Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Neelam Sehgal Etc. Page No. 1 Of 82 on 10 February, 2017
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC
ACT), CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 03/15
RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0070152015
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1. Neelam Sehgal
W/o Sh. Jagdish Sehgal
The then UDC
R/o: K4, Kasturba Niketan Complex
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
2. Ritu Sehgal @ Ritu Monga
W/o Sh. Manish Monga
R/o 1A/28A, NIT Faridabad, Haryana
3. Jagdish Sehgal
S/o Late Ramnath Sehgal
R/o: K4, Kasturba Niketan Complex
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
Date of filing of chargesheet : 31.03.2015
Date of conclusion of arguments : 31.01.2017
Date of announcement of judgment : 06.02.2017
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 1 of 82
:: 2 ::
J U D G M E N T
06.02.2017
1. A1 Neelam Sehgal, A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal
were sent for trial by CBI on the allegations of having been
committed offence punishable under Section 120B read with
Sections 420/467/468/471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC in short) and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "PC Act").
2. It is alleged that A1 Neelam Sehgal, a public servant working as
UDCcumAccountant, O/o Additional Director (South Zone),
CGHS, R.K. Puram, New Delhi joined CGHS, South Zone, New
Delhi on 08.09.2008 and was posted in Cash & Accounts Section
on 09.09.2008 and was asked to prepare salary and arrear bills of
Staff Nurse, UDC, Lab Technician etc. and submit the bills directly
to Drawing & Disbursement Officer (DDO) for signature and
onward submission to Pay & Accounts Officer for payment. She
was maintaining all relevant financial records pertaining to the
bills. Later on, she was posted to Sadiq Nagar Wellness Centre vide
order dated 23.02.2011. Subsequently, she was posted to
Establishment Section, CGHS, South Zone vide order dated
03.03.2011 but, due to shortage of manpower in Cash & Accounts
Section, South Zone, New Delhi, she was again deputed to work in
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 2 of 82
:: 3 ::
Cash & Accounts Section, South Zone on the verbal directions of
the then Additional Director, CGHS, South Zone. Since March,
2011 she prepared bills of Doctors' salaries, arrear etc. Later on, she
also prepared bills pertaining to CGHS Apollo Dialysis Centre
from April 2011 till March 2012, Hindlabs March, 2012 and bills of
outsourced dental clinic from April, 2011. Later on, on 24.02.2012,
she was assigned the work of Accountant and she retired on
31.05.2013 and during that period, she was preparing bills.
3. She prepared 15 bills of regular pay, salary, DA arrear, bonus,
supplementary, DA on the conveyance allowance which were
credited in the saving bank account no. 33704 (new account no.
0992000100337042) in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal @ Ritu
Monga, D/o A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal maintained with Punjab
National Bank, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. She had
also prepared bills for release of payment of Rs.1,51,847/ on
account of salary for the month of 201112 in the name of Dr. Ritu
Kumari. The cheque dated 25.11.2012 was issued in the name of
Ritu Kumari by Pay & Accounts Officer after request was made by
Additional Director, CGHS for issuance of cheque in the name of
Ritu Sehgal instead of Ritu Kumari. The amount was credited in
the SBI Account No. 33704 in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
on the introduction of A3 Jagdish Sehgal on 06.02.2000 and the
said account was closed on 19.12.2012. Between 03.04.2010 to
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 3 of 82
:: 4 ::
09.12.2011, twenty one times electronic clearing service (ECS)
amount was credited from CGHS in the said account and six times
from 23.04.2012 till 20.10.2012, the amount was credited through
ECS in the said account. These amounts were withdrawn on
various dates from 19.04.2010 to 19.12.2012 by A3 Jagdish Sehgal
and A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal by way of cheques from the said account.
The entries w.r.t. fraudulent claims made in the name of A2 Smt.
Ritu Sehgal, S/N, that is, Staff Nurse Ritu Sehgal and Dr. Ritu.
There was no employee in the name of Ritu Sehgal. There was no
staff nurse in the name of Ritu or no employee in the name of Dr.
Ritu Arora on the pay roll of CGHS, South Zone during the posting
of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
4. In addition to this, she had also made bills containing fraudulent
claim of HRA, special pay etc. There are 11 claims/ bills made by
her (A1) in her own name. Some more amounts were processed by
Accounts Officer, but the original as well as office copies of the
bills were not traceable. A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in conspiracy and
collusion with her daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and her
husband/ A3 Jagdish Sehgal diverted a total sum of Rs.13,67,299
of office of Additional Director, CGHS, South Zone by way of
preparation of fraudulent bills in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
as staff nurse Ritu Sehgal, Dr. Ritu Sehgal. A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal also herself diverted Rs.2,21,733/ to her own account
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 4 of 82
:: 5 ::
maintained with State Bank of India, Central Market, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi by way of fraudulent preparation of bills pertaining to
HRA, special pay, arrears. A1 Neelam Sehgal, who was a public
servant had already retired hence, no sanction for prosecution was
required.
5. The accused persons were summoned after taking cognizance and
after complying with Section 207 Cr. P.C. and finding prima facie
case, vide order dated 03.07.2015, charge for offence punishable
under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act was framed against A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal; separate charge for offence punishable under Section 120B
read with Section 420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal, A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal
and separate charge for offence punishable under Section 403/34
IPC was framed against A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3 Jagdish
Sehgal, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 27 witnesses. The
witnesses examined by prosecution can be broadly categorized as
following:
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 5 of 82
:: 6 ::
WITNESSES FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH
SCHEME (CGHS)
PW1 Dr. Sudha Sethi had handed over documents pertaining to
transfer/ postings/ relieving of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
PW2 Dr. Madhu Bajpayee was working as DDO at the relevant
time and she had handed over certain documents to CBI.
PW3 Sh. Tek Singh Negi was working as Vigilance Officer at the
relevant time and handed over certain documents to CBI on being
called. He stated about the departmental enquiry against A1
Neelam Sehgal.
PW4 Sh. Rupak Chatterjee was working as DDO and had
explained the duties of DDO.
PW5 Sh. Ranveer Kumar had handed over certain documents to
CBI and deposed regarding his duties.
PW7 Sh. Ranbir Singh handed over certain documents to CBI.
PW9 Smt. Pawan Dhawan was posted as LDC in CGHS (HQ),
Nirman Bhawan and explained about her duties.
PW10 Dr. N.S. Rawat was posted as CMO (Sr. Administrative
Officer) at the relevant time and had conducted enquiry against A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
PW11 Dr. Ratan Mandal was working as Sr. CMO (SAG) and was
deputed to conduct preliminary enquiry against A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal and had given his enquiry report.
PW12 Dr. Jay Shree Bhatnagar was posted as Additional Director
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 6 of 82
:: 7 ::
and had explained procedure of payment of bills through electronic
clearing system (ECS).
PW13 Dr. D.R. Dey was posted as Additional Director at the
relevant time and proved copies of certain regular bills.
PW16 Dr. Kanwal Kumar was working as Additional Director at
the relevant time and had handed over certain documents to
CBI.
PW17 Sh. N.S. Thapliyal, LDC at the relevant time and had proved
pension papers, dental files, original pay bills etc.
PW18 Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta was working as Sr. Accounts
Officer at the relevant time and had handed over certain documents
including relevant paras of Civil Account Manual which described
duties and responsibilities of junior accountants/ senior
accountants/ assistant account officer/ account officer/ senior
account officers.
PW23 Dr. S.K. Maurya was deputed to conduct preliminary
enquiry against A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal pursuant to which he
recorded statements of witnesses and had submitted the joint
enquiry report.
PW24 Sh. Harvinder Singh Administrative Officer at the
relevant time and had proved certain office orders and copies of
bills.
PW27 Dr. R. Padmini proved documents which showed that no
staff nurse/ doctor in the name of Ritu was working in CGHS.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 7 of 82
:: 8 ::
WITNESS FROM PAY & ACCOUNTS OFFICE (PAO)
PW6 Sh. Ishwar Singh had explained about the process of ECS in
PAO.
PW14 Sh. Balbir Singh explained the procedure of payment
through ECS and handed over documents.
PW15 Sh. Uttam Biswas, Asst. Accounts Officer at the relevant
time at PAO and explained about his duties.
WITNESSES FROM BANK
PW8 Capt. Prem Lal Nahar as Assistant Manager, Punjab
National Bank and had proved account opening form pertaining to
account no. 33704 in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal.
PW19 Sh. Sher Singh Dogra, Manager in State Bank of India and
had handed over certified copy of account opening form,
statements of account pertaining to account no. 10569574815 of A
1 Neelam Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal, along with certificate
under Section 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act.
PW20 Sh. B.S. Kataria, Manager in Punjab National Bank, Lajpat
NagarII Branch had handed over documents pertaining to account
no. 33704 of Ritu Sehgal along with 29 original cheques pertaining
to the said account.
PW22 Sh. Vinod Kumar, Probation Officer, State Bank of India
had proved letter vide which statement of account pertaining to
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 8 of 82
:: 9 ::
account no. 01190025795 in the name of A1 Neelam Sehgal and
A3 Jagdish Sehgal was handed over to CBI.
WITNESS OF SPECIMEN SIGNATURES
PW21 Sh. Avtar Singh Sagar is the witness regarding taking of
specimen handwriting of all the accused persons.
EXPERT WITNESS
PW25 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents (GEQD) had examined the questioned and
specimen writings and signatures of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and
gave his report Ex.PW25/B.
PW26 Insp. S.K. Khullar is the IO of the case.
7. The admission/ denial of documents under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
was also done wherein, accused Neelam Sehgal, Ritu Sehgal and
Jagdish Sehgal had admitted some documents.
8. Statement of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was
recorded on 14.12.2016 and of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and A3
Jagdish Sehgal on 17.12.2016. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal opted to lead
evidence in her defence and examined DW1 Sh. S.N. Ahmed in
her defence.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 9 of 82
:: 10 ::
9. A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in her statement under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. stated that she never joined Wellness Centre, Sadiq Nagar, as
she was not relieved from South Zone. Further, she admitted that
she was posted as UDC in Accounts Section and was looking after
the seat pertaining to salary, claim etc. of doctors and that she used
to prepare bills of gazetted oficers. She admitted that the pension
papers, which were filed by her, were in her own handwriting. She
admitted that she had an account, bearing no. 1056574815 with
SBI, Lajpat Nagar Branch however, the said account was made
joint account after the year 2014. she also admitted her bank
statements. She stated that the cheques were filled by her husband
however, showed her ignorance regarding its contents. She admitted
her specimen handwriting. She also admitted that there was only
one doctor in the name of Ritu V. Arora (Specialist Grade), who
joined CGHS on 13.01.2011. she also admitted her service book
Ex.PW16/B, which showed her husband's name as Jagdish Sehgal
and daughter's name as Ritu Sehgal.
10. She further stated that she has been made scapegoat in this case, as
the then DDO, Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulsreshta who was having
authority to pass the bills, asked her to provide an account where
the money could be transferred and after that, he used to take
money from her against the deposits. Since the bank account of her
daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal was not being operated by her (A
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 10 of 82
:: 11 ::
2), as it was being managed by her (A1) only, she had given her
(A2's) account number for ECS at the instance of Dr. Mukul
Kumar Kulsreshtha.
11. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal denied almost all the
incriminating evidence put to them except that they were having
bank accounts, as alleged and that they gave their specimen
handwriting and signatures. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal stated that she
was completely ignorant about the bills or the entries in her bank
account, as she was not operating her bank account personally after
her marriage, which took place in the year 2002 and since then, she
was residing at Faridabad. Her parents, that is, A1 and A3
obtained her signed cheques so that in case of need, they could
withdraw the money from her bank account. She came to know
about the present case or the alleged transaction in her bank
account for the first time, when she was called by CBI officials for
interrogation.
12. A3 Jagdish Sehgal stated that he was operating the bank account
of his daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal at the asking of his wife/ A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal and he came to know about the present case or
the alleged transaction in her bank account when he was called by
CBI for interrogation.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 11 of 82
:: 12 ::
13. I have heard Sh. K.P. Singh, learned PP for CBI and Sh. Vikas
Sharma, Advocate for all the accused persons and have gone
through the record carefully.
