Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Jagannath D. Parkhi on 28 March, 2026
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE -06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
COVER-SHEET
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAGANNATH D. PARKHI
The accused person has been apprised about the Legal Aid
Facility and the details of legal aid facility which is as
under:-
DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
(ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT)
FRONT OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
PHONE NO. 9810420894
E-MAIL ADDRESS : [email protected]
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 1 of 49 2026.03.28
17:20:01
+0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETU NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-06,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT,
NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
VS.
JAGANNATH D. PARKHI
AGE OF THE CASE : 26 YEARS 5 MONTHS
5 DAYS
CNR No. : DLCT12-000909-2019
CASE No. : CBI/301/2019
FIR No. : RC 02(S)/1998
Under Section : 420/468/471 IPC
Name of Branch :SCB-II/CBI/DLI
Date of Commission of Offence : During the year 1996-98
Name of the Complainant : Inspector J.C. Tiwari
Name, Parentage and address of :Jagannath D. Parkhi
accused S/o Sh. Bhiwaji Ramrao
Parkhi,
R/o Kholi No. 4,
24 Police Wireless
Quarters, Chauhan Nagar,
Pune, Maharasthra.
Offence complained of : 420/468/471 IPC.
Plea of Accused Person : Not Guilty
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 2 of 49
Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:08 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
Date of institution of case : 23.10.1999
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2026
Final Decision : CONVICTION
*****
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:-
For the Prosecution : Ms. Rohini, Ld. PP for CBI.
For the Accused : Accused represented/defended
his case himself.
*****
JUDGMENT
*****
1. Accused namely Jagannath D. Parkhi has been sent by the CBI to face trial for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a written complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SCB-II New Delhi by Inspector J.C.Tiwari, SCB-II on 24.08.1998 to the effect that accused J.D.Parkhi obtained financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- from the Prime Minister's office by using forged recommendation letters purported to have been issued by Members of Parliament and also cheated Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India on the basis of such forged letters.
NEETU
NAGAR
Digitally signed by
(Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 3 of 49 17:20:13 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
2.3 It is revealed during investigation that the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, Government of India received an application dated 10.01.97 in prescribed proforma annexing therein the diagnosis papers of Smt. Saraswati B. Parkhi, mother of the accused from Vishnu B. Parkhi, brother of accused duly forwarded by Dr. Ghosh of Pune Medical Foundation, Pune, requesting financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- from the Health Minister's Discretionary Fund for the treatment of Cancer. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare subsequently received letters dated 10.01.97, 30.04.97 and 21.10.97 purported to have been written by former Members of Parliament namely Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil addressed to the Minister and Section Officer, letters dated 03.05.97, 26.02.96, 19.10.96 purported to have been issued by Members of Parliament Shri V.V. Navale, letters dated 18.10.96, 01.05.97 purported to have been issued by Shri S.S. Kakade, MP and letters dated 25.02.97, 26.04.97 and 22.10.96 by Shri Prakash Ambedkar, MP, all supporting the cause of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi and requested the Minister to expedite the matter. Acting on the said request and above said recommendation letters of Members of Parliament as genuine, the matter was processed in the Ministry and financial assistance of Rs.20,000/- was granted by the Ministry in favour of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi. In this respect, a cheque for the said amount bearing No. 809322 dated 11.08.98 drawn on Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street Branch, New Delhi was forwarded to NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 4 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:17 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi the Medical Superintendent, Pune Medical Foundation, Pune vide forwarding letter dated 17.08.98 of Smt. Prema Bhatt, Section Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.4 It has further transpired during the investigation that the said amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not utilised by the Hospital authority towards the treatment of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi as she was not undergoing treatment in the hospital at that point of time and the cheque forwarded by the Ministry was later on returned to the Government.
2.5 It also surfaced during investigaton that Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak Sh. Patil, V.V. Navale, Sh. S.S. Kakade and Sh. Prakash Ambedkar, all former Members of Parliament have categorically stated that the alleged letters are forged as they never wrote any such letters to the Union Health Ministry/Health Minister. Thus, accused Jagannath D. Parkhi cheated the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of India to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and has committed the offences punishable under Section 420, 468 and 471 IPC.
2.6 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court.
COGNIZANCE AND CHARGE
3. Vide order dated 17.01.2000, cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused. Copy of the chargesheet and the accompanying documents were supplied to the accused free of NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 5 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:21 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 12.01.2012, the discharge application of the accused was dismissed and finding a prima facie case, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 420/468/471 IPC were framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Nine witnesses in total. The witnesses listed in a tabular form in compliance of judgment titled as Manojbhia Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2973 of 2023 decided on 15.12.2025 are as under:-
SL. PW Name of Particulars of Points proved No. No. PWs Witness during Trial
1. PW-1 Sh. Member of This witness Yashwan Parliament proved forgery of t Rao recommendatory Ghadak letters Patil
2. PW-2 Shri S.L. Principal Scientific Expert Witness Mukhi Officer, CFSL, CGO regarding forgery Complex, New Delhi
3. PW-3 Charanjit Under Secretary, Proved the scheme Singh Ministry of Health of Health Ministry and Family Welfare, and details related Government of India thereof. Also proved the documents handed over by him to CBI NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 6 of 49 17:20:27 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
4. PW-4 Shri Proprietor-cum- He deposed that the Sunil Typist, Yashoda forged letters were Mungle Typing Centre, F.C. typed by him at the Road, Pune, instructions of Maharashtra accused.
5. PW-5 Prema Section Officer, Proved letters Bhatt Ministry of Health bearing her and Family Welfare, endorsement and Government of India factum of returning of cheque
6. PW-6 Sh. Member of He Proved forgery Prakash Parliament of recommendation Yashwan letters.
tAmbedk ar
7. PW-7 Sh. J.C. Retd. DSP, CBI, Rai Complainant Tiwari Dharchula Road, Pithoragarh-262501, Uttrakhand (Mobile No. 9997204711)
8. PW-8 Sh. Y. Retd. ASP, CBI Investigating Hari Office of Officer Kumar Superintendent of Police, No. 36 Bellary Road, Ganganagar, Bengalore-560032 (Tel. No. 080- 23332726)
9. PW-9 Sh. Son of Sh. S.S. Identified the Prithviraj Kakade signature of his Kakade father on specimen and proved forgery of recommendatory NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 7 of 49 17:20:34 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi letter.
