Delhi District Court
Accused Persons Namely Dhara Singh ... vs Dhara Singh on 3 April, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03, CBI
NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 54 /2011
Case ID No. 02403R0967872008
RC No. 4E/2007/CBI/EOW1/ND
U/s 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC &
Sec. 13 (2) r/w S. 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
1. Dhara Singh
S/o Late Jai Kishan
R/o 121, Azadpur Village, Delhi
2. Devi Prasad
S/o Late Sh. Mahi Lal
R/o A428, Madipur Colony,
New Delhi.
3. Ram Lal
S/o Late Sh. Gyan Chand
H. No. 2/27, Harijan Basti,
New Rohtak Road,
New Delhi
4. Bhagwan Das
S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal
R/o RZR 19, Nanda Block,
Mahaveer Enclave, Delhi.
5. Ram Pal
S/o Sh. Horam Singh
R/o RZ 30/284, Geetanjali Park,
West Sagarpur, Delhi
6. Sh. Rajinder Singh
S/o Sh. Rampal
R/o G44, Gopal Nagar Extn.
Nanak Pyau, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.1/
2
7. Sachinder Mohan Singh (Pvt. person)
S/o Sh. J. N. Singh,
R/o D39, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.
8. Vinod Kumar Anand (Pvt. person)
S/o Late Madhusudan Lal Anad,
R/o 344, Sunahari Bagh, Appt. Sector 13,
Rohini, Delhi.
9. Kuldeep Singh (Pvt. person)
S/o Late Sardar Tejinder Singh,
R/o 1497, 1st Floor, Rani Bagh,
Delhi.
10. Devinder Singh (Pvt. person)
S/o Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o Village - Majhari, PO Karala,
Delhi.
11. Kishan (Pvt. person)
S/o Late Sh. Indraj
R/o A389, Kusumpur Pahari,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
12. Mahesh Kumar (Pvt. person)
S/o Sh. Horam Singh
R/o 30/284, Geetanjali Park,
West Sagarpur, Delhi
Date on which charge sheet was filed 22.12.2008
Date on which charges were framed 26.10.2009
Date on which judgment was reserved 16.03.2013
Date on which judgment was pronounced 01.04.2013
APPEARANCES:
Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI).
Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Ld. Counsel for accused A1
Mr. Israr Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for accused A2
Mr. R. K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for accused A3
Mr. Kanwar Anand Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused A4
Mr. R. S. Tomar, Ld. Counsel for accused A5
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.2/
3
Mr. I. L. Kapoor, Ld. Counsel for accused A6
Ms. Poornima, Ld. Counsel for accused A7
Mr. Gulshan Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused A8
Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused A9
Mr. Sanjeev Saroha, Ld. Counsel for accused A10
Mr. Vikas Jain, Ld. Counsel for accused A11
Mr. M. C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused A12
01.04.2013
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons namely Dhara Singh (A1) S/o Late Jai Kishan, Devi Prasad (A2) S/o Late Mahi Lal, Ram Lal (A3) S/o Late Sh. Gyan Chand, Bhagwan Das (A4) S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal, Ram Pal (A5) S/o Sh. Horam Singh are public servants who were working in National Insurance Company, Division No. XI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and have been arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) besides Canara Bank employee Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Rampal (A6) and private individuals Sachinder Mohan Singh (A7) S/o Sh. J. N. Singh, Vinod Kumar Anand (A8) S/o Late Madhusudan Lal Anad, Kuldeep Singh (A9) S/o Late Sardar Tejinder Singh, Devinder Singh (A10) S/o Sh. Ram Singh, Kishan (A11) S/o Late Sh. Indraj and Mahesh Kumar (A12) S/o Sh. Horam Singh on the allegation that during the period 20042006 they entered into criminal conspiracy with one another to cheat National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred as NICL ) in pursuance whereof 109 bogus claims totalling Rs.28,38,679/ had been made and claim cheques had been State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.3/ 4 prepared in respect of different insured persons who never received such claim cheques and instead the cheques found there way into the hands of private individuals or their relatives or friends and in the said manner pecuniary loss was caused to the NICL. FACTS
2. This case was registered on 28.12.2007 on the written complaint by Sh. Prem Prakash, Dy. Manager & Vigilance Officer, NIC, Delhi Ex. PW39/A alleging that officials of NIC, DOXI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi during the year 20042006 in conspiracy with other private individuals committed fraud to the tune of Rs.1 crore by settling the claims unauthorizedly without appointing surveyors, allowing insurance claims repeatedly for the same vehicle thereby exceeding the sum insured and some of the bills were settled on the basis of forged and bogus bills while some of the accused impersonated accounts and siphoned of proceeds from fraudulent claims.
3. The Investigation revealed that National Insurance Company, Divisional Office XI, Karolbagh, New Delhi is engaged, inter alia, in providing insurance cover for the motor own damage claims through an insurance policy of the vehicle insured on receipt of certain premium; that for lodging a Motor Own Damage claim first of all the claim intimation is received in writing, through FAX or telephone; and along with the intimation an estimate of damage, copy of insurance and claim form is also State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.4/ 5 attached. On receipt of these documents the policy and 64 VB (Premium payment) are checked; and that there after in accordance with the estimated loss surveyor is appointed; that the power of appointing a surveyor rests solely with the incumbent in charge of the Division. Investigation revealed that in DOXI this power rested with Senior DM and in case of absence of Senior DM from office, the second man in command / hierarchy could appoint a surveyor but the same was to be ratified on the next working day by the Senior DM; that the appointment of surveyor is always in writing and on the claim intimation itself; and thereafter all the papers are sent to the Claim Assistant who lodges the claim and feeds the name of the surveyor in computer system in his own ID; that the Claim Assistant gives a specific claim no. which is generated by the system and he makes a claim file and the surveyor conducts the survey of the damaged vehicle and submits his survey report along with his fee bill and on receipt of report by the Incharge, it is marked to the Claim Assistant who processes the same and puts up with his recommendation to the Competent Authority; that on the Competent Authority passing the claim. The file is then sent to the Assistant Claims Department that feeds the details of the claim and policy in computer "Geneysis" using his own ID and sends the file to the Account Section; that this Section prints the voucher and prepares the claim cheque and State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.5/ 6 the cheque is then signed by any two authorised signatories and file alongwith cheque is sent back to the Claim Assistant; and that the cheque is issued to the claimant in person or through his representative or by Registered Post; and that the claim file is then handed over to the record clerk who keeps the files month wise.
4. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Dhara Singh posted as Dy. Manager with NICL, DO XI in criminal conspiracy with coaccused Devi Prasad posted as Accounts Officer, Ram Lal and Bhagwan Dass both posted as Assistants in the Accounts Division of the DOXI, Delhi and Ram Pal (A5) posted as Claim Assistant with DOXI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi fraudulently issued claim cheques in the name of the persons other than the policy holders, so much so that the claims were passed and settled without appointment of surveyors and contrary to the requirement so much so that proper claim files were not prepared; that accused Ram Pal (A5) posted as Claim Assistant with DOXI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi did not scrutinize the claims of policy holders prior to process of final settlement of claim and he opened up five account in the name of himself and other persons viz. a) Account No. 11119 in his name with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi; b) Account No.14716 in the name of his daughter Mithlesh under his guardianship with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi c) similarly, a/c no. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.6/ 7 14363 with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh as guardianship of his daughter, d) account no. 14869 in the name of Manohar under his guardianship with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi and lastly
e) lastly, another account no. 14801 in the name of Suresh in his guardianship with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh, Delhi.
5. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that Ram Pal was the introducer of the above said (b) to (e) accounts besides authorized signatory and the details of the claims, policies and payments were revealed as under: Sr. Chequ Date Amt in Claim Policy Policy Clai Claim Cheque Auth. Auth No e no. No. No. Holder m passed prepared Sign 1 sign 2 . lodg by by ed by Account No. 14716 of Mithlesh TABLE 'A'
1. 3222 250204 17,100 6190001 610000 Mithlesh 238/03 6511/0 1
2. 669508 300405 13,000 6190000 610001 Mithlesh 090/05 3738/0 4
3. 672027 120805 25,900 6190001 610001 Maruti Ram Dhara Ram Pal Dhara Devi 348/05 1651/0 Ins. pal Singh Singh Prasad 4 Brokers
4. 674460 230905 25,985 6190000 610001 do Ram Dhara Ram Pal Dhara Devi 960/05 1651/0 Pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
5. 676397 171205 14,317 6190001 610001 Mithlesh 955/05 1390/0 Sharma 4
6. 677260 230106 13,000 6190002 610001 Maruti Bhagwan Dhara Devi 427/05 1651/0 Ins. Das Singh Prasad 4 Brokers
7. 685618 060406 13,990 6190002 610001 Mithlesh 823/05 1390/0 Sharma 4
8. 420448 240506 13,976 6190000 610001 Mithlesh 197/06 1390/0 Sharma 4 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.7/ 8 Account No. 14363 of Baby Priyanka TABLE 'B'
9. 674411 220905 27,909 6190008 6100014 Priyanka Ram Dhara Bhagw Dhara Devi 30/05 537/04 Sharma Pal Singh an Das Singh Prasad
10. 674960 10105 27,973 6190001 6100011 Maruti Ram Ramlal Dhara Devi 511/05 651/04 Ins. Pal Singh Prasad Brokers
11. 675824 251105 22,500 6190001 6100014 Priyanka Ram Ramlal Dhara Devi 898/05 537/04 Sharma pal Singh Prasad
12. 677242 250106 22,890 6190001 6100011 Maruti Bhagw Dhara Devi 688/05 651/04 Ins. an Das Singh Prasad Brokers Account No. 14869 of Manohar TABLE 'C'
13. 669069 020405 22,875 6190002 610000 Maruti 001/04 6018/0 Ins.
3 Brokers
14. 669833 190505 22,791 6190000 610001 do 333/05 3738/0 4
15. 672022 120805 23,522 6190000 610001 Manoj Rampa Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 952/05 651/04 Arora l Singh Singh Prasad
16. 676948 090106 19,900 6190002 610001 Maruti 315/05 1651/0 Ins.
4 Brokers
17. 678676 210306 23,170 6190002 610001 do 839/05 1651/0 4 Account No. 14801 in the name of Suresh TABLE 'D'
18. 999640 041201 31,922
19. 3424 080302 20,678 6190000 6100001 Dharam 962/03 349/03 Veer
20. 14936 100205 29,308 6190001 6100006 Maruti 661/04 018/03 Ins.