POSTING OF A1 SMT. NEELAM SEHGAL
14. In order to prove the posting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal,
prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Sudha Sethi, PW2 Dr. Madhu
Bhardwaj and PW24 Sh. Harvinder Singh. PW1 deposed that she
joined CGHS as CMO Incharge R. K. Puram, Delhi in 2012. She
had handed over documents pertaining to postings, transfers,
relieving etc. in South Zone, CGHS of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal to
CBI. She proved the joining report and office orders pertaining to
A1 Neelam Sehgal, Ex.PW1/A1, Ex.PW1/A2, Ex.PW1/A3 and
Ex.PW1/A4.
15. In the crossexamination, PW1 deposed that she had handed over
the documents to CBI, as she was authorized in writing by Dr.
Kanwal Kumar, the then Addl. Director and produced the
photocopy of the same during her crossexamination. She further
deposed that before being authorized in writing to handover the
documents, she was verbally authorized probably by Dr. Padmini,
the then Officiating Addl. Director. She stated that she had no
personal knowledge about the case or the contents of the files and
was only aware about the titles of files which she handed over to
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 12 of 82
:: 13 ::
CBI. She denied the suggestion that she had not handed over
documents mentioned in her examinationinchief to CBI.
16. PW2 Dr. Madhu Bhardwaj identified A1 Neelam Sehgal and
deposed that she (A1) was posted as UDC in Account Sections
and looking after seat pertaining to salary, claim etc. of doctors. As
in the department, different employee were looking after the
different work assigned to them from time to time as per the
exigency/requirement of work. On being called by CBI, she
submitted certain documents pertaining to A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
about her joining of duties, relieving etc., which she submitted. She
proved copy of office order dated 03.09.2008 regarding posting of
A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in Cash & Accounts Section, CGHS,
Ex.PW2/A; copy of office order dated 09.09.2008 regarding
posting/joining of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in Cash & Accounts
Section, CGHS, Ex.PW2/A2; copy of office order dated
23.02.2011 regarding posting/ transfer of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
in Wellness Centre, Sadiq Nagar, Ex.PW2/A3; copy of office
order dated 03.03.2011 regarding posting/transfer of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal in Establishment Section, South Zone, Ex.PW2/A4
and copy of office order dated 24.02.2012 regarding posting of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal in Cash & Accounts Section. She deposed that
A1 Neelam Sehgal was also directed to look after the work of
Accountant along with her own work without any additional
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 13 of 82
:: 14 ::
remuneration issued under signature of Dr. Mukul Kulshrestra,
OSD, CGHS, South Zone vide Ex.PW2/A5.
17. PW2 in her crossexamination deposed that Ex.PW2/A1 to
Ex.PW2/A5 were handed over to her by Establishment Section of
her office, which she handed over to IO after verifying the same
from original. She could not comment whether A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal was serving as Accountant/ UDC, South Zone till
31.05.2013 and volunteered to state that she (A1) retired on
31.05.2013. she further stated that during the period, A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal was working as UDC/ Accountant and Dr. Mukul
Kulsreshtha was the DDOcumOSD of South Zone. She stated
that she had no personal knowledge of the case.
18. PW24 Sh. Harvinder Singh who was posted as Administrative
Officer at the relevant time deposed that being Administrative
Officer, his duties were to grant leave to the Group C & D, issue of
permission for NOC for passport, posting and transfer from one
dispensary to another dispensary to Group C & D Staff, forwarding
of applications of Group C & D staff to Headquarter, grant of
pension, graduity and leave encashment and also maintaining
seniority of Group C & D employees. He identified his signatures
on office order dated 09.09.2008, Ex.PW1/A4 (photocopy of which
is Ex.PW2/A2); office order dated 23.02.2011, Ex.PW1/A3; office
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 14 of 82
:: 15 ::
order dated 03.03.2011, Ex.PW1/A2 (photocopy of which is
Ex.PW2/A3). He was not crossexamined on the point of transfer/
posting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
19. Perusal of these documents show that as per Ex.PW1/A1, A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal had joined her duty against relieving order
dated 04.09.2008; vide office order dated 03.03.2011, Ex.PW1/A2,
she was transferred to Estt. Section (SZ) from Cash & Accounts
Section (SZ); vide office order dated 23.02.2011, Ex.PW1/A3, she
was relieved from the duties under CGHS (SZ) to report for duty to
CMO I/c, CGHS, Wellness Centre, Sadiq Ngar and vide office
order dated 09.09.2008, Ex.PW4/A4, she was posted in Cash &
Accounts Branch, CGHS (SZ).
20. Perusal of Ex.PW2/A1 to Ex.PW2/A4 reveals that vide office
order dated 03.09.2008, Ex.PW2/A1, A1 Neelam Sehgal was
posted to CGHS, South Zone from Cash & Accounts Section,
CGHS (HQ); vide office order dated 09.09.2008, Ex.PW2/A2, she
was posted to CGHS (SZ), Cash & Accounts Section; vide office
order dated 23.02.2011, Ex.PW2/A3, she was posted to Wellness
Centre, Sadiq Nagar from Cash & Accounts Section (SZ) and vide
office order dated 03.03.2011, Ex.PW2/A4, she was transferred to
Estt. Section (SZ) from Cash & Accounts Section (SZ). Therefore,
it stands proved that A1 Neelam Sehgal was posted as UDCcum
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 15 of 82
:: 16 ::
Accountant in the office of Additional Director, South Zone,
CGHS, New Delhi.
21. Therefore, on reading of crossexaminations of PW1, PW2 and
PW24 and perusal of office orders, it is proved that A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal was posted as Accountant/ UDC. Further on
perusal of statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal, she stated that she was never relieved from South
Zone and never joined Wellness Centre, Sadiq Nagar. Although,
there is office orders of relieving, but there is no joining order and
application which supports the version of A1 that she was not
relieved. Therefore, it is proved that A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal was
posted as UDC/ Accountant in CGHS, South Zone w.e.f.
09.09.2008 in Cash & Accounts Section and was posted to Welfare
Centre, Sadiq Nagar on 23.02.2011, but she did not join there. She
was posted to Establishment Section on 03.03.2011 and was posted
to Cash & Accounts Section from 24.02.2012 and was working as
Accountant.
NATURE OF WORKING OF CASH & ACCOUNTS
DEPARTMENT OF CGHS AND DUTIES OF A1 SMT.
NEELAM SEHGAL
22. In order to prove the nature of working in Cash & Accounts Section
and duties of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal, prosecution examined PW
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 16 of 82
:: 17 ::
2 Dr. Madhu Bhardwaj, PW9 Smt. Pawan Dhawan, PW5 Sh.
Ranveer Kumar, PW12 Dr. Jay Shree Bhatnagar, PW16 Dr.
Kanwal Kumar and PW17 Sh. N.S. Thapliyal.
23. PW2 Dr. Madhu Bhardwaj deposed that on 28.10.2013, she was
given the charge of DDO, CGHS, South Zone and she was looking
after the work for seeking fund for expenditure, budget
estimate/revised estimate, receiving fund and undertaking
expenditure on each item of expenditure after due sanction of
competent authority, overseeing staff in Cash Section in respect of
preparation of bill and signing of each individual bill required of
DDO, salary/ arrear, medical reimbursement claim, chemist bills,
dental care unit bills (public private partnership), Hind Lab Bill
and dialysis bills of Apollo Dialysis Centre, Contigent Expenditure
and purchased bill etc. She was supervising and signing the cash
book on regular basis and also supervising the account department,
submission of bill to PAO for payment and receipts of cheques,
signatures of entries in pay bill register and in service books of
employees for service verification and providing assistance to audit
team. She was also looking after the jobs/works assigned to her as
DDO by the department from time to time.
24. PW12 Dr. Jay Shree Bhatnagar deposed that A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal used to prepare the bills of Doctors and dealt with files of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 17 of 82
:: 18 ::
Dental Bills and dialysis bills during her tenure. She identified
handwriting, signature and initials of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and
Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha, who was then posted as DDO,
CGHS, South Zone and was working under her (PW12). She
identified bills which were prepared by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
and signed by Sh. Mukul Kumar Kulsreshtha being DDO. In her
crossexamination she admitted that she had never come across
with application form duly signed by A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and that
she had never seen A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal signing any document
in her presence. She admitted that DDO concerned was duty bound
to verify the details of the employees indicated in the bill and their
respective claims, their ECS details before making an endorsement
on the said bills prior to sending the claim for disbursement to the
PAO. However, he volunteered to state that DDOs were
overburdened and they were given additional charge of DDOs, so it
was not feasible for them to verify each and every details of every
employee. She admitted that she had not personally seen A-1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal writing bills Ex.PW-12/P and Ex.PW-12/Q in her
presence. She stated that A-1 Neelam Sehgal had not prepared and
signed any of the documents which she had deposed in her
examination-in-chief. However, she volunteered to state that dental
and dialysis bills were prepared and put up before her by A-1
Neelam Sehgal. She admitted that bills in respect of dental and
dialysis were not prepared and signed by A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
in her presence.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 18 of 82
:: 19 ::
25. PW-16 Dr. Kanwal Kumar deposed that A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal,
the then UDC, CGHS, South Zone used to prepare the bills of
gazetted officers i.e. doctor and used to deal with files of dental
bills and dialysis bills during his tenure. He identified her
signature, initials on number of bills, which he had handed over to
CBI. He also identified the handwriting, signatures and initials of
Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulashrestha, who was then working as DDO
during his tenure. In his cross-examination, he admitted that DDO
concerned was under obligation to verify details filled by dealing
hand before finally making endorsement on the bill. He stated that
he had not personally seen A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal prepared and
signing the bills. He admitted that he had not personally seen A-1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal writing during his tenure as Additional
Director, CGHS (SZ) however, he denied that bill Ex.PW16/K was
not prepared by A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. He admitted that all the
bills deposed by him in his examination-in-chief were neither
written nor signed by A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in his presence. He
admitted that no salary bill in the name of Dr. Ritu was put up
before him during his tenure and he did not make any enquiry from
Dr. Ritu Kumari. However, he volunteered to state that since there
was no doctor by the name Dr. Ritu Kumari, therefore, there was
no question of making enquiry from Dr. Ritu Kumari. He stated
that he did not sign any bill in the name of Dr. Ritu Kumari.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 19 of 82
:: 20 ::
26. PW9 Smt. Pawan Dhawan deposed that she joined as LDC in
CGHS, Head Quarter, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi on 18.05.1971
and remained posted in Cash & Account Departments from the
year 1999 or 2000, till her retirement in the Year 2010 from South
Zone CGHS, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. She identified A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and deposed that she (A1) was posted as UDC in
Cash & Account Departments, CGHS in the year 2009 to
December, 2010. During that period, Sh. N. S. Thapliyal was
posted as LDC. She further deposed that being UDC, her duties
were to prepare salary, DA, Bonus, etc. concerning LDCs and
pharmacist. A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal was dealing with the seat of
Staff Nurses, UDCs and Homeopathic Pharmacist, Aayas etc.
Being UDC, they (A1 and PW9) used to feed data in computer
pertaining to calculation sheet of Net Amount List and GPF
Amount List etc. pertaining to salary, DA/Bonus etc. and thereafter
the print of the calculation used to be taken and manually checked
from the Ledger and Net Amount List. Thereafter, outer pay bills
used to be filled by them. She deposed that the duties and
responsibility of her seat as well as seat of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
were similar. In her crossexamination, she stated that Sh. N. S.
Thapliyal used to feed the data as dictated by them (PW9 ad A1)
simultaneously from the ledger. However, she volunteered to state
that Sh. Thapliyal was assisting them in feeding the data as they
(PW9 and A1) were not conversant with the computer. She
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 20 of 82
:: 21 ::
deposed that she could not say whether A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
was conversant with the computer and volunteered to state that A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal used to take help of Sh. Thapliyal in feeding
the data. After taking the printout from the computer, they used to
manually check the same after filling the outer form and
acknowledgment and used to be given to Administrative Officer for
signature. It was not verified by Administrative Officer from the
ledger before signing.