5. The documentary evidence led on behalf of prosecution is listed as under:-
CC No. 302/2019LIST OF EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS S.N PARTICULARS EXHIBIT Nos. WITNESS O D1 Photocopy of Complaint Ex.PW-7/A PW-7 J.C. dated 24.08.1998 Tiwari (Inspector, CBI) D2 FIR dated 28.08.1998 Ex.PW8/A PW-8 Y. Hari Kumar (IO) D3 Application performa for Ex.PW3/3 PW-3 Ranjan financial assistance dated Kumar Ghosh 10.01.1997 D4 Letter dated 04.09.1999 Ex.PW3/1 PW-3 Ranjan Kumar Ghosh D5 Forwarding Letter dated Ex.PW3/2 PW-3 Ranjan 10.09.1998 Kumar Ghosh D6 Letter dated 10.01.1997 Ex. PW1/1 PW1 could not be cross-
examined D7 Letter dated 30.04.1997 Ex. PW1/2 PW1 could not be cross-
examined D8 Letter dated 10.11.1996 Ex. PW2/3 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D9 Letter dated 21.10.1996 Ex. PW1/3 PW1 could not NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 8 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:37 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi be cross-
examined D10 Letter dated 03.05.1997 Ex.PW2/7 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D11 Letter dated 26.02.1996 Ex.PW2/8 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D12 Letter dated 19.10.1996 Ex.PW2/9 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D13 Letter dated 18.10.1996 Ex.PW2/11 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D14 Letter dated 01.05.1997 Ex.PW2/12 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D15 Letters dated 25.02.1997 Ex.PW2/14 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D16 Letter dated 26.04.1997 Ex.PW2/16 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D17 Letter dated 22.10.1997 Ex.PW2/17 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert D18 Letter dated 17.08.1998 Ex.PW5/1 PW5 Prema Bhatt D19 Receipt Memo dated Ex.PW8/D PW8 Y Hari 10.10.1998 Kumar (IO) D20 One photocopy of cheque Ex.PW8/E PW8 Y Hari no. 809392 dated Kumar (IO) 11.08.1998 NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 9 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:41 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi D21 Letter dated 31.08.1998 Ex.PW3/4 PW3 Charanjit of Accountant, Pune Singh Medical Foundation D22 Letter dated 12.02.1997 Ex.PW2/24 PW2 S.L. Ex. PW8/F Mukhi, CFSL Expert and PW8 Y. Hari Kumar (IO) D23 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW8/G PW8 Y Hari writing and signature of Kumar (IO) accused J.D. Parkhi D24 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW7/C PW7 J.C. signature of Sh. Y.G. Mark PW2/4 Tiwari Patil (Inspector, CBI) D25 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW8/H PW8 Y Hari signature of Sh. V.V. Kumar (IO) Nawale D26 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW7/D PW7 J.C. signature of Sh. S.S. Tiwari Kakade (Inspector, CBI) D27 Photocopies of specimen Ex.PW6/1 Prakash signature of Sh. Prakash Ex. PW8/7 Yashwant Ambedkar Ambedkar and PW8 Y. Hari Kumar (IO) D28 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/J PW8 Y Hari 27.10.1998 Kumar (IO) D29 Forwarding letter Ex.PW8/K PW8 Y Hari no. .CFSL-98/D637/617 Kumar (IO) dated 03.02.1999 D30 Report dated 29.01.1999 Mark PW2/5 PW2 S.L. NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 10 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:45 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi Mukhi, CFSL Expert D31 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/L PW8 Y Hari 16.02.1999 Kumar (IO) D32 Forwarding letter dated Ex.PW8/M PW8 Y Hari 18.03.1999 Kumar (IO) D33 Report dated 17.03.1999 Mark PW2/27 PW2 S.L. Mukhi, CFSL Expert
6. The testimonies of the witnesses in brief are as follows: -
PW-1 Yashwant Rao Ghatakh Patil :- He was the Member of Parliament from Ahmed Nagar Constituency, Maharashtra and was also Member of Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra from 1997 to 2010. He deposed that document D-6 letter dated 10.01.1997 (Ex.PW1/1) written to the Section Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, letters dated 30.04.1997 (Ex PW1/2) and letter dated 21.10.1996 Ex.PW1/3 written to Salim Sherwani were not sent by him and signature on the said letters did not belong to him. It is pertinent to mention that this witness was not cross-examined as his name was dropped from the list of witnesses due to his illness vide order dated 13.11.2025.
PW-2 S.L. Mukhi:- He was the Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi. He examined the documents referred to him vide forwarding letter D-27 dated 27.10.98 alongwith enclosures vide Ex. PW2/1. He proved his report vide Ex. PW2/5 (D-29) NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 11 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:20:49 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi and opined that the authorship of questioned signatures Mark Q2 Ex. PW 2/2 (D-4), Mark Q4 Ex. PW 1/2 (D-7), Mark Q5 Ex. PW 2/3 (D-8), Q6 Ex. PW 1/3 (D-9) could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S1 & S2 on two sheets purported to be written by Sh. Yashwant Patil vide Ex. PW 2/4 (D-24). He deposed that the authorship of the questioned signature Mark Q3 Ex. PW 1/1 (D-6), Q7 Ex. PW 2/6 (D-5), Q-8 Ex. PW 2/7 (D-10), Q9 Ex. PW2/8 (D-11), Q10, Q11 Ex. PW2/9 (D-12) could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S3 and S4 Ex. PW2/9A on two pages purported to be written by Sh. VV Navale. He further deposed that the authorship of questioned signatures Mark Q12 Ex. PW2/10, Q-13 Ex. PW 2/11 (D-13) and Q14 Ex. PW 2/12 (D-14) could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S5 and S8 purported to be written by Sh. S.S. Kakade vide Ex. PW 2/13 (D- 26-1). He testified that the authorship of questioned signatures Mark Q15 Ex. PW2/14 (D-15), Q-16 Ex. PW 2/15, Q-17 Ex. PW 2/16 (D-16) and Q18 Ex. PW2/17 (D-17) could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures Mark S9 to S12 Ex. PW 2/18. He deposed further that documents of the present case were subsequently forwarded by SP, CBI along with further specimen writings and signatures vide letter dated 16.02.99 (D-
30) vide Ex. PW2/19. He deposed further that the handwriting evidence pointed to the writer of specimen writing and signature Mark S-66 to S-69 (four sheets & collectively Ex. PW 2/20 (D-
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 12 of 49 NEETU NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:20:54 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
23), S-79 to S-81 (three sheets) and collectively Ex. PW2/21, S- 93 to 97 (5 sheets & collectively Ex. PW2/22) (all these specimen writings purportedly to be written by Sh. J.D. Parkhi) being the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures and writings Mark Q-24 (Ex. PW2/23) (signature on the back of the document D-16), Q-30 & Q-30A (Ex. PW2/24) (D-22), Q-33 & Q-33-A (Ex.PW2/25) (D-7), Q-34 & Q-35 (Ex. PW2/26) (D-8). He further deposed that he had detailed his reasons in his supplementary report no. CFSL-98/D-637 dated 17.03 1999 vide Ex. PW 2/27 (D-32).