Brokers
21. 668817 230305 28,849 61/1845/ 61/0601 Maruti Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara B. R. 04 8/03 Ins. Pal Singh Singh Singh Brokers
22. 670191 030605 25,418 6190001 6100007 Suresh Ram Dhara 834/04 244/04 Kumar Pal Singh
23. 671067 060705 19,200 6190000 6100015 Suresh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 527/05 179/04 Kumar Pal Singh Singh Prasad
24. 257193 080805 49,000 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.8/ 9
25. 672384 010905 27,968 6190001 6100007 Suresh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 073/05 244/04 Kumar Pal Singh Singh Prasad
26. 674945 081005 29,743 6190001 6100007 Suresh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 517/05 244/04 Kumar Pal Singh Singh Prasad
27. 675264 311005 20,800 6190001 6100012 Suresh Ram Ramlal Dhara Devi 677/05 833/05 Kumar Pal Singh Prasad
28. 675901 301105 20,000 6190001 6100012 Suresh 934/0 833/4
29. 677458 300106 23,800
30. 678092 080306 19,860 6190002 6100012 Suresh Ram Ramlal Dhara Devi 714/05 833/05 Kumar Pal Singh Prasad
31. 200733 070606 27,960 Account No.11119 of Rampal and Neeraj TABLE 'E'
32. NA 100104 19,659
33. NA 240504 15,000
34. NA 070305 26,714
35. NA 210505 25,338
36. 671482 200705 17,157 6190000 610000 Neeraj Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 245/05 4307/0 Sharma Pal Singh Singh Prasad 5
37. 671598 280705 23,100 6190001 610000 Neeraj Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 632/04 7997/0 Saini Pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
38. 672386 310805 29,401 6190001 610000 Maruti Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara B. R. 848/04 6018/0 Ins. Pal Singh Singh Singh 3 Brokers
39. 672630 170905 28,073 6190001 610000 Neeraj Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 176/05 4307/0 Sharma Pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
40. 675035 141005 29,468 6190001 610000 Neeraj Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 537/05 4307/0 Sharma Pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
41. NA 040106 15,400
42. 676981 090106 15,500 6190002 610000 Neeraj Ram Bagwan Dhara Devi 262/05 7997/0 Saini Pal Das Singh Prasad 4
43. NA 190106 22,900
44. NA 130306 25,976
45. NA 040506 26,310
46. NA 030706 25,330
6. It is further the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Ram Pal (A5) had opened an account no. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.9/ 10 75396 in the name of his son Love Kumar under his guardianship with United Bank of India, Karol Bagh and cheques in respect of certain claims which were never lodged by the real insured were forged and found its way into the account maintained in the account of Love Kumar which details are as under : TABLE 'F' Sr. Chequ Date Amt in Claim Policy Policy Claim Claim Chequ Auth. Auth No e No. Rs. No. No. Holder lodge passed e sign 1 sign 2 . d by by prepar ed by
1. Tr. V. 021204 11999
2. 668682 150305 11908 61/019 61/033 Love Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 69/04 06/05 Kumar Pal Singh Singh Prasad Saroha
3. 671739 030805 17100 619000 610000 Love Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 0898/0 3306/0 Kumar Pal Singh Singh Prasad 5 3 Saroha
4. NA 170606 28300
5. NA 210606 24800
7. It is further the case of the State (CBI) that Rs.1,39,000/ was siphoned off by the accused Ram Pal (A5) from this account through cheques drawn on self and others and he got opened another a/c no. 5617 in the name of Satyaprakash under his guardianship in Punjab National Bank, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi being his authorized signatory and the details of the claim, policy and payments which were made in the said account are as under : State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.10/ 11 TABLE 'G' Sr. Chequ Date Amt in Claim Policy No. Policy Claim Claim Cheq Auth. Auth.
No e No. Rs. No. Holder lodge passed ue sign 1 sign 2
. d by by prep
ared
by
1. 295556 24.02.0 12,085 619000 610000588 Sat 3 0979/02 1/01 prakash
2. 1721 12.11.0 13,517 619000 610000308 do 3 0906/03 5/02
3. 2604 12.01.0 15,400 619000 610000308 do 4 1080/03 5/02
4. 14479 20.01.0 20,476 619000 610000527 do 5 1528/04 8/03
5. 668092 22.02.0 21,500 619000 61/01842/ Karan Ram Dhara Dhara B R 5 0913/05 04 Bir Pal Singh Singh Singh Sejwal
6. 670072 28.05.0 20,239 619000 610000527 Sat Ramp Dhara Dhara Devi 5 0366/05 8/03 Prakash al Singh Singh Prasa d
7. 672569 05.09.0 13,300 629000 620000438 Sat Ramp Dhara Bhag Dhara Devi 5 1138/05 6/05 Prakash al Singh wan Singh Prasa Tyagi Das d
8. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Ram Pal (A5) had account no. 21311 in his name with Bank of India, Karol Bagh, New Delhi introduced by one Upendra Nath Gaur an insurance agent posted with NICL, DO XIV which account later converted by him jointly with his wife Santosh and the details claims of the cheques which were deposited in the said account in respect of fraudulent claims are as under: State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.11/ 12 TABLE 'H' Sr. Chequ Date Amt Claim Policy Policy Clai Claim Chequ Auth. Auth No e No. in Rs. No. No. Holder m passed e Sign 1 sign 2 . lodge by Prepar d by ed by
1. 301526 04.09.03 4365 SALARY
2. 3386 05.03.04 14200 6290001 620000 Santosh 277/03 5058/0 3
3. 3876 05.04.04 16293 6290001 620000 do 298/03 5058/0 3
4. 10059 24.06.04 7792 L.T.S.
5. 10517 12.07.04 10579 6290000 620000 Santosh 375/04 5058/0 3
6. 11958 28.09.04 16400 6190000 610000 Santosh 709/04 3119/0 Gupta 3
7. 12585 30.10.04 25317 6190000 610000 do 906/04 3119/0 3
8. 14148 06.01.05 20400 6190001 610000 do 406/04 3119/0 3
9. 14717 02.02.05 12468 6290001 620000 Santosh 604/04 5058/0 3
10. 669075 02.04.05 15012 6290002 620001 do 058/04 2819/0 4
11. 669964 24.05.05 15800 6290000 620001 Santosh Ram Dhara Vinod Dhara Devi 058/05 2819/0 pal Singh Kumar Singh Prasad 4
12. 304396 31.05.05 11900 0
13. 671486 20.07.05 24900 6190000 610000 Santosh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 446/05 7215/0 Garg pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
14. 671506 21.07.05 16200 6290000 620001 Santosh Ram Ramlal Dhara Devi 814/05 2819/0 pal Singh Prasad 4
15. 671878 08.08.05 21970 6190000 610000 Santosh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 940/05 7215/0 Garg pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
16. 672047 12.08.05 16808 6290000 620001 Santosh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 975/05 2819/0 pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
17. 675791 25.11.05 13000 6290001 620001 Santosh Ram Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 908/05 2819/0 pal Singh Singh Prasad 4
18. 676167 09.12.05 29000 6190001 610000 Rampal 986/05 2352/0 5 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.12/ 13
19. 677769 17.02.06 14337 6290002 620001 Santosh Ram Dhara 615/05 2819/0 pal Singh 4
20. 677761 17.02.06 28000 6190002 610000 Rampal 462/05 2352/0 5
21. 678300 09.03.06 24208 6190002 610001 Santosh 731/05 3495/0 Yadav 4
22. 420649 31.05.06 27860 6190000 610000 Rampal 262/06 2352/0 5
23. 420661 02.06.06 13999 6290000 620001 Santosh 318/06 1860/0 5
9. It is further the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Ram Pal (A5) opened account no. 51139 with Canara Bank, CCRT, Dwarka Branch and impersonated as Sanjay Kumar which account was introduced by Sanjay Jain, his tenant. Total 21 numbers of fraudulent cheques were credited through this account which cheque amount subsequently withdrawn by accused Ram Pal.
TABLE 'I'
Sr. Chequ Date Amt in Claim No. Policy No. Policy Clai Claim Chequ Auth Auth
No e No. Rs. Holder m passe e . sign
. lodge d by Prepar Sign 2
d by ed by 1
1. 10052 22.06.04 13,400 619000030 6100000884 Sanjay 0/04 /03 Kumar
2. 06.07.04 24,300
3. 11045 10.08.04 16,321 619000047 6100000884 do 3/04 /03
4. 11134 17.08.04 15,200 619000055 6100001804 d0 0/04 /03
5. 11682 14.09.04 12,127 619000065 6100000884 Sanjay 1/04 /03
6. 12114 12.10.04 13,545 619000064 6100001804 Sanjay 3/04 /03 Kr.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.13/ 14
7. 13482 14.12.04 18,500 619000103 6100003592 do 9/04 /03
8. 667934 22.02.05 25,610 619000175 6100002829 do 1/04 /04
9. 667996 08.03.05 28,846 619000180 6100003592 do 0/04 /03
10. 669223 05.04.05 22,274 619000207 6100003592 d0 5/04 /03
11. 670190 03.06.05 17,000 619000008 6100000047 Sanjay Ram Dhara 6/05 /03 Kumar pal Singh
12. 670769 29.06.05 28,100 619000057 6100002829 Sanjay Ram Dhara Ramlal Dha Devi 4/05 /04 Kumar pal Singh ra Pras Sing ad h
13. 671818 19.08.05 23,375 619000089 6100000047 Sanjay Ram Dhara Ramlal Dha Devi 2/05 /03 Kumar pal Singh ra Pras Sing ad h
14. 22.08.05 31,825
15. 672140 09.09.05 29,900 619000101 6100005882 Sanjay Ram Dhara Ramlal Dha Devi 2/05 /04 Kumar pal Singh ra Pras Sing ad h
16. 674850 18.10.05 13,000 629000111 6200003738 Sanjay Ram Dha Devi 5/05 /05 Kumar pal ra Pras Sing ad h
17. 675588 16.11.05 13,338 629000181 6200003738 Sanjay Ram Ramlal Dha Devi 2/05 /05 Kumar pal ra Pras Sing ad h
18. 676480 20.12.05 23,000 619000213 6100007811 Sanjay Ram Ramlal Dha Devi 3/05 /05 Kumar pal ra Pras Sing ad h
19. 677305 07.02.06 23,500 619000243 6100002829 Sanjay Ram Ramlal Dha Devi 8/05 /05 Kumar pal ra Pras Sing ad h
20. 678091 07.03.06 22,660 Sanjay Ramlal Dha Devi Kumar ra Pras Sing ad h
21. 419950 09.05.06 26,900 619000301 6100002829 Sanjay Ram 3/05 /04 Kumar pal
10. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Mahesh Kumar (A12) who was authorized signatory of A/c no. 6244 maintained with PNB, Nangal Raya Branch, was real brother of accused Ram Pal (A5) and that total State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.14/ 15 of seven cheques were fraudulently deposited in his account and encashed. The details are as under: Sr. Cheque Date Amt in Claim Policy Policy Claim Claim Chequ Auth. Auth No. No. Rs. No. No. Holder proce passed e Sign 1 sign 2 ss by by Prepar ed by Account No. 6244 of Mahesh Kumar TABLE 'J'
1. 2171 22.12.03 13,120 619000 6100004 Mahesh 1010/0 732/02 Kr.