27. PW5 Sh. Ranveer Singh deposed that he had handed over certain
documents to CBI vide productioncumseizure memo Ex.PW5/B.
He further deposed that data pertaining to salary, DA, bonus etc.
concerning with different dealing hands including himself, whose
job was to prepare pay bills of different categories used to be fed in
the computer, as per the instructions/ advice of concerned dealing
hands by Sh. N.S. Thapliyal. After taking prints, Sh. Thapliyal used
to hand over the same to the concerned dealing hands for taking
necessary action, as they were responsible for data fed by him/ her
in computer. A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal while her posting in Cash &
Accounts Section also used to get data pertaining to salary bills,
DA bills, bonus bills, arrears bills etc. fed by Thapliyal in the
computer, who after taking out the print from the computer used to
hand over to her for necessary action. In his crossexamination, he
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 21 of 82
:: 22 ::
stated that he had no personal knowledge regarding documents,
which he had delivered to CBI office. He had no direct or indirect
dealing with A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. He further stated that he
was not aware about the contents of the documents handed over by
him to CBI. He did not see A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal operating the
computer.
28. PW-17 Sh. N.S. Thapliyal deposed that A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal,
who was working as UDC, CGHS, South Zone used to prepare
bills of gazetted officers and he used to see her preparing bills in
her own handwriting. He identified her signatures and handwriting
on number of bills and her pension papers. In his cross-
examination, he stated that during his employment with CGHS,
South Zone, he used to prepare salary of Group-D employees
whereas, A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal used to deal with bills of
employees of Group-C and of doctors. He stated that he used to
feed information in the computer on the basis of dictation given by
concerned officers. He admitted that A-1 Neelam Sehgal had not
prepared bills, as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief, in
his presence and that he had no personal knowledge of the said
bills. However, he volunteered to state that details of most of the
bills were fed by him in the computer and, thereafter, he gave
printouts of the same to A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. He denied that
A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal had not written or signed or put her
initials on any bills in his presence.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 22 of 82
:: 23 ::
29. Therefore, on reading of depositions of PW-5, PW-9, PW12, PW-
16 and PW-17, it can be anlysed that though DDO was duty bound
to verify details of bills filled by dealing hand before making an
endorsement on the bill. However, A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal was
dealing hand and used to prepare bills pertaining to doctors, nurses,
pharmacist etc. and bills are in her handwriting and details used to
be fed in computer at her instance and she used to manually check.
Further, there was no doctor by the name Dr. Ritu working in
CGHS. A-1 Neelam Sehgal in her statement under Section 313 Cr.
P.C., in response to questions no. 7, 11 and 12 which is w.r.t. duties
of A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal, she admitted that she used to prepare
bills of gazetted officers, that is, doctors and used to deal with files
of dental bills and dialysis.
30. Learned defence counsel submitted that none of the above
witnesses have personally seen writing and signing A-1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and, therefore, they cannot prove her handwriting.
Further, the prosecution has to stand on its own leg and cannot take
recourse of admission in statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
31. The handwriting and signatures can be proved by persons who
have seen writing and signing but the same can also be proved by
other modes, that is, by the person conversant with the
handwriting, who receives the documents written and signed by
person in usual course of duty. PW-12 has categorically stated that
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 23 of 82
:: 24 ::
A-1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal used to prepare dental and dialysis bill
and used to submit the same to her. Similarly, other witnesses were
either her superior or colleagues working with her in close
proximity and were conversant with her signatures and
handwriting. Accordingly, it is proved that A-1 Neelam Sehgal
used to prepare bills of salary, arrears etc. and in her handwriting.
PREPARATION OF FAKE BILLS IN THE NAME OF SMT.
RITU AND FRAUDULENT BILLS CLAIMING EXCESS
AMOUNT BY A1 SMT. NEELAM SEHGAL.
32. The charge against A1 Neelam Sehgal is that while working as
public servant, she abused her official position and provided
pecuniary benefit to herself and to her daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu
Sehgal and her husband/ A3 Jagdish Sehgal; she created fake pay
bills in the fictitious name of nonexisting employee resembling the
name of her daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and cheated the
department of CGHS for Rs.13,67,299/ and also made fraudulent
bills in her own name by making false claims and caused loss to the
tune of Rs.2,21,733/. The fake bills which A1 Neelam Sehgal
fraudulently made in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal are as
follows:
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 24 of 82
:: 25 ::
TABLE A
S. No. Bill No. Fraudulent amount Type of Bill
claimed in respect of A2
Smt. Ritu Sehgal @ Ritu
Monga
1. 15/3/10 Rs.49,969/ Regular pay/ Salary
2. 60/4/10 Rs.7,074/ DA Arrear
3. 215/5/10 Rs.49,327/ Regular pay/ Salary
4. 315/6/10 Rs.49,327/ Regular pay/ Salary
5. 2166/6/10 Rs.30,000/ Arrear of pay/ Salary
6. 622/9/10 Rs.47,072/ Regular pay/ Salary
7. 115/4/10 Rs.49,327 Regular pay/ Salary
8. 3543/9/10 Rs.3454/ Bonus
9. 4310/11/10 Rs.39,979/ Pay arrear
10. 405/7/11 Rs.69,508/ Salary/ pay
11. 4205/10/11 Rs.10,888/ DA arrear
12. 546/4/11 Rs.6054/ DA arrear
13. 205/5/11 Rs.1,04,379/ Salary
14. 2524/7/12 Rs.53,463/ Supplementary
15. 3609/9/11 Rs.37,742/ DA on conveyance allowance
TABLE B
S. No. Bill No. Fraudulent amount Type of Bill
claimed in respect of A-1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal
1 514/7/2009 Rs.6140/- Salary
2 614/8/2009 Rs.6140/- Salary
3 6322/3/2010 Rs.22,555/- Arrear
4 314/6/10 Rs.4982/- Salary
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 25 of 82
:: 26 ::
5 514/8/10 Rs.11,388/- Salary
6 714/10/10 Rs.7820/- Salary
7 814/11/10 Rs.10,000/- Salary
8 1114/2/11 Rs.10,000/- Salary
9 11/10/4310 Rs.67,146/- Pay arrear
10 546/4/11 Rs.6054/- DA arrear
11 405/7/11 Rs.69,508/- Salary
DISCUSSION ON TABLEA
33. In order to prove the abovementioned bills, prosecution examined
PW12 Smt. Jay Shree Bhatnagar, who was posted as Additional
Director, CGHS, South Zone, Sector8, R. K. Puram New Delhi,
from 01.03.2011 to 30.04.2012 and being posted to the said post,
her duties were to look after all the dispensaries in South Zone and
administrative work. She further stated that she knew A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal, as she was then posted as UDC in CGHS, South
Zone, New Delhi and used to prepare the bills of Doctors and dealt
with files of Dental Bills and dialysis bills during her (PW12's)
tenure. She identified handwriting, signature/initials of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal. She also identified handwriting and signature of
Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha, who was working as DDO, CGHS,
South Zone working under her (PW12). She identified the
handwriting and initials of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in the
notesheet portion of dental files Ex.A1/33 to Ex.A1/42, which were
also admitted by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal under Section 294 Cr.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 26 of 82
:: 27 ::
P.C..
34. PW12 also proved handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal on pay
bill Ex.PW12/A (regular pay bill no. 15/3/10) and its office copy
Ex.PW12/A1. She stated that the entire bill is in the handwriting
of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and the initials below the stamp of
DDO are of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; she also identified the
signatures of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulsreshtha at point 'B'. Similarly,
pay bills Ex.PW12/B (regular pay bill no. 60/4/2010), Ex.PW12C
(regular pay bill no. 215/5/2010), Ex.PW12/D (regular pay bill no.
314/6/2010) & Ex.PW12/E (315/6/2010) and their office copies
Ex.PW12/B1, Ex.PW12/C1, Ex.PW12/D1 and Ex.PW12/E1,
respectively are in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
except the portion which bears the signatures of DDO.
35. PW12 also proved original Pay bill Ex.PW12/F (regular pay bill
no. 622/9/2010) and its office copy Ex.PW12/F1 being in the
handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; initials appearing below
stamp of DDO that of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and the said bill
also bearing signatures of DDO.
36. However, in the office copy Ex.PW12/F1, at serial no. 55 on page
2, overwriting is done and alphabet "a" (Q404) is written with
black (sic.) ink in the last word of name "Rita" and as per
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 27 of 82
:: 28 ::
deposition of PW12, alphabet 'a' is also in the handwriting of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
37. PW12 further proved original pay bill Ex.PW12/G (original arrear
of pay bill no. 2166/6/2010). She stated that the said bill was
prepared by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal in her handwriting and the
same bears her initials below the stamp of DDA. She further stated
that entry at page no. 3 in front of name "Smt. Ritu" (Q618 and Q
619) is also in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
38. PW12 also proved handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal on
Ex.PW12/H (original bonus bill no. 3543/9/2010) and its office
copy Ex.PW12/H1. She further stated that initials below the stamp
of DDO are that of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. She further deposed
that figure at points 'B' and 'C' marked Q655, Q653 and Q654,
respectively in black ink and encircled portion 'D' in blue ink and
sign of '✓' in green ink are also in the handwriting of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal. Further in office copy Ex.PW12/H1, handwriting
at page no.2 at points 'B' and 'C' (Q669, Q671, Q670 and Q672)
written in black ink are in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal.
39. Perusal of Ex.PW12/H shows that at page6, at serial no. 83,
alphabet 'u' is written with black ink in the name "Ritu" (marked
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 28 of 82
:: 29 ::
Q655), which is in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
and against the said name of amount of Rs.3454 is claimed;
account no. mentioned against the said name is
0992000100337042. Perusal of Ex.PW12/H1 shows that the same
overwriting is done in the said bill also.
40. PW12 further deposed that Ex.PW12/J (original pay arrear bill no.
4310/11/2010) and its office copy Ex.PW12/J1 were prepared by
A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; the initials below the stamp of DDO are
that of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and signatures at pages1 to 13, 15
to 22, 24 to 27 and back of page27 in Ex.PW12/J and at pages1, 3
to 16, 18 to 21, 23, 25, 27 and back side of page27 in Ex.PW12/J1
are that of Dr. Mukul Kulsreshtha being DDO. Perusal of
Ex.PW12/J shows that at page2 (net amount list vide bill no.
.P/CGHS/201011/S2/4310/11 for Rs.5,79,891/), at serial no. name
of "Smt. Ritu" appears and the amount mentioned against the
said ,name is Rs.39,979, account no. mentioned is
0992000100337042. Further, at page24 of the said bill the
bifurcated amount is shown which shows arrear of Rs.27,979/ and
tuition fee of Rs.12,000/ (total Rs.39,979/). Perusal of
Ex.PW12/J1 shows the same calculations and amount claimed.
41. PW12 further deposed that Ex.PW12/K (original pay bill no.
405/7/2011) and its office copy Ex.PW12/K1 are in the
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 29 of 82
:: 30 ::
handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and initials appearing
below the stamp of DDO are that of A1 Smt. Neelam; the same
also bears signatures of Dr. Mukul Kulsreshtha being DDO. She
further stated that in Ex.PW12/K, the handwriting appearing at
page no.1 in black (written as "blank" which is a typographical
error) ink, figure work and name in black (sic.) ink at page no.2,
handwriting in English including figure written in black (sic.) as
well as blue ink at page no.3, back of page no.4, top of page no.5, 7,
9, 10, 11 and 12 are of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; the initials below
the stamp of DDO at pages no. 1, 3, 4, back side of page no.4, page
no.7, 9, 10, 11, 12, and back side of page no.12 at points 'A' are of
A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The signatures at page no. 1 to 12 and
back of 12 at points 'B' are of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha. She
further deposed that in Ex.PW12/K1, the handwriting at page no.1,
entry in the name of Kumari Lata with correction in total at page
no.6 also encircled and marked as Q844, Q845 and Q846 is of
A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The handwriting appearing at pages no. 7
to 11 excluding signature in English in blue ink are also of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The initials at pages no. 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11
at points 'A' are also of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and
the initials/signatures at page no. 1 to 11 at points 'B' are of Dr.
Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha.
42. Perusal of Ex.PW12/K shows that at page no. 2 at serial no. 45
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 30 of 82
:: 31 ::
name of Dr. Mrs. Kumari Lata appears and below the same at serial
no. 46, name of "Smt.Ritu" is written over the fluid with black ink
and the amount and bank account mentioned against the same are
Rs.69,506/ and 0992000100337042, respectively. However, in
office copy Ex.PW12/K1, though at serial no. 45 on page2, name
of Dr. Mrs. Kumari Lata appears, but the name and the amounnt
against the name Mrs. Ritu (which appears in Ex.PW12/K) at serial
no. 46 is written off with the help of fluid. Further, no bank
account is mentioned against the said entry.
43. PW12 further deposed that Ex.PW12/L (DA arrear bill no.
4205/10/2011) and its office copy Ex.PW12/L1 are in the
handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. She further deposed that
in Ex.PW12/L, the handwriting appearing at page no.1, 3 except
DDO and writing in red ink, back of page no.3, top of page no.4, 5
in red ink (figure work), top of page no.6, page no.8 is that of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The initials below the stamp of DDO at pages
no.1, 3, 6, 7, 8 and back side of page no.8 at points 'A' are of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The signatures at page no.1, 3 to 8 and back
of 8 at points 'B' are of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha. Further, in
Ex.PW12/L1, the handwriting at page no.1 and 2 (word 'Arora'
also marked Q927 and figure works marked Q928 and Q929) is
that of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The mark "O/c" at page no.1, 2, 3,
4, 6 is also in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 31 of 82
:: 32 ::
initials at page no.1, 2, 3 and 4 at points 'A' are also of the A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and the initials/signatures at page no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6 at points 'B' are of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha.
44. Perusal of Ex.PW12/L shows that at page5 at serial no. 47, name
of Dr. Ritu appears and against the said name amount, account no.
and MICR code mentioned are Rs.10,888/, 0992000100337042,
and 110024059, respectively. However, in office copy Ex.PW12/L
1, at page no. 2, at serial no. 47 against name Dr. Ritu, "Arora" is
inserted with blue ink and the account no. and MICR code is
overwritten after applying white fluid. The account no. mentioned
in Ex.PW12/L is "0992000100337042" and in Ex.PW12/L1, in
place of "33", figures "83" is written with blue ink and the account
no. mentioned in Ex.PW12/L1 is "0992000100837042". The
MICR code is completely changed in Ex.PW12/L1 after applying
white fluid and the MICR code mentioned is "110000214".
45. PW12 further deposed that office copy of DA arrear bill no.
546/04/2011, Ex.PW12/M is in the handwriting of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and the same bears her (A1's) initials below the
stamp of DDO and initials/ signatures of Dr. Mukul Kulsrestha.
She further deposed that the handwriting at pages no. 1, 3;
corrections on pages no. 2 and 4 also marked as Q1116 and Q1120
are in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; initials below
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 32 of 82
:: 33 ::
the stamp of DDO at page no.1 to 4 at points 'A' are of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and initials/ signatures at pages no. 1 to 4 at points
'B' are of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha.
46. Perusal of Ex.PW12/M shows that at page2 at serial no. 47, name
"Rima" is overwritten and against the said name amount, account
no. and MICR code mentioned are Rs.6054/, 0992000100337042
and 110024059, respectively. Same overwriting is done at page4 at
serial no. 47.
47. PW12 further deposed that in regular salary bill No.205/05/2011,
Ex.PW12/N handwriting at top of page no.1, 3, 5 and page no. 6 to
11 are of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; initials at page no.6 to 11 at
points 'A' are also of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. She also identified
the initials/ signatures of Dr. Basab Gupta at page no. 1 to 11 at
points 'B'.
48. Perusal of Ex.PW12/N shows that entry at page no. 2 at serial no.
17 is written off with the help of fluid. However, on close scrutiny,
it is analysed that the entry pertains to Dr. Ritu and the amount,
account no. and MICR no. mentioned are Rs.1,01,379,
0992000100337042 and 110024059, respectively.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 33 of 82
:: 34 ::
49. PW12 further deposed that in DA Arrear on conveyance bill
No.3609/09/2011, Ex.PW12/O handwriting at page no.1 to 4 is of
1A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal; initials at page no.5 at point 'A' is also
of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and the initials/signatures at page no. 1
to 5 at points 'B' are of Dr. Mukul Kumar Kulshrestha.
50. Perusal of Ex.PW12/O shows that at page no. 1 at serial no. 12
overwriting is done in the name of Rita and alphabet 'a' is written
with blue ink; word "Chadha" is added with blue ink; in the
column of account no. fluid is applied on the first three figures and
the account no. which is readable is 2000100837042. Further in the
column of MICR no. against serial no. 12, overwriting is done and
the MICR no. mentioned is 110020658. It is pertinent to mention
that the though the first three figures of the account no. is written
off with fluid still, the account no. mentioned matches with the
account no. mentioned in Ex.PW12/L1. Further, in MICR no.
110020658, figures "0", "6" and "8" are overwritten and on close
scrutiny, it can be analysed that the above mentioned figures are
overwritten on "4", "0" and "9" and the actual MICR no. is
110024059. Further, entry at serial no. 26 is written off with fluid
and on close scrutiny, it is analysed that the entry pertains to
"Neelam".
51. PW12 further proved letter dated 28.03.2013, Ex.PW12/P, which is
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 34 of 82
:: 35 ::
in the handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal vide which she (A
1) submitted the pension papers, Ex.PW12/Q, which are in the
handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. It is pertinent to mention
here that A1 Neelam Sehgal has admitted her pension papers vide
Ex.A1/32 in her statement under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
52. PW17 Sh. Narender Singh Thapliyal who was posted as LDC in
the office of Additional Director, CGHS identified the signatures
and handwriting of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal on office copy of
regular pay bill no. 115/4/2010 for an amount of Rs.23,08,258/,
Ex.PW13/B. He stated that the said bill was prepared by A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal. Perusal of Ex.PW13/B shows that on page3, name
of Smt. Ritu appears at serial no. 87 which shows in the columns of
"Amount", "Bank Account" and "MICR Code" as Rs.49,327/,
0992000100337042 and 110024059, respectively.
53. PW16 Dr. Kanwal Kumar, who was posted as Additional Director,
CGHS, South Zone, Sector8, R.K. Puram w.e.f. 01.05.2012 to
20.08.2014 deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW16/A, he had
handed over service book, Ex.PW16/B of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal.
He had also handed over calculation sheet amounting to
Rs.1,51,847/ for the purpose of making fake bill in the name of Dr.
Ritu and stated that the same is in the handwriting of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 35 of 82
:: 36 ::
DISCUSSION OF TABLEB
54. PW16 stated that he had handed over salary bills no. 514/07/2009
and 614/08/2009 for an amount of Rs.2,47,397/ and Rs.2,45,397/,
Ex.PW16/E and Ex.PW16/F, respectively. Perusal of the same show
that entry at serial no. 6 at page no. 1 in both the bills are with
respect to A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. In the said entry, in the
columns of "Amount", "Bank Account No." and MICR Code of
Bank", Rs.20,803, 10569574815 and 110002016, respectively are
mentioned. Further at page no. 2, it can be seen that as per entry at
serial no. 13, A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal claimed HRA of Rs.6140/
in the months of July, 2009 and August, 2009. PW24 Sh.
Harvinder Singh was also examined in respect of the said bills and
he identified his signatures on the said bills and deposed that the
said bills were prepared by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal, who was then
posted as UDC and had put up the said bill before PW24 Sh.
Harvinder Singh.
55. PW16 further stated that he had handed over arrear bill no.
6322/03/2010 for an amount of Rs.4,57,305/, Ex.PW13/A. Perusal
of the same shows that at pages no. 2 and 3, the amount of salary
claimed by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is Rs.22,555/. However,
perusal of entire file shows that calculation of salary in respect of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 36 of 82
:: 37 ::
A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is not available in the same.
56. PW16 further stated that he had handed over salary bill no.
15/03/2010 for an amount of Rs.21,00460/, Ex.PW12/A1. The
office copy of the said bill is Ex.PW12/D. On perusal of original
bill Ex.PW12/A1 and its office copy Ex.PW12/D, it is seen that
amount claimed by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is Rs.22,964.
However, the entry in pay bill register with respect to the said bill is
Rs.17,982/.
57. PW16 further stated that he had handed over salary bill no.
514/08/2010 for an amount of Rs.4,61,109/, Ex.PW16/F1. Original
of the said bill is Ex.PW17/B. Perusal of both Ex.PW16/F1 and
Ex.PW17/B shows that on page1 of both the bills, name of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal is reflected at serial no. 5 and against the said
name in column of "amount", Rs.30167, in which figures "301" is
overwritten with black ink. Similarly, on page2 of Ex.PW16/F1
and page4 of Ex.PW17/B, name of A1 Smt. Neelam Seghal is
reflected at serial no. 5, in which in columns named "Sl. Pay",
"Gross Amount payable" and "Net Amount payable", figures
mentioned are "Rs.11,388" (in which figures "11" is overwritten
with black ink), "Rs.4729" (in which figure "4" is overwritten with
black ink) and "Rs.30,167" (in which figure "3" is overwritten with
black ink), respectively. However, on perusal of pay bill register,
the entry with respect to the said bill is of Rs.18,779/.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 37 of 82
:: 38 ::
58. PW16 further deposed that he had handed over salary bill no.
714/10/2010 for an amount of Rs.3,89,512/, Ex.PW16/G. Original
of the said bill is Ex.PW25/A. Perusal of both the bills shows that
name of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is reflected at serial no. 5 and the
net amount payable to her is shown as Rs.28,726. However, on
perusal of pay bill register, it is seen that entry with respect to the
said bill shows amount of Rs.20,942/.
59. PW16 further deposed that he had handed over salary bill no.
814/11/2010 for an amount of Rs.4,04,931/, Ex.PW16/G1.
Original of the said bill is Ex.PW17/A. Perusal of Ex.PW16/G1
shows that name of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is reflected at serial
no. 10 and in the column "Amount", Rs.30,942/ is mentioned in
which figure "3" is written with black ink on figure"2". Perusal of
Ex.PW17/A shows that name of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal is
reflected at serial no. 8 and the net amount payable is shown as
Rs.30,942/. Whereas, in pay bill register, entry with respect to the
said bill is shows amount of Rs.20,942/.
60. Learned counsel for accused persons submitted that bills no.
1114/2/11, 11/10/4310, 546/4/11 and 405/7/11 amounting to
Rs.10,000/, Rs.67,146/, Rs.6054/ and Rs.68,508/, respectively
which were alleged to be fraudulently claimed in respect of A1
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 38 of 82
:: 39 ::
Smt. Neelam Sehgal have not been proved by prosecution. Learned
PP also conceded to the submission of learned counsel for accused
persons.
61. Entries w.r.t. bills no. 546/4/11 and 405/711 for amounts of
Rs.6054/ and Rs.69,508, respectively are actually reflected in the
bank account of A2 Smt. Ritu and the said bills also pertain to the
bills which were alleged to be fraudulently prepared by A1 Neelam
Sehgal in the name of Ritu. Further perusal of bills Ex.PW12M
(546/4/11) and Ex.PW12/K (405/7/11) show that the said bills were
prepared in respect of Ritu and the same also reflect the account
no. and MICR code as 0992000100337042 and 110024059,
respectively, which was in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal.