PW-3 Charanjit Singh:- He was posted as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Delhi in September, 1998. He deposed that there was a scheme in the Health Ministry namely Health Minister's Discretionary Grant through which Ministry could provide financial assistance to the needy patients who applied for the same in the prescribed format duly recommended by concerned hospital or institution where the patient was under treatment and upto Rs. 20,000/- medical assistance was to be granted to the patient at the relevant time as per the scheme. He proved letter dated 04.09.1998 Ex. PW3/1 (D-4) vide which he was asked to provide the original letters of the then Members of Parliament who recommended the present case for financial aid. He proved letter dated 10.09.1998 Ex. PW 3/2 (D-5) addressed to SP CBI vide which he had provided some original letters of the then Members of Parliament. He proved Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
ACJM-06 RADC 2026.03.28
17:20:58
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 13 of 49 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
letter dated 10.11.1997 Ex.PW2/3 (D-8) addressed to him bearing his initial and written by the then Member of Parliament Sh.Yashwant G Patil. He proved the format of application for financial assistance out of Health Minister's Discretionary Grant vide Ex. PW3/3 (D-3) which was received by Health Ministry from the applicant Smt. Saraswati Bhivaji Parkhi for medical fund. He deposed that the funds for medical assistance to any patient were released through cheque to the Medical Superintendent or Director of the Medical Institutions/Hospitals from where the patient was taking treatment. He further deposed that the medical Institutions/Hospitals where the patients were being treated were asked to furnish the utilization certificate to the Health Ministry who issued the medical assistance cheque. He deposed next that the medical fund released to Saraswati Bhivaji Parkhi was not utilized as the medical institution had informed the Health Ministry that the patient Smt. Parkhi was not taking treatment from the concerned medical institution at the relevant time. He proved letter dated 31.08.1998 Ex. PW3/4 (D-
20) addressed to Smt. Prema Bhatt, Section Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi vide which Pune Medical Foundation had returned the cheque No.809392 dated 11.08.1998 for Rs. 20,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street, New Delhi and also informed that Smt.S.Parkhi was not under treatment.
PW-4 Sunil S. Mungale:- This witness had been working as NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 14 of 49 17:21:02 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi Typist in Pune since 1986. He deposed that he was known to the accused as he used to come to him for typing work. He identified the accused in the court. He deposed that documents dated 10.01.1997 Ex. PW1/1 (D6), dated 10.11.1997 (D-8) Ex. PW2/3, dated 21.10.1996 (D-9) Ex. PW1/3, dated 26.02.1996 (D-11) Ex. PW2/8, dated 19.10.1996 (D-12) Ex. PW2/9, dated 18.10.1996 (D-13) Ex. PW 2/11 and dated 25.02.1997 (D-15) Ex. PW 2/14, dated 22.10.1996 (D-17) Ex. PW2/17, all having encircled portion with red pen on said documents were typed by him on the blank letterheads produced by accused containing the name and other particulars of the person whose letterheads they were. He deposed further that accused had given him the contents in writing and on his instructions he had done the typing work. The accused had thereafter taken the typed documents as well as the written content given by him for the purposes of typing. He deposed that accused used to bring the blank letterheads of various MPs/MLAs to him for typing work which was done by him on his instructions. He further deposed that the documents shown to him in court were typed by him on typewriter make Remington. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he had given the sample typing of the material on the documents in question to the IO. He deposed further that his typewriting machine was not seized by the IO and was only checked. PW5 Prema Bhatt:- : This witness was posted as Section Office in Ministry of Health and Family Welfare from August, 1995 to NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 15 of 49 17:21:06 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi August, 2007. She proved letter dated 10.01.1997 (D-6) Ex. PW1/1 and identified her endorsement thereon. She proved letter dated 26.02.1996 (D-11) vide Ex. PW2/8 which was copy to her and deposed that the said letter was written by the then Member of Parliament V.V. Navale. She deposed further that the letter dated 25.02.1997(D-15) Ex. PW2/14 and letter dated 25.02.1997 (D-16) Ex. PW2/15 were received as copy to her and the said letters were written by the then Member of Parliament Sh. Prakash Ambedkar. She further deposed that the letter Ex. PW2/15 was marked by her to Sh. B.S. Nayak, the then Assistant in her office bearing her endorsement. She proved letter dated 17.08.1998 (D-18) Ex.PW5/1 which was addressed to Medical Superintendent, Pune Medical Foundation, Pune through which, she had forwarded the cheque to hospital for treatment of Smt. Saraswati D. Parkhi. She proved letter dated 31.08.1998 (D-21) Ex. PW3/4 which was addressed to her through which, the cheque has been returned to their Ministry as Smt. Saraswati D. Parkhi was not under treatment. She proved letter dated 12.02.1997 (D-22) Ex. PW2/24 which was addressed to her and written by Vishnu D. Parkhi and was also marked by her to Sh. B.S. Nayak, Dealing Assistant in her office. During her cross- examination, she deposed that the original cheque which was sent for medical grant was returned. She admitted that the original cheque was not on record.
PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar:- He was member of Rajya NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 16 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:10 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi Sabha from the year 1990 to 1996 and also member of Lok Sabha from the year 1998 to 2003. He deposed that he did not know any person in the name of Jagannath D. Parkhi, Smt. Saraswati Parkhi and Vishnu Parkhi. He deposed that letters Ex. PW2/14 and Ex. PW2/15, both dated 25.02.1997, letter Ex. PW2/16 dated 26.04.1997 and letter dated 22.10.1996 Ex. PW2/17, all on letterheads of Prakash Ambedkar do not belong to him nor the signatures therein belong to him. He also identified his specimen handwriting and signatures i.e. S-9 and S- 10 (part of D-23) vide Ex.PW6/1 given by him to CBI during investigation of the present case. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make any complaint that the documents Ex. PW2/14 to Ex. PW2/17 did not belong to him. PW7 J.C. Tiwari:- This witness was posted as Inspector at CBI, SCB-II, New Delhi. He is the complainant of the present case. He proved photocopy of complaint dated 24.08.1998(D-1) vide Ex. PW7/A (original complaint kept in CBI 302/2019) addressed to SP, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi. He obtained specimen writing/ signature of accused Jagannath D. Parkhi vide photocopies of S- 94 to S-97 of D-23 vide Ex. PW7/B (colly), that of Sh. Y.G. Patil vide photocopies of S-1 and S-2 of D-24 (Mark PW2/4) Ex. PW7/C, that of Sh. S.S. Karade vide photocopies of S-5 and S-6 of D-26 Ex. PW7/D and that of Sh. Prakash Y. Ambedkar vide photocopies of S-9 and S-10 of D-27 Ex. PW6/1, all bearing his signatures.