3
2. 2733 03.02.04 16,500 619000 6100004 do 1100/0 732/02 3
3. 14140 04.01.05 16,884 61/007 61/0303 Mahesh Ramp Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 58/04 1/03 Kumar al Singh Singh Prasad
4. 670342 10.06.05 26,010 619000 6100003 do Ramp Dhara Vinod Dhara Devi 0452/0 866/04 al Singh Kumar Singh Prasad 5
5. 691699 01.08.05 28,300
6. 671606 02.08.05 20,745 619000 6100003 do do do Ramlal Dhara Devi 0851/0 031/03 Singh Prasad 5
7. 675034 18.10.05 29,627 619000 6100003 do do do Ramlal Dhara Devi 1549/0 866/04 Singh Prasad 5
11. It is further the case of the state (CBI) that further one Sunil Kumar a friend of accused Ram Pal (A5) had a/c no. 8510 at PNB, Nangal Raya Branch introduced by accused Ram Pal and 13 claims cheques issued fraudulently against each genuine policies were encahsed by accused Ram Pal. The details of which are as under: Account no. 8510 of Sunil Kumar State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.15/ 16 TABLE 'K' Sr. Cheque Date Amt in Claim Policy Policy Claim Claim Chequ Auth. Auth No. No. Rs. No. No. Holder proces passed e Sign 1 sign 2 s by by Prepare d by
1. 14228 03.01.05 17,700 6190001 6100003 Sunil 364/04 461/03 Kumar
2. 667889 17.02.05 15,391 6190001 6100002 do 792/04 261/02
3. 668219 28.02.05 20,767 6190001 6100002 do 884/04 236/04
4. 669344 16.04.05 14,757 6190001 6100006 do 392/03 476/02
5. 669360 18.04.05 21,989 6190000 6100003 062/05 461/03
6. 670054 27.05.05 19,411 6190000 6100001 Sunil Rampa Dhara Vinod Dhara Devi 412/05 041/04 Kumar l Singh Kumar Singh Prasa d
7. 670547 16.06.05 20,700 6190000 6100013 Maruti 550/05 738/04 Ins Broker s
8. 672441 05.09.05 22,302 6190001 6100011 Sunil Rampa Dhara Ramlal Dhara BR 111/05 651/04 l Singh Singh Singh
9. 674324 19.09.05 25,863 6190001 6100001 Sunil Ramlal Dhara Devi 234/05 041/04 Singh Prasa d
10. 674640 03.10.05 24,900 6190001 6100011 do Rampa Dhara Devi Dhara Devi 442/05 651/04 l Singh Prasad Singh Prasa d
11. 675036 181005 22,000 6190001 6100009 Sunil Ramlal Dhara Devi 543/05 704/04 Kumar Singh Prasa d
12. 675189 261005 25,815 6190001 6100007 Sunil Rampa Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 622/05 343/04 Kumar l Singh Singh Prasa d
13. 676064 061205 14,425 6190001 6100007 Maruti Ramlal Dhara Devi 985/05 811/05 Ins Singh Prasa Broker d s
12. It is further the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that one Kishan a friend of Rampal had a/c no. 90312010040388 with Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar Branch and total nos of 17 cheques were fraudulently credited in the said account and the payments were withdrawn by accused Ram Pal. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.16/ 17 The details of which are as under: TABLE 'L' Sr. Cheque Date Amt Claim Policy Policy Claim Claim Chequ Auth. Auth No. No. in Rs. No. No. Holder lodged passed e Sign 1 sign 2 by by Prepar ed by
1. 2249 060104 11914 6190000 6100006 Kishan 994/03 739/02 Chand 2 2699 200104 12000 6190001 6100006 do 099/03 739/02 3 651685 130204 47352 4 4509 180504 14000 6190013 6100006 Kishan 51/03 739/02 Chand 5 10804 270704 18735 6190000 6100005 Sri 360/04 503/03 Kishan 6 12289 121004 14500 6190000 6100006 814/04 739/02 7 13255 011004 38517 6190001 6100005 Kishan 125/04 008/04 8 13443 081204 21699 6190001 6100006 Maruti 143/04 018/03 Ins Broker s 9 13685 141204 57500 6190010 6100005 Kishan 26/04 008/04 10 14741 250105 29500 6190001 6100005 Kishan 513/04 008/04 11 670352 140605 44485 6190001 6100005 Kishan Ram Dhara Ram Dhara Devi 919/04 008/04 Pal Singh Lal Singh Prasa d 12 672139 230805 21100 6190001 6100005 Kishan Ram Ram Dhara Devi 014/05 994/03 Pal Lal Singh Prasa d 13 674279 200905 42717 6190001 6100005 Kishan Ram Ram Dhara Devi 216/05 008/04 Kumar Pal Lal Singh Prasa d 14 675733 221105 16531 6190001 6100005 Kishan Ram Ram Dhara Devi 886/05 994/03 Kumar Pal Lal Singh Prasa d 15 677122 170106 16600 6190002 6100005 Kishan Ram Ram Dhara Devi 362/05 994/03 Kumar Pal Lal Singh Prasa d 16 677457 310106 21000 6190002 6100011 Maruti Ram Ram Dhara Devi 474/05 651/04 Ins. Pal Lal Singh Prasa Broker d Ltd.
17 994213 110706 16980 6190000 6100005 Kishan Ram Ram Dhara Devi 93 564/06 994/03 Kumar Pal Lal Singh Prasa d State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.17/ 18
13. It is further the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Vinod Kumar Anand (A8) was surveyor with NICL having account no. 1604 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi and that four claims cheques had been procured by accused Ram Pal which claims were passed by accused Dhara Singh after the same were prepared by accused Ram Lal signed by accused A1 and A2 which were deposited in the said account and encashed vide cheque no. 671593 dt. 22.07.2005 for Rs.27,629/; cheque no. 670356 dt. 07.06.2005 for Rs.26,200/; cheque no. 671483 dt. 15.07.2005 for Rs.28,673/; cheque no. 672584 dt. 01.09.2005 for Rs.21,534/;
14. Similarly, investigation further revealed that accused Kuldeep Singh (A9) also working as surveyor with NIC received four cheques fraudulently out of which two cheques were encashed through his account maintained with HDFC Bank, Pitampur and two cheques encahsed to the account of Kuldeep Singh r/o Tital Nagar, Delhi that are cheque no. 677097 dt. 09.01.2006 for Rs.21,100/; cheque no. 677937 dt. 16.02.2006 for Rs.19,600/; cheque no. 670323 dt. 03.06.2005 for Rs.13,963/; cheque no. 672150 dt. 12.08.2005 for Rs.23,000/.
15. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Devinder Singh was a motor car repairer who received seven cheques handed over to him by accused Ram Pal which were encashed by him through account of Devinder Singh State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.18/ 19 and his friend Rajesh Kumar and Manoj Kumar maintained at State Bank of Patiala Karala Branch. The details of which are as under : Sr. Cheque Date Amt in Claim No. Policy Policy Claim Claim Cheque Auth. Auth No. No. Rs. No. Holder lodged passed Prepare Sign 1 sign by by d by 2 A/c No. 55022688447 of Manoj Kumar TABLE 'M' 1 678010 230206 26891 2704/05 611377 Manoj Rampal Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 5 Kumar Singh Singh Prasad A/c No. 55022679248 of Devender Singh TABLE 'N' 2 420570 230506 20986 258/06 610001 Deven Rampal Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 2846/0 der Singh Singh Prasad 4 Kumar 3 421382 040706 20886 490/06 do do do do Ramlal Dhara Devi Singh Prasad 4 677021 060106 24800 2259/05 do do do do Bhagw Dhara Devi an Das Singh Prasad A/c No. 55022717650 of Rajesh Kumar TABLE 'O' 5 678914 240306 23670 2914/05 6100000 Rajesh Rampa Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi 923/04 Kumar l Singh Singh Prasad 6 421528 120706 26495 571/06 6100005 do do do Bhagw Dhara Devi 793/04 an Das Singh Prasad 7 676616 191205 24500 2042/05 6100000 do do do Ramlal Dhara Devi 923/04 Singh Prasad
16. It is the case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused Bhagwan Dass and Ram Lal prepared 18 and 61 bogus claim cheques respectively without perusal of proper claim files and without there being any surveyor report; and that to State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.19/ 20 facilitate the smooth encashment of bogus claim cheques through fictitious/ impersonated accounts they prepared claim cheques in the name of the persons other than policy holders or incomplete name of the policy holder.
17. It is the further case of the State (CBI) that investigation revealed that accused S. M. Singh (A7) impersonated himself as Rakesh Bhalla and opened a/c no. 17979 with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar, Delhi introduced by one Smt. Gurmeet Kaur R/o Uttam Nagar, Delhi ; and that accused S. M. Singh in criminal conspiracy with other coaccused persons fraudulently received claim cheques settled in the name of Rakesh Bhalla and the cheques were encashed by him in a/c no. 17979 impersonated in the name of Rakesh Bhall. It is the case of the State (CBI) that in this regard S. M. Singh was in connivance with accused Rajinder Singh (A6), Clerk, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar and in this manner accused S. M. Singh was able to siphoned of / misappropriated the amount of Rs.7,71,001/. The details of which are as under : TABLE 'P' Sr. Cheque Date Amt in Favouri Policy Claim Claim Claim Cheque Auth. Auth No No. Rs. ng No. No. lodged passe Prepared Sign 1 sign 2 . by d by by 1 677722 070206 37,917 Laxmi 619000 610000 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Narayan 2604/0 2132/0 Das Singh Prasad Gutpa 5 5 2 677485 250106 2,226 Suman 3 675573 071105 36,122 Sagari 619000 610000 Ramlal Dhara Devi Kaushal 1807/0 6354/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.20/ 21 4 675827 221105 44,000 Vinay 619000 610000 Rampal Mukesh Dhara Devi Kumar 1941/0 6733/0 Singh Prasad Singh 5 4 5 420926 080606 37,917 DK 619000 610001 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Saxena 0428/0 3277/0 Singh Prasad 6 5 6 421075 150606 37,911 Raj 619000 610000 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Kumar 0462/0 7395/0 Singh Prasad Pandey 6 5 7 677256 170106 38,710 Avdhes 619000 610001 Bhagwan Dhara Devi h 2426/0 0511/0 Singh Prasad Kumar 5 4 Gupta 8 676905 301205 39,818 Satish 619000 610000 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Kumar 2286/0 9994/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 9 676949 040106 38,910 Sagari 619000 610000 Rampal Mukesh Dhara Devi Kaushal 2319/0 8092/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 10 678508 100306 37,914 Balbeer 619000 610001 Rampal Ramlal Dhara Devi Singh 2806/0 3226/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 11 678702 170306 38,947 Sanjiv 619000 610001 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Kumar 2855/0 1363/0 Singh Prasad 5 5 12 678926 240306 38,906 Prem 619000 610001 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Veer 2915/0 1497/0 Singh Prasad Singh 5 5 13 421282 280606 38,110 Sanjeev 619000 610001 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Kumar 0532/0 1363/0 Singh Prasad 6 5 14 421757 250706 40,087 Madan 619000 610001 Rampal Sudha Dhara Devi Mohan 0709/0 1872/0 Arora Singh Prasad 6 5 15 421540 120706 32,210 Anant 619000 610001 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Gopal 0624/0 0206/0 Singh Prasad 6 5 16 421635 190706 38,609 Jodh 619000 610000 Rampal Bhagwan Dhara Devi Singh 0664/0 9478/0 Singh Prasad 6 5 17 676023 281105 37,800 Jitender 619000 610000 Ramlal Dhara Devi Virmani 1960/0 8443/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 18 676621 191205 33,582 Naresh 619000 610000 Ramlal Dhara Devi Kumar 2182/0 5237/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 19 676253 081205 38,748 Vikas 619000 610000 Bhagwan Dhara Devi Jain 2087/0 7867/0 Singh Prasad 5 4 20 675,191 171005 36,427 Salaudd 619000 610000 Rampal Dhara Ramlal Dhara Devi in 1632/0 5703/0 Singh Singh Prasad 5 4 724,871 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.21/ 22
18. After obtaining sanction for prosecution against the public servant and on completion of investigation, the present charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. CHARGE
19. Needless to state that accused persons have been conjointly charged for committing offence u/s 120B r/w 418/419/420/467/468/471 of IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act besides substantive offence to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
20. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 59 witnesses. The following witnesses were examined in the category of public witnesses who were inter alia insured persons in respect of different vehicles in respect of which the alleged false / bogus claims cheques had been prepared and disbursed:
21. PW1 was Mr. Safiur Rahman. He deposed that he was having motor cycle No. DL9SN6552 and deposed that the same was damaged in an accident in the year 2005 and he paid Rs. 11,000/ towards repair vide received a claim of Rs.3500/ only through Singla Automobile. He denied filing any claim in respect of damaged bike.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.22/ 23
22. PW2 was Mr. Salauddin owner/ insured of Santro Card No. DL3CS6184. He deposed that his car met with an accident in the year 2005 and he lodged a claim with M/s Prince Automobiles, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and he got claim cheque from said company.