62. As regards bills no. 1114/2/11 and 11/10/4310 for amount of
Rs.10,000/ and Rs.67,146/, respectively, both the bills were proved
as Ex.PW16/H and Ex.PW12/J, respectively. Perusal of Ex.PW16/H
shows that on page1, against the name of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal
which is reflected at serial no. 8, amount of Rs.10,000/ is
mentioned however, the said document also contains names of
other employees and different amounts are mentioned against their
names. No corresponding document or entry in the bank statement
is shown which can corroborate the allegation that the same was
prepared in excess of the amount, which was to be actually paid.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 39 of 82
:: 40 ::
Further, perusal of Ex.PW12/J shows that on page2, which is net
amount list vide bill no. NP/CGHS/201011/52/4310 of 11/10 for
Rs.5,79,891.00, name of A1 Neelam Sehgal is reflected at serial
no. 7 and against her name amount mentioned is Rs.67,146/. The
office copy of the said bill is Ex.PW12/J1, which also shows the
same amount. However, there is no corresponding entry regarding
the said bill in the pay bill register. Therefore, it also remains
unexplained that the said bill was also prepared in excess of the
amount which was actually to be paid.
63. Accordingly, it is proved that the bills as per TableA are prepared
by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and are in her handwriting and there
are also overwritings, cutting and insertions in the said bills. It is
also proved that the bills as per TableB are also in the handwriting
of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and the bills except as mentioned in
paras59 & 60, were found in excess of the amount to which she
actually was entitled to.
PROCEDURE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SERVICE
(ECS)
64. PW12 Dr. Jay Shree Bhatnagar deposed that regarding procedure
of payment of bills through Electronic Clearing System (ECS), a
blank mandate form meant for individual employee was received
from PAO, CGHS, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi which was to
be got filled from the employees. The mandate form was having
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 40 of 82
:: 41 ::
details such as name of the bank, MICR Code of the bank, account
no. etc. The mandate form used to be filled up by the employee of
CGHS South Zone and it used to be submitted along with blank
leaf of cancelled cheque in Accounts Section and on the basis of
the said information a consolidated statement is prepared by the
dealing clerk indicating the name of the employee, account no.,
MICR code no. amount which is sent to the PAO along with the
salary bills every month. Thereafter, a list consisting of Sl No.,
name of the employee, Bank Account No., MICR Code No. and the
amount to be paid in respect of each employee used to be sent to
PAO, CGHS, New Rajinder Nagar along with the Salary bills in
each month. The same procedure was followed for other bills such
as Arrear Bills, Tuition Fee Arrears etc.
65. In her crossexamination, PW12 admitted that she had never seen
the details, that is, name of the bank, MICR code of the bank,
account number, cancelled cheque, mandate form maintained for
individual employee for the purpose of ECS clearance in respect of
Ritu. As per her admission, as detailed in para24 (supra), DDO
concerned was duty bound to verify the details of employees for
disbursement to PAO.
66. PW6 Sh. Iswhar Singh deposed that procedure of payment through
ECS was being followed at P&AO. He stated that the bill is
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 41 of 82
:: 42 ::
checked by dealing hand as per the instructions laid down civil
Accounts Manual i.e. arithmetical calculations and budget
provisions in the concerned head office, certificate given by DDO
in respect of sanction strength, entries made in pay bill register
duly signed by the DDO (as per format). After checking all vital
information, dealing hand puts a pay order on the bill under his/ her
initial duly checked in all respect and also pass the bill in the
computer system and make entries in DDO wise ECR (Expenditure
Control Register) maintained by P&AO. He/ she also records the
pay order of the payment made either by cheque or by ECS as
required by the DDO. Thereafter, bill is given to AAO, who checks
the bill in respect of arithmetical calculations, list of employee
furnished and budget provisions and head of account in which bill
is being passed duly signed by DDO. AAO puts his initials below
the pay order as token of check of the bill and also passes the bill in
the computer system and check the entries in ECR and submits the
bill to P&AO for passing these bills. After passing the bill by the
P&AO, the bills are given to dealing hand who enter the bank
details in ECS programme. After sending the ECS, debit voucher
numbers are embodied in each bill and placed in separate room.
67. In his crossexamination, PW6 stated that the processing of the
bills by P&AO is done after the verification of the signature of
concerned DDO. PBR (Pay Bill Register) Wis not sent by DDO
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 42 of 82
:: 43 ::
concerned to the P&AO. The DDO signs the certificate in the
proforma of the bills. The DDO is responsible for the correctness
of the bills. The dealing hands in the office of P&AO, enters details
such as MICR Code, Bank A/c number, employee particulars and
zone etc. as proposed by DDO.
68. Further, PW14 Sh. Balbir Singh and PW15 Sh. Uttam Biswas
corroborated the versions of PW6 and PW12 regarding payment
through ECS. PW14 in his crossexamination stated that the ECS
details pertaining to all the concerned employees were not
maintained in PAO office. However, he volunteered to state that the
ECS details of the employees were received along with the bills. He
admitted that at the time of passing the bill, signature of DDO and
arithmetical calculation on the bill used to be seen. PW15 in his
crossexamination admitted that bills were not directly received by
him from CGHS. He had no knowledge as to whether ECS details
of employees of CGHS were being maintained at their office. He
admitted that the bills endorsed by DDO were not to be verified by
them. The DDO used to send certificate along with all their
respective bills. All the dealings passing the bills had one hard
copy of specimen signature of DDO. The bill contained details of
arrears/ allowances/ salary etc. of the concerned employees.
69. Therefore, as per statements of PW6, PW12, PW14 and PW15, it
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 43 of 82
:: 44 ::
is established that the officials of PAO did not have details of any
of the employee and they used to rely on the information sent to
them by accounts office of CGHS except the arithmetical
calculation of the bill and signatures of DDO. The Officials of PAO
were not in any manner duty bound to check whether bills sent to
them for payment were genuine or fake, as they did not have the
details of employees and used to receive the same (details of
employee) only with the bills, which they used to received for
payment.
BANK ACCOUNT OF A2 SMT. RITU SEHGAL
70. PW8 Capt. Prem Lal Nahar, the then Assistant Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch deposed that all the accounts
which were opened by different branches were sent to him for
attestation after verification by their incharges. He identified the
account opening form, Ex.PW8/A pertaining to saving bank
account no. 33704 which was in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal,
R/o B24, Kasturba Nagar, Lajpat NagarII, New Delhi and was
opened on 06.02.2000. In the said form, the occupation of account
holder was shown as private service.
71. PW20 Sh. B.S. Kataria, who was posted as Manager in Punjab
National Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch, New Delhi from July, 2012 to
June, 2015 deposed that vide productioncumseizure memo
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 44 of 82
:: 45 ::
Ex.PW20/A, he had handed over documents mentioned therein to
CBI. He proved the original letter dated 26.05.2014 of Sh. Gopal
Devnani, the then Sr. Manager, PNB, Lajpat Nagar Branch,
Ex.PW20/B, as the said letter was signed in his presence. He
further identified the account opening of savings bank account no.
33704 (new account no. 0992000100337042), Ex.PW8/A, which
was in the name of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal. He also proved the
statement of account of the said account, Ex.PW20/C which was
retrieved by him (PW20) using his log in id and password from the
computer system of the bank. He corroborated the deposition of
PW8 to the effect that the said account was opened on 06.02.2000.
He further stated that the said account was introduced by A3
Jagdish Sehgal, who was having account no. 29908 in the bank.
The account no. 33704 was closed on 19.12.2012. He further
deposed that he had also also handed over 29 original cheques
pertaining to the account of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal vide production
cumseizure memo Ex.PW20/E. All the cheques were presented in
the bank duly signed by drawer A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal; out of 29
cheques, payment of 28 cheques were received by A3 Jagdish
Sehgal and payment of one cheque amounting to Rs.2 lacs was
received by A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal. The account opening form and
statement of the said account were duly accompanied by certificate
under Section 2A of Banker's Book of Evidence Act, Ex.PW20/D.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 45 of 82
:: 46 ::
72. In his crossexamination, he admitted that he cannot identify
signature of any of the accused persons made on the 29 original
cheques. However, he volunteered to state that he knew A-2
Jagdish Sehgal and signature on the said 29 cheques of A-2 Smt.
Ritu Sehgal tallied with the specimen signature of A-2 Smt. Ritu
Sehgal maintained in their bank and on the basis of the same, he
identified the signature on the said cheques. He stated that the
specimen signature of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal in the bank were
written as "RITU". He admitted that he had never seen A-2 Smt.
Ritu Sehgal or A-3 Jagdish Sehgal signing. It is pertinent to
mention here that all 29 cheques were admitted by all the accused
persons.
73. Perusal of Ex.PW8/A shows that it is an account opening form of
Punjab National Bank of Lajpat Nagar Branch and on the same,
photograph of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal is affixed. In the column of
"Signature of the introducer with name, A/c No. & Address", name
of Jagdish Sehgal with account no. 29908 and B-24, Kasturba
Nagar, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi is mentioned. The said account
was opened on 06.02.2000 and was closed on 19.12.2012. The
documents are bank statement duly supported by certificate under
Bankers' Book of Evidence Act. The bank officials due to their
nature of job are expert in identifying the signatures on banking
instruments. Therefore, even if, he had not seen A-2 Smt. Ritu
Sehgal signing yet from the specimen signature available in the
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 46 of 82
:: 47 ::
bank, he identified the signatures. Therefore, account opening
form, statement of account in the name of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
stands proved. It stands proved that savings bank account no.
33704 (new account no. 0992000100337042) was in the name of
A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal. Further, it is also proved that on the cheques
bearing signatures of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal, due to his personal
knowledge of client/ A-3 Jagdish Sehgal, he also proved his
signatures on 28 cheques against which payment was received.
74. Perusal of Ex.PW20/C shows that it is the statement of account no.
0992000100337042 w.e.f. 27.04.2003 to 19.12.2012. The said
statement shows credit of different amounts from ECS/CGHS MIN.
H & F/. As per the said statement, following amounts were credit
from CGHS:
S. No. Tran. Date Value Date Particulars Credit Amt.
1 03.04.2010 03.04.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 46,969.00
2 13.04.2010 13.04.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 7,074.00
3 30.04.2010 30.04.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 49,327.00
4 31.05.2010 31.05.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 49,253.00
5 02.06.2010 02.06.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 49,790.00
6 30.06.2010 30.06.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 49,327.00
7 15.07.2010 15.07.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 30,000.00
8 12.08.2010 12.08.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 45, 957.00
9 29.09.2010 29.09.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 47,072.00
10 15.10.2010 15.10.20.10 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 3,454.00
11 18.10.2010 18.10.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 9,081.00
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 47 of 82
:: 48 ::
12 03.12.2010 03.12.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 39,979.00
13 31.12.2010 31.12.2010 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 36,608.00
14 31.01.2011 31.01.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 34,418.00
15 30.04.2011 30.04.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 6,054.00
16 31.05.2011 31.05.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 1,04,379.00
17 29.07.2011 29.07.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 69,508.00
18 24.08.2011 24.08.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 74,075.00
19 20.09.2011 20.09.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 37,742.00
20 14.11.2011 14.11.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 10,888.00
21 09.12.2011 09.12.2011 ECS/CGHS MIN. H & F/ 92,634.00
22 23.04.2012 23.04.2012 ECS/INW/BULK/1412 88,352.00
23 29.06.2012 29.06.2012 ECS/INW/BULK/1694 1,02,297.00
24 13.07.2012 13.07.2012 NEFT MHFW PAYMENT 53,463.00
AC
25 29.08.2012 29.08.2012 ECS/INW/BULK/214 1,55,725.00
26 18.10.2012 18.10.2012 NEFT MHFW PAYMENT 56,128.00
AC
27 20.10.2012 20.10.2012 ECS/INW/BULK/729 17,745.00
TOTAL 13,67,299.00
75. The amount of bills (15), as mentioned in TableA, which A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal prepared in the name of Ritu with the amount found
credited in her (Ritu's) bank account. Apart from amount against
the said 15 bills, amount of Rs.7,59,736/ was credited in the
account of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal through ECS transfer from the
office of CGHS. Therefore, the total amount credited in the account
of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal is Rs.13,67,299/. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal in
her statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. has shown her ignorance
regarding such transactions and has not claimed it as her own.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 48 of 82
:: 49 ::
76. Learned defence counsel submitted that in the absence of
certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, the statement
of account cannot be proved. Learned PP submitted that there is no
requirement of certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act,
as there is certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Book of
Evidence Act.