NEETU
(Neetu Nagar)
NAGAR
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by
NEETU NAGAR
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 17 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:13 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
PW8 Y. Hari Kumar:- He is the investigating officer of the present case and proved the steps of investigation undertaken by him. He proved photocopy of complaint dated 24.08.1998 of Inspector J.C. Tiwari, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi vide Ex.PW7/A (D-1) and photocopy of FIR RC2S/1998/SCB-II/DLI dated 28.08.1998 Ex.PW8/A (D-2) drawn by the then SP/CBI/SCB- II/DLI namely Sh. I.S. Saroha and identified his signatures thereon. He proved Letter No. 931/RC2S/1998/SCB-II/DLI dated 04.09.1998 vide Ex. PW3/1 (D-4) also Ex. PW8/B which was written by the then SP Sh. I.S. Saroha, CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi addressed to Sh.Charanjeet Singh, the then Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi seeking original documents pertaining to financial assistance sanctioned by the Ministry favouring Smt. Saraswati Parkhi. He proved Letter No. 12012/1185/96-Grants dated 10.09.1998 Ex. PW3/2 (D-5) also Ex. PW8/C of Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed to Sh. I.S. Saroha, SP/CBI/SCB- II/New Delhi which was entrusted to him for the purpose of investigation on 10.09.1998. He proved original receipt memo dated 11.10.1998 vide Ex. PW8/D (D-19) regarding documents collected from Pune Medical Foundation. He proved photocopy of cheque no.809392 dated 11.08.1998 vide Ex.PW8/E (D-20) of Rs. 20,000/- issued by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India in favour of Poona Medical Foundation, NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 18 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:18 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi Pune, which was received by him from Sh. S.S. Kadilkar, Accountant, Pune Medical Foundation through D-19 i.e original receipt memo dated 11.10.1998 Ex. PW8/D. He proved letter dated 31.08.1998 Ex. PW3/4 (D-21) of Accountant, Poona Medical Foundation addressed to Section Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding the return of cheque no. 809392 which was received by him through D-19 which disclosed that Poona Medical Foundation returned the cheque for Rs. 20,000/-sanctioned in favour of Smt. Saraswati Parkhi as she was not undergoing any treatment at that point of time. He proved handwritten letter dated 12.02.1997 vide Ex. PW8/F (D-
22) of Vishnu D. Parkhi addressed to Prema Bhatt, Sanction Officer enquring about the financial assistance sought for mother of accused. He proved photocopy of specimen handwriting and signature of accused marked S-66 to S-97 (D-23) vide Ex. PW8/G, that of Sh. Y.G. Patil marked S-1 and S-2 vide Ex. PW2/4 and Ex. PW7/C (D-24), that of Sh. V.V. Navale marked S-3 and S-4 (D-25) Ex. PW2/9A vide Ex. PW8/H, that of Sh. S.S. Kakade marked S-5 and S-8 (D-26) vide Ex. PW7/D and that of Sh. Prakash Y. Ambedkar marked S-9 and S-10 (Ex. PW6/I) vide Ex. PW8/I. He proved photocopy of letter dated 27.10.1998 of SP, CBI, SCB-II, Delhi Ex.PW2/1 (D-28) vide Ex. PW8/J which was addressed to Director, CFSL and deposed that the questioned documents along with sample handwriting and signatures of Members of Parliament as well as the accused were NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 19 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:22 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi forwarded to the CFSL for examination to obtain opinion regarding forgery on such documents. He proved photocopy of forwarding letter no. CFSL-98/D-637/617 of Director CFSL, addressed to SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi (D-29) vide Ex. PW8/K through which the Director CFSL, forwarded examination report and opinion rendered by Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Principal Scientific Officer (Documents), CFSL, New Delhi in respect of the documents forwarded to the CFSL for examination and opinion on the forged documents. He proved the CFSL report (D-30) received by the office of the SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi through the forwarding letter on 08.02.1999 having receipt number 788 vide Ex. PW8/K. He proved the photocopy of forwarding letter no. 181 dated 16.02.1999 of SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi Ex. PW2/19(D-31) vide Ex. PW8/L through which further specimen signature of additional sample specimen signatures/handwritings of accused were forwarded to CFSL. He proved the photocopy of forwarding letter no. CFSL-98/D-637/1266 dated 17.03.1999 of Director CFSL, addressed to SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi vide Ex. PW8/M (D-32) through which the Director CFSL sent examination report and opinion rendered by Sh. S.L. Mukhi, Principal Scientific Officer (Documents), CFSL, New Delhi in respect of the additional documents forwarded to the CFSL for examination and opinion on the forged documents. He further deposed that the CFSL report (D-32) was received by the office of the SP/CBI/SCB-II/New Delhi through the said forwarding NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 20 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:27 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi letter on 22.03.1991 having receipt number 1734. He identified the accused in the court.
PW9 Prithviraj Kakade:- He is the son of Sh. Sambhaji Rao Kakade who was M.P. from Baramati Constituency, Pune from the period 1977 to 1980 and again M.P. from 1985 to 1989-90. He deposed that he can identify the signature of his father Sh. Sambhaji Rao on the documents. He deposed that letter dated 18.10.1996 vide Ex. PW2/11 (D-13) and letter dated 01.05.1997 vide Ex. PW2/12 (D-14) addressed to Sh. Shervani Saheb from S.S.Kakade bearing the signatures of S.S.Kakade encircled with red ink do not belong to his father. He further proved the photocopy of specimen signature of Sh. S.S. Kakade vide Ex.PW7/D (D-26).
7. It is pertinent to mention that commission was issued for the examination of witnesses namely Sh. V.V. Navale and Sh. Y.G. Patil vide order dated 22.04.2025 but their names were dropped from the list of witnesses due to their ill health vide order dated 13.11.2025. Further, witnesses namely Smt. Saraswati B. Parkhi, Sh. Vishnu B Parkhi, Dr. D. Ghosh, and Sh. S.S. Kadilkar expired during the course of trial.
8. After conclusion of the list of prosecution witnesses, the prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 13.11.2025 after the exhaustion of the list of witnesses. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 21 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:30 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
9. Statement of accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 27.01.2026 wherein he denied all the allegations. Accused person submitted that he is falsely implicated in the present case and is an innocent person. He also moved an application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for admission/denial of documents. All the documents mentioned therein were denied by the Learned PP for CBI and the application was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2026.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. Accused has not preferred to lead evidence in his defence and same was closed vide order dated 27.01.2026.
ARGUMENTS
11. I have heard learned PP for CBI and the accused.
12. Learned PP on behalf of the CBI argued that there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence on record and the accused is liable to be convicted.
13. Per contra, the accused has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case as nothing was found against him. Hence, it is prayed that the accused is liable to be acquitted as the prosecution is not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Written submissions were also filed on behalf of accused and same are not being reproduced here for the sake of brevity and shall be dealt in the reasoning part.
Digitally
signed by
NEETU
NEETU NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:21:35
+0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 22 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
14. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
15. The points of determination in the present case are as follows:-
(i). Whether the accused forged recommendatory letters viz letters dated 10.01.1997, 30.04.1997, 21.10.1997 purported to have been written by Former Members of Parliament namely Sh.
Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil, letters dated 26.02.1996, 19.10.1996 and 03.05.1997 purportedly to have been issued by Member of Parliament Sh. V.V. Navale, letters dated 18.10.1996 and 01.05.1997 purported to have been issued by Sh. S.S. Kakade, MP and letters dated 22.10.1996, 25.02.1997 and 26.04.1997 by Sh. Prakash Ambedkar, MP for expediting the financial assistance requested by Smt. Saraswati Parkhi ?
(ii). Whether the accused during the year 1996-98 dishonestly and fraudulently used the above mentioned forged recommendatory letters as genuine knowing or having reasons to believe at the time he used it to be forged documents for the purpose of cheating and thereby cheated the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to grant financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-?
16. It is very well established that in all the criminal cases, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through unimpeachable evidence.
NEETU
NAGAR
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed
by NEETU
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 23 of 49 NAGAR
Date: 2026.03.28
17:21:41 +0530
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
17. It is the case of the CBI that the recommendation letters i.e. letters dated 10.01.1997, 30.04.1997, 21.10.1997 purported to have been written by Former Members of Parliament namely Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil, letters dated 26.02.1996, 19.10.1996 and 03.05.1997 purportedly to have been issued by Member of Parliament Sh. V.V. Navale, letter dated 18.10.1996 and 01.05.1997 purported to have been issued by Sh. S.S. Kakade, MP and letters dated 22.10.1996, 25.02.1997 and 26.04.1997 by Sh. Prakash Ambedkar, MP for expediting the financial assistance requested by Smt. Saraswati Parkhi are forged.