23. PW3 was Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta owner/ insured of car Mitsubishi Lance bearing registration no. DL5SP0022. He deposed that his car met with an accident in the year 2006 and he intimated NIC about it and got his car repaird from S. G. Automobiles, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and he had received a claim cheque which was deposited by him in his bank account.
24. PW5 was Mr. Yudhishthir Goel owner / insured of Santro Card bearing registration No. HR 26K2423. He deposed that he purchased the said car in the year 1999 and sold the same in the year 2000 and he denied receiving any claim from the insurance company.
25. PW6 was Ms. Vinni Sharma owner/ insured of Maruti Zen NO. DL9CB1984 and deposed that her car met with an accident and repairs were carried out but she could not remember the amount of cheque if any that was received by her in respect of any damage to the car.
26. PW7 Dr. Rajiv Aggarwal owner/ insured of Santro Car bearing registration No. DL8CF6533. He deposed that his car met with an accident in the year 2006 and he got it repaired from State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.23/ 24 M/s Jain Motors, Rohini and received the claim by cheque from NIC which he deposited in his account at ICICI, Gurgaon.
27. PW8 Mr. Amrik Singh who deposed that his sister in law Ms. Malkid Kuar was owner of truck no. RJ14GA1195 which met with an accident in February 2005 and claim was lodged in respect of which cheque was received which was deposited with PNB, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
28. PW9 was Mr. Javed who deposed that he was having Hero Honda Motro cycle no. 5963 and deposed that his motorcycle met with an accident in the year 2006. He had lodged insurance claim in respect of which he had received the cheque. Although, during the interregnum he had received the claim cheque.
29. PW10 was Mr. Vikram Tandon owner of Maruti Zen UP32V9978. He deposed that his car met with an accident sometimes in May 2006 and he was informed by one Bittu of M/s Khushal Motors that everything would be taken care. He further deposed that claim was lodged with Insurance company on paper supplied through Mr. Bittu to the Insurance Company. He received the claim cheque in due course of which time he deposited in the account no. 10448 of PSB, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
30. PW11Mr. Surender Arora owner / insured of Maruti Wagon R bearing registration no. HR51 M7378. He deposed that his car met with an accident in May 2006; that he lodged insurance claim State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.24/ 25 and received payment through cheque that was deposited by him in his account with ICICI, Cannaught Place, New Delhi.
31. PW12 was Mr. Ashu Gupta owner/ insured of Hyundai Santro Car with registration no. DL 4CJ7752 who deposed that his car met with an accident in August 2005 and he lodged a claim with the Insurance company and received the cheque in due course of time which was deposited by him in ICICI, Dwarka Sector 5, New Delhi.
32. PW16 was Mr. Vikas Goel owner / insured of car Ford Ikon no. DL 7 CA 2799. He deposed that he did not receive any claim amount of Rs. 37,582/ in respect of car accident on 14.09.2005. While he stated that he had received a claim for Rs.41,674/ as per claim sheet marked Ex.PW 16/P1, Ex.PW 16/B.
33. PW18 was Mr. Mahesh Kumar Vashisht owner / insured of vehicle Tata Indica car bearing registration no. HR 18 6740 who deposed that he purchased the car in the year 2002 and sold it in the year 2005; that in the year 2003 he lodged a claim with NIC for a sum of Rs.45,000/ but no such claim was ever received by him. He denied receiving disbursement voucher Ex.PXII for a sum of Rs.26,010/ and PXIII for a sum of Rs.29,627/.
34. PW21 was Mr. Satish Kumar owner/ insured of Toyata Qualis car bearing registration no. DL 7CA 7247. He deposed that his car met with an accident in the month of August 2005 and he lodged a claim for Rs.51,722/ which was approved and cheque State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.25/ 26 bearing no. 675002 was received by him and deposed in his account no. 7891 with United Bank of India , Chander Nagar branch, Geeta Colony, Delhi. However, he denied receiving any cheque in the sum of Rs.39,818/ marked Ex.PW 21/O1.
35. PW22 was Mr. Devender Sharma. This witness did not support the prosecution case about knowing someone by the name of Rakesh Bhalla.
36. PW23 was Mr. Sanjay Kumar owner / insured of bike bearing registration no. UP 17 6492. He denied receiving any claim from the Insurance company for a sum of Rs.13,000/ vide cheque no. 674850 dt. 30.09.2005 marked X1. He also denied receiving any claim in the sum of Rs.13,338/ vide cheque no. 675588 dt. 09.11.2005 marked XII.
37. PW24 was Mr. Pappu Tyagi. This witness was dropped by the prosecution.
38. PW25 was Mr. Dev Sharma. He deposed that one Ms. Priyanka Sharma his younger sister who was owner of vehicle DL8CF 7669. He denied receiving any claim in the sum of Rs. 27,909/ against cheque no. 674411 dt. 15.09.2005. He also denied receiving any claim from the NIC for a sum of Rs.22,500/ against cheque no. 675824 dt. 22.11.2005. He also denied receiving cheque for rs.23,500/ against cheque no. 420400 dt. 11.05.2006 and also denied receiving any cheque for a sum of Rs.28,500/ against cheque no. 421539 dt. 12.07.2006 which are marked X3 to State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.26/ 27 X6.
39. PW26 was Sh. Krishan Kumar owner/insured of Maruti Zen car no. DL 2 CL 1244. He denied receiving any claim for the sum of Rs.16,629/ vide cheque no. 670070 dated 25.5.2005; further denied receiving claim for Rs.16,531/ vide cheque no. 675733 dated 18.11.2005; denied receiving another claim for Rs. 16,600/ vide cheque no. 677122 dated 09.12.2005. He also denied knowledge of receiving any claim for Rs.16,980 vide cheque no. 421393 dated 04.7.2006 and also claim for Rs.21,000/ vide cheque no. 677457. The cheques were marked X7 to X11 drawn on Bank of India.
40. PW27 was Sh. Balwinder Singh owner/insured of Honda City Car. Who denied receiving any claim for Rs.28,700/ vide cheque no. 674280 dated 08.09.2005 marked XZ2.
41. PW28 was Sh. Rahul Kainth who deposed that his father was owner/insured of Maruti Zen Car and he denied that the car met with any accident or that any insurance claim was lodged.
42. PW29 was Sh. Neeraj Sharma owner/insured of Maruti WagonR no. DL 3 CR 2085. He deposed that the car had met with an accident and National Insurance Company had allowed a claim of Rs.20,000/ in the year 2005, however, he denied receiving Rs.17,157/ and Rs.29,468/ vide cheque Ex. PW 29/P1 and Ex. PW 29/P2 towards any claim and he denied that he was having any account in Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh branch State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.27/ 28 where such cheques had been deposited for encashment.
43. PW30 was Sh. Prem Vir Singh owner/insured of Maruti Zen car no. DL 2 CN 6040. He deposed that his car met with accident thrice during the period 2004 to 2006 and he lodged claim with NIC but received only claim of Rs.38,317/ only once. He denied having any account in Canara Bank and denied that he received any cheque for claim of Rs.38,906 dated 24.3.2006 Ex. PW 14/A54.
44. PW31 is Sri Kishan owner/insured of Maruti Zen car no. DL 6 CH 8603 in 200304. He deposed that his car met with accident twice and each time he applied for claim with NIC but received claim amount of Rs.40,000/ to Rs.45,000/ only once. He denied receiving any claim of Rs.18,502/ vide cheque Ex. PW 31/P4 and he denied that he was having any account in Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and denied that he deposited or encashed the said cheques in his name.
45. PW32 was Sh. Pappu Tyagi. He deposed that his father was owner/insured of Bajaj Boxer, motorcycle no. UP 17A 0513. He denied that his father received any claim vide cheque no. 672569 dated 01.9.2005 which cheque is Ex. PW 32/P5.
46. PW33 was Sh. Manish Garg. He deposed that his mother was owner of Maruti Omni Van no. UP 14 M 8356. He deposed that the car never met with accident nor any claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. He denied that his mother received State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.28/ 29 any claim cheque in the sum of Rs.21,970/ and Rs.24,900/.
47. PW34 was Sh. Satya Prakash. He was owner/insured of Maruti Zen car no. DL 2 CK 6089. He denied receiving any cheque for the sum of Rs.20,239/ and Rs.27,120/ Ex. PW 14/C1 and Ex. PW 14/C2 as claims from National Insurance Company Ltd. and he denied that he was having any account in PNB, Nangal Rai, Janak Puri, New Delhi where such cheques was allegedly deposited and encashed.
48. PW35 was Sh. Neeraj Saini. He was owner/insured of Maruti Esteem car no. DL 6 CB 0355. He denied having any account with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh and he denied that he received any cheque for Rs.15,500/ Ex. PW 14/A42 and another cheque in the sum of Rs.23,100/ from the Insurance Company or the same were deposited by him or encashed.
49. PW37 was Sh. Sanjay Gupta owner/insured of Tata Indica car no. HR 55 BT 5253. He denied maintaining any account no. 4635 with IDBI Bank, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. He also denied receiving any cheque for Rs.22,489/ dated 03.01.2006 Ex. PW 14/C138 or getting the same encashed.
