (Ex. PW137/R3) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 142 of 255
v) Form of drawal of pension (Ex. PW43/A) and affidavit (Ex. PW137/R5)
vi) Withdrawal slips and cheques (Ex. PW137/R7).
Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) further opined that letter dated 05.08.2002 addressed to Manager, Bank of India, GT Road, Ghaziabad (Ex. PW42/A2), endorsement on PPO No. 0170020041 (Ex. PW42/A3), Calculation Sheet (Ex. PW42/A5), letter dated 26.08.2002 addressed to Manager, Bank of India, Leelawati Public School Branch, Ghaziabad, UP (Ex. PW42/A8), all these documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Again according to Dr. Ravindra Sharma, signatures in the name of R Singh on SSE/DSL/Shed/N.Rly/Tkd, on application form for family pension (Ex. PW43/A1), on Ex. PW137/R4(Colly) and on Ex. PW43/A, are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
PPO No. 0170020041 (Ex. PW42/A3), letter dated 23.07.2002 addressed to Manager, Bank of India, GT Road, Ghaziabad (Ex. PW42/A4), Calculation Sheet (Ex. PW42/A5), all these are alleged to have been signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma and this fact is proved from the report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
R.B. Singh (PW44) deposed that he was working as Chief Office Superintendent, Diesel Shed, Northern Railways, Tkd., since 1978. He did not know anyone in the name of Smt. Asharfi Devi wife of Lakhpat, Shunter, SSE, Diesel Shed, Northern Railways, Tkd. After seeing pension papers (D895 to D897), this witness told that he never signed any such pension papers belonging to Smt. Asharfi Devi. His signatures as well as stamp of SSE/DSL/Shed/N.Rly/Tkd are forged. He did not know anyone as R. Singh, SSE/DSL/Shed/N.Rly/Tkd. No person in the name of R. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 143 of 255 Singh was working as Sr. Section Engineer (SSE).
Drawl of pension form (Ex. PW43/A) is shown to have been witnessed by one Surender Singh and Mohd. Ali. The latter (Mohd. Ali) is examined by prosecution as PW43. After seeing said document i.e. D897 in the name of Smt. Asharfi Devi, this witness disclosed that said document at point B was never signed by him. His signatures were forged. Moreover stamp of SSE/DSL/Shed/N.Rly/Tkd also does not appear genuine rather same is forged.
No contradiction appeared in the deposition of aforesaid witnesses. I have no reason to disbelieve their testimony. From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Asharfi was allowed without following due procedure. Smt. Asharfi was not entitled for two pensions i.e. exgratia as well as family pension together. Application for family pension was marked to Sh. R.P. Mathur, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. It was latter who prepared PPO and calculation sheet etc which were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Sh. Subhash Rohilla also signed application form etc for family pension of Asharfi Devi impersonating himself as R. Singh. All this shows a criminal conspiracy between accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma.
Surja Ram s/o Nyadar (A38) Invalid pension was granted in favour of accused Surja Ram through PPO no. 0189020456 dated 30.09.2003 and revised PPA no. 028917493. As per case of prosecution, Sh. Surja Ram was not entitled to any such pension, he was not medically unfit. Moreover proper procedure was not followed in granting pension in CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 144 of 255 his favour.
It is pointed out said accused Surja Ram has already expired and proceedings against him were abated by this Court vide order dated 31.05.2013. Even if said accused has expired, coaccused namely Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma are still facing trial who have been blamed for hatching conspiracy with accused Surja Ram for providing pension in favour of latter, illegally and hence, it is necessary to decide, if pension in favour of said Surja Ram was legal or not.
Prosecution examined Sh. N.K. Mittal as PW21. The latter (PW21) deposed on oath that from 01st November 2004 to May 2005 he was posted in PNB, Jakhal, Haryana as Deputy Manager. An account was opened in their bank in the name of accused Surja Ram by submitting an account opening form i.e. Ex. PW21/A11. Said customer gave his specimen signatures on 'specimen signature card Ex. PW21/A12. Certain amounts were withdrawn by said Surja Ram through 39 withdrawal slips (D 948 to D986) which are collectively Ex. PW21/A13. Statement of accounts (two) are Ex. PW21/A13 and Ex. PW21/A14. Sh. Surja Ram submitted two life certificates and a letter of undertaking, which are Ex. PW21/A15.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) deposed that during investigation he seized account opening form cum specimen signature card of SB A/c no. 10206 dated 15.09.2003 opened in the name of Surja Ram. He also verified following letters, having been seized by him from PNB Jakhal A. Letter dated 05.11.2003 addressed Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer (Pension), CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 145 of 255 Uttar Railway, New Delhi through which PNB informed Indian Railways about amount of pension from 01.07.2003 to 31.08.2003 was credited in the account of Sh. Surja Ram alongwith DA.
B. Letter dated 05.11.2003 written to accused Surja Ram by Manager, PNB, Jakhal informing him about amount of pension credited in his account. C. Letter dated 30.11.2003 stated to have been written by accused Subhash Rohilla to Branch Manager, PNB Jakhal about clarification of amount of DAR rates etc. which is Ex. PW21/A10.
D. Letter no. D/DLI/PEN./0189020456 dated 20.09.2003 (Ex. PW21/A7) issued about invalid pension in the name of Surja Ram. According to said witness, this letter was signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma as Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railways while pension section was not under his jurisdiction. E. 39 Withdrawal slips through which certain amount were withdrawn from bank by account holder.
As per IO, application for pension (Ex. PW21/A9) as well as form of permanent address and mode of payment appeared bearing forged signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh as well as forged stamp of Sahayak Karmik Adhikar, Uttar Railway, New Delhi.
According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), he was Assistant Personnel Officer in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 99 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Surja Ram i.e. Ex. PW21/A10, Ex. PW21/A9, Ex. PW46/A8, Ex. PW46/A10, Ex. PW46/11 and Ex. PW46/A12, this witness disclosed that these CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 146 of 255 documents are made to have been signed in his name (Kapoor Singh) but signatures in his name are forged. He never signed these documents. Moreover, these documents were never produced before by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) also told to have served Northern Railways as APO. When this witness was shown documents (D934 to D988) i.e. Ex. PW131/12 which are pension papers in favour of Surja Ram, disclosed that latter has been shown as Safai Wala under Crew Controller, Jind. These papers were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi. He neither forwarded these papers nor same are signed by him. PPO and PPA issued in respect of pension in favour of Surja Ram were forged. Similarly signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh are forged. Having seen Sh. Kapoor Singh writing and signing in official capacity, he was well versed with the signatures of Kapoor Singh.
It is pointed out that during investigation, IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Sh. Surja Ram for comparison of same with the signatures/handwriting of said accused on disputed documents i.e. pension papers of Suraj Ram. After examination, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was of opinion that handwritten letter dated 25.11.2003 addressed to Manager PNB, Jakhal Branch Ex. PW21/A10, endorsement on PPO no. 0189020456 dated 30.09.2003 (Ex. PW21/A7) and handwritten calculation sheet about arrears of pension (Ex. PW21/A8) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert, signatures in the name of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 147 of 255 Kapoor Singh on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application form for pension (Ex. PW21/A9);
B. Letter of authority (Ex. PW46/A8); C. Statement of family members form (Ex. PW46/A9); D. Declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW46/A10); E. Specimen signature of applicant Surja Ram (Ex. PW46/A11); and F. Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/A12).
It is further the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma that PPO no. 0189020456 (Ex. PW21/A7) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW21/8) are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that application form for pension filed by accused Surja Ram was marked to Ms. Poonam, but same was processed by Subhash Rohilla with ill motive to favour said accused.
According to Ld. Sr. PP as per Rule 55 of The Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, any employee of Indian Railways who was declared unit for service on account of any bodily or mental disability was entitled for grant of invalid pension. The employee claiming invalid pension has to submit his application to the head of department concerned on prescribed proforma alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority.
Neither accused Surja Ram applied for pension on prescribed proforma with the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 148 of 255 head of department concerned nor submitted any medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority. Pension was provided in his favour by processing his application by Subhash Rohilla directly without following due procedure. The latter hatched a conspiracy and involved Jagmohan Sharma as well as Surja Ram himself.
During investigation, IO seized original record regarding pension granted in favour of accused Surja Ram. Same is still part of case file. There is no medical certificate issued by any medical authority, showing accused Suraj Ram medically unfit for job. It is also clear that application of said accused was not processed as per prescribed procedure, rather processed by accused Subhash Rohilla directly having no authority to do so. In this way, it is well established that pension in favour of Surja Ram was granted in violation of prescribed rules. Moreover, accused Subhash Rohlla signed application form etc. impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Premo Devi w/o Om Prakash (A39) Family pension was provided in favour of accused Premo Devi vide PPO No. 0192020686 dated 24.06.2003 and Revised PPA No. 029220369.
As per Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, it were accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, who having conspired with each other and with accused Premo Devi, provided pension in latter's favour, byepassing prescribed procedure. Accused Subhash Rohilla impersonated himself as Kapoor Singh in signing pension papers including photographs of accused Premo Devi. Smt. Premo Devi filed false affidavit Ex. PW137/T1(D996) swearing it on oath that she was not getting any pension but family pension was sanctioned in her favour w.e.f. 04.03.1992. In PPO No. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 149 of 255 0192020686, two dates are mentioned as date of death of husband of Smt. Premo Devi i.e. 03.03.1992 as well as 03.03.1999. Accused Premo Devi disclosed in her affidavit Ex. PW137/T1, as having born on 02.07.1966. In same affidavit, she disclosed date of death of her husband as 03.03.1992. According to Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, it was highly improbable that age of Smt. Premo Devi at the time of death of her husband was only 26 years, while her husband died after some years of superannuation i.e. after completing 60 years of age.
Prosecution examined Sh. Om Prakash Gupta as PW25. It is deposed by this witness that he was posted as Special Assistant in PNB, Jind City from November 2003 to 29.08.2005. An account No. 26820 was allowed to be opened in favour of Smt. Premo Devi wife of Om Prakash on 03.06.2003 by Sh. M.S. Gupta, the then Manager. Account opening form is Ex. PW25/A1 signed by Sh. M.S. Gupta at point A. Specimen signature card of Smt. Premo Devi is Ex. PW25/A2, revised pension payment advice No. DDLI/PEN/0192020686 and a calculation sheet, both dated 24.06.2003 were received in their bank, from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi along with other pension papers (D 991 to D996). Revised PPA mentioned above is Ex. PW25/A3, calculation sheet is Ex. PW25/A4 and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW25/A5. This witness (Sh. Om Prakash Gupta) verified statement of account in relation to account mentioned above i.e. 26820 from 03.06.2003 to 30.04.2004 as Ex. PW25/A6 signed by Sh. B.L. Gupta and certificate issued under section 2A of The Bankers Book of Evidence Act as Ex. PW25/A7 singed by Sh. B.R. Dhawan.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 150 of 255PW25 further told about certain amounts having been withdrawn from this account vide withdrawal slips (D999 to D1009) which are collectively Ex. PW25/A 9 and again that Smt. Premo Devi gave a letter of undertaking to the bank on 14.10.2003 which is Ex. PW25/A10. All these documents were handed over by him(Sh. Om Prakash Gupta) to the IO, which were seized by the latter (IO) vide Production cum Receipt Memo Ex. PW25/A. The fact that accused Smt. Premo Devi applied for family pension, an account as mentioned above was opened by her in Punjab National Bank, Citi Jind, Haryana and that she received pension through that account, are not disputed at the time of arguments.
Ld. Sr. P.P submits that during investigation of this case, IO seized pension papers of accused Premo Devi and also took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Premo Devi, Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma for comparison of those specimen signatures/handwriting along with disputed signatures/handwriting of these accused. After comparison, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined that hand written endorsement on PPO No. 0192020686 (Ex. PW25/A3) and hand written calculation sheet about arrears of family pension (Ex. PW25/A4) were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said expert i.e. Dr. Ravindra Sharma, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. thumb and finger impression of applicant (Ex. PW46/A65), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A64), permanent address form (Ex. PW46/A62), letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/A63), certificate about appointment of accused Premo Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 151 of 255 with Indian Railways, application form for family pension (Ex. PW25/A5) as well as photograph of accused Premo Devi on Ex. PW46/A65, all these are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Further, in the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), PPO No. 0192020686 (Ex. PW25/A3) and calculation sheet about arrears of family pension (Ex. PW25/A4), were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor kept on arguing that according to Rule 55 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, to obtain family pension, any dependent of railway servant was required to submit application on prescribed proforma to the Head of Office of department concerned, where railway employee had served in last. The application was to be processed from the department concerned, but nothing such happened in this case.
From the evidence, it is well established that family pension was provided in favour of Smt. Premo Devi without following due procedure by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma through PPO No. 0192020686 (Ex. PW25/A3) and Calculation Sheet (Ex. PW24/A4) which were prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Accused Subhash Rohilla also impersonated himself by signing pension papers of Smt. Premo Devi as described above impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. The prescribed procedure was not followed.
It is submitted by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that husband of Smt. Premo Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 152 of 255 was never employed as Safaiwala in CC Jind as claimed by her in her application form. He referred Sh. Jagdish Lal who has been examined as PW86. According to latter, having joined Indian Railways on 03.12.1968, he remained posted in Locoloby Jind at CC Office from 30.11.2000 till 31.12.2007 as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing revised pension payment advice dated 24.06.2003 in favour of Smt. Premo Devi wife of late Om Prakash, it is told by this witness that there was no such Safaiwala posted in the office of Crew Controller, CC Jind, Haryana. No such application seeking pension was forwarded through the office of Crew Controller, Jind. It is worth mentioning that accused Smt. Premo Devi, in her application for family pension, claimed that her husband served CC Jind as Safaiwala. He died on 03.03.1992.
Although I am also not in consonance with Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor alleging that it was not probable that Smt. Premo Devi, who was 26 years of age at the time of death of railway employee i.e. Om Prakash, was wife of Sh. Om Prakash who died after attaining age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. It is not improbable that a lady aged 26 years could not be wife of a man, aged more than sixty years but there is nothing on record to show that husband of accused Premo Devi served Indian Railways as Safaiwala (Sweeper) in the office of Crew Controller, Jind (Haryana), as claimed by said accused. Trite it to say that I.O seized all pension papers in relation to accused Premo Devi w/o Om Parkash, which are part of record now. Accused Premo Devi did not adduce any evidence to prove employment of her husband in the office of Crew Controler Jind.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 153 of 255It is thus well established that Smt. Premo Devi was not entitled to family pension, as granted in her favour. Premo Devi filed false affidavit. Accused Subhash Rohllla attestd application form etc. of accused Premo Devi impersonatng himself as Kapoor Singh and all this was ignored by accused Jagmohan Sharma. All this shows that all these accused had conspired with each other.
Bhuri W/o Mohar Singh (A40) Family pension was provided in favour of accused Bhuri through PPO no. 0183020768 dated 24.07.2003 and old PPO no. 028310571. It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that Sh. Mohar Singh, husband of Bhuri was not employed with Indian Railways even then pension was provided to Smt. Bhuri by accused Subhash Rohilla in conspiracy with Jagmohan Sharma and one Naresh Kumar. Although application seeking was marked to Smt. Poonam, but was processed and allowed by Subhash Rohilla. Accused Subhash Rohilla also signed application form etc. and attested photograph of Smt. Bhuri impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Northen Railways.
Prosecution examined Sh. Bhupender Jindal as PW15. It is deposed by this witness that from August, 204 to December, 2006, he remained posted in SBI, Jakhal Branch as Assistant Manager. An account no. 01190005810 was opened in their bank on 12.06.2003 in the name of Smt. Bhuri w/o Mohar Singh. Account opening form in this regard is Ex. PW15/A. A revised pension payment advise no. D/DLI/PEN/0183020768 was received in their bank from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi alongwith a calculation CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 154 of 255 sheet, both dated 24.07.2003 as well as other pension papers. Said revised PPA is Ex. PW15/A1, calculation sheet is Ex. PW15/A2 and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW15/A3. An affidavit was submitted by Smt. Bhuri in bank on 01.07.2003 Ex. PW15/A4. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account vide withdrawal slips (D1032 to D1050) which are Ex. PW15/A6. This witness further disclosed about letter dated 25.07.2003 received from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Northern Railway which is Ex. PW15/A7 and again letter of undertaking submitted by Smt. Bhuri in the bank i.e. Ex. PW15/A8. Statement of account in respect of account in the name of Bhuri Devi from 13.12.2003 to 07.03.2005 (10 pages) is Ex. PW15/A5, signed by Sh. V.K. Dureja, Branch Manager at point A and by this witness i.e. PW15 at point B. All these documents were produced by him to the IO and latter seized the same vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW15/A9.
Sh. Pooran Chand (PW87) told that from July 2003 to July 2007, he remained posted in pension section of Indian Railways as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, DRM Office, New Delhi. According to him, he knew accused Subhash Rohilla having posted in their department as Accounts Assistant and also Jagmohan Sharma who was Assistant Divisional Finance Manager. After seeing revised pension payment advise in the name of Mohar Singh i.e. husband of accused Bhuri, this witness identified signatures of Jagmohan Sharma and handwriting of Subhash Rohilla on these documents. Similarly, according to this witness, calculation sheet was prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla.
During investigation, IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 155 of 255 Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison of same with their signatures/handwriting on disputed documents i.e. pension papers in favour of Smt. Bhuri. After comparison, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined that handwritten endorsement on PPO no. 0183020768 Ex. PW15/A1 and calculation sheet of arrears of family pension of Smt. Bhuri is Ex. PW15/A was in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was also of opinion that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents were written by accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application form Ex. PW15/A3 B. Thumb and finger print impression form Ex. PW137/T14 C. Specimen signature form Ex. PW137/T13 D. Permanent address form E. Certificate of Identity Ex. PW137/T16 F. Letter of authority Ex. PW125/A Apart from said documents, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on the photo of Bhuri, were also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Further, according to Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), PPO Ex. PW15/A and calculation sheet Ex. PW15/A2 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was APO in Northern Railways. After seeing pension papers i.e. D1019 to D1051 (Ex. PW131/14), he disclosed that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp impression of Sahayak Karmik, Uttar Railways were forged. These papers were never produced before him by officials of APO, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 156 of 255 Bill/Settlement Division. He neither forwarded these papers nor countersigned the same. Pension file i.e. PPO and PPA are forged. It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that during investigation, IO inquired from Sr. Section Engineer, Northern Railway, Jakhal and asked the latter to produce documents showing employment of certain employees including Mohar Singh. Sr. Section Officer through letter Ex. PW137/B2 replied that there was no record about employment of said Mohar Singh. In other inquiry done by the IO, Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi through letter Ex. PW91/A disclosed that no person in the name of Mohar Singh was employed as Gangman, CC Jind having date of death as 30.10.1983.