18. For proving forgery, it was required to be proved that the abovementioned documents are false.
19. The term "forgery" is defined in Section 463 of IPC and same reads as follows :-
"463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
20. Section 464 of IPC defining "making a false document" is extracted below:
"464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- First - Who dishonestly or fraudulently (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 24 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:45 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly- Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly- Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. xxxxxx"
21. An analysis of section 464 of IPC shows that it divides false documents into three categories as under:- (i) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed (ii) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:50 +0530 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 25 of 49 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi person. (iii) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration.
22. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses
23. The condition thus precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof) which is the main ingredient of offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery.
24. This court is now required to critically examine the evi- dence in the present case against the accused.
25. In order to prove the forgery in question, the prosecution has examined five witnesses, i.e. PW1 Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil, PW2 S.L. Mukhi, PW4 Sunil S. Mungale, PW6 Prakash Ambedkar and PW9 Prithviraj Kakade and hence, it is imperative to discuss their depositions.
26. Witness namely Prakash Ambedker (PW6), the then M.P proved that the recommendation letters dated 25.02.97 (D15), dated 26.04.97 (D16) and dated 22.10.96 (D17) did not belong to NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 26 of 49 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2026.03.28 17:21:54 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi him. He specificially denied his signatures thereon. Witness Prithviraj Kakade (PW9) son of S.S Kakade was called as witness on behalf of his father the then M.P. under Section 311 Cr.P.C. due to demise of Sh. S.S. Kakade. He specifically proved that recommendation letters i.e. 18.10.96 (D13) Ex. PW2/11, and dated 01.05.97 (D14) Ex. PW2/12 purported to have been written for grant of financial assistance by his father Sh. S.S. Kakade were forged as he denied signature of his father thereon. Meaning thereby that the said letters are false. Hence, it is duly proved by the prosecution that the above mentioned recommendation letters are forged.
27. The testimony of witness Sunil S. Mungale (PW4) is most significant. This witness was known to the accused and also correctly identified him in the court. Witness Sunil S. Mungale (PW4) proved that all the alleged forged letters i.e D-6 letter dated 10.01.97, D-8 letter dated 10.11.97, D-9 letter dated 21.10.1996, D-11 letter dated 26.02.96, D-12 letter dated 19.10.96, D-13 letter dated 18.10.96, D-15 letter dated 25.02.97 and D-17 letter dated 22.10.96 were typed by him on the instructions of accused who used to bring to him the blank letterheads of various MPs/MLAs. Nothing favourable to the accused could be brought by the lengthy cross-examination of this witness. No suggestion has been given if this witness was having enmity against the accused so as to depose against him. His testimony could not be shaken by the accused. Merely for the Digitally signed by NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 27 of 49 17:21:58 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi reason that the typewriter as well as sample type set of the typewriters are not produced during the trial does not impact the otherwise cogent testimony of this witness.
28. Further, the factum of the forgery in question stands duly corroborated by expert witness S.L Mukhi (PW2), the CFSL expert vide his expert opinion reports Ex. PW-2/27 and Ex. PW2/5 wherein he opined that the authorship of the questioned signatures could not be connected to the writer of the specimen signature in case of all the M.Ps. Meaning thereby that the letters in question were not signed by the MPs whose specimen signatures were obtained during the course of investigation as deposed by the IO. This witness further opined that Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen signatures being the person responsible for writing the questioned signature and writings in case of accused. Meaning thereby that the specimen signatures of accused tallied with the questioned signatures on the forged letters, leading to the conclusion that the same were infact forged by the present accused. In other words, the recommendation letters in question did not bear the signature of MP's as mentioned therein but that of the present accused. It was argued by the accused that forgery in recommendation letters of PW-1 Sh. Y.G. Patil is not proved as he was not cross-examined. To my mind, there is no merit in this contention as the forgery stands otherwise also duly proved by the testimonies of PW4 Sunil Mungle who typed the forged NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 28 of 49 17:22:01 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi letters on the instructions of accused and the signatures of accused thereon stand duly proved by the handwriting expert PW2 S.L. Mukhi. The non-examination of Sh. Y.G. Patil is not therefore fatal to the case of prosecution. Hence, the role of the accused in forgery of the recommendation letters in question is crystal clear and stands duly proved on behalf of the prosecution.
Thus, the ingredients of forgery under Section 467 IPC stand duly fulfilled.
29. It was vehemently argued by learned PP on behalf of CBI that the forgery in question has been committed by the accused with the sole purpose to cheat Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India in order to avail financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. Same is denied by the accused.
30. Let us first discuss the relevant legal provisions applicable.
SECTION 420 IPC
31. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It is reproduced as under :-
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
32. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 29 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:06 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi are as follows:-
(i) a person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and
(ii) the person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or seal and capable of being converted into valuable security.
33. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420 and is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 415 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
"Section 415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation, property, is said to "cheat".
34. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of transactions itself.
35. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 30 of 49 NAGAR Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:10 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
36. In Arun Bhandari vs State of UP, 2013 (2) SCC 801 , it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that :-
"19 Before we proceed to scan and analyse the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is seemly to refer to certain authorities wherein the ingredients of cheating have been highlighted. In State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and Another [8], a two-Judge Bench ruled that to hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of making the promise and such a dishonest intention cannot be inferred from a mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise.
20 In G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and Others [9], this Court has held thus: "7. As mentioned above, Section 415 has two parts. While in the first part, the person must "dishonestly" or "fraudulently" induce the complainant to deliver any property; in the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 31 of 49 NEETU NAGAR Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:15 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi second part, the person should intentionally induce the complainant to do or omit to do a thing. That is to say, in the first part, inducement must be dishonest or fraudulent. In the second part, the inducement should be intentional. As observed by this Court in Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay[10] a guilty intention is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating. In order, therefore, to secure conviction of a person for the offence of cheating, "mens rea" on the part of that person, must be established. It was also observed in Mahadeo Prasad v. State of W.B.[11] that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was offered.
21. In S.N. Palanitkar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another[12], it has been laid down that in order to constitute an offence of cheating, the intention to deceive should be in existence at the time when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, to say that he committed an act of cheating. A mere failure to keep up promise subsequently cannot be presumed as an act leading to cheating". (Emphasis Supplied)
37. Further, Section 468 IPC reads as under:-
"Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1 [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
38. Harking back, reliance was placed by the prosecution on the testimony of witness Charanjit Singh (PW3) in order to substantiate the allegations of cheating. Witness Charanjit Singh (PW3) proved that there was a scheme in Health Ministry namely NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by (Neetu Nagar) NEETU NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Date: 2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 32 of 49 17:22:19 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi Health Minister's Discretionary Grant at the relevant time by which needy patients used to get financial assistance. He forwarded the original letters (forged) of various MPs to SP/CBI. He also proved (D-3) the application in prescribed proforma of Vishnu Parkhi for financial assistance which was received in the Health Ministry and (D-21) letter dated 31.08.98 of the Accountant, Pune Medical Foundation addressed to Prema Bhatt, Section Officer, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare vide which Pune Medical Foundation had returned the cheque 809392(D-20) dated 11.08.98 for Rs. 20,000/-. Same is also confirmed by witness Prema Bhatt (PW5). She also proved (D18) letter dated 17.08.98 addressed to Pune Medical Foundation forwarding cheque No.809392 dated 11.08.98 for the treatment of Saraswati B.Parkhi, mother of accused. Had the recommendation letters would not been forged, then there was no question of issuing the cheque in question. Meaning thereby that the cheque in question to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was issued based on the representation of the forged recommendation letters.