77. Section 2(8) of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act, 1891 reads as
under:
"....2(8) "certified copy" means when the books of a
bank, -
(a) are maintained in written form, a copy of any entry in
such books together with a certificate written at the foot
of such copy that is a true copy of such entry, that such
entry is contained in one of the ordinary books of the
bank and was made in the usual and ordinary course of
business and that such book is still in the custody of the
bank, and where the coy was obtained by a mechanical
or other process which in itself ensured the accuracy of
the copy, a further certificaet to that effect, but where the
book from which such copy was prepared has been
destroyed in the usual course of the bank's business after
the date on which the copy had been so prepared, a
further certificate to that effect, each such certificate
being dated and subscribed by the principal accountant
or manager of the bank with his name and official title;
and
(b) consist of printouts of data stored in a floppy, disc,
tape or any other electromagnetic data storage device, a
printout of such entry or a copy of such printout together
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 49 of 82
:: 50 ::
with such statements certified in accordance with the
provisions of section 2A.
(c)a printout of any entry in the books of a bank stored in
a micro film, magnetic tape or in any other form of
mechanical or electronic data retrieval mechanism
obtained by a mechanical or other process which in itself
ensures that accuracy of such printout as a copy of such
entry and such printout contains the certificate in
accordance with the provisions of section 2A.
[2A. Conditions in the printout. - A printout of entry or a
copy of printout referred to in subsection (8) of section 2
shall be accompanied by the following, namely:
(a) a certificate to the effect that it is a printout of
such entry or a copy of such printout by the principal
accountant or branch manager; and
(b) a certificate by a person incharge of computer
system containing a brief description of the computer
system and the particulars of -
(A) the safeguards adopted by the system to
ensure that data is entered or any other operation
performed only by authorised persons;
(B) the safeguards adopted to prevent and detect
unauthorised change of data;
(C) the safeguards available to retrieve data that
is lost due to systematic failure or any other
reasons;
(D) the manner in which data is transferred from
the system to removable media like floppies, discs,
tapes or other electromagnetic data storage
devices;
(E) the mode of verification in order to ensure
that data has been accurately transferred to such
removable media;
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 50 of 82
:: 51 ::
(F) the mode of identification of such data
storage devices;
(G) the arrangements for the storage and custody
of such storage devices;
(H) the safeguards to prevent and detect any
tampering with the system; and
(I) any other factor which will vouch for the
integrity and accuracy of the system.
(c) a further certificate from the person in
charge of the computer system to the effect that to
the best of his knowledge and belief, such computer
system operated properly at the material time, he
was provided with all the relevant data and the
printout in question represents correctly, or is
appropriately derived from, the relevant data.
3. Power to extend provisions of Act. - The State
Government may, from time to time, by notification in the
Official Gazette, extend the provisions of this Act to the
books of any partnership or individual carrying on the
business of bankers within the territories under its
administration, and keeping a set of not less than three
ordinary account books, namely, a cash book, a day
book or journal, and a ledger, and may in like manner
rescind any such notification.
4. Mode of proof of entries in bankers' books. - Subject
to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry
in a banker's books shall in all legal proceedings be
received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such
entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters,
transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case
where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself
is now by law admissible, but not further or otherwise."
78. Therefore, as per reading of the above Section, documents related
to banks should be supported by certificate under Section 2A of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 51 of 82
:: 52 ::
Bankers' Book of Evidence Act and no separate under Section 65B
Evidence Act is required to prove computer generated documents. I
have also read the contents of the certificate filed in the present
case and the same is in accordance with Section 2A of Bankers'
Book of Evidence Act. Accordingly, the statement of account is
duly proved.
BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF A1 SMT. NEELAM
SEHGAL AND A3 JAGDISH SEHGAL
79. PW19 Sh. Sher Singh Dogra, the then Manager, State Bank of
India, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi deposed that that vide production
cumseizure memo Ex.PW19/A, he had handed over account
opening form of saving account no. 10569574815 (old account no.
01190025795), Ex.PW19/C, which was in the joint names of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal and statements of
account of the said account w.e.f. 18.11.1995 to 17.08.2005 and
01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, Ex.PW19/D and Ex.PW19/F,
respectively. The statements of account were supported by
certificate under Section 2A of Bankers' Book of Evidence Act,
Ex.PW19/E (w.r.t. statement Ex.PW19/D) and Ex.PW19/G (w.r.t.
statement Ex.PW19/F). He further stated that vide productioncum
seizure memo Ex.PW19H, he had handed over to CBI letter dated
04.06.2014 of Chief Manager, SBI along with statement of account
of account no. 10569574815 for the period 24.08.2005 to
31.03.2011 and 04.04.2012 to 03.05.2014, Ex.PW19/K.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 52 of 82
:: 53 ::
80. In his crossexamination, he stated that he does not remember
whether he had handed over any document to CBI which showed
that the above stated account was in the joint names of A-1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and A-3 Jagdish Sehgal from 18.11.1995 to
17.08.2005. He had handed over the statement of account in joint
name from the period 18.11.1995 to 17.08.2005. He stated that he
cannot tell whether the said account was in joint name for the
period 18.11.1995 to 17.08.2005, as the same was transferred
account from another branch.
81. Learned defence counsel submitted that the said account was made
joint in the year 2014. Further, statement of account pertaining to
account no. 10569574815 for periods 24.08.2005 to 31.03.2011
and 04.04.2012 to 03.05.2014 belonged to A-1 Smt. Neelam
Sehgal and the said account was made joint account after 2014 and
before that, the same was in the individual name of A-1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal. The witness stated that he cannot tell the same and
admitted that it was transferred from another branch. However, on
perusal of record, it is found that the account opening form,
Ex.PW19/C which was produced is dated 02.07.2014 and in the
said form, the account is shown as joint account. There is no
account opening form prior to that and, therefore, it cannot be said
that the account was joint account prior to the year 2014.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 53 of 82
:: 54 ::
SELF CHEQUES AGAINST WHICH MONEY WAS
WITHDRAWN
82. PW2 Sh. B.S. Kataria deposed that vide production-cum-seizure
memo dated 11.06.2014 Ex.PW20/E, he had handed over 29
original cheques pertaining to the account of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
to CBI. The said cheques were admitted by accused persons vide
Ex.A1/3 to Ex.A1/31. He further stated that all the cheques were
presented in the bank duly signed by the drawer/ A-2 Smt. Ritu
Sehgal. Out of 29 cheques, payment of 28 cheques was received by
A-3 Jagdish Sehgal except cheque Ex.A-1/31 dated 19.12.2012 for
Rs.2 lacs, the payment was received by A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal. In
his cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot identify signature
of any of the accused persons made on the above stated 29 original
cheques and volunteered to state that he knew A-3 Jagdish Sehgal
and signature on the said 29 cheques of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal were
tallied with the specimen signature of Ritu Sehgal maintained in
their bank and on that basis, he identified her (A-2's) signature on
the said cheques. He stated that the specimen signature of A-2 Smt.
Ritu Sehgal in the bank are written as "RITU". He admitted that he
had never seen A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal or A-3 Jagdish Sehgal
signing. As already discussed, the bank official can prove the
handwriting on account of their nature of job.
83. Perusal of cheques Ex.A1/3 to Ex.A1/31 shows that the cheques
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 54 of 82
:: 55 ::
Ex.A1/3 to Ex.A1/30 bear signatures of A-3 Jagdish Sehgal on the
backside of the cheques. Further, the cheques, Ex.A1/4 to Ex.A1/7,
Ex.A1/12 and Ex.A1/15 bear signatures of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
also. Cheque Ex.A1/31 for an amount of Rs.2 lac dated 19.12.2012
bears signatures of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal only, both on the front
and the back side of the cheque, which corroborates the version of
PW-20 that out of 29 cheques, payment of 28 cheques were
received by A-3 Jagdish Sehgal and payment w.r.t. one cheque, that
is, Ex.A1/31 for an amount of Rs.2 lac was received by A-2 Smt.
Ritu Sehgal.
84. Therefore, it is proved that all the 29 cheques were having
signatures of A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and out of the said cheques, the
payments against 28 cheques were received from the bank by A-3
Jagdish Sehgal and the payment against one cheque was personally
received by A-2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal, which was the last cheque.
CHEQUE OF RS.1,51847/-
85. PW-15 Sh. Uttam Biswas , who was working as Assistant Accounts
Officer in PAO, CGHS proved the original cheque, bearing no.
790425 dated 26.11.2012 for Rs.1,51,847/- which was in the name
of A-2 Smt. Ritu Kumari, Ex.PW15/B. The said cheque was issued
by PAO, CGHS against bill no. 805. He also proved the original
letter sent by DDO, South Zone addressed to PAO, CGHS,
Ex.PW15/D for changing the name from Ritu Kumari (sic.) to Ritu
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 55 of 82
:: 56 ::
on the cheque Ex.PW15/B. This witness was not crossexamined
w.r.t. the cheque Ex.PW15/B.
86. Perusal of Ex.PW15/D shows that it is a letter addressed to PAO,
CGHS, New Rajinder Nagar issued by DDO (SZ) with "subject"
"Reissue of cheque on A/c of wrong name". On going through the
contents of the letter, it is seen that the said letter was written for
the purpose of correction of name from "Ritu Kumari" to "Ritu".
On further perusal of file, in which Ex.PW15/D is placed, it is
found that on the second page of the file, one calculation sheet is
placed, which has been admitted by accused persons vide Ex.A1/2,
under Section 294 Cr. P.C. Further on the said sheet, there is an
endorsement of Dr. Mukul Kulsreshtha to the effect that the
calculation sheet is in the writing of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and
since she was working under him, therefore, he identified her
handwriting. The said calculation sheet shows total amount of
Rs.1,51,847/, that is, the amount of which cheque Ex.PW15/B was
issued. PW11 Dr. Ratan Mandal conducted preliminary enquiry
and PW10 Dr. N.S. Rawat and PW23 Dr. S.K. Maurya conducted
departmental enquiry against A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and
submitted their joint report. PW3 Sh. Tek Singh Negi proved the
enquiry reports. It is proved that an attempt was made to get issued
a cheque in the name of Ritu, a nonexisting employee and the
calculation sheet for such amount is in the handwriting of A1 Smt.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 56 of 82
:: 57 ::
Neelam Sehgal.
HANDWRITING OF A1 NEELAM SEHGAL ON DENTAL
FILES AND SPECIMEN HANDWRITING & SIGNATURES
OF ACCUSED PERSONS
87. PW12 Dr. Jay Shree Bhatnagar, who identified the handwriting
and signatures of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal on false bills also
proved her handwriting on dental files Ex.A1/33 to Ex.A1/42. It is
pertinent to mention that vide statement under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
recorded on 28.01.2016, A1 Neelam Sehgal had admitted some
documents which also included dental files Ex.A1/33 to Ex.A1/42.
88. PW21 Sh. Avtar Singh deposed that on 16.10.2014 and 17.10.2014,
he was called to CBI Headquarter and in his presence, specimen
signatures of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal, A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and
A3 Jagdish Sehgal were taken. The specimen signatures of A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal were taken on S1 to S9, S316 to S317;
specimen signatures of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal were taken on S206,
to S284, S351 to S359, S361 to S378 and of A3 Jagdish Sehgal
were taken on S91 to S205, S318 to S350 and S360. In his
crossexamination, he stated that on day one of his visit to CBI
office, A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal were
present and on the second day, A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal was also
present besides A1 and A2. Perusal of specimen signatures of
accused persons show that the same have been identified by them
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 57 of 82
:: 58 ::
vide Ex.A1/43 (A1), Ex.A1/44 (A2) and Ex.A1/45 (A3). Further,
PW21 was also not crossexamined to the aspect of disputing the
fact that the specimen signatures and handwritings of accused
persons were taken and that they were forced to give the same.
Therefore, it stands proved that accused persons had voluntarily
given their specimen handwritings and signatures.