Accused Smt. Bhuri Devi in her application for family pension claimed that her husband Mohar Singh served Indiain Railways as Gang Man CC Jind. None from accused adduced any evidence to verify that Sh. Mohar Singh ever served as Gang Man, CC Jind.
On the basis of evidence as discussed above, it is well established that Smt. Bhuri Devi was not entitled for family pension. Same was granted to her by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma having hatched conspiracy with each other.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application for family pension Ex. PW15/A13, thumb and finger print impression Ex. PW137/T14, specimen signature form Ex. PW137/T13, permanent address form Ex. PW137/AT12, certificate of identity Ex. PW137/T16 and letter of authority Ex. PW125/A were filled by accused Naresh Kumar and this fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). Sh. Naresh Kumar was also involved in conspiracy with CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 157 of 255 accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma.
Even if as per report of handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, but there is no evidence that Sh. Naresh Kumar took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Ms. Bharpai Devi w/o Ram Chander (A41) Two pensions i.e. exgratia as well as family pension were granted in favour of Ms. Bharpai Devi through PPO no. 0102020816 dated 29.09.2002 and PPO no. 028513009. As per Ld. Sr. PP, accused Bharpai Devi was not entitled to both of pensions i.e. exgratia and family together. Pension in her favour was granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma having conspired with each other and with one Sh. Naresh Kumar (A8), without following due procedure. The application seeking pension was marked to Ms. Veena, but it was taken up and processed by Subhash Rohilla himself with malafide intention. The latter i.e. Subhash Rohilla signed documents submitted by Ms. Bharpai Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways.
It is pointed out by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that accused Bharpai Devi has already been expired and proceedings against her have been abated by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2008. Even if said accused has expired, coaccused namely Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma are still facing trial who have been blamed for hatching conspiracy with accused Bharpai Devi for providing pension in favour of latter and hence it is necessary to decide if pension in favour of Mrs. Bharpai Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 158 of 255 was granted as per law or not.
Sh. D.R. Gunpal (PW7) deposed that in year 2005, he was working as Deputy Manager in SBI, Tohana Branch, Distt. Fatehabad, Haryana. A saving bank account no. 01190015232 was opened in their bank of 17.09.2002, in the name of Smt. Bharpai Devi w/o Ram Chander, by the Branch Manager Sh. D.P. Kanser. Account opening form is Ex. PW7/A1, signed by Sh. D.P. Kanser at point A. Revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/01020200816 dated 27.09.2002 alongwith calculation sheet and other pension papers was received in their branch. Amount was payable to Smt. Bharpai Devi, which was credited in latter's account. Apart from same, regular pension was also started being credited therein. Revised PPA mentioned above is ex. PW7/A2 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW7/A3. Letter dated 11.10.2002 referred above Ex. PW7/A4 and pension papers are collectively Ex. PW7/A5. Statement of account running into two pages is Ex. PW7/a6. A revised PPA was also received in the name of Ram Chander i.e. husband of Bharpai Devi, which is Ex. PW7/A7 alongwith letter which is Ex. PW7/A8. Said letters were received from the office of Sr. Divisional Payment Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railways. This witness further told above another revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020680 in the name of Ram Chander alongwith calculation sheets, both of these are Ex. PW7/A11 and Ex. PW7/A12. Smt. Bharpai Devi filed an affidavit Ex. PW7/A13. Certain amounts were withdrawn from that account through withdrawal slips (28 in no.) which are collectively Ex. PW7/A14. All these documents were produced by him to the IO and seized by latter vide productioncumseizure memo dated 27.04.2005, which is Ex. PW7/A. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 159 of 255 During investigation, IO took specimen signatures of accused Bharpai Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar. In his report, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) mentioned that he found handwritten endorsement on PPA no. 0102020816 (Ex. PW7/A2), handwritten calculation sheet of exgratia pension (Ex. PW7/A3) and other PPO no. 028513009, are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application for grant of pension (exgratia) Ex. PW46/A45 B. Application form for family pension Ex. PW7/A5 C. Permanent address form Ex. PW46/A46 D. Letter of authority Ex. PW46/A47 E. Specimen signature form of applicant Ex. PW46/A48 F. Thumb and finger print impression form Ex. PW46/A49 G. Certificate of identity Ex. PW46/A50 Dr. Ravindra Sharma was of opinion that both of PPOs mentioned above I.e. Ex. PW7/A2 and Ex. PW7/A7, calculation sheet for arrear of family pension Ex. PW7/A3 and other calculation sheet, all are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) told that he served as Assistant Personnel Officer in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Bharpai Devi i.e. Ex. PW7/A2, signatures on photo and Ex. PW7/A5, PW46disclosed that these documents are made to have been signed in his CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 160 of 255 name i.e. Kapoor Singh but same are not his genuine signatures. He did not sign aforesaid documents. Said documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
According to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, only those railways employees can get exgratia pension, who subscribed in Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme) and completed 20 years of service prior to their retirement. Family member/dependent of deceased to get exgratia pension was required to submit an application in quadruplicate, accompanying by all documents i.e. identity card, CPF Accounts slips or letter regarding settlement of Contributory Provident Fund or retirement order or such other relevant record as may be in his/her possession. In the absence of all these documents, the applicant was required to file one of these following documents for establishing his/her claim i.e. Succession Certificate from the Court, affidavit sworn before a Magistrate or affidavit of the claimant on a plain paper. Application was to be submitted to the head of office concerned and the latter was required to send the application duly verified alongwith relevant record to the Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO), Settlement for necessary action. The Office of DPO (Settlement) was obliged to link the application with settlement file of the concerned employee already available in the record room. In case of record or settlement file of concerned employee was not traceable, the settlement section was bound to approach the accounts department for linking the application with settlement file available in accounts department. A fresh settlement file was to be prepared in duplicate. Exgratia payment as well as arrears were to be CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 161 of 255 calculated by dealing clerk of settlement branch and the file used to be put by DPO Settlement to the Competent Authority for sanction of exgratia payment.
According to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by dependent including widow was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of department where deceased employee served.
As per prosecution, no such procedure was followed. Accused Subhash Rohilla took up the matter himself, who was not authorized. Entire file related to family pension from Indian Railways has already been annexed with the record. There is nothing on it to verify that application seeking exgratia or family pension by Smt. Bharpai Devi was processed as per rules, described above.
As mentioned above, it is well established that PPO and calculation sheet etc. were prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and allowed/signed by Jagmohan Sharma. It is also proved that accused Subhash Rohilla signed documents relating to grant of pension in favour of Smt. Bharpai Devi, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application form for family pension Ex. PW7/A5, certificate of identity Ex. PW46/50, letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW46/A47 and permanent address & mode of payment form Ex. PW46/A46 were filled by said Naresh Kumar and this fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
Even if as per report of handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 162 of 255 accused Naresh Kumar, but there is no evidence to show that Sh. Naresh Kumar took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Rani Devi w/o late Mangal (A42) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Rani Devi through PPO No. 0186020618 dated 30.09.2003 and Old PPO No. 028614059. According to prosecution, said Smt. Rani Devi was not entitled to any pension as her husband late Mangal was not employed with Indian Railways, as claimed by Smt. Rani Devi. Pension granted in her favour was due to criminal conspiracy among herself (Rani Devi), Subhash Rohilla (Accused No.2), Jagmohan Sharma (Accused NO.1) and Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8). Due procedure was not followed while sanctioning said pension and accused Subhash Rohilla signed application form etc submitted by Sh. Rani Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway, New Delhi.
Prosecution examined Sh. Jagpal Singh (PW33). According to this witness between year 20022005 he was posted as Branch Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Narwana, District Jind, Haryana. A Saving Bank Account No. 01190014283 was opened in their branch in the name of Smt. Rani wife of late Sh. Mangal on 11.09.2003 by Sh. S.K. Bansal Dy. Manager of the bank. Account opening form is Ex. PW33/A1, account holder Smt. Rani gave her specimen signature on a card i.e. Ex. PW33/A2, a PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0186020618 dated 30.09.2003 was received in their bank along with calculation sheet, both of which are Ex. PW33/A3 & Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 163 of 255PW33/A4 respectively. An amount of Rs.2,30,521 was credited in said account of Smt. Rani Devi on 29.11.2003. Apart from said amount, regular pension was also credited in that account till July, 2004. Statement of account in this regard is Ex. PW33/A5 signed by Sh. S.K. Bansal at point A. All aforesaid documents were seized by IO on being produced by Sh. Charan Dass, Asstt. Manager. Production cum receipt memo is Ex. PW33/A, signed by Sh. Charan Dass at point A. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through ten withdrawal slips which are collectively Ex. PW33/A7. These withdrawal slips were also seized by IO on 28.02.2005 through production cum receipt memo Ex. PW33/A10.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra who examined himself as PW137 verified seizure of aforesaid documents from State Bank of Patiala, Narwana, Distt. Jind, Haryana.
Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal (PW19) told that he remained posted in State Bank of Patiala, Narwana from June, 2002 to July, 2005 as Dy. Manager. According to said Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal, he also witnessed production of documents pertaining to the account in the name of Smt. Rani Devi wife of Mangal by CBI on being produced by Sh. Charan Dass, Data Base Administrator in their bank.
During investigation, IO took specimen signatures/ handwriting of accused Rani Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison of these signatures/ handwriting along with disputed signatures/ handwriting done by said accused. After comparison, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) submitted his report. Although filing of application seeking family pension, opening of account with State Bank of Patiala, Narwana and withdrawal of amounts through withdrawal slips Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 164 of 255PW33/A7, are not disputed on behalf of accused Rani Devi during deliberations, signatures of latter on account opening form (Ex. PW33/A1) and on withdrawal slips collectively Ex. PW33/A7 are verified by Dr. Ravindra Sharma.
It is further the opinion of handwriting expert Dr. Rvinder Sharma (PW113) that hand written endorsement on PPO No. 0186020618 (Ex. PW33/A3) and hand written calculation sheet about arrears of family pension in the name of Smt. Rani Devi (Ex. PW33/A4) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, as per said expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla :
(I) Application form for pension (Ex. PW33/A6) (ii) Thumb and Finger Print Impression Form (Ex. PW46/A29) (iii) Specimen Signatures Form (Ex. PW46/A28) (iv) Permanent Address Form and Mode of Payment (Ex. PW46/A27) (v) Letter of Authority and Undertaking Form (Ex. PW61/A)
Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was also of opinion that PPO Ex. PW33/A3 and calculation of arrears of family pension Ex. PW33/A4 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) told that he remained posted as APO in Settlement, Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Smt. Rani Devi i.e. Ex. PW33/A4, Ex. PW61/A, Ex. PW46/A27, Ex. PW46/A28, it is disclosed by this witness that said documents are shown to have been signed by him i.e. Kapoor Singh, but same are not his signatures. Someone CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 165 of 255 forged his signatures on these documents. These were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi and he neer signed these documents.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was APO in Northern Railway, having posted in year 1998. After seeing pension file of Sh. Mangal i.e. husband of accused Rani Devi (D1113 to D1122) Ex. PW103/2, this witness disclosed that these papers were never produced before him by any official of APO, Bill, Settlement Division, Delhi and he neither forwarded any such papers nor countersigned the same. Moreover, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway, are forged.
During investigation, IO sent a letter to Divisional Railway Manager (P), New Delhi, asking about some persons whether same were employed with Indian Railways or not. The letter in his reply Ex. PW91/A (D1107) has explained that no person in the name of Mangal, resident of Chamila Colony, Narwana, was employed with Indian Railways as Pointsman, CC Jind. It is worth mentioning that Smt. Rani Devi in her application for family pension (D1117) claimed that her husband worked in Indian Railways as Kantewala (Pointsman) in CC Jind.
Prosecution examined one Jagdish as PW86. It is disclosed by this witness that from 30.11.2000 to 31.12.2007, he remained posted in Locoloby, Jind in CC Office as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. There was no post of Kantewala (Pointsman) under the office of Crew Controller, CC Jind, Haryana. Pension papers in the name of Rani Devi wife of Mangal were not forwarded by the office of Crew Controller, Jind, Haryana.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 166 of 255Smt. Kamla (PW61) told to the Court that since 1992, she had been working as Water Lady. She did not know anyone in the name of Smt. Rani wife of Mangal. She did not witness exectuion of document i.e. D1119 (Ex. PW61/A). Signatures/thumb impression in her name on this document at point A were not of herself. Trite it to say that documents Ex. PW61/A (D1119) is letter of authority and undertaking form and execution of same is shown to have been witnessed by Smt. Kamla.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that Smt. Rani Devi, accused No.42 was not entitled for family pension as claimed by her. Pension in her favour was granted/sanctioned by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma in conspiracy with each other and Smt. Rani Devi.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that accused Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8) was also involved in that conspiracy. It was he i.e. Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc on behalf of Smt. Rani Devi. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report found following documents which were filled up in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar :
(a) Application form for pension (Ex. PW33/A6)
(b) Thumb and Finger Print Impression Form (Ex. PW46/A29)
(c) Form for Specimen Signatures of applicant (Ex. PW46/A28)
(iv) Form for Permanent Address and Mode of Payment (Ex. PW46/A27)
(v) Letter of Authority and Undertaking Form (Ex. PW61/A) Even if according to handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence that latter took any gratification from the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 167 of 255 claimant Smt. Rani Devi or was involved in any conspiracy with coaccused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Smt. Krishna Devi w/o Mamu Ram (A43) A family pension was granted in favour of Krishna Devi vide PPO no. 0191020639 dated 31.10.2003.
According to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by dependent including widow was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of department where deceased employee last served.
As per case of prosecution, this procedure was not followed. IO Inspector R.G. Mishra (PW137) verified that all pension papers belonging to Krishna Devi were seized from PNB. Same are Ex. PW131/15. These documents included application filed by Smt. Krishna Devi with employer of her husband i.e. Indian Railways. No where it is declared that her husband has opted for Central Provident Fund (CPF). Moreover, it is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that the application seeking pension was not processed through the department where husband of Smt. Krishna Devi was serving. Although the application was marked to Sh. Chedi Lal, but same was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. O.P. Sarwan (PW38) deposed in Court that from 04.01.2004 to 25.03.2008, he remained posted in PNB, Narwana, Jind. IO of this case seized some documents, pertaining to account no. 29101 which was opened in the name of Krishna Devi w/o Mamu Ram, vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW38/A. He identified CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 168 of 255 signatures of Sh. R.P. Chopra of their bank on this document at point A. This witness further verified that a letter dated 13.02.2004 alongwith PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0191020639 dated 31.10.2003, calculation sheet and pension papers in the name of Krishna Devi were received in their branch from Indian Railways. Said PPO is Ex. PW38/A4, forwarding letter received alongwith said documents is Ex. PW38/A1. Account opening form submitted by Smt. Krishna Devi to open an account is Ex. PW38/A5. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through withdrawal slips Ex. PW8/A, which was also seized by CBI vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW38/A6.
Opening of such an account, withdrawal of pension amount from said account through withdrawal slips Ex. PW8/A were not disputed during arguments. None from accused particularly Smt. Krishna Devi, Jagmohan Sharma or Subhash Rohilla opted to crossexamine said witness (PW38).
During investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures/right thumb impression of accused Krishna Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar. According to handwriting expert, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) documents i.e. withdrawal slips Ex. PW8/A, account opening form Ex. PW38/a5, permanent address form, application form for pension, specimen signature form, letter of authority, certificate of identity and affidavit in the name of Krishna Devi was signed by the latter by putting her right thumb impression on these documents.
Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) after comparing specimen handwriting/signatures of accused with signatures in their name on disputed CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 169 of 255 documents opined that endorsement (handwritten) on PPO no. 0191020639 dated 31.10.2003 (Ex. PW38/A2) and calculation sheet (handwritten) about arrear of family pension in favour of Krishna Devi Ex. PW38/A3 were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, as per said handwriting expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents were also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
A. Permanent address and mode of payment form Ex. PW46/A74 B. Application form of Smt. Krishna Devi Ex. PW38/A4 C. Specimen signature of Smt. Krishna Devi Ex. PW46/A76 D. Letter of authority and undertaking by Smt. Krishna Devi Ex. PW46/A5 E. Thumb and finger print impression form Ex. PW46/A77 F. Certificate of Identity Ex. PW46/A78
Further, according to Dr. Ravindra Sharma PPO Ex. PW38/A2 and calculation sheet Ex. PW38/A3 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) deposed on oath that he was Assistant Personnel Officer in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi i.e. Ex. PW38/A4 and Ex. PW46/A74 to Ex. PW40/78, told that these documents are shown to have been signed in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh, but he never signed these documents and the same were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was also an APO in Northern Railways. After seeing documents Ex. PW131/15 (D1134 to D1155) i.e. pension papers of Mamu CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 170 of 255 Ram shown as Gang Man, CC Jind, it is deposed by this witness that these documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division, Delhi. Signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and seal of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari are forged.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that husband of Smt. Krishna Devi i.e. Mamu Ram was not employed with Indian Railways as Gang Man. Prosecution examined Jagdish Lal as PW86 who deposed in the Court that he i.e. Jagdish Lal remained posted in Loco Loby Jind at CC Office from 30.11.2000 to 21.12.2007 as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing application form submitted by Smt. Krishna Devi, this witness claimed that there was no post of Gang Man under control of the office of Crew Controller, Jind. Its worth mentioning that Smt. Krishna Devi in her application for family pension Ex. PW38/A4 claimed that her husband Mamu Ram served Indian Railways as Gang Man, CC Jind.
Considering the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Krishna Devi was prepared/signed by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma without following procedure. Sh. Subhash Rohilla also s signed documents relating to grant of pension in favour of Smt. Krishna Devi, as detailed above, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. All this shows conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Krishna Devi.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application form for family pension Ex. PW38/A7, form for permanent address Ex. PW46/A74, letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW125/E, form of thumb and finger print impression Ex. PW46/A77 CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 171 of 255 and certificate of identity Ex. PW46/A78 were filled by said Naresh Kumar and this fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113). Even if as per report of handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, but there is no evidence that Sh. Naresh Kumar took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Ajmer Singh s/o Shanta Singh (A44) Pension in the category of invalid pension was granted in favour of accused Ajmer Singh vide PPO No. 0171020046 dated 31.05.2004. According to case of prosecution, application filed by said accused Ajmer Singh was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but it was taken up and processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, the latter having conspiracy with said Ajmer Singh, Jagmohan Sharma (Accused NO.1) and Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8), allowed pension in favour of Ajmer Singh without adopting due procedure.