39. PW-7 Witness J.C Tiwari/Inspector from CBI proved the photocopy of original complaint dated 24.08.1998 (D-1) vide Ex. PW7/A as well as photocopies of specimen writing of accused and the MPs. It is pertinent to mention that the original complaint and the specimen signatures of the accused as well as MPs were kept in file bearing no. RC 302/2019.
40. Further, witness Y.Hari Kumar(PW7)/Investigating Officer Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
(Neetu Nagar) 2026.03.28
ACJM-06 RADC 17:22:24
+0530
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 33 of 49
CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
corroborated the facts pertaining to using of forged
recommendation letters as genuine for availing the financial benefit from Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India and also cheating for personal gain by accused. He deposed that present case was registered as per written complaint dated 24.04.1998 of Sh. J.C. Tiwari, Inspector of Police who was investigating case RC 3S/1997 against present accused. During the course of the investigation, the relied upon documents which were already seized in RC3S/1997 by Sh. J.C. Tiwari, IO were taken over by him for the purpose of investigation of the present case. He deposed that accused had attempted to cheat Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India towards availing financial assistance of Rs.20,000/-towards treatment of his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi on strength of forged recommendation letters of former Members of Parliament. He recorded statements of Member of Parliament who after perusing their respective forged letters, denied to have ever written such letters to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India enabling Smt. Saraswati Parkhi, mother of accused for availing medical treatment for cancer in Pune Medical Foundation. He recorded statement of Job Typist namely Sh. Sunil Kumar Mugle, Proprietor-cum-Typist of Yashoda Typing Center, Shivaji Nagar, Pune. He deposed that two Remington Typewriters were used and letters were typed using the same and as such the sample type set of these typewriters NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 34 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:29 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi were obtained during the investigation for the purpose of forensic examination. He collected original forged letters of Members of Parliament used by accused for availing financial assistance from Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India from the Under Secretary of the Department namely Charanjeet Singh and also examined Sh. S.S. Kadilkar of Accountant, Pune Medical Foundation Hospital. He deposed that the accused prepared all the forged letters and was also managing the affairs on behalf of his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi and his younger brother Sh. Vishnu Parkhi. He also questioned accused and examined his mother and brother. He collected the specimen signatures of all the above mentioned Members of Parliament and CFSL opinion was received that their signatures were not appended in the alleged letters. He had collected specimen handwriting and signatures of accused during the course of investigation and same were also forwarded to CFSL for examination and opinion. He submitted two chargesheets for commission of offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 IPC. Nothing favourable to the accused was obtained despite lengthy cross-examination of this witness.
41. It is also pertinent to mention that the accused has neither engaged a private counsel nor went to Secretary, DLSA, despite order dated 22.04.2025. Manytimes he was apprised about legal aid facility but he repeatedly declined to avail legal aid facility. Same is also clear from the ordersheet dated 10.07.2025. He NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 35 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:33 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi represented his case himself.
42. It was vehemently argued by the accused that no member of Parliament (MP) or P.M.O ,Government of India or Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India filed complaint to C.B.I. in respect of forgery of their letters or got registered F.I.R. under section 154 Cr.P.C. against the accused person at any Police Station in this regard.It was further argued that no members of Parliament (M.P.) authorised in writing J.C. Tiwari (so called complainant) C.B.I. Inspector to act on behalf of them and file complaint regarding forgery of their letters sent to Government. It was further contended that the Head of the Department of P.M.O. and Health Ministry Govt. of India did not grant written consent/permission to C.B.I. Delhi to disclose their official privileged record for any purpose in court of law against the accused and same could not have been shared due to express statutory bar imposed under section 123 and 124 of Indian Evidence Act.All these contentions raised on behalf of accused are meritless as the criminal law can be set into motion by any person and the complainant need not be the victims in all the cases. In fact, the crime in question surfaced during investigation of case bearing number RC3S/1997 which was being investigated by J.C. Tiwari. No such objection has been raised by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India that the documents pertain to official privileged record, hence, the contentions on behalf the accused that the same are privileged Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28 ACJM-06 RADC 17:22:40 +0530 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 36 of 49 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi documents holds no merit.
43. It was next argued by the accused that the C.B.I. prosecution did not examine any M.P. whose letters were alleged to have been forged by the accused and their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C during investigation is not regarded as evidence. Clearly, the MP namely Sh. Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil could not be cross-examined. It is noteworthy that PW Shambhajirao Kakade passed away on 10.05.2021 and therefore, his son Prithviraj Kakade was examined under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as PW8 in his place vide order dated 10.07.2025. It is noteworthy that LW Sh. V.V. Nawale and Sh. Y.G. Patil were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 13.11.2025 because of their ill health. PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar clearly proved the forgery of recommendation letters under his name. The contentions of the accused holds no merit in view of the cogent testimonies of PW4 Sunil Mungle, PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar, PW9 Prithviraj Kakade coupled with expert witness PW2 S.L. Mukhi who duly proved the forgery in question.
44. It was next argued by the accused that C.B.I. examined only interested witnesses and their evidence is not credit worthy and can not be relied upon against the accused in the absence of a complaint under section 200 Cr. P.C to the Magistrate and also F.I.R. at Police Station as well sanction of the Government necessary under section 123 of Evidence Act. The accused NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 37 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:48 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi argued that the complainant admitted that R.C. 2(S)/98 is not registered in any local Police station as valid F.I.R under Section 154 Cr.P.C., no member of Parliament filed written complaint of forgery and cheating of their letter and that accused did not cheat him personally for lodging complaint of cheating directly to C.B.I. as mentioned in R.C.2(5)/198 Dated 28.8.1998. These contentions also do not hold any water as the present case is not on the basis of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and no sanction under section 123 of Evidence Act is required to file the same.
45. It was next contended that PWs Y. Hari Kumar I.O, C.B.I and J.C. Tiwari, C.B.I. Inspector both in their evidence admitted that name of Sh. Vishnu B. Parkhi appeared in letters of M.P.s who was son of Smt. Saraswati B. Parkhi and his name was not mentioned in any alleged forged letters. This contention also fails as the active role of the accused regarding forgery has become manifest from the testimonies and the documents proved on record.