COMPARISON OF QUESTIONED HANDWRITING WITH
ADMITTED AND SPECIMEN HANDWRITING
89. PW25 Sh. Abhimanyu Kumar, Assistant Government Examiner of
Questioned Documents (ScientistB) deposed that he had received
three parcels from SP, CBI, ACB for examination and after
thorough examination of all the parcels, he gave his report
Ex.PW25/B. As per the report Ex.PW25/B, questioned
handwritings of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal on Ex.PW12/A,
Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C, Ex.PW12/D, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW17/B,
Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/H,
Ex.PW12/A1, Ex.PW12/B1, Ex.PW12/C1, Ex.PW12/D1,
Ex.PW12/F1, Ex.PW12/H1, Ex.PW16/F1, Ex.PW12/E1,
Ex.PW12/G1, Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW15/D, Ex.A1/2,
Ex.PW16/C, Ex.PW16/G, Ex.PW16/H, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B,
Ex.A1/3, Ex.A1/4 to Ex.A1/31, Ex.PW12/K, Ex.PW12/L,
Ex.PW12/J1, Ex.PW25/A1, Ex.PW25/A2 (colly), Ex.PW12/M,
Ex.PW12/N, Ex.PW12/O, Ex.PW12/K1 and Ex.PW12/L1 were
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 58 of 82
:: 59 ::
compared with her admitted handwritings on Ex.PW12/P,
Ex.PW12/Q (colly), Ex.A1/33 to Ex.A1/42, Ex.PW16/J,
Ex.PW16/K, Ex.PW16/L, Ex.PW16/M, Ex.PW16/N, Ex.PW16/O,
Ex.PW16/P, Ex.PW16/Q, Ex.PW16/R and Ex.PW16/S and with the
specimen handwriting Ex.A1/43 to Ex.A1/45 and the same found
to be matching, that is, written by A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal only.
90. Further, as per Ex.PW25/B, handwriting and signatures on the
cheques Ex.A1/3 to Ex.A1/30 matched with the specimen
signatures of A3 Jagdish Sehgal and handwriting signatures on
Ex.A1/31 matched with the specimen signatures and handwritings
of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal. The purported handwriting of A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal was on dental file. She also admitted so in
admission/ denial of documents under Section 294 Cr. P.C.
NO EMPLOYEE WORKING IN THE NAME OF RITU IN
CGHS
91. PW27 Dr. R. Padmini, who was posted as Additional Director,
CGHS w.e.f. 27.08.2014 to 01.06.2015 deposed that vide letter
dated 24.302.2015, Ex.PW27/A, she had given to CBI, certified
copy of original record (establishment) pertaining to incumbency
of doctors w.e.f. 2008 to 2012 and original list of nongazetted
officers, that is, staff nurse, pharmacist etc, Ex.PW27/B and
Ex.PW27/C, respectively. She further stated that as per Ex.PW27/B
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 59 of 82
:: 60 ::
and Ex.PW27/C, there was no doctor in the name of Dr. Ritu or
Ritu Sehgal and no staff nurse in the name of Ritu or Ritu Sehgal.
However, there was one doctor in the name of Dr. Ritu V. Arora.
This witness was not crossexamined on this point. Therefore, it is
established that there was no employee in the name of Ritu, Ritu
Kumari in CGHS.
CONCLUSION
92. In view of the discussion in preceding paras, prosecution has
succeeded in establishing that A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal was posted
in Cash & Accounts Section of South Zone, CGHS from
09.09.2008. She was posted to Establishment Section on
30.03.2011 and was posted to Cash & Accounts Section from
24.02.2012 and was working as Accountant. She was responsible
for preparation of salary and arrear bills of gazetted officers, i.e.,
doctors, staff nurses, UDC, lab technicians etc. During the course
of her official duties, she had prepared fake bills, as detailed in
tableA in the name of Ritu, a nonexisting CGHS employee and
there was only one doctor working in the CGHS by the name Dr.
Ritu V. Arora and she too had joined CGHS on 13.01.2011 and
there was no employee in the name of Dr. Ritu, Ritu Kumari or
Ritu. Further, by making bills in the name of fictitious name of
Ritu, she transferred an amount of Rs.13,67,299/ in the account of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 60 of 82
:: 61 ::
her daughter/ A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal on different dates from the
period 2010 to 2012 through ECS transfer of CGHS, as reflected in
the bank account of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal, maintained with SBI,
Lajpat Nagar Branch, New Delhi.
93. It has also been proved on record that A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal is
daughter of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal and in her bank account no.
0992000100337042 maintained with SBI, Lajpat Nagar Branch,
amount to the tune of Rs.13,67,299/ was transferred through ECS
from PAO for Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MHFW) on
various dates from the period 2010 to 2012. Further, she was not
working in CGHS and during the time when the amount was
transferred in her account, she was doing a private job. The said
fact is also proved by DW1 Sh. S.N. Ahmad, who deposed that
since 01.02.2006, she had been working in Metro Hospital. Further,
the amount in the account of A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal was withdrawn
by way of 29 self cheques. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal also showed her
ignorance regarding the same.
94. It has also been established on record that A1 Neelam Sehgal had
also prepared bills for her (Neelam Sehgal), allowances, arrears
etc., as detailed in TableB, in excess of the amount which was
actually to be paid to her and fraudulent claimed Rs.69,025/ from
the Government. She had also fraudulently claimed HRA against
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 61 of 82
:: 62 ::
two bills for the months of July and August, 2009.
95. Further, prosecution has also successfully proved that A1 by
abusing her official position as Government servant had made false
pay bills and had altered the documents and had forged the
documents which entitled to deliver money within the meaning of
Section 467 IPC and for the purpose of cheating the CGHS of
paying the amount and deceived CGHS fraudulently and
dishonestly to deliver the amount by way of ECS transfer in the
account of fictitious employee, namely, Ritu, who was actually her
daughter. The forgery of the documents was committed by accused
Neelam Sehgal for the purpose of cheating the department. Further,
she also used the forged documents as genuine to the DDO and got
the same signed from DDO and also submitted the same to PAO
through DDO for payment. Accordingly, offence punishable under
Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of PC Act stands proved.
96. Learned defence counsel submitted that accused persons were also
charged for conspiracy. However, A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3
Jagdish Sehgal were not party to the said conspiracy, as they were
not aware as to how money was being transferred to the account of
A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal through ECS. The Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in judgment titled as G.L. Chawla V. State (CBI) 2011 (8)
AD, delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta, quoted the law
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 62 of 82
:: 63 ::
on conspiracy, which is succinctly summarised by Hon'ble
Supreme Court as under:
"8. These appeals are required to be considered as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini and
Ors. others, 1999 (5) SCC 235 as regards the criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court summarized the broad principles
governing the law of conspiracy.
"591. Some of the broad principles governing the law of
conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name
implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the
principles.
1. Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal
conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree
to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by
illegal means. When it is legal act by illegal means overt
act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is
exception to the general law where intent alone does not
constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and
joining hands with persons having the same intention.
Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to
carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence.
The question for consideration in a case is did all the
accused had the intention and did they agree that the
crime be committed. It would not be enough for the
offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely
entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that
offence be committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 63 of 82
:: 64 ::
conspiracy may tend to prove that
a particular accused was party to the conspiracy. Once
the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any
subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make
the accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to
an absconder.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is
rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy
and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances
and the conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in a chain
A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be
members of a single conspiracy if they so intend and
agree, even though each member knows only the person
who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. There
may be a kind of umbrellaspoke enrollment, where a
single person at the center doing the enrolling and all the
other members being unknown to each other, though they
know that there are to be other members. These are
theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell whether
the conspiracy in a particular case falls into which
category. It may, however, even overlap. But then there
has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be
members of single conspiracy even though each is
ignorant of the identity of many others who may have
diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of
conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play
the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of
conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any
plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step
is taken by any such person to carry out their common
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 64 of 82
:: 65 ::
purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who
joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two
conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove
the charge of
conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was
committed or not. If committed it may further help
prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to
the common purpose at the same time. They may join
with other conspirators at any time before the
consummation of the intended objective, and all are
equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play
may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a
conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused
because it is forced them into a joint trial and the court
may consider the entire mass of evidence against every
accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to
show that each of the accused has knowledge of object of
conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of
conspiracy court has to guard itself against the danger of
unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence
against some may result in the conviction of all, which is
to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which
is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other
substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the
accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in the
substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is
always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of
each member of the conspiracy but then there has to
be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of
the accused charged with the offence of conspiracy.
As observed by Judge Learned Hand that "this
distinction is important today when many
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 65 of 82
:: 66 ::
prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of
conspiracy all those who have been associated in any
degree whatever with the main offenders".
8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime
of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete
even though there is no agreement as to the means by
which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the
unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crime of
conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a
conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be
inherent in and inferred from the circumstances,
especially declarations, acts, and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by
all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached
by successive actions evidencing their joining of the
conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a
partnership in crime, and that there is in each conspiracy
a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common
plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter into a
conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the
agreement is in contemplation of law, the act of each of
them and they are jointly responsible therefore. This
means that everything said, written or done by any of the
conspirators in execution or furtherance of the common
purpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written by
each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not
only to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuant
to the original agreement but also to collateral acts
incident to and growing out of the original purpose. A
conspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done by a
coconspirator after termination of the conspiracy. The
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 66 of 82
:: 67 ::
joinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create
a new conspiracy nor does it change the status of the
other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators
individually or in groups perform different tasks to a
common end does not split up a conspiracy into several
different conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.
However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires
more than a merely passive attitude towards an existing
conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with
knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who
tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes
along with other conspirators, actually standing by while
the others put the conspiracy into effect, is guilty though
he intends to take no active part in the crime."
97. As per the law laid down, there cannot be direct evidence found of
the conspiracy. The conspiracy has to be inferred from the
circumstances of each case. In the present case, accused Neelam
Sehgal was a Government servant, was known to her coaccused
being her husband and daughter. The amount which was
fraudulently transferred in the account was withdrawn from time to
time by accused Jagdish Sehgal from the account, which stood in
the name of Ritu Sehgal. Ritu Sehgal also withdrew the amount
from the said account. Therefore, the circumstances clearly suggest
that there was agreement to do an illegal act between all the three
and, accordingly, conspiracy amongst themselves is also proved.
Accordingly, the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC is
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 67 of 82
:: 68 ::
proved against all the three accused persons.
98. Since, in pursuance to the conspiracy, accused Neelam Sehgal had
cheated the Government department of the money claimed for a
nonexisting employee and also claiming the amount which was not
due to her in her own name and cheated the department. She had
forged the records to make claim of money and forged the
documents for the purpose of cheating and used those forged
documents as genuine to DDO and PAO for making the payment in
the name of nonexisting employee and herself. Accordingly, the
offence punishable under Section 120B read with Section
420/467/468/471 IPC are proved against the accused persons,
namely, Neelam Sehgal, Ritu Sehgal and Jagdish Sehgal.
99. It is also proved on record that the amount lying in the bank
account of Ritu Sehgal which did not belong to her was withdrawn
by Jagdish Sehgal and Ritu Sehgal which they have
misappropriated and accordingly, offence punishable under Section
403/34 IPC is also proved against them.
DEFENCE
100. Learned defence counsel submitted that A1 Neelam Sehgal was
not living in the Government accommodation during those two
months and, therefore, she was entitled for HRA. On the perusal of
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 68 of 82
:: 69 ::
record, it is transpired that A1 had deducted the license fee for the
months of July and August, 2009 when she claimed HRA. She was
aware as to how the amount is to be claimed, as she was dealing the
seat of accountant for quite some time and the very fact of
deduction of licence fee would show that she was living in the
Government accommodation and, therefore, falsely claimed HRA
which she was not entitled.
101. Learned defence counsel further submitted that A1 had prepared
the alleged bills and transferred the amount to her daughter's/ A2
Smt. Ritu Sehgal's account on the instruction of DDO and that the
DDO was ultimately responsible for entries in respect of employees
and preparation of bill and she was merely preparing the bills on
the instruction of DDO. It is true that it is the primary
responsibility of DDO to get the correct bills prepared against
which payment is released, but the Government departments or for
that matter all institutions runs on a trust. The dealing hand who
prepares the bills works with one's own responsibility and every
Government employee is responsible for the job he/ she carries out.