Accused Ajmer Singh died during trial and proceedings against him were abated vide order of this Curt dated 30.11.2017. As other accused i.e. Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Naresh Kumar are also blamed to have involved in the said conspiracy and hence I proceed to decide whether pension was granted in favour of said Ajmer Singh legally or not or if accused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Naresh Kumar were also involved in any such conspiracy.
Prosecution examined Sh. Ram Nath Sharma as PW11. According to this witness, from January, 2003 to July, 2005 he worked as Asstt. Manager in the main CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 172 of 255 branch of State Bank of India, Sangrur (Punjab). A saving bank account NO. 01190012153 was opened in the name of Ajmer Singh son of Santa Singh in their bank on 12.05.2004 through signatures of Sh. G.R. Garg, the Manager. Account opening form cum signature card is Ex. PW11/A signed by Sh. G.R. Garg at point A. It is further disclosed by this witness that a revised pension payment advice No. D/DLI/PEN/0171020046 dated 31.05.2004 in the name of Ajmer Singh along with calculation sheet and pension papers were received in their branch in July, 2004. Said PPO is Ex. PW11/A1, calculation sheet (running into four pages) is Ex. PW11/A2, pension papers are collectively Ex. PW11/A3 and statement of account in relation of said account of Ajmer Singh is Ex. PW11/A4, signed by him at point A. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account by Ajmer Singh through 12 withdrawal slips which are collectively Ex. PW11/A5. All these documents were seized by CBI vide collection memo Ex. PW11/A7. Accused Ajmer Singh gave a certificate to the bank on 26.04.2004 which is Ex. PW11/A8.
IO, Inspector R.G. Mishra who was examined as PW137 verified seizure of aforesaid documents during investigation of this case.
It is pointed out by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that Rule 55 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 provide for invalid pension is granted in favour of railway employees, who are declared unfit for service by the medical board for service on account of any bodily or mental disability. Railway employee concerned was required to submit his application seeking invalid pension on prescribed proforma along with medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority, to the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 173 of 255 head office of his department. No such medical certificate was submitted by late Sh. Ajmer Singh. The application was to be processed by head of department concerned, but no such procedure was followed. Accused Subhash Rohilla took up and processed the application with illegal design even when the same was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta.
In application for pension as well as statement of family members, Sh. Ajmer Singh claimed himself to be employed as Gangman with Crew Controller (CC) Jind. Prosecution examined Sh. Jagdish Lal as PW86. According to this witness from 30.11.2000 to 31.12.2007, he remained posted in Locoloby Jind in CC Office as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing file containing documents pertaining to Sh. Ajmer Singh Gangman (D1156 to D1180). It is told by this witness that these documents were not forwarded to DRM Office, New Delhi through the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) told himself to have served as APO in Settlement Branch Northern Railways. After seeing pension documents related to Sh. Ajmer Singh i.e. Ex. PW131/16 (D1156 to D1180), it is told by this witness that these papers were never produced before him as APO/Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. He neither signed these papers nor forwarded the same. Signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway affixed on these documents are forged.
During investigation, IO took specimen signatures/ handwriting of accused Ajmer Singh, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 174 of 255 of these signatures/ handwriting along with disputed signatures/ handwriting done by said accused. After comparison, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was of opinion that endorsement (hand written) on PPO No. 0171020046 Ex. PW11/A1 and calculation sheet of payment of arrears of pension Ex. PW11/A2 in favour of Ajmer Singh are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents were also made by accused Subhash Rohilla : (I) Application form for pension (Ex. PW11/A3)
(ii) Family detail form (Ex. PW137/AA1)
(iii) Thumb and Finger Print Impression Form (Ex. PW137/AA5)
(iv) Specimen Signatures Form (Ex. PW137/AA4)
(v) Declaration form about nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW137/AA6)
(vi) Permanent Address Form and Mode of Payment (Ex. PW137/AA2)
(vii) Letter of Authority (Ex. PW137/AA3) Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) was also of opinion that PPO Ex. PW11/A1 and payment of arrears of pension Ex. PW11/A2 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) could not give any opinion if application form etc in the name of Ajmer Singh were bearing thumb impression of said Ajmer Singh.
On the basis of above discussion, it is well established that pension was provided in favour of Ajmer Singh without following due procedure. Accused CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 175 of 255 Subhash Rohilla signed documents mentioned above in the name of Kapoor Singh by impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that accused Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8) was also involved in that conspiracy. It was he i.e. Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc on behalf of Ajmer Singh. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report found following documents which were filled up in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar :
(a) Application form for pension (Ex. PW11/A3)
(b) Form for statement of family members (Ex. PW137/AA1)
(c) Declaration of non payment of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW137/AA1)
(d) Form for Permanent Address and Mode of Payment (Ex. PW137/AA2)
(v) Letter of Authority for grant of pension (Ex. PW137/AA3) Even if according to handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence to show that latter took any gratification from the claimant Sh. Ajmer Singh or was involved in any conspiracy with co accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Smt. Raj w/o Ashok (A45) A family pension was granted in favour of Smt. Raj w/o Ashok vide PPO no. 0195020910 dated 31.05.2004.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by dependents of such employee including widow was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 176 of 255 required to be submitted on prescribed proforma, to the head of department where deceased employee last served. But no evidence was adduced by Smt. Raj to show that her husband late Ashok had opted for pension. Despite sending application to the head of department concerned, same was taken up and processed by accused Subhash Rohilla himself, with illegal motive. Accused Subhash Rohilla signed application form etc. submitted by Smt. Raj impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. The PPO as well as calculation sheet were signed/approved by Jagmohan Sharma. The documents i.e. application form etc. were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar. Late Sh. Ashok, husband of Smt. Raj was not employed as Van Porter as claimed by Smt. Raj in her application. When the application was not processed as per prescribed procedure and pension was granted contrary to rules, all this shows that accused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Sh, Naresh hatched a conspiracy among themselves as well as with Smt. Raj.
It is pointed out that accused Smt. Raj died during trial and and proceedings against her were abated by this Court vide its order dated 23.08.2013. Even if said accused has expired, as coaccused namely Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma are still facing trial, who have been blamed for hatching conspiracy with accused Raj, it is necessary to decide if pension in favour of said accused was granted contrary to rules.
Prosecution examined Sh. G.R. Bhattu as PW65. It is deposed by this witness that from 15.01.2001 to July 2005, he remained posted in Jakhal Branch of PNB as Branch Manager. An account no. 10341 was opened in their bank on 05.04.2004 by CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 177 of 255 Smt. Raj w/o Ashok r/o Gurudwara Basti, Jakhal. This witness identified right thumb impression of Smt. Raj on account opening form at points A, on each page. The account opening form is Ex. PW65/A1. Said Smt. Raj submitted specimen signature card Ex. PW65/A2, signed by her by putting right thumb impressions at points A. She signed her photograph also at point B of this document. PW65 disclosed further that a revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0195020910 dated 31.05.2004 in favour of Sh. Ashok was received in their bank, alongwith calculation sheet for payments of arrears of family pension to Smt. Raj as well as other pension papers. Said PPA is Ex. PW65/A3, calculation sheet (02 pages) is Ex. PW65/A4 and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW65/A5. Statement of account pertaining to said account from period 01.06.2004 to 12.04.2005 is Ex. PW65/A6. The account holder (Smt. Raj) submitted two life certificates to the bank which are Ex. PW65/A7 & Ex. PW65/A9 and again a letter of undertaking which is Ex. PW65/A8. An affidavit was also filed by Smt. Raj which is Ex. PW65/A10. This witness told further that certain amounts were withdrawn from said account by Smt. Raj through withdrawal slips (D1183 to D1201) which are collectively Ex. PW65/A11.
During investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Smt. Raj, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison of same with their signatures/handwriting on disputed documents i.e. pension papers in favour of Smt. Raj. The handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) in his report verified that account opening form (D1182) and withdrawal slips Ex. PW65/A11 were bearing right thumb impression of Smt. Raj.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 178 of 255Dr. Ravindra Sharma was again of opinion that endorsement (handwritten) on PPO no. 0195020910 (Ex. PW65/A13) and calculation sheet (handwritten) for payment of arrears of family pension (Ex. PW65/A4) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. It is further opined by Dr. Ravindra Sharma that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application form for pension (Ex. PW65/A5) B. Thumb and finger print impression form (Ex. PW46/A33) C. Specimen signature of applicant form (Ex. PW46/A32) D. Permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW46/A31) F. Certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/A34) G. Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/A30) Further, it is opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) that PPO Ex. PW65/A3 and calculation sheet Ex. PW65/A4 were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) deposed that he was posted as Assistant Personnel Officer in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing documents Ex. PW65/A3, Ex. PW65/A4, Ex. PW65/A5, Ex. PW46/a30, Ex. PW46/A31, Ex. PW46/A32, Ex. PW46/A33 and Ex. PW46/A34, PW46 told that these documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was also an APO (Settlement Division) in Northern Railways. After seeing documents Ex. PW131/17 (D1181 to D1216) i.e. CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 179 of 255 pension file of late Ashok, PW131 deposed that these papers were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division, Delhi. Neither these documents were forwarded by him nor countersigned by him. All these documents as well as PPO and PPA in the name of Ashok are forged. Similarly, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp as Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways on these documents are also forged.
Sh. Jagdish Lal has been examined as PW86. According to this witness, from 30.11.2000 to 21.12.2007 he remained posted in Loco Loby Jind as Senior Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing pension application, in relation to Sh. Ashok designated as Van Porter, filed by Smt. Raj, it is deposed by this witness that there was no post of Van Porter in the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
On the basis of facts as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Ashok Raj wasgranted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma without following prescribed rules. Accused Subhash Rohilla even signed application form etc., as mentioned above belonging to Smt. Raj, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application of Smt. Raj (A45) seeking family pension (Ex. PW65/A5), Form for thumb and finger print impression (Ex. PW46/A33), Form for permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW46/A31), certificate of identity form (Ex. PW46/A34) and letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/A30) all these documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar and this fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 180 of 255
113). Said accused was also involved in conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma etc. Even if as per report of handwriting expert, aforesaid documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence to establish that Sh. Naresh Kumar received amount of booty from beneficiary or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Maya Devi w/o Banta Ram (A46) A family pension was granted in favour of accused Maya Devi through PPO no. 0195020871 dated 30.09.2003. It is pointed out that Smt. Maya Devi has expired during trial and proceedings against her were abated by order of this Court dated 08.09.2010. As said accused Maya Devi was blamed to have hatched a conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla, it's necessary to decide if pension in favour of Maya Devi was provided illegally or said accused were involved in any such conspiracy.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by dependent including widow was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of department where deceased employee last served.
Prosecution examined one Sh. N.K. Mittal as PW21. It is told by said witness to the Court that from 01.11.2004 to May, 2005, he remained posted in PNB, Jakhal, Haryana, as Deputy Manager. An account no. 10200 was opened in their bank, in the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 181 of 255 name of Smt. Maya Devi. Account opening form and specimen signature card of Smt. Maya Devi is Ex. PW21/A4. A revised PPA dated 30.09.2003 was received in their bank alongwith calculation sheet of pension arrears amounting to Rs. 1,84,620/, which were credited in the account of Smt. Maya Devi, on 29.01.2003. Pension papers are Ex. PW21/A1. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through withdrawal slips (D1219 to D1252), which are Ex. PW21/A2. Statement of account (04 pages) about said account is Ex. PW21/A3. Smt. Maya Devi submitted Life Certificates and affidavit to the bank, which are collectively Ex. PW21/A5.
As per Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47), he was posted as Accounts Assistant in Pension Section in year 2001. His duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases and to distribute the same among other staff, who included Sh. Soran Singh (A6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Sh. Meena and Sh. Satish Chander, all of whom were also working as Accounts Assistants. After seeing register Ex. PW47/E i.e. PPO register (D1680), it is disclosed by this witness that said register pertains to year 199495 and belonged to his department. There was no entry in that register in respect of PPA no. 0195020871. This witness further verified PPA no. 0195020871 (D1256) and calculation sheet (D1257), both dated 30.09.2013 in respect of arrears of family pension payable to Maya Devi and further that same is in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. This witness (PW47) identified signatures of Jagmohan Sharma on both of said documents at points B and countersign by Vinod Sharma at point C. Revised PPA is Ex. PW47/E1 and CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 182 of 255 calculation sheet is Ex. PW47/E2.
Documents i.e. Application for family pension (Ex. PW46/A51), Applicants signature form (Ex. PW46/A54), Thumb and finger impression form (Ex. PW46/A55), Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/A52), Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/A53) and Certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/A56) all these are shown to have been signed in the name of Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Northern Railways. Sh. Kapoor Singh was examined as PW46. According to this witness, he was Assistant Personnel Officer in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Maya Devi Ex. 47/E1 and Ex. PW46/A51 to Ex. PW46/A56, it is claimed by this witness that none of these document is signed by him. Signatures in his name on these documents are not genuine. He did not sign any such document. These documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
It is pointed out that during investigation of the case, specimen handwriting and signatures of Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Maya Devi were taken by IO, for their comparison by the handwriting expert with signatures/handwriting of these accused from disputed documents. After examination, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) verified that specimen signature card (D1218), account opening form (Ex. PW21/A4) and withdrawal slips, all these were signed by Smt. Maya Devi by putting right thumb impressions. Similarly, according to said Dr. Ravindra Sharma, letter (Ex. PW21/A21) dated 25.11.2003 addressed to Manager, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 183 of 255 PNB, Jakhal, Haryana. Handwritten endorsement on PPO no. 0195020871 dated 30.09.2003 (Ex. PW47/E1) and handwritten calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/E2) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. PW113 opined further that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents i.e. application form etc. filled by Smt. Maya Devi, as described above, were made by accused Subhash Rohilla. Further, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) found that PPO (Ex. PW47/E1) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/E2) are signed by Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that there is nothing on record to show that husband of Maya Devi opted for pension, even if, Smt. Maya Devi is assumed to be wife/dependent of late Sh. Banta Ram. The application for pension was not submitted by her to the head of department, where late Banta Ram last served, rather it was accused Subhash Rohilla himself processed the application without adopting due procedure. Accused Jagmohan Sharma signed the same ignoring all these facts. All this, makes it clear that both said accused were conspired with each other as well as with Maya Devi, in granting pension in latter's favour. Accused Subhash Rohilla even impersonated himself as Kapoor Singh while signing documents in favour of Maya Devi.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that application for pension submitted by Maya Devi was processed by Sh. Subhash Rohilla and that contrary to prescribed procedure. PPO no. 0195020871 providing pension in her favour was prepared by accused Subhash Rohilla and same were sanctioned/signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Intention of Sh. Subhash Rohilla is very much clear, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 184 of 255 when he signed said documents impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Neelam w/o Balbir (A47) Family pension was granted in favour of Smt. Neelam vide PPO No. 0191020632 dated 12.04.2003. According to case of prosecution, Smt. Neelam was not entitled to family pension, as services of her husband late Balbir were terminated. Pension was provided in favour of said accused Smt. Neelam by accused Subhash Rohilla in conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and beneficiary Smt. Neelam herself. The application was marked to Ms. Poonam but to fulfill his illegal design, same was taken up and processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter also attested application form etc of Smt. Neelam impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Sh. Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. Naresh Kumar who filled up all forms for accused Smt. Neelam.
Prosecution examined one Bhupinder Jindal as PW15. According to latter, he served State Bank of India, Jakhal Branch from August, 2004 to December, 2006 as Asstt. Manager. An account No. 01190005347 was opened in their bank by Smt. Neelam wife of Balbir on 24.02.2003. Account opening form is Ex. PW15/A22, a revised pension payment advice No. D/DLI/PEN/0191020632 (D1290) along with a calculation sheet, both dated 12.04.2003 were received in their bank from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi accompanied by some pension papers (D1292 to D1297). Said Revised PPA mentioned above is Ex. PW15/A23, calculation sheet is Ex. PW15/A24, other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW15/A25 and forwarding letter alongwith said documents were CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 185 of 255 received is Ex. PW15/A26. Smt. Neelam submitted an affidavit (D1300) to the bank on 20.08.2003, which is Ex. PW15/A27. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through 19 withdrawal slips (D1271 to 1289) which are collectively Ex. PW15/A30. Statement of account (six pages) in respect of said account of Smt. Neelam from 24.02.2003 to 04.01.2006 is Ex. PW15/A28, signed by Sh. Chet Ram, Dy. Manager at points A. A life certificate was submitted by said Smt. Neelam to the bank on 02.06.2003, which is Ex. PW15/A29.
During investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar along with accused Neelam. In his report Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) verified that withdrawal slips (Ex. PW15/A30), account opening cum specimen signature form (Ex. PW15/A22), application form for family pension (Ex. PW15/A25), permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW137/DD2), specimen signature form of applicant (Ex. PW137/DD3), letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW137/DD1) and affidavit (Ex. PW15/A27), are signed by Smt. Neelam.
The fact that accused Neelam applied for pension, opened an account with State Bank of India, Jakhal Branch and withdrew the amount through withdrawal slips mentioned above are not disputed, even otherwise, her signatures on aforesaid documents are proved from the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma.
Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma was also of the opinion that hand written letter dated 28.07.2003 addressed to Manager, State Bank of India, Jakhal (Ex. PW15/A26), handwritten endorsement on PPO No. 0191020632 (Ex. PW15/A23) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 186 of 255 and handwritten calculation sheet (Ex. PW15/A24), all these are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents viz application form for pension etc were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla.