50. PW41 was Sh. Upender Kant Gaur. He deposed that he introduced accused Ram Pal to open an account as per the form Ex. PW 33/X1 in Bank of India, Karol Bagh no. 21311.
51. PW43 Sh. Laxmi Chand Tyagi was owner/insured of TVS Motorcycle no. UP14S9696. He denied that his motorcycle was State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.29/ 30 involved in any accident. He denied having any account in Bank of Baroda, Ghaziabad and he denied receiving any claim for Rs. 11,707/ dated 22.8.2005 Ex. PW 14/C16 and deposited the same in his account.
52. PW44 was Sh. Parveen Kumar. He deposed that his elder brother Manoj Kumar was owner of Tata Indica car no. DL 3 CU 0429. He denied that his brother was having any account of Syndicate Bank and denied that any cheque for Rs.26,000/ dated 22.3.2006 Ex. PW 14/C143 was received by him.
53. PW45 was Sh. Bhupinder Singh owner/insured of WagonR car no. DL 9 CB 2409. He denied receiving any cheque of Rs. 25,214/ dated 08.9.2005 Ex. PW 14/C74 from the NIC and denied that he deposited the same in his account with Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar branch, New Delhi.
54. PW46 was Sh. Raj Kumar who deposed that his wife was owner/insured of Indica car no. DL 4 CU 0598. He denied that his wife was having any account with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. He denied receiving any cheque for Rs.38,910/ dated 04.01.2006 Ex. PW 14/A41 towards the claim.
55. PW47 was Sh. Manoj Kumar. He denied owning any vehicle no. DL 3 CU 0429 and denied that he ever resided at A17, Village Pitampura, New Delhi. He deposed that he was having saving bank account no. 55022688447 with State Bank of Patiala at Karala, New Delhi and he deposed that he had deposited the State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.30/ 31 cheque of Rs.26,891/ Ex. PW 14/A21 in his account. Although showing his inability to remember that he had deposited it at the behest of Devinder Singh. PW47 deposed that he had later issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.26,891/ to accused Devinder Singh.
56. PW48 was Sh. Yudhister Kumar owner/insured of Santro Car no.HR 26 K 2423. He denied lodging any claim for insurance with the Insurance Company or receiving any claim amount.
57. PW49 was Rajesh Kumar, owner/insured of Santro car no. DL 3 CQ 5982. The witness was no help to prosecution as he failed to recall if a cheque for Rs.26,495/ Ex. PW 14/A63 had been received by him or deposited with the bank.
58. PW50 was S. K. Punani. His evidence brings out that on 27.01.2008 specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Ram Pal were taken in his presence on 10 sheets which are Ex. PW 50/A. He further deposed that on 22.9.2008 specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Sachinder Mohn Singh were taken in his presence which documents are Ex. PW 50/B.
59. PW51 was Sh. Madhu Arora. He deposed that accused V. K. Anand was his real brother in law i.e. Jeeja. He deposed introducing of account no. 1604 with Punjab & Sind Bank.
60. PW53 was Sh. Manmohan Singh owner/insured of Tata Indica car no. DL 1Y 9497. He denied receiving any cheque towards claim for his vehicle for Rs.32,000/ Ex. PW 14/C. He also State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.31/ 32 denied receiving cheque no. 677868 for Rs.24,987/ Ex. PW 14/C146. Lastly, he also denied receiving or encashing cheque no. 4201076 for Rs.31,899/ Ex. PW 14/C.
61. PW55 was Smt. Gurmeet Kaur. She deposed introducing the account opening form of SB Account no. 17979 in the name of Rakesh Bhalla.
62. The following witnesses were examined from Insurance Company.
63. PW13 was Mr. N. Tobdan, Chief Vigilance Officer from OIC, Delhi. He deposed granting sanction for prosecution against the accused Bhagwan Dass and Ram Pal Assistants, Ram Lal Sr. Assistant, Devi Prasad Account Officer and Dhara Singh Dy. Manager, vide order Ex.PW 13/A to Ex.PW 13/E respectively.
64. PW14 was Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora, Administrative Officer, posted in NIC DOXI, Karol Bagh, New Delhi from November 2005 till October 2010. He deposed working under Sh. N. K. Bhardwaj, Sr. Divisional Manager and elaborated about the procedure that was being followed on intimation of motor claims by the insured and making data entries in the computer; appointment of surveyors, processing of claims , preparation of disbursement of cheques. In his evidence, he deposed that cheques Ex.PW 14/A1 to A98 had been signed by accused Dhara Singh at point X and at point X1 by Devi Prasad except for cheques Ex.PW 14/A17. Further deposed that account opening State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.32/ 33 form pertaining to SBI A/c no. 51139 of Canara Bank , Dwarka Branch in the name of Sanjay Kumar Ex.PW 14/B was bearing the photograph of accused Ram Pal. He further deposed that the cheques Ex.PW 14/A1 to A98 had been prepared by accused Ram Lal and Bhagwan Dass except for cheques Ex.PW 14/A34, A38, A43, A52 and A68 while Ms. Sudha Arora prepared the cheuqes Ex.PW 14/A42. He further deposed about the 189 cheques (D79) pertaining to the year 20052006 issued by their branch bearing signatures of accused Devi Prasad and Dhara Singh Ex.PW 14/C1 to C189. The evidence of this witness is very elaborate in regard to motor claim files in which claims were passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) and claim cheques sheet were prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and various cheques issued that are Ex.PW 14/D1 to D22 upon which I would dwell later on in my judgment.
65. PW19 was Mr. B. S. Yadav, Assistant in the Accounts Branch of NIC, DOXI, Karol Bagh from march 1997 till 2010. He deposed about the procedure applicable for issuance of claim cheque and deposed that cheques Ex.PW 14/A1 to A98 had been signed by accused Dhara Singh and Devi Prasad.
66. No one was examined as PW 20.
67. PW36 was Sh. Joginder Kumar, Record Clerk with NIC worked during the year 1992 to 2006. He deposed that accused Ram Pal functioning as Assistant in Motor Claim Department was State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.33/ 34 responsible for maintaining the files of motor accident claim cases as well as distribution of cheques.
68. PW39 was Sh. Prem Prakash, Vigilance Officer in NIC in the year 2007. He deposed about lodging the complaint dated 27.12.2007 with the CBI Ex. PW 39/A and supplying documents reflected in the seizure memo dated 28.3.2008 and 24.4.2008 Ex. PW 56/B and Ex.PW 56/C to the CBI.
69. PW40 was Sh. T. S. Chandramouli. He deposed that accused Ram Pal was introduced by him to open an account in Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh which is Ex. PW 40/A. However, the witness was unable to support the prosecution case if the account opening form no. 14801 in the name of Suresh; no. 14869 in the name of Manohar Lal; no. 1416 in the name of Mithlesh and no. 14363 in the name of Priyanka had been filled by accused Ram Pal or not.
70. PW54 was Sh. V. K. Bajaj. He deposed about the inquiry conducted by him on an pseudonymous complaint regarding bogus claims and issuance of false claim cheques and he proved his report Ex. PW 54/A. I shall dwell upon the evidence of this witness in later part of the judgment.
71. PW58 was Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhardwaj, Senior Divisional Manager in National Insurance Company, DOXI during the relevant time when the alleged bogus claims were processed and I shall dwell upon the evidence of this witness in the later part of State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.34/ 35 the judgment.
72. The last witness from the department was PW59 Sh. Sanjay chopra who had conducted initial inquiry alongwih PW Sh. V. K. Bajaj and he deposed about print outs that had been taken from the computer during the time of inquiry.
Following witnesses were examined as Bank witnesses
73. PW4 was Mr. Hukum Singh, Daftari, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, Delhi. He deposed about the account no. 17979 in the name of Rakesh Bhalla and deposed about the account opening form Ex.PW 4/A.
74. PW15 was Mr. Sumit Parkash, Sr. Manager, Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, Delhi during the relevant time. He deposed about account Ex. PW 4/A opened in the name of Rakesh Bhalls bearing A/c no. 17979 and the account opening form Ex. PW 4/DA that had been filled by accused Rajinder Singh. He deposed handing over 17 pay in slips vide memo dated 01.10.2008 Ex.PW 15/A to the CBI besides 35 cheques in respect of a/c no. 17979 to the CBI which are Ex.PW 15/A1 to A7 cheuqes Ex. PW 15/B1 to B35 respectively. He deposed about the cheques which were deposited vide the above noted pay in slips and deposed about the statement of acounts dt. 05.05.2004 , 09.05.2007 Ex.PW 15/C. He further deposed that vide letter dt. 26.11.2008 Ex. PW 15/D he forwarded outward clearing waste in 31 sheets to the CBI vide memo Ex.PW 15/E and deposed that while pay in slips pertained State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.35/ 36 to the account of Rakesh Bhalla none of the cheuqes had been issued in his favour by the Insurance Company.
75. PW17 was Mr. C . Rawal, Dy General Manager from Canara Bank, Circle Office, Delhi. He deposed about the sanction for prosecution against the accused Rajinder singh, Clerk vide order dated 18.12.2008 which is Ex.Pw 17/A.
76. PW38 was Smt. Mamta Badhwar from Canara Bank. She deposed about the account opening form no. 51139 in the name of Sanjay Kumar whose photograph was affixed thereupon marked Ex. PW 14/B.
77. PW42 Sh. D. C. Narnolia. He deposed that account Ex. PW 4/A no. 17979 in the name of Sh. Rakesh Bhalla had been allowed to be opened by him on the request of accused Rajender Singh in good faith.
78. PW 52 was Sh. Bhushan Lal Vashisht, Manager in PNB, Nangal Raya Branch, New Delhi during the period 200405. He deposed that account no. 8510 in the name of Sunil Kumar was opened vide account opening form Ex. PW 52/A. He deposed about the certified copies under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act in respect of account number which are Ex. PW 52/B and Ex. PW 52/C. Lastly, he deposed about specimen signature in respect of SB Account no. 5617 in the name of accused Ram Pal. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.36/ 37 WITNESSES FROM CBI
79. PW56 was Inspector Ajeet Singh who conducted the investigation in this case and deposed about seizure of various documents and recording of statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
80. PW57 was Sh. Mahesh Chandra Joshi, Assistant Director and Scientist (C) formerly Dy. GEQD, FSL. He deposed about examining questioned writing sent to him by the CBI marked Q1 to Q105 with specimen writings/signatures of accused Ram Pal and Sachinder Mohan Singh and proved his report Ex. PW 57/A with reasons Ex. PW 57/B. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 Cr.P.C
81. On the close of the prosecution evidence, each of the accused persons was separately examined in terms of section 313 of Cr.P.C. and put the incriminating facts and circumstances brought on the record by the prosecution. Suffice to state that each of the accused denied the prosecution case and challenged the veracity and creditworthiness of the factual and circumstantial evidence brought on the record by the prosecution. I shall refer to certain aspects in their individual statements later in my judgment.