Merely, because the sanctioning authority who passes the bill is
different does not absolve the responsibility official who prepares
the bills. Moreover, in the present case, as per the deposition of
PW24, no accountant was posted in South Zone and all the bills
were put up before DDO for signatures without scuritny by
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 69 of 82
:: 70 ::
supervising officer and the DDO had to believe the dealing hand,
who had prepared the bills. Further, as per deposition of PW12,
DDOs were overburdened with work and they had no time to go
through each and every bill before signing and they were wholely
dependent on the dealing hand, that is, A1 Neelam Sehgal in the
present case. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that A1 Neelam
Sehgal cannot shift her responsibility by merely saying that DDO
was responsible to check the bills and accordingly, submission is
without any merit.
102. Learned defence counsel further submitted with respect to A2
Smt. Ritu Sehgal that all the cheques as per record were got
encashed by A3 Jagdish Sehgal. A2 got married in the year 2002
and shifted to her matrimonial home at Faridabad and since, she
could not operate her account from there, she gave signed bearer
cheques in the name of "Self" to her parents. She had no
knowledge that money was being transferred to her account and
was being withdrawn by her father through cheques signed by her.
Learned defence counsel further submitted that A2 had to close
her account, as the said branch of the bank was not providing
locker facility and accordingly, she closed the account after
ascertaining the balance and withdrew Rs.2 lacs, which was the last
balance. Learned PP submitted that the statement of account of A2
would reveal that before amount through ECS was transferred to
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 70 of 82
:: 71 ::
her account, there was balance of only Rs.74000/ and, if she did
not know about the amount being transferred through ECS in her
account, she could not have withdrawn Rs.2 lacs.
103. A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal had examined DW1 Sh. S.N. Ahmed in her
defence. He deposed that Ms. Ritu Monga was working with Metro
Hospital situated at Faridabad since 01.02.2006 till 31.10.2010 and
from 01.02.2010 till date, she was working with Metro Heart
Institute, Faridabad as Cooridnator. He identified A2 Smt. Ritu
Sehgal as Ritu Monga. He further stated that the salary was paid in
cash till the year 2015. Her salary was Rs.8500/ which was
enhanced to Rs.34000/ pm and proved the joining report
Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B. In his crossexamination, he admitted
that record pertaining to enhancement of salary is not brought by
him, but in the crossexamination it appears that there is a
typographical error where the word "not brought by him" left to be
printed, but the sequence of crossexamination clearly shows that it
was asked in this manner. Salary as per the joining report was
Rs.8500/ p.m. in the year 2010. Although, the witness had not
brought the document w.r.t. to enhancement of salary yet, he
proved that A2 was working since the year 2006 till date at
Faridabad.
104. I have perused the statement of account Ex.PW20/C. The same
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 71 of 82
:: 72 ::
reveals that there are several entries of deposit and transfer in the
name of A1 Smt. Neelam Sehgal. The account was opened in the
year 2002 and was closed in the year 2012. Although, the
explanation/ submission of learned defence counsel does not match
with the transactions in the bank account of A2 yet, as per record,
28 cheques were encashed by A3 Jagdish Sehgal and amount by
way of only one cheque was withdrawn by A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal
and that too at the time of closing of her account. It has been
brought on record that she was working at Faridabad and from her
title in her working place shows that she is married and her address
in the chargesheet is also shows as that of Faridabad. Therefore, it
creates doubt in her favour that she was not aware about the
conspiracy and, was not party to the agreement to do illegal act.
Therefore, this entitles her to benefit of doubt that she was not
aware that the amount was being transferred in her account and was
being withdrawn from time to time by her father/ A3 Jagdish
Sehgal.
105. However, the prosecution has successfully proved that she had
withdrawn Rs.2 lacs whereas, the balance in her account was
Rs.74000/ before the transaction by way of ECS started coming in
her bank account and despite coming to know of the same, she did
not take any step to refund the money or reported the matter to any
authority to prove her innocence. Therefore, it is proved that A2
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 72 of 82
:: 73 ::
Smt. Ritu Sehgal had dishonestly misappropriated the amount
which did not belong to her and converted the same to her own use
and accordingly offence under Section 403 IPC stands proved
against her.
106. Accordingly, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt,
offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act against A1
Smt. Neelam Sehgal; offences punishable under Section 120B read
with Section Section 420/467/468/471 IPC against A1 Smt.
Neelam Sehgal and A3 Jagdish Sehgal and offences punishable
under Section 403/34 IPC against A2 Smt. Ritu Sehgal and A3
Jagdish Sehgal have been proved against them. All the accused
persons are held guilty accordingly.
Announced in the open Court (GURDEEP SINGH)
on 06th February, 2017 SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05)
NEW DELHI / 06.02.2017
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 73 of 82
:: 74 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI05 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI.
CC No. 03/15
RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0070152015
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1. Neelam Sehgal
W/o Sh. Jagdish Sehgal
The then UDC
R/o: K4, Kasturba Niketan Complex
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
2. Ritu Sehgal @ Ritu Monga
W/o Sh. Manish Monga
R/o 1A/28A, NIT Faridabad, Haryana
3. Jagdish Sehgal
S/o Late Ramnath Sehgal
R/o: K4, Kasturba Niketan Complex
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi
Date of announcement of judgment : 06.02.2017
Date of Order on sentence : 10.02.2017
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 74 of 82
:: 75 ::
O R D E R
10.02.2017
1. Convict Neelam Sehgal was convicted for offences punishable
under Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act; convict Neelam Sehgal and Jagdish
Sehgal were convicted for offences punishable under Section 120B
read with Section Section 420/467/468/471 IPC and convict Ritu
Sehgal and Jagdish Sehgal were convicted for offences punishable
under Section 403/34 IPC.
SENTENCE OF CONVICT NEELAM SEHGAL
2. Learned counsel on behalf of convict submitted that convict
Neelam Sehgal is a senior citizen and aged about 63 years; she has
no previous involvement and has clean antecedents; she retired
from the service in the year 2013; she was working on a
subordinate post and was not in a position of decision making. She
is also suffering from various ailments and has recently been
operated upon for knee replacement and the documents to this
effect are also placed on record.
3. I have heard Sh. K.P. Singh, learned PP for CBI and Sh. Vikas
Sharma, Advocate for convicts.
4. "There is sufficient in the world for man's need, but not for man's
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 75 of 82
:: 76 ::
greed."
Mahatama Gandhi...
5. The facts of this case unfolds as to how a gainfully employed
Government servant whose husband is also a retired Government
servant, getting pension and daughter is also employed and had
sufficient for their needs, but the greed had taken over her and she
despite being in a position of public trust entrusted with the task of
preparing salary bills, arrear bill and bills of other allowances
abused her position and the money, which was otherwise to be used
for medical care of the working and retired Government servants
was siphoned off in the account of her daughter.
6. In this case, as one is already aware that the corruption is gender
neutral, a woman Government official who was entrusted with the
job of preparing bills of salary, arrear bills etc. had inserted the
name of her daughter as a ghost employee and transferred the
money in her account through ECS. All public offices are office of
trust and thy require utmost integrity, particularly while dealing
with the public funds. The convict in the present case had breached
that utmost trust which all Government servants have been
bestowed upon and thereby needs to be given the punishment
which is proportional to the gravity of the offence.
7. It is true that present offence does not fall in the category of
conventional heinous offence such as murder or rape, but it is far
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi
CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 76 of 82
:: 77 ::
more serious as it amounts to corruption. Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Madhya Pradesh V. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, (2006) 8
SCC 693 observed as under:
"It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a
lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14, corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke. ..."
8. Section 16 of Prevention of Corruption Act provides that while fixing fine for the offence punishable under Section 13(2), the court shall take into consideration the amount of value of the property which the convict had obtained by committing the offence. In this case, learned PP submitted that convict Neelam Sehgal had transferred a sum of Rs.13,67,299/ through ECS in her CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 77 of 82 :: 78 ::
daughter's account and also fraudulently claimed Rs.69,025/ for herself in excess of what she was actually entitled for, which in total comes to Rs.14,36,324/ (Rs.13,67,299 + Rs.69,025). Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in sentencing the convict as under:
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.14.36 lacs and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act;
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC;
(iii) Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, she shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 467/468 IPC;
(iv) Rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, she shall further CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 78 of 82 :: 79 ::
undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
9. Further, Section 120B IPC provides that party to the criminal conspiracy for offence which is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for two years and upward shall be punished in the manner as if he/ she has abetted such offence. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that sentencing the convict Neelam Sehgal for rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.20,000/ under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC would be sufficient; in default of payment of fine, she would further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
SENTENCE OF CONVICT JAGDISH SEHGAL
10.It is submitted on behalf of convict Jagdish Sehgal that he is also a senior citizen and is aged about 77 years; he has clean antecedents; he is a retired Government Servant and is suffering from various old age ailments including chronic kidney disease and is highly diabetic and is on regular insulin; he used to withdraw money from the account of his daughter at the asking of his wife/ coconvict Neelam Sehgal. He had no clue about the fact that as to how the money was being transferred in the account of her daughter and, therefore, lenient view is prayed.
CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 79 of 82 :: 80 ::
11. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned PP that convict Jagdish Sehgal is not entitled to any lenient view, as he in connivance with his wife/ coconvict Neelam Sehgal misappropriated the Government money by using the account of her daughter.
12.The charge of conspiracy has duly been proved by prosecution against convict Jagdish Sehgal. He was withdrawing money from his daughter's account despite having his own account. Further, even after getting to know about the present case, he did not make any effort to return the Government money, which he misappropriated. He himself being a Government servant knew the gravity. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he is not entitled to any lenient view and the ends of justice would be by sentencing the convict as under:
(i) Rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.20,000/ and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 120B read with Sections 420/467/468/471 IPC;
(ii) Fine of Rs.2 lacs under Section 403 IPC.
SENTENCE OF CONVICT RITU SEHGAL
13.It is submitted on behalf of convict Ritu Sehgal that that charge of conspiracy is not proved against her and on charge under Section CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 80 of 82 :: 81 ::
403 IPC is proved against her; she got married in the year 2002 and since then, she was living at her matrimonial house situated at Faridabad and was not operating her bank account on her own; she was unaware of the fact that the money was being transferred in her account through ECS, as the same was being operated by her parents; she is a mother of one minor daughter. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view may be taken.
14. The charge of conspiracy is not proved against convict Ritu Sehgal.
However, charge of misappropriating the Government money has been proved against her, as she herself withdrew Rs.2 lacs despite knowing that she had not deposited such amount in her bank account and the same does not belong to her. Keeping in view the fact that she is a young married girl and is responsible to take care of her family which includes one minor daughter, I am of the opinion that she is entitled to lenient view. Therefore, she is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.2 lacs under Section 403 IPC.
15.No sentence in default of payment of fine under Section 403 IPC is given to convicts Jagdish Sehgal and Ritu Sehgal and the fine would be recovered from the convicts.
16.Further, as per provision of Section 357(1)(b) of IPC, the amount of fine of Rs.14.36 lacs imposed upon convict Neelam Sehgal and CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 81 of 82 :: 82 ::
fine of Rs.2 lacs each imposed upon convicts Ritu Sehgal and Jagdish Sehgal shall be paid as compensation to CGHS in lieu of the Government money, which was misappropriated.
17. Before parting, it is also pertinent and necessary to observe that this case also reveals the highly inadequate system of auditing which failed to detect that the money was being paid to a non existing employee from the Government Exchequer. It also unfolds that the pruning of the Government department of their staff in the essential working area results in complete lack of supervision which causes huge loss to the Government Exchequer which they might have saved by pruning some staff. Therefore, the work audit of the Government staff is very imperative so that sufficient manpower are available at the important areas.
All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on (GURDEEP SINGH) 10th February, 2017 Special Judge (PC) Act: CBI05 New Delhi/ 10.02.2017 CC No. 03/15: RC No. DAI/2013/A0033/ACB/New Delhi CBI Vs. Neelam Sehgal etc. Page No. 82 of 82