46. The next contention on behalf of accused is that PW Y. Hari Kumar I.O. C.B.l failed to conduct identification parade before his arrest. This contention is also meritless as it is not necessary that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) has to be done in all the cases. TIP may be necessary if the accused person and the witnesses are strangers. Herein, PW4 Sunil Mungale was known to the accused person and this witness duly identified the NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 38 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:53 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi accused in the court also. It is not the defence of the accused that PW4 was not known to him or that he has identified him wrongly due to personal grudges or enmity. The accused was specifically named in the complaint. The identification of the accused by the witnesses of prosecution was therefore not necessary and was also not disputed. Further, the M.Ps PW1 Yashwant Rao Ghadak Patil and PW6 Prakash Yashwant Ambedkar did not know about the accused, hence, there was no question of identification of the accused from them. Hence, the contentions in this regard are meritless.
47. It was next highlighted by the accused that he was illegally arrested on 03.08.98 Delhi by the I.O., C.B.I before R.C. No. 2(S)/98 dated 28.8.1995 registered by SP/SCB II/C.B.I in his office but the Investigating officer Hari Kumar did not produce vital and crucial arrest and bail documents in this court with two charge sheets.It was pointed out that Y. Hari Kumar, I.O., C.B.I P.W-8 deposed evidence stating original documents pertaining to arrest and medical check-up were submitted in the Ld.C.M.M court, Delhi but all important documents were not available on the court record of Judicial file. It was argued that Y. Hari Kumar, I.O, CBI deposed evidence on oath that he investigated simple letter dated 24.8.98 of J.C. Tiwari Inspector /CBI/SCB- II/Delhi disclosing certain cognizable offences of forgery and cheating under I.P.C. on executive instructions of the Branch S.P./C.B.I./Delhi which clearly shows that the present case is NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 39 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:22:57 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi neither registered nor handed over to Y. Hari Kumar I.O., C.B.I. and therefore, his action of arrest, P.C. and J.C. and filing chargesheet on the basis of simple letter dated 24.8.98 of J.C. Tiwari Inspector CBl is complete illegal and without authority of law. He argued that he specifically questioned the I.O. Y. Hari Kumar "Q: In which Police station valid F.I.R. u/s 154 Cr. P.C. was registered in respect of cognizable offences of forgery and cheating in which you completed investigation in R.C. 2(s)/98 also filed two charge sheets for court cognizance and consequential trial as warrant case trial to which he had answered that "The F.I.R. was registered in CBI/SCBII/Branch/Delhi". With regard to his question, "Q- Did you produce such valid F.I.R. duly registered at the Police Station with the charge sheet as record of the case by which Criminal law set into motion." He answered that the original F.I.R was already submitted and charge sheet submitted subsequently. He highlighted that this witness admitted the fact that R.C.2(s)/98 dated 28.08.98 was not pertaining to offences under P.C. Act or Special Act which warrants investigation by I.O., C.B.I. He pointed out the question "Whether the R.C.2(s)/98 for offences of forgery and cheating exclusive under I.P.C. duly register u/s 154 Cr.P.C. at the local Police Station to exercise Police Powers under the Cr.P.C. to investigate offences under I.P.C." to which this witness answered that "such I.P.C. offences are investigated by CBI also". The accused pointed out that PW-8 admitted that he did not NEETU (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR ACJM-06 RADC Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 40 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:23:01 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi personally register F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. against the accused Jagannath D. Parkhi at the local Police Station for cognizable offences, I.P.C. before commencing investigation in R.C.2(s)/98 and F.I.R. was registered by S.P. The accused again pointed out the question raised by him that "Whether the R.C.2(s)/98 registered on 28.8.98 in C.B.I. Delhi based on a complaint under P.C. Act or F.I.R. u/s 154 Cr.P.C. registered at the Police station. Answer: F.I.R. was registered in C.B.I. and not in Police Station". He then submitted that this witness further admitted that "he arrested accused Jagannath D. Parkhi on 03.8.1998 at Delhi in connection with investigation in R.C. 2(S)/98 and taken to Ram Manohar Lohiya, Hospital/Delhi for Medical check-up on 03.8.98 also secured Police custody for 5 days by the court order." It was thus argued that the trial is vitiated in the absence of FIR in local police station and complaint before Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. There is no merit in these contentions as the present case bearing no. RC 2(S)1998 has been registered by CBI and the same is not required to be registered at any Police station ,Delhi as the CBI has ample power to investigate the offence in question in view of Section 3 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 vide which the Central Government by way of notification in the official Gazette has specified the offences which can be investigated by Delhi Special Police Establishment. It seems that the accused is under misconception that FIR has to be registered first at a local police NEETU NAGAR Digitally signed by NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Date: 2026.03.28 ACJM-06 RADC 17:23:05 +0530 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 41 of 49 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi station before the investigation is entrusted to CBI. The IO was very much competent to conduct the investigation on the basis of complaint moved by the complainant and duly entrusted to him by the S.P. concerned even though same was not registered in any police station. Moreover, the arrest of the accused is not disputed even though the arrest memo is not proved during trial.
48. It was contended by the accused that Supt. of Police/C.B.I./SCB-II/Delhi entrusted prosecution of the present case to Sh. L.D. Tiwari, in-house legal officer (Salaried employee of legal division-C.B.I.) and he conducted prosecution against Jagannath D. Parkhi in the courts, acting as Public Prosecutor for the State through C.B.I. and secured various court orders without authority of law. It was vehemently contended that appointment of Public Prosecutor (prosecutor-In-charge) was not made by the Government of India. It was further argued that CBI officers namely J.C. Tiwari (complainant), Y.Hari Kumar, (Investigating Officer), L.D.Tiwari and Amit Kumar, both from legal division of CBI acted as public prosecutor without knowledge of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India and their appointment was not made in the said Ministry. It was thus argued that the entire trial conducted by C.B.I officers stands vitiated by fraud under Section 461 Cr. P.C. To my mind, all these contentions are mere allegations without any supporting evidence and liable to be rejected.
49. It was next contended that the accused relied upon 20 NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 42 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:23:10 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi decisions of Hon'ble Supreme court and High court seeking discharge but Ms. Kiran Bansal, learned A.C.M.M merely mentioned all the case authority on page no. 5 and 6 of the order dated 12.01.2012 while dismissing discharge application without considering facts, documents, Govt. Sanction as well governing law and instantly framed charges on 12.01.2012 without going into necessary material. The said contentions are also meritless as the accused failed to challenge the order dated 12.01.2012 before any higher forum.
50. It was next contended that C.B.I prosecution did not examine Branch S.P. to check his signature/powers and Jurisdiction to register present case of forgery and cheating of letters of M.P.'s without their complaint to C.B.I. It was alleged that the branch S.P. misused statutory police powers to implicate innocent accused in complete bogus/fake/false case. These contentions are also meritless as the signature of Branch S.P. has been duly identified by the Investigating officer. Hence, there was no requirement to prove the same by examining him in person in view of Section 47 and 67 of Indian Evidence Act. Same reads as under:-
" Section 47. Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.When the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.Explanation. - A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he had NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 43 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:23:14 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. xxxx Section 67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced. -- If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting."
51. From a conjoint reading of the above mentioned two sections, it is clear that evidence of a person who is acquainted with the handwriting or signature of a person is relevant.