Further, from the report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), it is established that letter dated 28.07.2003 (Ex. PW15/A26), PPO No. 0191020632 (Ex. PW15/A23) and calculation sheet (Ex. PW15/A25) were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
One Dalel Singh Dahiya has been examined as PW94. According to this witness, from 31.03.1998 to 23.10.2010, he remained posted in the office of head clerk, Station Superintendent, Northern Railway, Rohtak. His duty was to deal with matters regarding Pass, PTO, Salary, arrival and departure of inquiries, establishment work of employees etc. After seeing letter dated 29.04.2000 (D1593), letter dated 30.04.2000 (D1594) and letter dated 30.03.2000 written by Sh. A.K. Shukla, Asstt. Commercial Manager, Coaching, Northern Railway, identified his signatures on letters mentioned above as well as signatures of Sh. A.K. Adiya, Station Superintendent. As per this witness, all these documents were handed over by him to CBI, same are Ex. PW94/B. PW94 told further that Sh. Balbir Singh (Safaiwala) was posted at Rohtak Station, but was removed from services by Asstt. Commercial Manager, Coaching, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Ld. Sr. P.P submits that during investigation, IO asked certain information from Divisional Railway Manager. The latter, in his reply (Ex. PW91/A) disclosed that Sh. Balbir husband of Smt. Neelam r/o H. No. 153, Gurudwara Basti, Jakhal posted as CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 187 of 255 Safaiwala SS Rohtak was employed on 29.06.1989, but was removed from service.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Neelam (A47) was provided by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma and again that said accused Smt. Neelam was not entiled for family pension as her husband had already been removed from the job.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that accused Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8) was also involved in that conspiracy. It was he i.e. Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc on behalf of accused Neelam. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report found that documents like application form for pension etc were filled up in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar.
Even if according to handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence that latter took any gratification from the claimant Smt. Neelam or was involved in any conspiracy with coaccused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Amar Devi w/o Bahadur Singh (A48) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Amar Devi through PPO no. 0185020688. It is pointed out that Smt. Amar Devi expired during trial and proceedings against her were abated by order of this Court dated 20.11.2011. As accused Amar Devi has been blamed to have hatched a conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla and Naresh Kumar, its necessary to decide if pension in favour of Amar Devi was provided illegally or said accused were involved in any such conspiracy.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 188 of 255It is also pointed out by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, widow/dependent children of such a railway employee are entitled to family pension, who
1. had opted for pension.
2. died while in service or after retirement.
3. claimant should be either spouse or dependent child.
4. the application was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of office, where deceased employee last served.
Ld. Sr. PP contends that pension was granted in favour of Smt. Amar Devi by accused Subhash Rohilla, having conspired with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Amar Devi herself. Proper procedure was not followed. Sh. Subhash Rohilla attested documents of Amar Devi, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined Sh. B.R. Lutava as PW57. Latter told to the Court that between 06.08.2001 to 14.09.2005, he remained posted in Central Bank of India, G.T Road, Karnal Branch as Sr. Branch Manager. An account no. 25262 was opened in that bank on 19.09.2003 by Smt. Amar Devi w/o Bahadur Singh, which was allowed to be opened by Rajeeev Kapoor, Special Assistant. Account opening form is Ex. PW57/A1. Specimen signature card of said customer is Ex. PW57/A2, a letter dated 10.11.2004, written under the signature of Financial Advisor/Chief Account Officer, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi, Pension, was received in the bank in respect of PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020688 in the name of Smt. Amar Devi. Said CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 189 of 255 letter is Ex. PW57/A4. Smt. Amar Devi gave an undertaking to the bank on 06.01.2004 which is Ex. PW57/A7. PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0185020688 was received from Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi alongwith a calculation sheet which are Ex. PW47/HY1 and Ex. PW47/HY2 respectively. Statement of account in respect to aforesaid account no. 25262 in the name of Amar Devi from 19.02.2003 to 31.12.2004 is Ex. PW57/A3. Certain amounts were withdrawn from that account through withdrawal slips (D1323 D1332) on various dates. Withdrawal slips are collectively Ex. PW57/A11. During investigation of this case, he (PW57) sent documents pertaining to that account to the CBI, through letter Ex. PW57/A12.
As per Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47), he was posted as Accounts Assistant. In year 2001, he was in Pension Section. His duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases and to distribute the same among other staff, who included Sh. Soran Singh (A6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh, Sh. Meena and Sh. Satish Chander, who were also Accounts Assistants. He is conversant with handwriting/signatures of all aforesaid officials being employed in his section having seen their signatures and handwriting in the course of work. After seeing documents i.e. revised PPA no. 0185020688 (D132) in the name of Bahadur Singh and calculation sheet, both dated 31.10.2003 in respect of arrears of family pension payable to Amar Devi w/o Bahadur Singh, this witness identified the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla on these documents at points A, signatures of Jagmohan CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 190 of 255 Sharma at point B while counter signature of Vinod Sharma at point C. PW47 identified that aforesaid Calculation sheet is in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla and Revised PPA which is Ex. PW47/HY1 and calculation sheet is Ex. PW47/HY2 again. Letter dated 09.03.2004 (D1308) written in favour of Manager Central Bank of India i.e. Ex. PW47/HY3 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla while signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma at points A. Another letter dated 31.10.2003 (D1311) addressed to Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch Karnal, Haryana is Ex. PW47/HY4. Latter (PW47) stated that said letters were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla, signed by Jagmohan Sharma at points A and countersignature of Vinod Sharma at points C. Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) disclosed that he served Indian Railways as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Amar Devi Ex. PW57/A8, Ex. PW46/A1, Ex. PW46/A16 and Ex. PW46/A17, it is deposed by this witness that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on these documents were not done by him, rather someone forged these signatures. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Northern Railway, New Delhi and were not related to his office.
Sh. Ramesh Chand was examined as PW131. He told to the Court that he served as APO in Northern Railways in year 1998. After seeing documents Ex. PW131/18 (D1302 to 1332) i.e. pension papers in the name of Bahadur Singh, this witness told that these papers were never produced to him by the official of APO, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 191 of 255 Bills/Settlement Division, Delhi. Neither the same were forwarded by him nor bear his countersignatures. PPO and PPA are forged. PW131 further told that signatures in the name of Kapor Singh and stamp of Sayak Karmik Adhikari are also forged.
During investigation, IO is told to have taken specimen handwriting/signatures of Amar Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison of same with the disputed handwriting/signatures of aforesaid accused. After examination, Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) verified that documents i.e. specimen signatures (Ex. PW47/2, and withdrawal form which are collectively Ex. PW57/A11 bear right thumb impression of accused Amar Devi.
The fact that accused Amar Devi applied for pension, got open an account with Central Bank of Indian and withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips Ex. PW57/A11 (Colly.) are not disputed during arguments. Even otherwise, her signatures on aforesaid documents are well established from the opinion of handwriting expert.
Dr. Ravindra Sharma further opined that handwritten letter dated 09.03.2004 (Ex. PW47/HY3), endorsement on letter dated 31.10.2003 (Ex. PW47/H4), both addressed to Manager Central Bank of India, Karnal, PPO (handwritten) no. 0185020688 and calculation sheet (handwritten) about arrears of family pension (Ex. PW47/HY2) are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, said expert (Dr. Ravindra Sharma) signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla, same are A. Application for family pension (Ex. PW57/A8) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 192 of 255 B. Form for specimen signatures (Ex. PW46/A5) C. Form for thumb and finger print impression (Ex. PW46/A16) D. Form for permanent address (Ex. PW46/A14) E. Certificate of identity (Ex. PW46/A17) F. Letter of authority (D1315) Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined further that letter dated 09.03.2004 (Ex. PW47/HY3) and letter dated 31.10.2003 (Ex. PW47/HY4) both addressed Manager Central Bank of India, PPO Ex. PW47/HY1 and calculation sheet (Ex. PW47/HY2) are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well proved that pension in favour of Smt. Amar Devi was prepared/granted by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma. Sh. Subhash Rohilla also signed application form etc. of accused Amar Devi as described above, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh Sh. Jagdish Lal (PW86) stated that from 30.11.200 to 31.12.2007 he remained posted in Loco Loby Jind at CC Office as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeking application Ex. PW57/A8 in the name of Amar Devi w/o late Bahadur Singh ExSafaiwala, CC Jind, Haryana, it is stated by this witness that no such person was posted as Safaiwala in CC Jind during his tenure. Application was not forwarded from the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
There is no reason to disbelieve testimony of this witness i.e. Jagdish Lal. In her application form for pension, (Ex. PW57/A8), thumb and finger impression form Ex. PW46/A16, specimen signature form Ex. PW46/A15, accused Amar Devi CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 193 of 255 disclosed that her husband Bahadur Singh had worked as Safaiwala (Sweeper) in the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
As mentioned above, according to rules, application for pension was required to be submitted before the officer incharge, where deceased railway employee last served and as per PW86, no such application was filed in or forwarded by the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in this conspiracy because application form for family pension (Ex. PW57/A8), specimen signature form (Ex. PW46/A15), form for thumb and finger print impression (Ex. PW46/A16), form for permanent address and mode of payment (Ex. PW46/A14), certificate of identity form (Ex. PW46/A17) and letter of authority and undertaking (D1315) all these documents were filled up by said Naresh Kumar. This fact is verified from the report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
Even if as per report of handwriting expert, said documents were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, but there is no evidence that Sh. Naresh Kumar took any consideration amount or was involved in any conspiracy with other accused. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Jai Singh s/o Ghyasan (A49) Pension in the category of invalid pension was granted in favour of accused Jai Singh vide old PPO No. 02901868 and new No.0190020612 dated 18.08.2003. According to case of prosecution, said Sh. Jai Singh was not entitled for any pension as he has been removed from his job, but same was granted due to conspiracy hatched CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 194 of 255 among said accused, Jagmohan Sharma (Accused No.1), Subhash Rohilla (Accused No.2) and Naresh Kumar (Accused No.8).
Moreover, the application of said accused was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla to fulfill his illegal design. Accused Subhash Rohilla also attested/signed the documents submitted by accused Jai Singh impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh, Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway, New Delhi. The application was not processed properly. The applicant did not file any medical certificate issued by competent authority and the application was not filed before the Head of Office where said accused was last employed.
Prosecution examined Sh. Om Prakash Verma (PW18) stated to be an employee of Punjab National Bank, Gannaur. During investigation of this case on 22.02.2006, he handed over documents pertaining to accused Jai Singh to the IO. The latter seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. This witness also verified that Account No. 39466 was opened in their bank by Sh. Jai Singh by submitting account opening form Ex. PW10/A, statement of account from period 07.08.2003 to 28.02.2004 is Ex. PW18/A1 signed by senior manager of their branch at point A. Another statement of account from 03.03.2004 to 28.01.2005 is Ex. PW18/A2 and certificate issued under section 2A of the Bankers Book of Evidence Act 1891 is Ex. PW18/A3. Certain amounts were withdrawn by accused Jai Singh through withdrawal slips (D1350 to D1360) which are collectively Ex. PW10/A2. This witness further verified letter dated 22.08.2003 (D1338) received from the office of Senior Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension along with pension papers in the name of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 195 of 255 Jai Singh. Said letter is Ex. PW18/A7, PPO dated 18.08.2003 in respect of same accused is Ex. PW18/A8, calculation sheet (D1339) Ex. PW18/A9, revised PPA (D1340) No. D/DLI/PEN/ 0190020612 dated 18.08.2003 which is Ex. PW18/A10, calculation sheet (D1342) dated 09.09.2003 which is Ex. PW18/A11, other pension papers (D1344 to D1346) collectively Ex. PW18/A12 and other statement from 1999 to 2004 is Ex. PW18/A13. All these documents were seized vide production cum receipt memo Ex. PW18/A6.
Sh. Ashok Rathi (PW10) disclosed that he had also been working in Gannaur branch of PNB since 25.05.1996. This witness also verified account No. 39466 opened in their bank in the name of Jai Singh son of Ghyasan, having been opened on 07.08.2003 as well as eleven withdrawal slips collectively Ex. PW10/A2.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) disclosed that he remained posted as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division w.e.f. October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Jai Singh i.e. Ex. PW18/A8 to Ex. PW18/A12 and Ex. PW46/A79 to Ex. PW46/A82, it is deposed by this witness that these documents are shown to have been signed in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh, but same are not his signatures rather forged by someone. These documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement Division Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) was posted as APO, Settlement Branch and after seeing documents Ex. PW131/19 (D1333 to D1360) in the name of Jai Singh, stated to be posted as Safaiwal under CC Jind, it is disclosed by this witness that these CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 196 of 255 papers were never produced before him as APO/Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. He neither counter signed these papers nor forwarded the same. PPO and PPA issued through these documents were forged. Moreover, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh and stamp of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railway are also forged.
During investigation, IO took specimen signatures/ handwriting of accused Jai Singh, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for comparison of these signatures/ handwriting along with disputed signatures/ handwriting done by said accused, although the fact that accused Jai Singh submitted such application seeking pension opened an account with PNB, Gannaur and withdrawal of certain amounts through withdrawal slips are not disputed by accused Jai Singh during arguments. Handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) in his report opined that withdrawal slips collectively Ex. PW10/A2, account opening form Ex. PW10/A, acknowledgement Ex. PW10/A11, letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW18/A 12, statement of family detail Ex. PW46/A80, specimen signature of Jain Singh Ex. PW46/A82 and permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW46/A81 are signed by accused Jai Singh. Similarly, according to said handwriting expert following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla:
(I) Hand written letter dated 22.08.2003 addressed to Manager, PNB, Sonepat, Haryana (Ex. PW18/A7).
(ii) Letter dated 18.08.2003 addressed to Manager, PNB, Sonepat (Ex.PW18/A8).
(iii) Calculation sheet of arrears of pension (Ex. PW18/A9).CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 197 of 255
(iv) Hand written letter (Ex. PW18/A10).
(v) Hand written calculation sheet for arrears of family pension from
01.01.1996 to 31.03.2003.
All these are written by accused Subhash Rohilla. Further, as per said
handwriting expert, signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are also in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla:
(I) Letter of authority (Ex. PW18/A12). (ii) Application form for pension (Ex. PW46/A79) (iii) Statement of family details (Ex. PW46/A80). (iv) Specimen Signatures Form (Ex. PW46/A82) (v) Permanent Address Form and Mode of Payment (Ex. PW46/A81)
Dr. Ravindra Sharma is also of the opinion that letter dated 18.08.2003 Ex.
PW18/A8, calculation sheet Ex. PW18/A9, PPO dated 18.08.2003 Ex. PW18/A10 and calculation sheet for arrears of pension to Jai Singh Ex. PW18/A11 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Rule 55 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 provide for invalid pension to be granted in favour of employees who are declared unfit for service by the medical board for service on account of any bodily or mental disability. Railway employee concerned was required to submit his application seeking invalid pension on prescribed proforma along with medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority to the head office of his department.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor that no such medical certificate was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 198 of 255 submitted by accused Jai Singh. Moreover, the application was not submitted to head of department where said accused was serving. The application was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla to fulfill his illegal design. The latter i.e. accused Subhash Rohilla hatched a conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma to provide pension to accused Jai Singh for which he was not entitled.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well proved that pension in favour of accused Jai Sigh was provided by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma but Sh. Jai Singh was not entitled to invalid pension having no medical disability.
Madho Devi w/o Ram Saran (A50) Invalid pension was granted in favour of accused Madho Devi on behalf of her husband Ram Saran through PPO no. 029422601 and revised PPO no. 0194020709 dated 23.03.2004.
It is pointed by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Rule 55 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993, invalid pension can be granted to an employee of Indian railways, who has been declared unfit for service on account of any bodily or mental disability by a medical authority. The railway employee is required to submit his application for invalid pension on prescribed proforma, alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority to the head of the office of concerned department, but neither the application was filed before the head of department concerned nor application was annexed with any medical certificate, issued by the duly constituted medical authority. As per index register, application was marked to CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 199 of 255 Sh. B.K. Butta, but it was taken up and processed by accused Subhash Rohilla with illegal design. The latter in conspiracy with Ms. Madho Devi, Jagmohan Sharma and Subhash Rohilla wrongly provided invalid pension for late Ram Saran. Accused Subhash Rohilla attested application etc. filed by accused Madho Devi, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined Sh. Sushil Kumar Bansal as PW19. It is deposed on oath by the latter that from June, 2002 to July, 2003, he remained posted in State Bank of Patiala, Narwana Branch as Deputy Manager. An account no. 011900104714 was allowed to be opened by him in their branch by Smt. Maya Devi on 20.02.2003. Account opening form is Ex. PW19/A. Specimen signature card of said account holder i.e. Madho Devi Ex. PW19/A1. KYC form was also submitted by said Smt. Madho Devi Ex. PW19/A3. A revised PPA no. D/DLI/PEN/0194020709 was received from the office of Sr. Divisional Officer/Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi alongwith calculation sheet dated 23.03.2004 and pension papers. Said revised PPA is Ex. PW19/A6, calculation sheet is Ex. PW19/A and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW19/A8. An affidavit was filed by Madho Devi which is Ex. PW19/A9 and undertaking Ex. PW19/A10 was also given. Statement of account in respect of said account no. 01190014714 from February 2004 to 31.03.2005 is Ex. PW19/A5. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through 03 withdrawal slips Ex. PW19/A12. All these documents were seized by IO during investigation of this case having produced by Sh. Jagpal Singh, Branch Manager. Production cum receipt memo is Ex. PW19/A11.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 200 of 255Sh. Jagpal Singh (PW33) disclosed that in year 2005 he was posted as Manager in State Bank of Patiala, Narwana Branch, Distt. Jind. This witness also verified opening of account no. 01190014714 in the name of Madho Devi on 20.02.2004, receipt of PPA mentioned above and also withdrawal of certain amount from this account vide withdrawal slips Ex. PW19/A12.
IO also verified seizure of aforesaid documents.
Sh. Jagdish Lal (PW86) stated that from 30.11.200 to 31.12.2007 he remained posted in Loco Loby Jind at CC Office as Sr. Crew Controller Incharge. After seeing application in the name of Madho Devi w/o Ram Saran Ex. PW19/A8 where Sh. Ram Saran is shown as having served Crew Controller, Haryana as Pani Wala (Water man), it is deposed by this witness that there was no such post of Pani Wala (Water man) in the office of Crew Controller, Jind, Haryana, during his tenure and no such application for pension was forwarded from the office of Crew Controller, Jind.
During investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of Madho Devi, Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma for comparison of their handwriting/signatures on disputed documents. After comparison, Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined that account opening form (Ex. PW19/A8), specimen thumb impression of Madho Devi (Ex. PW46/A25) were signed by Sh. Madho Devi by putting right thumb impression. Similarly, according to said expert, endorsement (handwritten) on PPO no. 0194020709(Ex. PW19/A6) and calculation sheet (handwritten) for arrears of invalid pension to Smt. Madho Devi (Ex. PW19/A7) are in the handwriting of Subhash Rohilla. It is further the opinion of this expert that CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 201 of 255 signatures found in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application for pension Ex. PW19/A8 B. Letter of authority and undertaking Ex. PW46/A22 C. Form of thumb and finger print impression Ex. PW46/A23 D. Form for specimen signature of applicant Ex. PW46/A25 D. Permanent address and mode of payment Ex. PW46/A24 E. Certificate of identity of Ram Saran Ex. PW46/A26 Dr. Ravindra Sharma in his report also found that documents i.e. PPO no. 0194020709 Ex. PW19/16 and calculation sheet Ex. PW19/A7 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that application filed by Madho Devi was marked to Mr. B.K. Butta, but same was deliberately not sent to Mr. B.K. Butta, rather was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. As per rule, application was to be filed by railway employee before the head of department, where he was serving and application should have been accompanied by medical certificate issued by Competent Authority, but these facts were ignored.
Although it is not disputed by accused Madho Devi during arguments that she applied for such invalid pension through application Ex. PW19/A, opened account with State Bank of Patiala Narwana Branch and amount of pension was credited in her account as well as the fact that she withdrew certain amounts, signatures i.e. right thumb impression of said accused on application form etc. are established from the CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 202 of 255 report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, who opined that account opening form (Ex. PW19/A8) and specimen thumb impression Ex. PW46/A25 were signed by Sh. Madho Devi by putting right thumb impression.
Considering the evidence as discussed above, it is sell proved that invalid pension was granted in favour of Smt. Madho Devi on behalf of her late husband Ram Saran, when there is no evidence that late Sh. Ram Saran served in the office of Crew Controller, Jind as a Water Man or that latter suffered any disability. Pension was granted due to conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Smt. Madho Devi herself. Proper procedure was not followed.
Darshana Devi w/o Sh. Rajender Prasad (A51) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Smt. Darshana Devi vide PPO no. 0186020617 dated 30.04.2004 and old PPO no. 028613761.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that pension was provided in favour of said accused by accused Subhash Rohilla having hatched conspiracy, with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma and Smt. Darshana Devi herself. The application was taken from Smt. Darshana Devi, although it was marked to Sh. Pooran Singh, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla himself and that without following due procedure. The latter also signed application form etc. of said accused impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined Sh. K.C. Mittal as PW27. It is deposed by this witness that he remained posted in Punjab National Bank, Bareta, Distt. Mansa, Punjab from June 2002 to August 2004. On being asked by IO, he handed over certain documents CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 203 of 255 belonging to the account of Smt. Darshana Devi w/o Sh. Rajender Prasad, which were seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW27/A. This witness further verified that an account in the name of Smt. Darshana Devi was allowed to be opened by Sh. Jaswant Rai Singla, an officer of their bank. Account opening form is Ex. PW27/A1, specimen signature card of said customer is Ex. PW27/A2, a declaration was given by account holder Smt. Darshana Devi is Ex. PW27/A3. PW27 reminded that PPO no. 028613761/DAO/DLI dated 30.04.2004 and revised PPA no.
D/DLI/PEN/0186020617 dated 30.06.2004, calculation sheet and other pension papers were received in their bank from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer/Pension, Northern Railways, New Delhi, in respect of pension of said Smt. Darshana Devi. Forwarding letter containing said documents is ex. PW27/A4. PPO mentioned above is ex. PW27/A5, revised PPA is Ex. PW27/A6, calculation sheet is Ex. PW27/A7 and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW27/A8.
Sh. K.C. Mittal again told that statement of account belonging to account of said Smt. Darshana Devi was issued by Sh. Harmesh Lal Garg for period 01.04.2004 to 19.02.2005. He identified signatures of latter at point A. Statement of account is Ex. PW27/A9. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through withdrawal slips (D1471 to D1472) i.e. Ex. PW27/A10.
The facts that such an account was opened by accused Darshana Devi, pension amount was received in that account and certain sums were withdrawn, are not disputed on behalf of Smt. Darshana Devi during deliberations.
It is pointed out that during investigation, IO took specimen CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 204 of 255 handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Darshana Devi, for comparison of same alongwith handwriting/signatures of said accused on disputed documents. As per Ld. Sr. PP, no opinion could be given by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) about thumb impression of Smt. Darshana Devi on the application form etc. submitted by her but as per said handwriting expert, PPO and calculation sheet mentioned above were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Again, according to report of handwriting expert (PW113), handwritten endorsement on letter Ex. PW27/A4 addressed to Manager, PNB, Mansa sanctioning family pension, handwritten endorsement on PPO Ex. PW27/A5 and handwritten calculation sheet of arrears of family pension Ex. PW27/A7 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Dr. Ravindra Sharma further opined that words "Kapoor Singh" on following documents are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application form for family pension.
B. Letter of authority and undertaking for withdrawal of pension Ex.
PW137/MM1.
C. Form for specimen signature (Ex. PW137/MM3). D. Thumb and finger print impression form (Ex. PW137/MM4). E. Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW137/MM2).
Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined again that PPO dated 30.04.2004 in the name of Darshana Devi (Ex. PW27/A6), calculation sheet of arrears of family pension in favour of Smt. Darshana Devi (Ex. PW27/A7) and letter dated 30.04.2004 addressed CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 205 of 255 to Manager, PNB, Mansa Ex. PW27/A5, all these bear signature of accused Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by any of dependents including widow was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of department, where deceased employee last served.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) deposed that he worked as APO in Northern Railway in year 1998. Pension papers are being filed in three copies by the controlling officer and attested by the officer of the department concerned. Same are to be deposited in the settlement section through personnel inspector of concerned beat. The accounts department used to send settlement file alongwith copy of PPA to the settlement section. After seeing pension papers of Sh. Rajender Prasad (husband of accused Darshana Devi) Ex. PW131/21 (D1469 to D1483), it is stated by this witness that signatures of Kapoor Singh under the stamps of Sahayak Karmik Adhihari, Uttar Railways are forged. He has seen Sh. Kapoor Singh writing and signing in the official course. These pension papers were never produced before him by any official of APO, Bills/Settlement Division, Delhi and same were neither forwarded by him nor signed by him. All pension papers including PPO and and PPA are forged.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that family pension was granted in favour of accused Smt. Darshana Devi by accused Subhash Rohilla CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 206 of 255 and Jagmohan Sharma, but proper procedure was not followed. The application was marked to Sh. Pooran, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. It was latter who signed application form etc. impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Manner in which pension was allowed is evident of conspiracy amoung these accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Darshana Devi.
Bhuri w/o Sh. Surta Singh (A52) Family pension was granted in favour of accused Smt. Bhuri vide PPO no. 029422876 and revised PPA no. 0194020697 dated 29.10.2003.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that pension was provided in favour of said accused by accused Subhash Rohilla having hatched conspiracy with coaccused Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar (A8) and Smt. Darshana Devi herself. The application was taken from Smt. Bhuri , although it was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla himself. The latter also signed application form etc. of said accused impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Sh. K.C. Mittal when examined as PW27 told to the Court that he remained posted in Punjab National Bank, Bareta, Distt. Mansa, Punjab from June 2002 to August 2004. This witness verified that an account was opened in their bank in the name of Bhuri Devi w/o Sh. Surta Singh by Sh. P.L. Aggarwal, an officer of their bank, on 20.06.1994. Said customer i.e. Smt. Bhuri was introduced by one Sh. Karnail Singh. Account opening from submitted by said customer is Ex. PW27/A11 and her signature card is Ex. PW27/A12. This witness further verified that letter no. 029422876/DAO/DLI dated 29.10.2003 alogwith PPO no. D/DLI/PEN/0194020697, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 207 of 255 both dated 29.10.2003 and a calculation sheet alongwith forwarding letter dated 28.11.2003 were received in their bank. On the basis of said PPO, some amount was credited in the account of Smt. Bhuri. Forwarding letter mentioned above is Ex. PW27/A13, letter dated 29.10.2003 stated earlier is Ex. PW27/A14, PPO is Ex. PW27/A15, calculation sheet is Ex. PW27/A16, statement of account in respect of account mentioned above in the name of Smt. Bhuri is Ex. PW27/A17 and pension papers are collectively Ex. PW27/A18. Certain amounts were withdrawn from this account through two withdrawal slips collectively Ex. PW27/A19.
The facts that such an account was opened by accused Bhuri, pension was received in that account and certain amounts were withdrawn were not disputed on behalf of Smt. Bhuri, during deliberations.
As per case of prosecution, during investigation, IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Smt. Bhuri for comparison of same alongwith handwriting/signatures of said accused on disputed documents. Signatures (right thumb impression) of Smt. Bhuri on her account opening form etc. are well established from the opinion of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113).
As per Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), endorsement on PPO Ex. PW27/A15 and handwritten calculation sheet about arrears of family pension Ex. PW27/A16 are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Similarly, signatures as Kapoor Singh on following documents are also made by accused Subhash Rohilla A. Application for family pension (Ex. PW27/A18) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 208 of 255 B. Specimen signature/Right Thumb Impression of Smt. Burti (Ex. PW137/NN2) C. Thumb + Finger print impression form (Ex. PW137/NN3) D. Letter of authority and undertaking for withdrawal of pension (Ex. PW137/NN) E. Permanent address + mode of payment form (Ex. PW137/NN1) F. Certificate of identity (Ex. PW137/NN4) Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined further that PPO Ex. PW27/A15 and calculation sheet Ex. PW27/A16 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP that according to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, for family pension, it was necessary that railway employee should have opted for pension. The application by dependent including widow was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma, to the head of department, where deceased employee last served.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) deposed that he worked as APO in Northern Railway in year 1998. Pension papers are being filed in three copies by the controlling officer and attested by the officer of the department concerned. Same are are deposited in the settlement section through personeel inspector of the concerned beat of concerned beat. The accounts department used to send settlement file alongwith copy of PPA to the settlement section. After seeing pension papers of Sh. Surta Singh (husband of accused Bhuri ) Ex. PW131/22 (D1485 to D1498), it is stated by this witness that signatures of Kapoor Singh under the stamps of Sahayak Karmik Adhihari, Uttar Railways are forged. He has seen Sh. Kapoor Singh writing and signing in the official course. These pension papers were never produced before CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 209 of 255 him by any official of APO, Bills/Settlement Division, Delhi and same were neither forwarded by him nor signed by him. All pension papers including PPO and and PPA are forged.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well established that family pension was granted in favour of accused Smt. Bhuri by accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, without following proper procedure. The application was marked to Sh. B.K. Butta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. It was latter who signed application form etc. impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Accused Naresh Kumar (A8) is also alleged to have connived with coaccused and filled up application form etc. for Smt. Bhuri. According to Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), application form for family pension (Ex. PW27/A18), specimen signature/RTI form (Ex. PW137/NN2), thumb/finger print impression form (Ex. PW137/NN3), letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW137/NN), permanent address form (Ex. PW137/NN1) and certificate of identity (Ex. PW137/NN4), all these are filled up in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar.
Even if, it is found that documents mentioned above i.e. Ex. PW27/A18 etc. are in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence to verify that said Naresh Kumar conspired with coaccused or shared some amount from the pension amount.
Birma Devi w/o late Sh. Dharam Singh (A53) Exgratia pension as well as family pension were granted in favour of accused Birma Devi vide PPO No. 0102020659 in July 2002 as well as PPO No. 0185020677, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 210 of 255 dated 30.10.2002.
According to case of prosecution, Smt. Birma Devi was not entitled for said pensions. It was a result of conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Smt. Birma Devi herself. An application was taken from the latter i.e. Smt. Birma Devi, although it was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, another accounts assistant but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla who prepared false papers and even signed those papers impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. The sanction was granted by accused Jagmohan Sharma. All the papers i.e. application form etc were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar (A8).
Prosecution examined Sh. Manish Kumar as PW41. According to his witness, he was posted in State Bank of Patiala, Patiala Chowk, Jind since 1995 as a Clerk. On 28.02.2005, CBI seized various documents pertaining to account of Smt. Birma Devi from Sh. Charan Dass Dokla through production cum receipt memo Ex. PW41/A. He identified signatures of Sh. Charan Dass Dokla on said memo at point A. This witness also verified letter dated 30.12.2002 along with which a revised PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0185020677, calculation sheet dated 30.12.2002 as well as another revised PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0102020659 along with calculation sheet and other pension papers were received in their bank. Aforesaid letter (D1506), revised PPA (D1507), calculation sheet (D1508), pension papers (D1509 to D1515), revised PPA (D1516) mentioned above, calculation sheet (D1517) and other papers (D1518 & 1519) are collectively Ex. PW41/A7. Statement of account belonging to Smt. Birma Devi was issued by Sh. R.N. Garg, their branch manager and he (PW41) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 211 of 255 identified signatures of Shri R.N. Garg on said statement of account (Ex. PW41/A8) at point A. According to him, there was an arrear of Rs.78,702/ in that account on 09.08.2002. A sum of Rs.1,45,951/ was credited therein on 28.11.2002. Certain amounts were withdrawn by Smt. Birma Devi vide withdrawal slips Ex. PW29/A1(colly).
Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta (PW29) was also an officer of State Bank of Patiala, Patiala Chowk, Jind. According to him, he remained posted in said branch from May, 2002 to April, 2005. This witness also verified seizure of certain documents by IO of this case on 28.04.2005, through production cum seizure memo Ex. PW29/A. PW29 further identified signatures of Sh. Naresh Kumar Garg and Vinay Kumar Garg i.e. Passing Officers of their bank on withdrawal slips (D1500 to 1502) through which certain amounts were withdrawn. Same are Ex. PW29/A1.
According to Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46), he remained posted as APO in Settlement, Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers Ex. PW41/A4 as well as documents (D1509 to D1514), this witness disclosed that signatures in his name i.e. Kapoor Singh were not genuine rather forged. He did not sign any such pension papers. Said documents were never produced before him by any official of APO Settlement, Delhi Division and he never forwarded any such document.
In her application form, accused Smt. Birma Devi has mentioned that her husband Dharam Singh worked as Khalasi in the Office of Sr. Crew Controller, Jind.
Prosecution examined Sh. Jagdish Lal (PW86). According to this witness, he CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 212 of 255 remained posted in Locoloby Jind in Crew Controller Office from 30.11.2000 to 31.12.2007 as Sr. Crew Controller/Incharge. After seeing pension papers i.e. Ex. PW41/A2 in the name of Sh. Dharam Singh, it is told by this witness that no such pension papers were forwarded through the office of Crew Controller, Jind and there was no employee as Khalasi in the name of Dharam Singh, under the office of Sr. Crew Controller.
However, it was not disputed during deliberations on behalf of accused Smt. Birma Devi that latter applied for pension, opened an account with State Bank of Patiala, Patiala Chowk, Jind and withdrew certain amounts. Signatures of Smt. Birma Devi on following documents are verified by Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), handwriting expert :
1.) Withdrawal slips Ex. PW29/A1
2.) Application form for family pension (D1509)
3.) Specimen signatures of Birma Devi (D1512)
4.) Letter of authority and undertaking for withdrawal of pension (D1510)
5.) Permanent address and mode of payment form (D1511)
6.) Affidavit filed in the name of Smt. Birma Devi (D1515)
7.) Application form for exgratia pension Ex. PW41/A1.
8.) Another affidavit in the name of Smt. Birma Devi (D1519)
9.) Production cum seizure memo Ex. PW29/A.
10.) Production cum receipt memo Ex. PW41/A.
11.) Account opening form & specimen signatures form, both Ex.PW137/OO.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 213 of 25512.) Statement of account Ex. PW41/A8.
It is worth mentioning that during investigation IO took specimen handwriting/signatures of accused Birma Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar and sent the same to said handwriting expert for comparison with their signatures/handwriting on disputed documents.
Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) further opined that following documents were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla : a.) Hand written letter dated 30.10.2002 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Jind, Haryana (Ex. PW41/A1)
b) Hand written endorsement on PPO (Ex. PW41/A2)
c) Hand written calculation sheet of arrears of family pension (Ex.PW41/A3)
d) Hand written endorsement on PPO (Ex. PW41/A5)
e) Hand written calculation sheet arrears of exgratia pension (Ex.PW41/A6) And again that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on documents mentioned below are in the hand writing of accused Subhash Rohilla : (I) Application form for family pension (D1509)
(ii) Certificate of Identity (D1514)
(iii) Specimen signature form of Smt. Birma Devi (D1512)
(iv) Thumb and finger print impression form (D1513, Page - 20)
(v) Attestation of photograph of Smt. Birma Devi (D1513, Page - 20)
(vi) Letter of authority and undertaking (D1510, Page - 21)
(vii) Permanent address and mode of payment (D1511, Page - 22) CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 214 of 255 It is further the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma that documents i.e. PPO dated 30.10.2002 (Ex. PW41/A2), calculation sheet of arrears of family pension (Ex. PW41/A3), letter dated 30.10.2002 addressed to Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Jind (Ex. PW41/A1), and PPO about exgratia pension (Ex. PW41/A5) and calculation sheet of arrears of exgratia pension (Ex. PW41/A6) bear signatures of accused Jagmohan Sharma.
Accused did not adduce any evidence to prove that her husband Sh. Dharam Singh actually worked as Khalasi with Crew Controller Jind and as mentioned above, according to PW86 no person in the name of Dharam Singh worked as Khalasi under the office of Crew Controller.
According to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, only those railways employees can get exgratia pension, who were subscribed into the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (CPF Scheme) and completed 20 years of service prior to their retirement. Family member/dependent of deceased to get exgratia pension was required to submit an application in quadruplicate accompanying by all documents i.e. identity card, CPF Accounts slips or letter regarding settlement of Contributory Provident Fund or retirement order or such other relevant record as may be in his/her possession. In the absence of all these documents, the applicant was required to file one of these following documents for establishing their claim i.e. Succession Certificate from the Court, affidavit sworn before a Magistrate or affidavit of the claimant on a plain paper. Application was to be submitted to the head of office concerned and the latter was required to sent the application duly verified alongwith CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 215 of 255 relevant record to the Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO), Settlement for necessary action. The Office of DPO (Settlement) was obliged to link the application with settlement file of the concerned employee already available in the record room. In case of record or settlement file of concerned employee was not traceable, the settlement section was required to approach the accounts department for linking the application with settlement file available in accounts department. A fresh settlement file was to be prepared in duplicate. Exgratia payment as well as arrears were to be calculated by dealing clerk of settlement branch and the file used to be put by DPO Settlement to the Competent Authority for sanction of exgratia payment.
The Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, provide further that widow/dependent children of a such a railway employee were entitled to family pension, who A. had opted for pension.
B. died while in service or after retirement. C. claimant should be either spouse or dependent child. D. the application was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of office where he last served.
During investigation, I.O. seized original documents relating to pension sanctioned in favour of accused Birma Devi, which are part of record. There is nothing to show that husband of accused Birma Devi had opted for pension or that application seeking pension was filed to head of office, where her husband served last.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 216 of 255From the evidence, as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Birma Devi was not granted as per rules. Application filed by Smt. Birma Devi was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla. The latter also signed pension papers of accused Birma Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Sh. Jagmohan Sharma sanctioned said pension knowing well that pension papers in favour of Smt. Birma Devi were not properly processed and that the latter was not entitled for such pension. All this also establishes a conspiracy amongst accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Birma Devi.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Birma Devi and this fact is verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma. Even if it is presumed that aforesaid were filled up by accused Naresh Kumar, there is no evidence at all to verify that said accused (Naresh Kumar) received any consideration from Smt. Birma Devi to fill up said documents. Nothing on record to suggest that he was involved in any conspiracy, with other accused. Simply to say that he filled up these documents is not enough to prove his involvement in any conspiracy. Needless to say that Smt. Birma Devi is stated to be an illiterate lady. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Shanti Devi w/o Babu Lal (A54) Family pension was granted in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi through PPO & Revised PPA, both No. 0194020715. As per case of prosecution, said pension was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 217 of 255 granted without following due procedure, as a result of conspiracy among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Smt. Shanti Devi herself. The application filed by latter was marked to Sh. B.K. Buta, but was processed by accused Subhash Rohilla, who (accused Subhash Rohilla) signed application form and photo's of Smt. Shanti Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
Prosecution examined Sh. S.P. Gupta as PW67. According to this witness, between 21.06.2004 up to 2007, he remained posted as Chief Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Jind, Haryana. An account No. 01190017128 was opened in their branch, in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi by Jagdish Saini, the then Dy. Manager. The customer was introduced by one Sant Lal, an account holder of their bank. Statement of account in respect of aforesaid account is Ex. PW17/A4. Said account was opened on 07.05.2004 with an initial amount of Rs.500/. On 01.07.2004, a sum of Rs.1,92,566/ was credited in that account, same being pension arrears of account holder. On 06.07.2004, an amount of Rs.1.80,000/ was withdrawn by Smt. Shanti Devi. On 23.08.2004, the customer deposited Rs.1,50,000/ and an amount of Rs.1,55,000/ was transferred to sundry deposits. This witness further verified that revised pension payment advice No. D/DLI/PEN/01940202715 dated 31.05.2004 (Ex. PW17/A) was received in their bank along with nine sheets. Out of said nine sheets, two i.e. Ex. PW67/A1 & Ex. PW67/A2 were calculation sheets about arrears of family pension in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi. There were some entries in aforesaid documents made manually, which were verified by Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer under his seal.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 218 of 255Sh. J.K. Gupta (PW17) is also stated to be an officer of State Bank of Patiala, Jind, Haryana. After seeing documents Ex. PW17/A, Ex. PW17/A1 and Ex. PW17/A2, this witness disclosed that same are revised PPA No. D/DLI/PEN/0194020715, Calculation Sheet and other pension papers, received in their bank, from the office of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officer, Pension, Northern Railway, New Delhi. This witness told further that Saving Bank Account No. 01190017128 was opened in their bank in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi wife of Sh. Babu Ram. Documents pertaining to that account were seized by IO of this case from Sh. Charan Dass Solka, Asstt. Manager of their bank. Production cum receipt memo in this regard is Ex. PW17/A3. This witness identified signatures of Sh. Charan Dass Solka on said seizure memo at point A, stating that he had seen Sh. Charan Dass Solka writing and signing before him. PW17 verified statement of account for the period 07.05.2004 to 01.01.2005 in relation to that account, which is Ex. PW17/A4.
Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) told that he remained posted as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division from October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing pension papers in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi i.e. Ex. PW17/A, Ex. PW67/A to PW67/A9 and also signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on photo affixed on Ex. PW17/A, it is stated by this witness that said documents were not signed by him. Same were not genuine. Aforesaid documents were never produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
It is pointed out that during investigation, IO took specimen signatures of accused Shanti Devi, Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Naresh Kumar for CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 219 of 255 comparison with their signatures/ handwriting upon disputed documents. Although the fact that accused Shanti Devi applied for family pension, which was allowed, she opened an account with State Bank of Patiala, Jind, Haryana and withdrew certain amounts, are not disputed during deliberations. Signatures (Right Thumb Impression) of Smt. Shanti Devi on following documents is verified by handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma, who is examined as PW113 :
1.) Account Opening Form (PW67/A)
2.) Statement of account from 07.05.2004 to 10.01.2005 (Ex. PW17/A4)
3.) Production cum seizure memo dated 28.02.2005 (Ex. PW17/A3) In the opinion of Dr. Ravindra Sharma, documents i.e. PPO/Revised PPA No. 0194020715 dated 31.05.2004 and calculation sheet Ex. PW17/A1 were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. It is further the opinion of said handwriting expert that both of aforesaid documents i.e. handwritten endorsement Ex. PW17/A and handwritten calculation sheet Ex. PW17/A1 were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. Handwriting expert (PW113) opined further that following documents were signed by Sh. Subhash Rohilla, but in the name of Kapoor Singh :
1.) Application form for family pension (Ex. PW17/A2)
2.) Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW67/A4)
3.) Certificate of identity of Sh. Babu Lal (Ex. PW67/A5)
4.) Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW67/A6)
5.) Thumb and finger print impression of Shanti Devi (Ex. PW67/A7) Apart from all this, photographs of Smt. Shanti Devi on documents Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 220 of 255PW67/A4, on thumb and finger print impression form Ex. PW67/A7 and photo affixed on specimen signatures of accused Smt. Shanti Devi Ex. PW67/A8 are opined to have been were attested by Sh. Subhash Rohilla, in the name of Kapoor Singh.
It is further the opinion of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), that following documents are written in the handwriting of accused Naresh Kumar :
i) Application form for family pension (Ex. PW17/A2)
ii) Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW67/A4)
iii) Certificate of identity of Sh. Babu Lal (Ex. PW67/A5)
iv) Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW67/A6)
v) Thumb and finger print impression of Shanti Devi (Ex. PW67/A7)
vi) Specimen signatures (thumb impression form) (Ex. PW67/A8) According to Railway Services Pension Rules 1993, widow/dependent children of a railway employee are entitled to family pension, who a.) had opted for pension.
b.) died while in service or after retirement. c.) claimant should be either spouse or dependent child. d.) the application was required to be submitted on prescribed proforma to the head of office where he last served.
There is no evidence on record that Smt. Shanti Devi filed application before the Head of Office where her husband last served. It is also not clear that her husband had opted for pension. The application for pension was not processed properly, it was CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 221 of 255 marked to Sh. B.K. Butta but taken up by accused Subhash Rohilla himself.
From the evidence, as discussed above, it is well established that pension in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi was not granted as per rules. Accused Subhash Rohilla signed pension papers of accused Shanti Devi impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh. Sh. Jagmohan Sharma sanctioned said pension having no reason to believe that pension papers in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi were properly processed, it was apparently clear that latter was not entitled for such pension. All this establishes a conspiracy amongst accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma and Shanti Devi.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Shanti Devi. However, there is no evidence at all to verify that said accused Naresh Kumar received any consideration from Smt. Shanti Devi to fill up said documents. Nothing on record to suggest that he was implicated in any conspiracy with other accused. Simply to say that he filled up these documents is not enough to prove his involvement in any conspiracy. Needless to say that Smt. Shanti Devi is stated to be an illiterate lady. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Ram Kumar s/o Manphool Singh (A61) As per case of prosecution "Invalid Pension" was granted in favour of accused Ram Kumar, through PPO No. 029422237 and Revised PPA No. 0194020706, while said accused was not entitled for invalid pension. There is no evidence to show that same was medically unfit. Pension in his favour was granted as a result of conspiracy CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 222 of 255 among accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Naresh Kumar and Ram Kumar himself.
Prosecution examined Sh. Inderjeet Singh as PW39. According to this witness from February, 2006 to March 2007, he remained posted in State Bank of India, Jind, Haryana. An account was opened in their branch in the name of Ram Kumar son of Manphool, on 15.03.2004. Account opening form in this regard is Ex. PW37/A1. This witness further verified PPO No. NR/95/029422237/DAO/DLI, along with Revised Pension Payment Advice No. D/DLI/PEN/0194020706, calculation sheet, all dated 23.03.2004 as well as some other pension papers. Aforesaid PPO is Ex. PW39/A2, Revised PPA is Ex. PW39/A3, Calculation Sheet is Ex. PW39/A4 and other pension papers are collectively Ex. PW39/A5. Statement of account in relation to aforesaid account from 16.03.2004 to 30.06.2006 is Ex. PW39/A6. PW39 keeps on telling that certain amounts were withdrawn from above stated account through withdrawal slips Ex. PW39/A7 (D1559 to D1561). An amount of Rs.1,85,670/ was credited in that account through Cash Transfer Voucher (Ex. PW39/A8). Aforesaid documents were seized by IO during investigation of this case through seizure memo Ex. PW39/A signed by him (PW39) at point A. The fact that accused Ram Kumar applied for pension, opened an account with State Bank of India, Jind Branch, Haryana and withdrew certain amounts through withdrawal slips mentioned above are not disputed during deliberations. As per Ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor, during investigation IO took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Ram Kumar etc and handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) in CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 223 of 255 his report opined that following documents were signed by accused Ram Kumar:
a) Account Opening Form (Ex. PW39/A1)
b) Withdrawal slips (Ex. PW39/A7)
c) Application form for pension (Ex. PW39/A5)
d) Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/B2)
e) Permanent address and mode of payment form (Ex. PW46/B3)
f) Declaration of non receipts of pension benefits (Ex. PW46/B4)
g) Specimen signatures form (Ex. PW46/A5)
h) Thumb and Finger Print impression of accused Ram Kumar (Ex. PW137/SS1) I) Statement regarding family members (Ex. PW137/SS2) Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) disclosed that he remained posted as Assistant Personnel Officer (APO) in Settlement Delhi Division w.e.f. October, 1999 to 04.04.2003. After seeing documents i.e. pension papers in relation to accused Ram Kumar Ex. PW39/A5, Ex. PW46/B3, Ex. PW46/B4 and Ex. PW46/B5, it is disclosed by Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) that these documents are purported to be signed in his name, but signatures in his name are forged. He did not sign these documents including photos affixed on D1566 & D1568. None from aforesaid documents was ever produced before him by any official of APO, Settlement Division, Delhi.
Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW131) also told that he was APO in Northern Railways, having been promoted in year 1998. After seeing pension papers filed by accused Ram Kumar i.e. documents No. D1555 to D1572, this witness claimed that CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 224 of 255 signatures on these documents in the name of Kapoor Singh under seal of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Railways, were forged. He had seen Sh. Kapoor Singh signing and writing before him, in official course. Said papers were never produced before him (PW131) by any official of APO/Bill/Settlement, Delhi Division. None of these documents was signed by him nor he forwarded these papers. PPOs and PPAs in this relation are forged.
IO Inspector R.G. Mishra told that during investigation he took specimen signatures/handwriting of accused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla, Naresh Kumar apart from accused Ram Kumar for their comparison with questioned signatures/handwriting of these accused. After comparison, handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113) opined that letter dated 23.03.2004 shown to have been sent from the office of Sr. DAO/Pension to Manager, State Bank of India, Jind, Haryana regarding retirement pension in favour of Ram Kumar i.e. Ex. PW39/A2, revised PPA No. 0194020706 Ex. PW39/A3 and calculation sheet about arrears of pension to Ram Kumar i.e. Ex. PW39/A4 are signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Similarly, Dr. Ravindra Sharma opined that following documents are in the handwriting and signed by accused Subhash Rohilla :
1.) Letter to Manager, State Bank of India dated 23.03.2004 (Ex. PW39/A2)
2.) Hand written endorsement on PPO No. 0194020706 (Ex. PW39/A3)
3.) Hand written calculation sheet (Ex. PW39/A4) And further that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on following documents, are in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla : CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 225 of 255
i) Application form for pension (Ex. PW39/A5)
ii) Letter of authority and undertaking (Ex. PW46/B2)
iii) Permanent Address and mode of Payment form (Ex. PW46/B3)
iv) Declaration of nonreceipt of pensionary benefits (Ex. PW46/B4)
v) Specimen signature form on application (Ex. PW46/B5)
vi) Photograph of accused Ram Kumar on document Ex. PW46/B5
vii) Thumb and finger print impression form of Ram Kumar (Ex. PW137/SS1)
viii) Statement about family members (Ex. PW137/SS2).
Rule 55 of The Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 provides for invalid pension to be granted in favour of employees, who are declared unfit for service, by the medical board, on account of any bodily or mental disability. Railway employee concerned was required to submit his application seeking invalid pension on prescribed proforma along with medical certificate issued by duly constituted medical authority to the head of his department.
The IO during investigation, seized the original documents from Indian Railways and same are annexed with the case file. There is nothing on record to verify that accused Ram Kumar was incapacitated medically. The latter adduced no evidence like medical certificate from competent authority to show his medical disability.
As per Sr. Public Prosecutor, the application filed by accused Ram Kumar, seeking pension was not taken as per rules and same was taken by accused Subhash Rohilla, directly.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 226 of 255From the evidence as discussed above, it is not proved that accused Ram Kumar was entitled for invalid pension. Similarly, in view of statement given by PW 46 and PW131 as discussed above, it is well established that application seeking pension was not processed as per law. It was accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma who prepared and sanctioned pension in favour of accused Ram Kumar having entered into conspiracy with said beneficiary i.e. Ran Kumar. Accused Subhash Rohilla also signed pension papers i.e. application form etc and attested photographs of Ram Kumar, impersonating himself as Kapoor Singh.
It is contended by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI that accused Naresh Kumar was also involved in the conspiracy as it was he i.e. accused Naresh Kumar who filled up application form etc. on behalf of accused Ram Kumar. However, there is no evidence at all to verify that said accused Naresh Kumar received any consideration from Ram Kumar to fill up said documents. Nothing on record to suggest that he was implicated in any conspiracy with other accused. Simply to say that he filled up these documents is not enough to prove his involvement in any conspiracy. No offence is made out against accused Naresh Kumar.
Apart from report of handwriting expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47), Puran Chand (PW87), Sh. Rajender Prasad Mathur (PW127) and Sh. Manoj Kumar (PW129) also identified handwriting/signatures of Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma etc. on documents i.e. pension papers of beneficiaries. IO, Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137) deposed to have seized pension papers from Indian Railways as well as from the banks, where aforesaid beneficiaries opened CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 227 of 255 their accounts. Original files/documents are still on the record. Testimony of I.O. in this regard remained unimpeached and hence these documents are admissible in law.
Vishnu Bhagwan s/o Sh. H.C. Khandelwal (A5) and Soran Singh s/o Sh. Kunwar Pal Singh (A6) According to Ld. Sr. PP, both of said accused were also part of conspiracy, alongwith Sh. Subhash Rohilla, Sh. Jagmohan Sharma and the beneficiaries. The latters made entries in index register falsely showing the applications seeking pension to have assigned to one or other Account's assistant, but actually no file was sent to that account's assistant concerned, rather, all such files were allowed to be taken up and processed by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) told the Court that after joining Indian Railways in year 1987, he was promoted as Accounts Assistant. In year 2001, he was posted in pension section. His duties as Accounts Assistant were to receive pension cases (applications) and to distribute the same among other Accounts Assistants namely Sh. Soran Singh (A6), Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5), Sh. Subhash Rohilla (A2), Sh. Manoj Saxena, Sh. Manoj Trikha, Smt. Asha Rani, Sh. Puran Singh etc. He is well conversant with the handwriting/signatures of aforesaid accounts assistants namely Subhash Rohilla, Soran Singh, Vishnu Bhagwan etc. This witness identified handwriting/signatures of Subhash Rohilla, Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan.
Sh. Puran Chand (PW87) was Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Railways, DRM Office, New Delhi told to have remained posted in pension section from July 2003 to July 2007. According to him, during his tenure as Senior Divisional Finance CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 228 of 255 Manager in pension section was to process pension case files received from settlement and accounts department. This witness also identified handwriting/signatures of Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh stating that all of them were posted in his department as Accounts Assistants.
Sh. Rajender Prasad Mathur (PW127) and Sh. Manoj Kumar, who were also posted in pension section also identified handwriting/signatures of Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh.
According to Sh. C.K. Verma (PW107), from April 2002 to October 2006, he remained posted in Administration Section in the office of Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railways, New Delhi, as Accounts Assistant. He was looking after matters of Gazetted Officers of Accounts Branch, apart from salary bills of class III staff. After seeing personal files of accused Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh, it is disclosed by this witness as under Accused Subhash Rohilla joined office of FA & CAO, Baroda House, Northern Railways, New Delhi, on 26.04.1991 as Junior Accounts Assistant and thereafter he was transferred to Delhi Division Office on 13.03.1992 i.e. office of Sr. DFM, Northern Railways, New Delhi. He was promoted as Accounts Assistant on 26.04.1994 and was transferred from pension section to PFIII Section in January 1999 and again to EIII Section from PFIII in January 2003. In January 2004, he was transferred to pension section. Thereafter, he was shifted to Establishment Gazetted Section.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 229 of 255Accused Vishnu Bhagwan, joined Indian Railways as Khalasi (Group D) on 05.04.1991 and was promoted as Class C on 31.03.1997 as Account Clerk. He was promoted on 05.02.2002 as Accounts Clerk in pension section and remained there till January 2004.
According to service book of accused Soran Singh, latter joined as Junior Accounts Assistant on 30.11.1987 at Central Railway, Mumbai. He was promoted as Accounts Assistant on 30.11.1990 and thereafter he joined Division Office, Delhi on 13.04.1993. Subsequently, he was promoted as Accounts Assistant on 06.02.1996 and sent to pension section from February 2004.