82. In so far as defence evidence is concerned, A8 V.K.Anand examined DW1 Krishan Kumar, his former driver who testified State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.37/ 38 that one more employee under A8 namely Sri Ram had been collecting cheques from coaccused Ram Pal and depositing the same in the bank account of his employer; and that when A8 confronted him, Sri Ram admitted that he had deposited certain wrongful claim cheques in his account and executed writing that is Ex. DW1/A.
83. Remaining accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence except that A5 filed written submissions as per section 313(5) Cr. P.C thereby bringing on record that cheque no. 304396 for Rs. 1,19,000/ from ICICI Bank towards a personal loan was processed through M/s Pahuja Motors. FINAL ARGUMENTS
84. I have heard the ld PP for the State and the marathon arguments involving the ld defence counsel of the accused persons spanning over several days and I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on the judicial record. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of A5, A6, A8 and A12.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON CLAIM FILES PROCESSING OF INSURANCE CLAIMS
85. First thing first, let us dwell upon the procedure that was in vogue for processing of motor damage claims of the insured persons. The Procedural Manual of Motor Claim is Ex. PW 58/A23 which applies in case of loss or damage to vehicle caused State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.38/ 39 to insurance perils. PW58 Sh. N. K. Bhardwaj, Senior Divisional Manager in DOII, Karol Bagh during the relevant time deposed that accused Dhara Singh was posted as Dy. Manager and looking after the MACT and Motor OD claims and other claims while accused Devi Prasad (A2) was the Account Officer. PW58 Sh. N. K. Bhardwaj explained the procedure about the insurance claims. He testified that information regarding damage to an insured vehicle, used to be received by letter or FAX or by telephone accompanied by an estimate of repairs/replacement and claim form was then issued which was required to be filled and signed by the insured himself; that on receipt of such claim, the policy used to be checked including its coverage in terms of 64VB of the policy; and keeping in view the estimated amount for repairs/replacement a surveyor was appointed; that on receipt of surveyor report, the date of receipt was put on the surveyor report and the claim file was used to be marked to the Claim Assistant who used to check all the reports and write a letter to the insured for the bills, Driving Licence, RC book, fitness and permit etc.; as the case may be; and that on receipt of all the required papers from the insured, the Claim Assistant used to process the same and put up the file to the Competent Authority as per the financial powers. PW58 testified that the Competent Authority after checking the file and satisfying itself that process was in order, used to pass the claim file and sent the same back to State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.39/ 40 the Claim Assistant for feeding the necessary particulars in the computer system with all the details and then used to send disbursement voucher to the Accounts Department on the basis of which cheque used to be prepared and used to be put up for signatures of the authorized signatory. He testified that there were two authorized signatories who were required to sign the cheques and send the file alongwith the cheques to the Claim Assistant who was then supposed to deliver the cheques to the insured/his representative/ Development Officer or agent after taking acknowledgment in the nature of the signatures on the file or on the disbursement voucher. It may be stated here that more or less the same procedure in regard to processing of insurance claim was deposed by PW 14 Rajinder Kumar Arora and further corroborated by PW39 Prem Prakash besides PW54 Sh. V. K. Bajaj and procedure for processing of insurance claims has not been assailed by the accused persons.
EVIDENCE ON CLAIM FILES AND CLAIM CHEQUES
86. The original claim cheques which are Ex. PW 14/A1 to Ex.
PW 14/A98 were seized by PW 56 IO Inspector Ajeet Singh that were drawn on current account no.3800 of National Insurance Company Ltd., DivisionXI with United Bank of India, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vide memo Ex. PW 56/J. PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora without any challenge testified that cheques Ex.PW 14/A1 to A98 had the signatures of accused Dhara Singh at State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.40/ 41 point X and accused Devi Prasad signed also signed those cheques at point Y except for cheque Ex. PW 14/A17. PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora without any challenge testified that the cheques Ex. PW 14/A1 to A98 had been prepared by accused Ram lal (A3) and Bhagwan Dass (A4) and he specifically testified that cheques which are Ex. PW 14/A1, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A17, A18, A21, A24, A25, A25, A31, A32, A36, A46, A49, A50, A51, A53, A55, A56, A57, A58, A64, A65, A67, A70, A71, A72, A73, A74, A75, A76, A77, A78, A79, A80, A81, A82, A86, A87, A88, A89, A91, A92, A94, A95, A96 and A98 had been prepared by accused Ram Lal (A3) whereas cheques s Ex. PW 14/A16, A19, A20, A33, A35, A37, A39, A44, A54 , A61 , A62 , A63 , A69 , A90 , A93 and A97 had been prepared by accused Bhagwan Dass (A4).
87. PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora further without any challenge testified that the cheques Ex. PW 14/C1 to Ex. PW 14/C32, Ex. PW 14/C34 to Ex. PW 14/C37, Ex. PW 14/C39 to Ex. PW 14/C42, Ex. PW 14/C44 to Ex. PW 14/C52, Ex. PW 14/C54 to Ex. PW 14/C61, Ex. PW 14/C63 to Ex. PW 14/C122, Ex. PW 14/C124 to Ex. PW 14/C173, Ex. PW 14/C176 to Ex. PW 14/C179, Ex. PW 14/C182 to Ex. PW 14/C189 had been signed by accused Dhara Singh while the other cheques had been executed by accused Devi Prasad viz., Ex. PW 14/C2, Ex. PW State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.41/ 42 14/C22, Ex. PW 14/C28,Ex. PW 14/C41, Ex. PW 14/C44,Ex. PW 14/C46,Ex. PW 14/C51,Ex. PW 14/C55,Ex. PW 14/C56,Ex. PW 14/C61, Ex. PW 14/C69, Ex. PW 14/C72, Ex. PW 14/C85, Ex. PW 14/C87, Ex. PW 14/C111, Ex. PW 14/C113, Ex. PW 14/C116, Ex. PW 14/C118, Ex. PW 14/C131,Ex. PW 14/C135, Ex. PW 14/C153, Ex. PW 14/C156,Ex. PW 14/C177,Ex. PW 14/C178,Ex. PW 14/C179,Ex. PW 14/C185,Ex. PW 14/C188.
88. At the outset, there is no challenge to the testimony of PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora that Motor (own damage) claim file D5 of DOXI, Karol Bagh, Delhi reflected that no surveyor had been appointed on the report of damage to UP 14 S 9606 in the name of Laxmi Chand Tyagi for a sum of Rs.11,707/ . He deposed that the claim check sheet at page no. 12 had been prepared by accused Ram Pal in his handwriting and initials at point B which claim was passed by accused Dhara Singh in the file Ex. PW14/D2. Now, PW43 was the owner of the insured vehicle UP 14 S 9606 who testified that he had not received any claim for Rs.11,707/ dt. 22.08.2005 Ex. PW 14/C11 and he was not having any account with Bank of Baroda, Ghaziabad, UP.
89. It is further in evidence of PW14 Rajinder Kumar Arora that Motor (own damage) claim file D10 of DOXI, Karol Bagh, Delhi showed that three claims in respect of vehicle no. DL 1Y 9497 , Tata Indica in the name of Manmohan Singh/ insured had been passed. He deposed that while passing such claim no surveyor State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.42/ 43 had been appointed. Here, PW53 was the registered owner / insured of such vehicle who testified that neither he lodged any claim nor received any claim in the sum of Rs.32,000/ vide cheque Ex. PW 14/C94. He further testified that he did not lodge nor receive any claim for Rs.24,987/ vide cheque no. 677868 Ex. PW 14/C146. He further testified that he did not receive any claim for Rs.31,899/ vide cheque no. 4201076 Ex. PW 14/C1. The said file is Ex. PW 14/D7.
90. It is further uncontroverted testimony of PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora that Motor (own damage) claim file D14 of DOXI, Karol Bagh, Delhi was in the name of Bhupinder Singh for vehicle no. DL 9 CB 2409. He testified that there was no surveyor report as no surveyor was appointed; that the claim check sheet was prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and claim was passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) in the file Ex. PW 14/D11. PW45 was Mr. Bhupinder Singh was registered owner / insured to WagonR car bearing registration no. DL9CB 2409. He testified that he had no account with Canara Bank, Ganesh Nagar Branch. He denied that he received any cheque for Rs.25,214/ dt. 08.09.2005 Ex. PW 14/C74.
91. It is further uncontroverted testimony of PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora that Motor (own damage) claim file D13 of DOXI, Karol Bagh, Delhi for claim cheques issued to Smt. Sagri Kaushal for vehicle no. DL 4CU0598. He testified that the claim State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.43/ 44 check sheet was prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) in the claim Ex. PW 14/D13. It is pertinent to mention here that PW46 Mr. Raj Kumar appeared in the witness box and stated that his wife was owner of Indica Car no. DL 4CU 0598. He denied that his wife was having any account with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, Delhi. He stated that his wife never received any cheque in the sum of Rs.38,910/ dated 04.01.2006 Ex. PW 14/A41. Although it is urged that the prosecution should have examined the insured herself, the facts speak for itself and such evidence can not be doubted. FURTHER PASSING OF CLAIMS WITHOUT APPOINTMENT OF SURVEYORS
92. At the cost of repetition, it may be indicated that the above claim files have been corelated by the prosecution with the insured who denied receiving the claim cheques. Evidence of PW14 Mr. Rajinder Kumar Arora further brings out that in claim files Ex. PW14/D3 to PW14/D22 no surveyor had been appointed and claim cheques were sanctioned in the name of insured persons for various amount drawn on United Bank of India, the banker of the Insurance Company and that the claim check sheet had been prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and claim was passed by accused Dhara Singh(A1). State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.44/ 45
93. PW58 Mr. N. K. Bhardwaj in his testimony strengthened the case of the prosecution bringing out that no surveyor had been appointed in the claim files Ex.PW14/D2 to Ex.PW14/D22 besides details query papers Ex. PW 58/A1 (Colly) and the claim cheque had been issued to the insured on the basis of claim check sheets alone which were prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1). Same evidence was led in regard to claim details queries papers which are Ex. PW 58/A2 to A16. In fact, his evidence brings out that in the claim details queries papers Ex. PW 58/A10 (Colly), which document is D28, as many as 20 claim cheques had been issued and although the insured were Neeraj Saini and Neeraj Sharma, the claim cheques had been issued in favour of Suresh, Mithlesh and Priyanka Sharma related to A5 that I would discuss later. In the claim details queries papers Ex. PW 58/A11 (Colly), which is D29, and 09 claim cheques had been issued. Although the account was in the name of Shri Kishan, the cheques had been issued in the name of Kishan which cheques were deposited in the account of accused Kishan (A11) on which I would dwell later on in this judgment.