52. The next contention on behalf of the accused is that Sh. I.S. Saroha, SP/SCB-II/CBI/DELHI registered present case on 28.8.1998 (D-2) four days later using prohibited single page FORM prescribed for FIR under binding/mandatory RULE 9.7of Crime manual C.B.I against Accused Jagannath D. Parkhi, on the basis of letter dated 24.8.98 which is produced as F.I.R/R.C. 2(S)/98 and used for all purpose of investigation and prosecution by the same branch (Crime Branch) and thus he exceeded and misused statutory powers as he first registered R.C. 2(S)/98 on 28.08.98 against the accused person without original letters of M.P.'s in hand and 7 day thereafter vide his letter dated 04.09.98 called original letters of M.P.'s from the privileged/secret/classified/undisclosed record of Heath Ministry, Govt. of India Delhi for trial purpose. It was further argued that Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28 ACJM-06 RADC 17:23:18 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 44 of 49 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi the accused was arrested on 03.08.1998 and the present case was registered 25 days after arrest and thus the conduct of the branch Superintendent of Police is clearly exceeding his powers and jurisdiction and violating the essential guidelines for CBI as per CBI manual. To my mind, all these contentions are nothing but unfounded allegations. It is not the defence of the accused that the original letters were not brought on record. Hence, these contentions fail miserably.
53. It was next argued by the accused that there is judicial obligation upon the trial court to consider inordinate long delay of 27 years and discharge the innocent accused person under Section 245 Cr.P.C. It was vehemently argued that the learned trial court wrongly converted invalid charge sheet into complaint case, framed charge and proceeded with the trial. It was further contended that the facts, evidence and circumstances of the C.B.I prosecution also attracts inherent residuary powers of the Magistrate conferred by the Constitution under Article 258 read with statutory powers under section 245, clause (2) Cr. P.C. to be exercised in ultra vires case. He has relied on rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Jawaya A.I.R 1955 S.C-549 and Jayanti Lal, A.I.R 1964 S.C.-648, wherein he stated, it was observed "Functions which do not fall strictly within the filed of legislative or Judicial, falls under in residuary class and must be regarded as executive. It can not, however assumed that the legislative function are exclusively performed by the legislative, Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28 (Neetu Nagar) 17:23:22 ACJM-06 RADC +0530 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 45 of 49 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi executive functions by the executive and Judicial functions by the Judiciary alone. The constitution has not made an absolute or rigid division of functions between the three agencies of the state ordinary executive power connotes the residue of government function that remain of legislative and Judicial functions are taken away." He further relied upon case titled as Jasbir Singh Vs. Vipin AIR 2001 SC 2734. To my mind, vague contentions have been made by the accused and the same are devoid of any merit. The case laws are also not applicable being distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
54. It was further contended that the accused person is legally entitled to claim immunity from the court action on the face of evidence produced with the charge sheet and nil case record of the government and evidence deposed before the court. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Narain v/s Union of India, A.I.R 1998 S.C-889 (para-38), five Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v/s Govt. Of U.P. A.I.R 2014 S.C-187 (para-59) and Directorate of Enforcement (E.D) v/s Deepak Mahajan, A.I.R 1994 S.C-1775 (S.C) to contend that the Power and Jurisdiction of the State Police in respect of an offence within it's Jurisdiction remains intact and the C.B.I alone inhibited (means prohibited) thereby. It was argued by the accused that the C.B.I totally abused police powers as provided under Section 4 Cr. P.C. read with section 26 Cr.P.C. It was vehemently argued that this NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed ACJM-06 RADC by NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 46 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:23:27 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi hon'ble court (trial court) presently dealing with the criminal case exclusively under I.P.C and not under "Special Law". He placed reliance on case titled as A.R. Antule v/s Ramdas Shriniwas Nayak, A.I.R 1984 S.C.-718. At the cost of repetition, the accused is making wild allegations without any basis, hence, these contentions also stand rejected being meritless. Also, the case laws cited are not applicable herein.
55. It was argued further that the officers of Special Crime Branch, C.B.I. Delhi namely I.S. Saroha, Supt. of Police, Y. Hari Kumar and J.C. Tiwari, Inspectors, entered into Criminal Conspiracy with the Director, C.B.I., (Head of Central Agency) and Government of India (Protector of guarantee under part III of constitution) and victimized innocent accused by implicating him in complete false case for 27 years without knowledge of the Government. It was alleged that C.B.I. also completely violated D.S.P.E. Act, Cr.P.C. and Crime Manual - C.В.І. in respect of mandatory rules framed thereunder as well Police powers in respect to arrest, investigation, filing charge sheet and conducting trial with the help of inhouse law officer of legal division C.B.I. with clear motive to kill the innocent accused under the guise of criminal prosecution/criminal trial (Mock trial) without a complaint/reference from the Government and F.I.R. under Section 154 Cr.P.C. registered at the local police and necessary prosecution sanction from the government. All these contentions are nothing but allegations without any basis and stand rejected.
Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) ACJM-06 RADC NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28 Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 47 of 49 17:23:31 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi
56. It was further argued that Sh. Sourabh Singh and Sh.
Dharshan Lal, Sr. P.P. for State through C.B.I. suddenly withdrew from the prosecution as contemplated under section 321 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that this Hon'ble Court ought to have stopped the proceeding after recording evidence of principal witnesses J.C. Tiwari and Y.Hari Kumar under section 258 Cr.P.C. in the absence of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. and F.I.R. registered at the police station and discharge the accused. Again, baseless allegations have been made by the accused and same are discarded.
57. Hence, from a cumulative reading of the proved documents accompanied with the consistent and cogent oral testimonies of the witnesses, it is duly proved by the prosecution that recommendation letters of MPs in question were forged by the accused for availing financial assistance of Rs. 20,000/- for treatment of his mother Smt. Saraswati Parkhi which were used by him fraudulently and with the knowledge of the same being not genuine for the purpose of cheating and in order to cause wrongful gain to himself and to cause wrongful loss to Ministry of Health and Welfare, Government of India. The prosecution successfully proved that the forged letters were sent by the accused to expedite the matter regarding the financial assistance but the cheque to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- was returned as Smt. Saraswati Parkhi was not taking treatment from the concerned Medical Institution as clear from the testimonies of PW3 and NEETU NAGAR (Neetu Nagar) Digitally signed by ACJM-06 RADC NEETU NAGAR Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 48 of 49 Date: 2026.03.28 17:23:35 +0530 CC No. 301/2019 CBI VS. Jagannath D. Parkhi PW5, due to which the cheating could not be completed, however, the ingredients of attempt to cheat stand fulfilled.
CONCLUSION
58. Therefore, upon a conspectus of the entire facts and circumstances and in view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the alleged offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubts. Accused namely Jagannath D. Parkhi is thus held guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with 511/468/471 IPC and is accordingly convicted for the same.
59. Copy of judgment be given to the accused free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open NEETU
court today i.e. 28.03.2026 NEETU NAGAR
(This Judgment contains 49 pages NAGAR Date:
2026.03.28
signed by the undersigned) 17:23:40
+0530
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06/RADC/New Dehi
28.03.2026
(Neetu Nagar)
ACJM-06 RADC
Delhi: 28.03.2026 Page 49 of 49