After seeing PPO register(s), Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) identified handwriting/signatures of accused Vishnu Bhagwan on following PPOs (A) PPO register (D1680) (11) for the year 199293 (Ex. PW47/A) at Sl. No. 694 in respect of PPO no. 0193020690 about pension of Ganga Ram (Ex. PW47/A1). (B) PPO register (D1678) (Ex. PW47/B) at Sl. No. 540 dated 21.08.1991 in respect of PPO no. 0102020540 about pension of Om Prakash (Ex. PW47/B1). (C) PPO register (D1680) (9) (Ex. PW47/C) at Sl. No. 540 dated 30.04.1988 in respect of PPO no. 0188020539 about pension of Sunder Lal Arora (Ex. PW47/C1). (D) PPO register (D1680) (5) (Ex. PW47/D) at Sl. no. 692 dated 16.10.2002 in respect of PPA no. 0182020679 about pension of Pancham Singh (Ex. PW47/D1). (E) PPO register (D1680) (9) (Ex. PW47/C) at Sl. no. 527 dated 22.01.2002 in respect of PPA no. 0188020527 about pension of Chander Bhan (Ex. PW47/CX). (F) PPO register (D1680) (11) for the year 199293 (Ex. PW47/A) at Sl. no. 688 in CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 230 of 255 respect of PPO no. 0193020684 in the name of Jagmdish Gang Man (Ex. PW47/AX). (G) PPO register (D1680) (7) pertaining to year 1985 (Ex. PW47/H) at Sl. no. 689 in respect of PPO no. 0185020683 in the name of Subhash Ram Gang Man (Ex. PW47/HX).
(H) PPO register (D1678) pertaining to year 2001 (Ex. PW47/B) at Sl. no. 541 in respect of PPO no. 0102020541 in the name of Ishwar Dass (Ex. PW47/BX1). (I) PPO register (D1680) (7) pertaining to year 1985 (Ex. PW47/H) at Sl. no. 688 in respect of PPO no. 0185020682 in the name of Ishwar (Ex. PW47/HX1). (J) PPO register (D1680) (10) pertaining to year 199091 (Ex. PW47/J) at Sl. no. 628 in respect of PPO no. 01910206 dated 09.12.2002 in the name of Nand Lal (Ex. PW47/JX).
(K) PPO register (D1680) (7) pertaining to year 1985 (Ex. PW47/H) at Sl. no. 694 in respect of PPO no. 0185020688 in the name of Budh Ram (Ex. PW47/HY). (L) PPO register (D1680) (10) pertaining to year 199091 (Ex. PW47/J) at Sl. no. 632 in respect of PPO no. 029119228 in the name of Bala Ram (Ex. PW47/JX). (M) PPO register (D1680) (11) pertaining to year 199293 (Ex. PW47/A) at Sl. no. 689 in respect of PPO no. 029220851 in the name of Ravinder Nath Chaturvedi (Ex. PW47/AY). .
(N) PW47 further identified handwriting of accused Vishnu Bhagwan and his signatures in input/output register Ex. PW47/XX2 at points B on entries dated 20.09.2002 appearing at page 136 at point B, dated 24.10.2002 appearing at page 145 at point B, dated 14.11.2002 appearing at page 150 at point B, dated 21.11.2002 CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 231 of 255 appearing at page 152 at point B, dated 25.11.2002 appearing at page 153 at point B, dated 10.12.2002 appearing at page 156 at point B, dated 24.12.2002 appearing at page 161 at point B, dated 24.01.2003 appearing at page 167 at point B, dated 07.03.2003 appearing at page 172 at point B, dated 20.02.2003 appearing at page 174 at point B, dated 24.02.2003 appearing at page 175 at point B, dated 02.04.2003 appearing at page 184 at point B, dated 24.04.2003 appearing at page 189 at point B, dated 06.05.2003 appearing at page 191 at point B, dated 20.05.2003 appearing at page 193 at point B, dated 13.06.2003 appearing at page 196 at point B, dated 23.06.2003 appearing at page 197 at point B, dated 24.06.2003 appearing at page 198 at point B, dated 21.07.2003 appearing at page 202 at point B, dated 24.07.2003 appearing at page 203 at point B, dated 04.08.2003 appearing at page 203 at point B, dated 07.10.2003 appearing at page 210 at point B, dated 19.11.2003 appearing at page 213 at point B. As per Ld. Sr. PP, this is register maintained by EDPM Branch and was not related to said accused.
Sh. Pooran Chand was examined as PW87, who deposed that from July 2003 to July 2007, he was posted in pension section as Accounts Clerk. After seeing register Ex. PW47/L, this witness (PW87) identified the handwriting of accused Vishnu Bhagwan, another accounts assistant on entry made at Sl. No. 766 in this register. According to him, as per that entry, the case was allotted to him but he never dealt with that matter.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 232 of 255Sh. Sanjeet Kumar (PW70) told that on 07.09.1998 he joined IRAS as a probationer. He was posted as Divisional Finance ManagerII in the office of Sr. DFM, Northern Railways, New Delhi from 08.01.2002 to 02.07.2003. During this period, he was looking after work of pension and provident fund section. This witness told about duty list dated 05.02.2002 (Ex. PW70/A) through which duty was assigned to Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan (A5).
As mentioned above, Sh. Rajender Prasad Mathur (PW127) was also working as Accounts Assistant in pension section, DRM Office, New Delhi. This witness identified following entries made by accused Vishnu Bhagwan
(a) Entry at Sl. No. 686 and 687 in register (Ex. PW47/H) (D1680 (7) which is Ex. PW127/A.
(b) Entry at Sl. No. 688, 689 and 690 in register (D1678) which is Ex. PW127/B. Sh. Manoj Kumar (PW129) told to have worked with accused Vishnu Bhagwan in Administration Branch and dealt with pension section. He identified handwriting of accused Vishnu Bhagwan on entry at Sl. No. 694 in register (D1680) (11), which is Ex. PW129/1.
After seeing PPO register(s), Sh. B.K. Butta (PW47) identified handwriting/signatures of accused Soran Singh on following PPOs
(i) PPO register (D1680) (12) (Ex. PW47/E) at Sl. No. 643 dated 28.04.2004 in respect of PPO no. 029422171 about pension of Subey Singh, Gang Man (Ex. PW47/E1).
(ii) PPO register (D1670) (2) pertaining to year 1972, 1973 and 1974 (Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 233 of 255PW47/F) at Sl. No. 73 in respect of PPO no. 01740200071 in the name of Chandgi Ram, Gang Man (Ex. PW47/F1).
(iii) PPO register (D1680) (12) for the year 199495 (Ex. PW47/E) at Sl. No. 645 in respect of PPO no. 029422907 in the name of Bali Ram, Gate Man (Ex. PW47/EX).
(iv) PPO register (D1680) (12) pertaining to year 199495 (Ex. PW47/E) at Sl. no. 637 in respect of PPO no. 029422681 in the name of Jagtu, Gang Man (Ex. PW47/EY).
(v) PPO register (D1680) (6) pertaining to year 1983 (Ex. PW47/L) at Sl. no. 766 in respect of PPO no. 0183020768 in the name of Mohar Singh (Ex. PW47/LX).
(vi) PPO register (D1680) (12) pertaining to year 199495 (Ex. PW47/E) at Sl. no. 638 in respect of PPO no. 029422601 in the name of Ram Saran (Ex. PW47/E4).
It is further plea of Ld. Sr. PP that custody of 52 files was given to accused Soran Singh, but same were found missing. This fact is well proved from the statement of J.S. Jolly.
Sh. J.S. Jolly has been examined as PW133. According to this witness, he worked as Divisional Finance Manager (DFM) with Sr. Divisional Accounts Office, New Delhi. On being interrogated by IO, he disclosed about 52 files which were not traceable in the record room. This fact was confirmed by Sh. Soran Singh, Dealing Assistant, who was assigned to keep the record in the record room.
At the outset, Ld. Counsels representing Jagmohan Sharma, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh claimed that their clients, were public servants. Statutory Sanction CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 234 of 255 to prosecute them was not properly taken and hence their trial has been vitiated. Moreover, there is no evidence at all on record to show that all aforesaid accused were connived with each other or entered in any conspiracy. Accused Subhash Rohilla is alleged to have got prepared following fake stamps having impression of (I) Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Rly., New Delhi, (ii) CC/N. Rly/JHI, (iii) SSE/DSL/N. Rly. TKD, (iv) AME, Mechanical, DRM office, New Delhi, (v) AME, Electrical, DRM office, New Delhi and (vi) Sr. Section Engineer (TL) New Delhi, from Shri Pawan Kumar proprietor of M/s G.D. Dhingra at Panipat through Shri Shashi Bhushan, Sr. Clerk in the office of Sr. Crew Controller, N. Rly, Panipat, but this fact is not proved on record. During investigation, IO claimed to have recovered certain amounts from the possession of accused or at their instance, said accused/persons were forced by CBI to handover some cash to them, otherwise no such amount was subject matter of any crime.
As per Sh. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate representing accused Vishnu Bhagwan (A
5), even if report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma, (Handwriting expert) is taken as true, the latter verified handwriting of Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan on 12 questioned documents only and not on 21 cases as alleged against him. According to testimony of PW87 and PW127, it is categorically proved that in 12 cases attributed to his client by Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD) were duly processed by the Dealing Assistant. Documents Ex. PW87/DA to Ex. PW87/DD, Ex. PW87/DE to Ex. PW87/DF and also Ex. PW127/DA show entitlement of honorarium to the Dealing Assistants for processing pension cases, beyond the cases which Dealing Assistants CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 235 of 255 were required to do. PW87 and PW129 admitted that those certificates about payments of honorarium were signed by each of Dealing Assistants. All this proved that Dealing Assistants, who are shown to have assigned the pension applications had claimed and actually received honorarium, would have processed respective cases, including those 12 cases attributed to his client. If file showing payment of honorarium was seized by IO, same was deliberately withheld. Even otherwise, role of his client was limited to the extent of entering files/documents in the index register and fresh PPO Ledgers as per duty roaster, which were sent to pension section by other offices including DPO settlement against receipt/acknowledgment, given in the register. As per practice, all officials/Dealing Assistants in the pension section used to receive files by entering in the aforesaid registers as well as fresh PPO ledger and all this is admitted by PW127 and PW129. This practice was well within knowledge of Senior Officers.
So far as destruction/missing of 21 files is concerned, as per Ld. Counsel, even if as per duty roaster, it was for accused no. 5, but in practice prevailing in pension section, all of Dealing Assistants were taking out and keeping the record in the record room. Sh. Surender Singh (PW99) categorically stated that it was he i.e. Surender Singh, who used to visit the record room for the purpose of taking out and keeping the records relating to pension cases, on the asking of all Dealing Assistants. There is no evidence to show that keys of record room were entrusted to his client i.e. accused no.
5. Even otherwise, as per Ld. Counsel, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that case files were actually not available in the record room.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 236 of 255The IO did not try his best to seize the case files, shown to have been missing.
Arguing on behalf of all beneficiaries, it is urged by Sh. S.S. Saini Advocate that all of his clients are very poor and socially backward persons. Most of them are widows, whose husbands served Indian Railways. As their husbands died, they were told that due to one or other scheme launched by the government, they were entitled to pension and hence they applied for the pension. Being illiterate or semiilliterate, they did not know that their files were not processed as per rules. Even, it was not within their knowledge that pension was being granted by Indian Railways or by Central Govt. or the State Government.
Accused Sh. Subhash Rohilla, defended his case personally and refused to have a counsel on State expenses, stating that he is literate, knows all rules and regulations and hence competent enough to defend himself. According to him, there was huge pendency of pension cases. He was given work of other staff also, so that workload can be reduced. He handled all the cases given to him as per rules. There was no adverse remarks from his superiors. What to say of any disciplinary action taken against him, his work was applauded and no displeasure memo was ever served upon him. Sh. Subhash Rohilla in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, did not deny rather admitted to have prepared PPO's/PPA's in dispute. He claimed that he was authorised to sign the same and that no wrong was committed by him.
As per Ld. Counsel representing accused Soran Singh, his client has been falsely implicated in this case simply because he refused to be a witness in this case. According to accused S.K. Singhal, no file, as alleged was ever put before him. He CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 237 of 255 did not sign or made any endorsement on any of files, which were subject matter of investigation in this case. Sh. S.K. Singhal did not deny that accused Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh, worked under him, but claimed that as per duty list, Sh. Subhash Rohilla was assigned only fresh pension cases, but cases, which were under investigation in this case are revised pension cases only, which Subhash Rohilla was not required to deal with. He (accused S.K. Singhal) had no knowledge about any case having been dealt by Sh. Subhash Rohilla.
Ld. Counsel representing accused Naresh Kumar contended that his client is innocent. He simply helped some of beneficiaries in filling up forms, but he was not part of any conspiracy, for which he has been charged in this case. Similarly, it is contended on behalf of accused Kalu Ram, Sukhdev and Jagdish Rai that they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing against them to show that any of them acted as conduit of accused Subhash Rohilla or joined any conspiracy with him.
Sh. Ram Gopal Mishra, the IO of this case was examined as PW137. The latter verified signatures of Sh. Satish Golcha, Superintendent of Police, on whose complaint, FIR in this case was registered. Copy of FIR is Ex. PW137/A. Former (IO) told further that accused Kalu Ram gave a confessional statement to Inspector D.V. Tripathi and disclosed about Rs. 29 lakhs received from Naresh Rohilla received on behalf of Subhash Rohilla. Accused Subhash Rohilla is also stated by IO to have given a disclosure statement (Ex. PW137/C) and got recovered Rs. 10 lakhs, Rs. 1.50 lakhs, Rs. 8 lakhs and Rs. 5 laksh from the houses of Randhir Singh, Jagdish Kumar, CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 238 of 255 Nem Chand and Kasturi Lal.
Further according to IO, during investigation, he recovered following amounts from some of accused as
1. Rs. 40,000/ from accused Rajpati, which was seized on 25.02.2005 through seizure memo Ex. PW85/A.
2. Accused Ganga Ram produced Rs. 6,500/, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW137/H.
3. Inspector Neeraj Aggarwal seized Rs. 20,000/ on 28.03.2005 from Sh. Pramod Kumar Rohilla s/o Sh. Ganga Ram, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW137/H2.
4. A demand draft of Rs. 25,000/ was seized from accused Jangir Singh vide seizure memo Ex. PW137/H5.
5. Accused Sube Singh produced Rs. 25,000/ on 09.03.2005, which was stated to be the amount received by him as pension from Indian Railways, it was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW110/A.
6. Accused Sube Singh produced Rs. 2,000/ on 04.04.2005, Rs. 5,000/ on 11.05.2005, Rs. 5,000/ on 07.07.2005 and again Rs. 5,000/ on 06.12.2005, all of which were seized vide seizure memoes Ex. PW110/B, Ex. PW137/L2, Ex. PW137/L4 and Ex. PW137/L6 respectively.
All of these amounts seized from accused Rajpati, Ganga Ram, Pramod Kumar Rohilla, Jangir Singh and Sube Singh, mentioned above, were invested in fixed deposits by order of Sh. H.S. Sharma, the then Special Judge, CBI.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 239 of 255The IO further told about seizure of following amounts from some accused/persons described as under I. On 01.03.2005, accused Ishwar Singh s/o Chandgi Ram produced Rs. 72,100/, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW71/M. II. Rs. 40,000/ seized from Smt. Gunwati w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar on 03.03.2005, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW109/A. III. On 10.06.2005, he seized Rs. 16,000/ from Suresh Kumar s/o Khajan Singh. IV. On 20.04.2005, accused Mithilesh Sharma w/o Sh. D.K. Sharma produced Rs. 1,22,000/ stated to be part of Rs. 1,92,000/ withdrawn by her from her pension account in State Bank of India, Belaganj and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW105/J. V. On 25.04.2005, a sum of Rs. 15,000/ was seized from accused Kanta Devi vide seizure memo Ex. PW137/M51.
VI. On 15.03.2005, Rs. 90,000/ were from Krishna Devi vide productioncum seizure memo Ex. PW110/C. VII. On 07.03.2005, Inspector Neeraj Aggarwal seized a bank draft for Rs. 78,000/ and cash Rs. 7,000/ from accused Murti Devi, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW110/D. VIII. On 24.02.2005, Rs. 15,000/ were seized from Rajpal s/o Lahiri Singh vide seizure memo Ex. PW54/A1.
IX. On 24.02.2005, Rs. 3 lakhs were seized from accused Dharam Singh s/o late Shiv Nath stated to be taken by his wife from accused Subhash Rohilla.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 240 of 255X. On 25.02.2005, Rs. 20,000/ were seized from Shashi Bhushan s/o late Raghuvir Singh, stated to be the amount of pension in the name of mother of Azad Singh, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW115/A. XI. On 09.03.2005, a sum of Rs. 5,000/ was seized from Harbhajan Singh stated to be a middleman for accused Subey Singh, Jagat Ram and Smt. Mamu. This amount was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW105/L. XII. On 28.07.2005, Rs. 3500/ were seized from Ram Rattan, Sr. Clerk in the office of Section Engineer (Works) by SI A.K. Saini, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW137/DDDVI.
XIII. On 16.02.2005, Rs. 8,56,000/ were seized by Inspector Sultan Singh from Ram Kishan s/o Munshi Ram vide seizure memo Ex. PW108/A. XIV. All these amounts were deposited with Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi in the form of Vikas Cash Certificates in the name of S.P, ACUIV, CBI. XV IO further told about Rs. 10 lakhs deposed in Syndicate Bank, Khan Market in the name of S.P. ACUIV, CBI on 18.03.2005 recovered from one Randhir Singh.
PW137 (IO) told again about following amounts seized in this case and deposited with Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi, in the name of S.P, ACU IV, CBI.
A. Rs. 10 lakhs recovered from one Randhir Singh.
B. Rs. 1.50 lakhs recovered from Jogender Kumar. Vikash Cash Certificate is Ex.
PW137/NN1.
C. Rs. 8 lakhs recovered from Nem Chand. Vikash Cash Certificate is Ex.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 241 of 255
PW137/NNN2.
D. Rs. 5 lakhs recovered from Kasturi Lal. Vikash Cash Certificate is Ex.
PW137/NNN3.
E. Rs. 90,000/ from Krishna Devi w/o Nand Lal vide seizure memo Ex.
PW110/C and Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN4.
F. Rs. 7,300/ recovered from Jagdish Rai on 15.02.2005 vide seizure memo Ex.
PW137/B and Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN5.