94. Similarly, in the claim details query papers Ex. PW 58/A12 (Colly) D30, 15 claim cheques were issued on the basis of check sheets prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1)in the name of persons other than the insured, State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.45/ 46 namely: Kuldeep Singh, Manoj Kumar , Rajesh Kumar and Devinder Kumar. In the claim details query papers Ex. PW 58/A13 (Colly), which is D31, 30 claims had been issued in which no surveyor had been appointed and insured was one Maruti Institutional Brokers Ltd. and the cheques found its way in the account of Sunil Kumar and Satya Prakash, related to accused Rampal which accounts I would discuss later in the judgment. In the claim details query papers Ex. PW 58/A15 (Colly for D33), claim cheques issued on the basis of check sheets prepared by accused Rampal (A5) found its way in the account of accused Vinod Kumar A8. The same saga continues in respect of Ex. PW 58/A16 where claim cheques were issued in the name of Santosh wife of A5 although the policy was in the name of Smt. Santosh Yadav and Santosh Garg.
95. Now, accused Dhara Singh (A1) and Accused Devi Prasad (A2) have not denied their signatures on the claim cheques proved on record in their statements u/s 313 Cr. P.C. In the case of Sanatan Naskar v. State of West Bengal, 2010 CRI. L. J. 3871, the proposition of law in regard to statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C was explained as under:
(10)The answers by an accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC are of relevance for finding out the truth and examining the veracity of the case of the prosecution. The scope of Section 313 of the Cr. PC is wide and is not a mere formality. Let us examine the essential features of this section and the principles of law as enunciated by judgments, which are the guiding factors for proper application and consequences which shall flow from the State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.46/ 47 provisions of Section 313 of the Cr. PC. As already noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr. PC is to put all incriminating evidence to the accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. At the same time, also permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime. The Court has been empowered to examine the accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded. It is a mandatory obligation upon the Court and, besides ensuring the compliance thereof, the Court has to keep in mind that the accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct. The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simpliciter denial or, in the alternative, to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to crossexamine him. However, if the statements made are false, the Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every important incriminating piece of evidence to the accused and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is recorded, the next question that has to be considered by the Court is to what extent and consequences such statement can be used during the enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have explained this concept and now it has attained, more or less, certainty in the field of criminal jurisprudence.
The statement of the accused can be used to test the veracity of the exculpatory of the admission, if any, made by the accused. It can be taken into consideration in any enquiry or trial but still it is not strictly evidence in the case. The provisions of Section 313 (4) of Cr. PC explicitly provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such enquiry or trial and put in evidence for or against the accused in any other enquiry into or trial for, any other offence for which such answers may tend to show he has committed. In other words, the use is permissible as per the provisions of the Code but has its own limitations. The Courts may rely on a portion of the statement of the accused and find him guilty in consideration of the other evidence against him led by the prosecution, however, such statements made under this Section should not be considered in isolation but in conjunction with evidence adduced by the prosecution. Another important caution that Courts have declared in the pronouncements is that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on the statement made under Section 313 of the Cr.PC as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.47/ 48
96. In the light of the above stated principles, it was expected of the accused to provide some reasonable explanation in regard to various circumstances leading to the commission of the crime. There is no challenge to the testimony of PW14 and PW58 in their cross examination to discredit their version. The plea by accused Dhara Singh that the claim files were complete at the time of signing the claim cheques falls flat in the face of testimony of PW14 and PW 58 who unequivocally bring out that claims had been passed by accused Dhara Singh without appointment of surveyors and simply on the basis of claim sheets prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5). The plea of accused Devi Prasad that he was second signatory and was bound to sign the claim cheques as soon as signed by superior office i.e A1 also does not cut much ice as PW14 testified that although accused Devi Prasad as Accounts Officer did not play any role in processing of the claims, he was enjoined upon to check whether the claim papers were complete in all respect. The least that was expected from accused Devi Prasad (A2) was to check that the claim papers were complete in all respect and the claim cheques should have been issued in the name of the insured rather than third persons more so when it was not a question of few cheques here and there but several cheques repeatedly signed for the same payees.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.48/ 49
97. In the said circumstances, acts committed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) and accused Ram Pal (A5) are also relevant and can be read against accused Devi Prasad (A2) under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.
98. In so far as role of accused Ram Pal (A3) and Bhagwan Dass (A4) is concerned, the testimony of PW 14 Rajinder Kumar Arora is not assailed that they had prepared the cheques Ex. PW 14/A1 to Ex. PW 14/A98. However, both are saved by the testimony of PW 14 who deposed that after the claim was passed by the Competent Authority, it was only a disbursement vouchers which used to be sent to the Accounts Department for preparation of the cheques and not the complete claim file. Unfortunate for the prosecution case, the disbursement vouchers could not be located in the Department by the CBI during the investigation. It was clarified by PW58 in his cross examination that claim disbursement vouchers could only be generated on the computer on the basis of claim code which was accessible to accused Ram Pal (A5) and there was no requirement for obtaining the signatures of Competent Authority on the face of disbursement vouchers and he admitted that the cheque (s) was supposed to be prepared / written by the official in the accounts department on the basis of disbursement vouchers. If that was the case, mere fact that accused Ram Lal and Bhagwan Dass prepared the cheques does not cloth them with criminal liability State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.49/ 50 in the entire series of preparation of false claim cheques in the absence of any other incriminating evidence.
99. That brings us to the role of accused Rampal (A5. It must be seen that there was no challenge to the version of PW14 that in each of the claim files Ex. PW 14/D1 to D22, the entries in the computer system Genesis had been done by accused Ram Pal (A5) whose initials 'RP' appeared when the print outs were taken by PW 59 Sanjay Chopra that are found in the claim details query sheets referred herein before. Not only that, it is brought out that during the inquiry by the department, it was found that several claim cheques had been issued without there being any files and on access to the computer it was found that no surveyor had been appointed either. Testimony of PW36 Joginder Kumar is unassailed that it was accused Rampal(A5) functioning as the Claim Assistant who was responsible to maintain and keep the custody of the files of motor accident claim cases.
100. Much mileage was sought to be driven from the testimony of PW58 that he was not a technical person or that he did not give a certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in regard to print outs of the cheque details query sheets that were taken from the computer. PW59 in his cross examination categorically stated that he did not find anything wrong with the computer and/or the data entries ruling out any unauthorized access to carry out modification or alteration. The taking of print outs from State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.50/ 51 the computer was not a 'rocket science' and the interface with the computer in the ordinary course of business produced the print outs which are found in files Ex. PW 14/D1 to Ex. PW 14/D23, besides Ex. PW 56/C1 to Ex. PW 56/C8 as also Ex. PW58/A1 to A16. Accused Ram Pal(A5) except for a bald naked denial has nothing to show as to how come the claim sheets had been prepared by him in such a manner or got passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) who was the dealing official being the Administrative Official concerned during the relevant time. It is manifest that both were in league with each other besides accused Devi Prasad to have claim cheques passed on bogus claims and circumvented the authority of PW58 Mr. N. K. Bhardwaj who was ultimately found guilty of lacking the ability to properly supervise the functioning of his subordinates in his department.
101. In this regard, testimony of PW 54 Sh. V. K. Bajaj brings out that on a pseudonymous complaint dated 28.7.2006 a team was constituted to conduct an inquiry inter alia to receive the claim files from DOXI and scrutinized the files. Plea of Shri Ajay Digpaul, Ld defence counsel for A1 that it was in the domain of PW58 to appoint surveyors and hence his client can not be made culpable does not put any cracks in the case of the prosecution. The report Ex. PW54/A at page no.4 found that accused Dhara Singh (A1) had single handedly approved several claims without State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.51/ 52 involvement of other dealing officials. On the same page it found that accused Devi Prasad failed to see whether bank details of the concerned claimant had been mentioned in the cheque or not. Further, the report brought out that accused Devi Prasad (A2) being the Accounts Officer did not insure that the claim cheques be dispatched to the insured persons under registered cover. Plea of Mr. Israr Ahmad ld defence counsel for A2 that his client had an immunity by virtue of circular dated 09.03.2007 which is Mark DX1 is misconceived since it saved the cosignatory on the claim cheques in case of bonafide discharge of his duties.
102. The inquiry team at page no.5 of its report further observed that 158 paid claim files pertaining to the period June, 2005 to October, 2005 and 68 claim files for the period during November and December, 2005 were not made available for scrutiny. These files were never found in the department and at the cost of repetition, as per uncontroverted testimony of PW36, such files were to be in the custody of accused Rampal(A5). The claim details query in the 'Genesis' was capable of reflecting if more than one claim had been lodged against the same policy and such details were brought out in the evidence of PW 58. The report found the manner in which accused Rampal had been able to manage to issue claim cheques on the same being passed by accused Dhara Singh and siphoning of the amount in various accounts of his relatives and others. The inquiry was able to bring State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.52/ 53 out the gross criminal misconduct committed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) and Devi Prasad (A2) besides accused Rampal (A5). The trio was in fact reported to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.40,57,863/ and accused Rampal even deposited Rs. 2,00,000/ vide receipt no. 1049 dated 07.5.2007. The annexures to this report tell its own tail about the way in which the claim check sheets were prepared by accused Rampal in connivance with accused Dhara Singh (A1) and Devi Prasad (A2). The defence has not been able to dispute the findings of this report in any manner.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ON BANK ACCOUNTS Bank accounts attributed to accused Ram Pal (A5) (1). A ccount no. 51139
103. It is evidence that IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW 56/E seized documents concerning account no. 51139 with Canara Bank, CCRT, Dwarka Branch in the name of Sanjay Kumar. The account opening form is Ex. PW 14/B which at point X has a stapled photograph of accused Rampal (A5) identified by PW14. The computer generated statement of account Ex. PW 56/E1(D40) for the period 12.6.2004 to 04.11.2006 is not authenticated as per section 2A of Bankers' Books Evidence Act nor as as per the provisions of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But it must be indicated that entries of all the claim cheques in TABLE 'I' during the narration of factual circumstances are reflected in State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.53/ 54 the copies of the statement of account Ex. PW 56/E including cheques Ew. PW14/A15, PW14/A16, PW14/A52, PW14/A53, PW14/A71, PW14/A82 PW14/A93.
104. The entries in regard to few claim cheques are corelated by the prosecution with the testimony of PW23 Sanjay Kumar who testified that he was owner of Motorbike no. UP 17 6492, Hero Honda Splendor. He denied that he received any claim vide cheque no. 674850 dated 30.9.2005 for Rs.13,000/ Ex. PW 14/A93 from the National Insurance Company Ltd. (also mark X1). He further denied receiving any claim cheque no. 675588 dated 09.11.2005 for Rs.13,338/ Ex. PW 14/A26 (Mark X2) both in D32. The entries of such cheques are found in Ex. PW56/E. It may be stated that there is a visible pattern in the statement of account that soon after clearance of the cheques, amount had been withdrawn "to self" in cash and then account was closed on 04.11.2007. The pay in slips of various deposits in this account are D80 (1 to 21) marked Ex. PW 56/P1 (Colly). The debit voucher / withdrawal cheques are Ex. PW 56/P2 (Colly) which are D80 (1 to 18).