G. Rs. 43,500/ seized from Subhash Rohilla on 15.02.2004 vide search list Ex.
PW134/A and copy of Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN6. H. Rs. 20,000/ from Shashi Bhushan on 25.02.2005 vide seizure memo Ex. PW115/A. Copy of Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN7. I. Rs. 80,000/ seized from Chandwati w/o Mool Chand on 12.03.2005 vide seizure memo Ex. PW62/A. Copy of Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN8 J. Rs. 8,56,000/ seized from one Ram Kishan s/o Munshi Ram on 16.03.2005 vide search list Ex. PW108/A. Copy of Vikas Cash Certificate is Ex. PW137/NNN9.
Inspector Ram Gopal Mishra told about necessary sanction granted by Railway Board to prosecute accused Jagmohan Sharma and also by Sh. Ved Prakash, Senior DFM, Northern Railways, New Delhi for prosecution of Sh. Subhash Rohilla, S.K. Singhal, Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan.
Prosecution examined Sh. Sunil Kumar as PW111, who deposed that he was posted as Deputy Secretary (Discipline & Appeal) - II, Railway Board, Ministry of CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 242 of 255 Railways, Govt. of India, New Delhi from year 2006 to 2012. Smt. Sudha Chubey was Financial Commissioner, Railways and also member of Railway Board in year 2007. He can identify her signatures having worked in Indian Railways seeing her writing and signing in official course. Member Railway Board, Financial Commissioner was competent to remove Sh. Jagmohan Sharma, the then Assistant Financial Advisor, Head Quarter Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi and also functioned as Assistant Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railways. After receipt of request from CBI for grant of sanction to prosecute said Jagmohan Sharma, report of CBI, copies of relevant documents and statement of witnesses were put up before Financial Commissioner Smt. Sudha Chubey and latter accorded sanction to prosecute said accused. Sanction order was conveyed to said accused by him i.e. PW Sunil Kumar.
Sh. Ved Prakash (PW138) told about necessary sanction granted by him to prosecute necessary sanction granted by him to prosecute accused Subhash Rohilla, S.K. Singhal, Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan. According to this witness, he was competent to remove said accused from their services, the latters being employee of Delhi Division, Northern Railways. As per Sh. Ved Prakash, he was posted as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer and remained posted as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Delhi Division from 02.01.2006 to 21.08.2007.
It is also pointed out by inspector Ram Gopal Mishra (PW137) that as per circular no. 4/1/87P & PW (PIC) dated 13.06.1998 issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, exgratia pensions could be CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 243 of 255 provided to those railway employees who had subscribed Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and completed 20 years of service prior to their retirement. Further, according to provision of family pension scheme for railway servants 1964, Railway Services (Pension) Rules 1993 and letters issued by Railway Board, invalid pension could be provided to Railway employees, who were declared unfit for service on account of bodily or mental disability by the Medical Board.
For obtaining family pension, the applicant i.e. dependent of railway servant was required to submit application on prescribed proforma to head of office of the department where employee last served. In case of invalid pension, the railway employee was required to submit application on prescribed proforma alongwith medical certificate issued by duly constituted by Medical Board to the head of Officer where he was serving. Application seeking pension of any kind was to be submitted before the office, where employee last served. That application after being duly verified was to be sent to the office of Divisional Personnel Officer (DPO) Settlement, for necessary action. In the office of Division Personnel Officer (Settlement), the Dealing Clerk concerned was required to link the application with the settlement file already available in the record room. In case, old record was not traceable with the settlement section, then said section was required to approach accounts department for linking the application with settlement file available in accounts department. For exgratia payment, the arrears were to be calculated by Dealing Clerk of Settlement Section and file was required to be put to the Competent Authority through DPO, Settlement. After sanction of exgratia payment the settlement files were sent to DFM CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 244 of 255 (Pension) for vetting and issuance of pension payment orders. After receipt of file, the office of DFM (Pension) was duty bound to enter in the index ledger or fresh PPO ledger, it was to be assigned to some specific accounts assistant posted in Pension Section. That account assistant was required to vet the calculation done by Settlement Department and to prepare statement of pensionary benefits. The file was then required to be put up to Sr. Section Officer (SSO), said SSO was to put the file to DFM pension. If relevant documents were found in order, DFM (Pension), the proposal was being approved and file was to be returned to the concerned account assistant with a direction to fill up the inputs in data sheet for printing of the PPO/PPA or revised PPA, as the case may be from Electronic Data Processing Centre, Northern Railways, Baroda House, New Delhi. That account assistant was required to fill up inputs in data sheet and after obtaining signatures of Section Officer (Pension) or DFM (Pension) on the data sheet, same was required to be deposited in the office of EDPM Centre, Baroda House, New Delhi for printing PPO/PPA or revised PPA, as a case may be.
In case of revision of existing pension, the claimant was required to submit his/her application to the office of DPO (Settlement) on prescribed proforma. The settlement section in its turn was obliged to link the application with the settlement file available in the record room. Various index ledgers were used for entering the details of settlement files in pension system.
The procedure, as disclosed by IO, is not disputed by any of accused during arguments. In their defence, accused Kanta Devi (A26) examined herself as DW CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 245 of 255
4. Said accused also examined one Ajay Kumar Azad as DW3. The latter was a Section Officer in Central Administrative Tribunal and brought record of case titled as Smt. Kanta Devi & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. This witness verified copy of order/judgment passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 06.08.2007, which is Ex. DW3/A. Another accused Santosh Rani (A28) examined herself as DW5. Accused Jagmohan Sharma (A1) examined Sh. Tika Singh as DW1 and Sh. Rohit Jain as DW2. Sh. Tika Singh was Sr. Section Officer (Accounts), DRM Office, Northern Railways, New Delhi. The latter brought pension record in respect of one Rajender s/o Pokhar. While Sh. Rohit Jain was a Jr. Accounts Assistant, who was asked to produce reply to the application under RTI Act dated 12.06.2012, but according to this witness record in respect of reply is not available in the office.
True, it is not established that accused Subhash Rohilla got prepared stamps having impression of Sahayak Karmik Adhikari, Uttar Rly., New Delhi, etc. from Sh. Pawan Kumar, as alleged. The latter was examined by prosecution as PW84, but did not support the case of prosecution. Said witness told that he did not know accused Subhash Rohilla and could not tell, if rubber stamps as mentioned earlier were prepared by him.
From the statement of Sh. Kapoor Singh (PW46) and Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW
131), it is well established that application form etc. having signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh, APO were not made by PW46. At the same time, from the report of Handwriting Expert Dr. Ravindra Sharma (PW113), it is verified that signatures in the name of Kapoor Singh on application form etc., as discussed above as well as CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 246 of 255 photographs of claimant were in the handwriting of accused Subhash Rohilla. No contradiction appeared in deposition/report of Dr. Ravindra Sharma. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
From the evidence as discussed above, it is well proved that all pension applications in dispute, were processed by accused Subhash Rohilla but not as per prescribed rules. Although, same were assigned to different accounts assistants, but all of applications of beneficiaries which are subject matter of this case, were taken up by accused Subhash Rohilla himself. The latter prepared PPO, PPA etc. himself, same were signed by accused Jagmohan Sharma. Accused Subhash Rohilla impersonated himself as Kapoor Singh and attested application forms etc. as well as photos of some claimants. Sh. Jagmohan Sharma without verifying that proper procedure was followed, signed those papers i.e. PPO, PPA etc. Accused Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh made entries in index register, as discussed above, showing the applications assigned to one or other accounts assistants, but no such file was made available to that accounts assistant. Said accused did not bother to see if file was received by them through proper channel or same was actually received by the accounts assistant, to whom it was assigned. All this shows that these accused were also part of conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla and Jagmohan Sharma, in providing pension to beneficiaries, who were not entitled to the pension, for which they applied.
I do not find much substance in plea of said accused alleging that as per practice anyone from dealing assistants could take up the case file, even if the same CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 247 of 255 was assigned to him/her or to anyone else. There much rush of work as alleged on behalf of accused or the provision of payment of extra honorarium was paid to finish pending work. The Dealing Assistant, to whom, file was assigned and who took the honorarium to deal with the case, it was for that dealing assistant to see that file was processed properly. It does not lie in the mouth of such official to say that he did not deal with file at all, despite having claimed honorarium. Similarly, it was not enough to say that in the absence of DFM, ADFMs were authorized to deal with the matters and signed in the name of DFM particularly when pension were granted under his signatures, which were contrary to law.
It is clear that by act of accused persons, said beneficiaries were benefited by getting pension. At the same time, all this caused pecuniary loss to the public i.e. State and consequently wrongful gain to said beneficiaries. However, prosecution failed to prove that the said loss was amounting to Rs. 1.15 Crores or Rs. 1,34,11,421/, as alleged against the accused persons.
As discussed earlier, IO told about certain amounts having been recovered from the possession of accused including at the instance of Subhash Rohilla, but I find weight in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsels stating that prosecution failed to prove that said amount was amount of booty or ill gotten by the persons from whose possession same was recovered.
From the evidence on record, it is well proved that accused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh acted against the prescribed procedure for providing pensions, their acts are contrary to laws. All this shows that CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 248 of 255 all of said accused acted in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. These accused provided pecuniary benefits to aforesaid beneficiaries, made Indian Railways to pay the amount of pension by inducing those officers/officials to deliver that amount knowing well that said beneficiaries were not entitled to pension. If those officers were not induced, same would not have granted pension in favour of those beneficiaries. Trite it to say that none from beneficiaries named above is able to prove that he/she was entitled to get pension, as claimed. All of beneficiary accused namely Ganga Ram (A12), Rajpati (A13), Sita (A15), Sarla (A16), Sube Singh (A
17), Gordhan (A19), Pratap Singh (A20), Krishna Devi (A21), Suresh Kumar (A
22), Reshma (A23), Khazani (A24), Mithlesh Sharma (A25), Kanta Devi (A26), Santosh Rani (A28), Ramkali (A30), Mindro @Mahindro (A31), Kasturi Devi (A
32), Shobha Devi (A33), Krishna Devi (A35), Murti Devi (A36), Premo Devi (A
39), Bhuri (A40), Rani Devi (A42), Krishna Devi (A43), Neelam (A47), Jai Singh (A49), Madho Devi (A50), Darshana Devi (A51), Birma Devi (A53), Shanti Devi (A54), Ram Kumar (A61) are convicted for offences u/s 120B r/w section 420 IPC and section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Accused Jagmohan Sharma (A1), Subhash Rohilla (A2), Vishnu Bhagwan (A5) and Soran Singh (A6) were public servants being employees of Indian Railways, Govt. of India. It is well established that all of them by corrupt and illegal means as well as by abusing their position as public servants obtained pecuniary advantages for aforesaid beneficiaries. All this was criminal misconduct on their part. Said accused i.e. Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan and CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 249 of 255 Soran Singh are thus guilty of offence punishable u/s 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w section 120B IPC as well as under section 420 IPC.
However, all of accused were charged for offence u/s 468/471 and 201 IPC. Prosecution/CBI failed to prove that any of accused persons was responsible for loss of files belonging to beneficiaries from Ministries of Railways. No offence u/s 201 IPC is made out against any of accused. Similarly, there is no evidence against any of the accused except Subhash Rohila about making any false documents or electronic record, with intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to cause any person to part with any property etc. On the other hand, as discussed earlier, it is proved that accused Subhash Rohilla forged signatures of Kapoor Singh, APO Settlement and made false documents apparently knowing that same are being used for the purpose of cheating. Further, it is also proved that said accused i.e. Subhash Rohilla dishonestly used those forged documents as genuine i.e. to allow illegal pension in favour of beneficiaries, knowing well that said documents were forged by himself. Accused Subhash Rohilla is again convicted for offence u/s 468 as well as 471 IPC.
So far as plea of Ld. Defence Counsels that proper sanction was not taken to prosecute accused Jagmohan Sharma, Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan and Soran Singh, is concerned, there is no denial that said accused were working as public servants at the time when offence in question happened. According to Ld. Sr. PP although it was not part of duty of any public servant to enter into a criminal conspiracy or criminal misconduct. Even then proper sanction was taken to prosecute said accused. Railway Board was appointing authority and also competent CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 250 of 255 to remove accused Jagmohan Sharma from his job, while Sh. Ved Prakash Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Delhi Division was appointing authority and competent to remove accused Subhash Rohilla, Vishnu Bhagwan, Soran Singh and S.K. Singhal from their service.
I agree with Ld. Sr. PP in this regard. It was held by Apex Court in case titled as 'Rajib Ranjan and Ors. Vs. R. Vijaykumar' [reported as (2015) 1SCC 513], that :
"Even while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a criminal conspiracy or indulges in criminal misconduct, such misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, provisions of Section 197 of the Code will not be attracted".
As discussed earlier, Sh. Sunil Kumar (PW111) told about sanction granted by Railway Board through Smt. Sudha Chubey, a member of Railway Board and also Financial Commissioner, Railways to prosecute accused Jagmohan Sharma. Sh. Ved Prakash appeared in the Court and was examined as PW138 told he was posted as Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer as well as Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Delhi Division from 02.01.2006 to 21.08.2007. He was competent to remove accused Subhash Rohilla, S.K. Singhal, Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan from their services and hence competent to grant sanction. After going through record including statement of witnesses, he granted sanction to prosecute them. Considering statement of both of said witnesses, I do not find illegality in granting sanction to accused Jagmohan Sharma or Subhash Rohilla, S.K. Singhal, Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan. Even if it is presumed that there remained any error or CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 251 of 255 irregularity in granting sanction, same does not affect legality of proceedings against said accused. May I refer here case titled as 'State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Rajmangal Ram' [Criminal Appeal No. 709710 of 2010 DOD : 31.3.14] where it was held by Supreme Court of India that any omission, error, irregularity in the matter of granting sanction would not effect the validity of the proceedings, unless such error, omission or irregularity results in the failure of justice. Ld. Defence Counsels could not point out as what was error, omission or irregularity in granting sanction to prosecute said accused or if there was any such omission or error, how the same resulted in failure of justice to the accused.
Sh. S.K. Singhal s/o Sh. K.C. Singhal (A7) As per Ld. Sr. PP, accused S.K. Singhal acted as supervisor and immediate boss of accused Soran Singh and Vishnu Bhagwan. Being supervisor, he overlooked the activities of both of said accused and did not object false entries made by said accused in index register when no such file was received in their branch. Rather, files were directly taken up by accused Subhash Rohilla.
Sh. Surender Singh (PW99) also told about accused Vishnu Bhagwan stating that same was clerk posted in pension section. His duties were to receive pension cases after being processed by the clerks concerned. Sh. S.K. Singhal (A7) was posted as Section Officer in pension section, who used to verify pension matters.
It is not disputed during deliberations that accused S.K. Singhal (A7) was posted as Section Officer, as claimed by PW99. There is no evidence at all to verify that said accused i.e. accused S.K. Singhal was involved in any conspiracy to allow CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 252 of 255 pension in favour of any of 52 beneficiaries, named above, or he took illegal consideration. No offence is made out against accused S.K. Singhal (A7). Same is acquitted.
Ld. Counsel representing accused Jagdish and Kalu Ram submitted that his clients have already been tried for offences punishable u/s 420/467/468/471 & 120 B IPC before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, Haryana on the same allegations. Ld. CJM vide his judgment dated 29.03.2011 was pleased to acquit all accused including said Sh. Jagdish and Kalu Ram. A copy of such judgment has been filed.
Section 300 of The Code of Criminal Procedure bars trial of a person for same offences for which he/she has either been convicted or acquitted. The provision is reproduced here as under :
300. Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence (1) A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under subsection (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under subsection (2) thereof.
It is not plea of anyone that State has consented for the trial of aforesaid accused for any offence which may be distinct, offence for which a separate charge would have been framed against accused or consequence of any previous offence makes a different offence or the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try aforesaid offences.
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 253 of 255Considering all this, in my opinion, said two accused could not have been tried in this case, as both of them had already been charged and same are acquitted. Bail bonds filed by them are hereby cancelled, and their sureties are discharged.
Apart from said Kalu Ram & Jagdish Rai, accused Hari Ram, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Mohan Giri, all of whom were also railway employees and Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sukhdev, Sant Lal, Shashi Bhushan and Dilbagh are blamed to have introduced the beneficiaries to accused Subhash Rohilla, after taking commissions. Accused Naresh Kumar is further alleged to have entered into criminal conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla etc., filled up pension forms of some accused, who otherwise were not entitled for pension. He i.e. accused Naresh Kumar took bribe from those beneficiaries and even filled up 'certificate of identity' in the name of 13 beneficiaries namely Smt. Shanti Devi (A54), Smt. Birmo Devi (A53), Smt. Bhuri (A52), Smt. Amar Devi (A48), Smt. Neelam (A47), Smt. Raj (A45), Smt. Krishna (A43), Bharpai Devi (A41), Smt. Bhuri (A40), Smt. Murti Devi (A36), Smt. Kasturi Devi (A32), Smt. Mindro (A31), Smt. Ram Kali (A30). Beneficiaries whose application forms etc. is stated to be filled up by accused Naresh Kumar Ganga Ram, Sarla Devi, Sube Singh, Mammu, Chhoti Devi, Krishna Devi, Suresh Kumar, Reshma Devi, Kanta Devi, Sajna, Santosh Rani, Ram Kali, Mindro, Kasturi Devi, Ratti Ram, Murti Devi, Bhuri, Bharpai, Smt. Rani, other Krishna Devi, Ajmer Singh, Smt. Raj, Nelam and Smt. Chameli Devi.
As discussed earlier, no evidence was adduced to verify that accused Naresh Kumar took any bribe from any of accused/beneficiaries or was involved in any such CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 254 of 255 conspiracy. Similarly, prosecution failed to establish that any of aforesaid accused called middleman acted as a conduit to accused Subhash Rohilla, as alleged, took any bribe or was involved in any conspiracy with accused Subhash Rohilla, Jagmohan Sharma, Vishnu Bhagwan or Soran Singh. As mentioned earlier, according to accused Kamlesh Sharma, Smt. Mithlesh Sharma is wife of his brother. On being asked by her, he (Kamlesh Kumar Sharma) simply introduced her to the bank, in opening her account there. He did not know that Smt. Mithlesh Sharma had applied for pension from Indian Railways. No offence is made out against any of aforesaid accused. All of them are thus acquitted. Their B/B are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
Announced in Open Court
today i.e. 26.04.2018 (Rajender Kumar Shastri)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI03
NorthWest District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
CBI Case No. 87/2016 CBI vs. Jagmohan Sharma Etc. Page 255 of 255