105. It is pertinent to mention here that account opening form besides withdrawal cheque bearing signatures at Q1 to Q33 were sent to GEQD along with specimen writings and signatures of accused Ram Pal marked S1 to S10 and the GEQD in his report Ex. PW 57/C gave an opinion that the writings on Q1 to State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.54/ 55 Q33 belong to the same persons who had written specimen S1 to S10. The opinion expressed in report Ex. PW 57/B of the GEQD was not assailed by the defence.
106. All the same, although the evidence of GEQD vide report Ex. PW 57/C & D is inadmissible and the computer generated copies are not authenticated, in as much as the cheques reflected in the claim details query Ex. PW 56/C6 were prepared by accused Ram Pal (A5) and passed by accused Dhara Singh (A1) and the claim cheque cosigned by accused Devi Prasad (A2), the circumstance that such cheques found its way into the account, the inference is that A5 used corrupt means to defraud his department and caused it pecuniary loss. (2). Account No. 21311
107. PW56 IO Inspector Ajit Sigh vide memo Ex. PW 56/F seized account opening form in respect of account no. 21311 with Bank of India, Karol Bagh Branch in the joint name of accused Ram Pal with his wife Santosh. The account opening form D42 is Ex. PW 56/F1 and there is a letter purportedly handwritten by accused Ram Pal dated 28.6.2005 in Hindi whereby A5 sought to bring his wife as joint holder. The computer generated statement of account for the period 01.01.2000 to 10.6.2008 running into three pages (D43) is Ex. PW 56/F2. The same is not authenticated under section 2 A of the Bankers' Book Evidence Act, 1891 nor proved in accordance with section 65B of the Indian Evidence State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.55/ 56 Act, 1872.
108. However, PW41 Upender Kant Gaur testified without any challenge that such account was introduced by him. Suffice to state that the entries of 23 claim cheques reflected in TABLE 'H' during the narration of the facts herein before are reflected on the credit side of the statement including cheques PW14/A8, PW14/A10, PW14/A25, PW14/A45 PW14/A76 and PW14/A78. There is a visible pattern that soon after deposit of claim cheques, amount had been withdrawn by cash.
109. It is pertinent to mention here that each of the pay in slips which are D77 (1 to 31) for deposit of cheques in this account had been filled by accused Rampal. Further each of the debit voucher withdrawal from this account which are D77 (32 to 40) have been filled up by accused Rampal. The pay in slips are marked Ex. PW 56/N1 (Colly) and the withdrawal form are Ex. PW 56/N2 (Colly) that were seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW 56/N.
110. It is needless to point out that Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers this court to compare the signatures on such documents with the signatures of the accused on any other document on the judicial record connected to him filed or admitted. In the case of Murarilal v. State of M.P, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 531, it was observed by their lordships that:
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.56/ 57 The argument that the Court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the Court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the Court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
111. Viewed from that angle, the signatures of accused Ram Pal on the statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C in 'English' have an uncanny resemblance with the signatures on the pay in slips as well as debit / withdrawal forms that appeared to be freely written, normal size, space and proportion of letters with similar terminal strokes. Thus, the prosecution is able to prove its case that it was accused Ram Pal who misappropriated the amounts of the cheques.
(3). Bank account of Love Kumar
112. The original account opening form (D58) of minor Love Kumar under the guardianship of accused Ram Pal bearing no. 75396 in United Bank of India, Karol Bagh is Ex. PW 56/J1 accompanied with Form No. 60 executed by accused Rampal . The computer generated statement of account for the period State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.57/ 58 01.01.2003 to 10.12.2007 is Ex. PW 56/J2 (D59). The entries of five claim cheques are found in this account as reflected in TABLE 'F' in the factual narration.
113. The original pay in slips for deposit of various cheques are D86 (1 to 5) which is Ex. PW 56/VII (Colly). The withdrawal form for various denomination which are D86 (6 to 12) clearly appear to have been signed by accused Rampal which are marked Ex. PW 56/V3 for four withdrawal slips and Ex. PW 56/V2 for the three self cheques. Although, computer generated statement of accounts is not authenticated, there is no denying the fact that accused Ram Pal was guardianship of his minor son Love Kumar and the claim cheques deposited in such account can be attributed to him.
(4). Bank account of Suresh
114. The account opening form in the name of Suresh (D61) is Ex. PW 56/K1 which bears the signatures of accused Ram Pal in token of having introduced the account. The computer generated statement of account for the period 29.11.2001 to 31.3.2007 running into six pages is Ex. PW 56/K2 which is supported by a certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891. The entries no. 20 to 31 as reflected in the TABLE 'D' in the factual narration are clearly found in the said statement including cheques Ex. PW14/A11to A14, PW14/A20, PW14/A46, PW14/A50, PW14/A57, PW14/A72, PW14/A73, PW14/A79, State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.58/ 59 PW14/A84, PW14/A88, PW14/A90 and PW14/A91. There is further a visible pattern that soon after deposit of cheque amount, the amount had been withdrawn in cash and the account had no other deposit except in regard to the claim cheques which are Ex. PW 14/A80 for cheque no. 671067 for Rs. 19,200/ deposited on 06.7.2005; Ex. PW 14/A74 for cheque no. 672384 for Rs.27,968/ deposited on 01.9.2005; Ex. PW 14/A87 for cheque no. 674945 dated 08.10.2005 for Rs.29,743/; Ex. PW 14/A83 for cheque no. 675264 for Rs.20,800/ credited on 31.10.2005. The original pay in slips in regard to various deposits are D82 (1 to D82 (9) Ex. PW 56/R1 (Colly). There is one withdrawal form for Rs.15,000/ on 21.5.2004 which appears to have been filled by accused Rampal.
115. The sum result is that the prosecution is able to prove that the claim cheques had been deposited in the account of Suresh by accused Ram Pal and also withdrawn by him. (5). Bank account of accused Ram Pal
116. Ex. PW 40/A is original account opening form in respect of account no. 11119 in the name of accused Ram Pal with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh Branch and the computer generated statement of account for the period 02.4.1994 to 31.3.2007 supported by a certificate u/s 2A under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act,1891 is Ex. PW 58/K3. The entries of six cheques in this account as reflected in the TABLE 'E' in the State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.59/ 60 factual narration are clearly reflected in the said statement and the same pattern about withdrawal is evident. The withdrawal cheques are D84 (7 to 15). Each of which appears to have been signed by accused Rampal.
(6). Bank account of Manohar
117. The account opening form D63 in the name of Manohar for account no. 14869 with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh Branch is Ex. PW56/K4 appears to have been introduced by accused Ram Pal holding account no. 11119 on 26.12.2001. The computer generated statement of account for the period 26.12.2001 to 31.3.2007 accompanied with certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is Ex. PW 56/K5. The entries of six cheques as reflected in the TABLE 'C' above are clearly reflected in this account as well.
(7). Bank account of Mithlesh
118. The account opening form D64 is in the name of Mithlesh bearing no. 14746 with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh Branch is Ex. PW 56/K6 which reflects that it was introduced by accused Ram Pal on 12.11.2001 and operated by him as her guardian. The computer generated statement of account for the period 12.10.2001 to 31.3.2007 accompanied with certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex. PW 56/K7. The entries of eight claim cheques including Ex. PW 14/A7, Ex. PW 14/A48 and Ex. PW 14/A44 vide serial no. 3, 4 and 6 respectively State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.60/ 61 in the TABLE 'A' are clearly reflected in the statement of account. (8). Bank account of Priyanka
119. D65 is the original account opening from in the name of Baby Priyanka through guardianship of Ram Pal A/c no. 14363 with Corporation Bank, Karol Bagh Branch Ex.PW 56/K8. This contains Form No. 60 signed by accused Ram Pal and the computer generated statement of account for the period 08.08.2001 to 31.03.2006 accompanied with Certificate u/s 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex.PW 56/K9.
120. There are four claims cheques as reflected in the TABLE 'B' in the factual narration and the entries of which are reflected in the statement of accounts including Ex. PW 14/A97 for Rs. 27,900/; Ex. PW 14/A23 for Rs.22,500/; Ex. PW 14/A43 for Rs. 22,890/.
121. In regard to the above said bank accounts in the name of accused Ram Pal(A5) himself, Manohar, Mithlesh and Priyanka, the prosecution brings beyond reasonable doubt a connection of false claims cheques getting in the account and withdrawal of the money soon after credit of cheques amount from time to time by A5.
(9) Bank account of Sunil
122. PW56 IO testified that he vide seizure memo Ex.PW 56/L seized documents from PNB, New Nangal Rai Delhi which is A/c no. 8510 in the name of Sunil Kumar. The signatures card of State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.61/ 62 which is Ex. PW 52/A and the computer generated statement of account for the period 30.10.2004 to 11.01.2007 with Certificate u/s 2A of the Banker's Evidence Act D68 which is Ex. PW 52/C.
123. It is suffice to state that the entries of 13 cheques including Ex. PW 14/A46, Ex. PW 14/A57, Ex. PW 14/A90, Ex. PW 14/A91, Ex. PW 14/A88 and Ex. PW 14/A72 are reflected in such statement as per TABLE 'K'. There is a visible pattern that soon after deposit / clearance of claim cheque, the amount had been withdrawn as self in cash.
124. Although the prosecution case here is on a slippery road in as much as no efforts were made to locate the person Sunil in whose name the account was opened, at the same time, the fact that such false claim cheques had been credited in such account makes accused Rampal (A5) culpable since as per PW36 he was person incharge about distribution or delivery of cheques to the rightful claimants and Sunil in question was not the rightful one. (10). Bank account of Satya Prakash
125. The original signature card D71 in the name of Satya Prakash under the guardianship of accused Ram Pal is Ex. PW 56/L3 which bears the photograph of accused Ram Pal. The statement of account D72 for the period 20.02.2003 to 10.06.2008 accompanied with Certificate u/s 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act is Ex.PW 56/L4. But the statement is inconclusive as it does not reflect the entries of the cheques State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.62/ 63 referred in the TABLE 'G' above.
126. The pay in slips D83 (1 to 27) are Ex. PW 56/S1. No evidence is led whether the same are in the handwriting of accused Rampal. Further the withdrawal slips for various amounts do not appear to have been signed by accused Rampal. The prosecution therefore is not able to prove that the accused Ram Pal had any connection with this account except that the false claim cheques were indeed deposited in the said account. BANK ACCOUNT OF RAKESH BHALLA ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED S. M. SINGH A7 AND ACCUSED RAJINDER SINGH A6
127. It is in evidence that the IO seized the documents from the bank vide seizure memo Ex. PW 56/M and the account opening from D74 in the name of Rakesh Bhalla is Ex.PW 4/A for Saving bank a/c no. 17979 with Canara Bank, Uttam Nagar Branch, New Delhi. The introducer of which is PW55. The statement of account has a stapled photograph of accused Sachinder Mohan Singh (A7) which is accompanied with Form no. 60 executed in the name of Rakesh Bhalla and the writings and signatures of the account holder Rakesh Bhalla Q34 and Q35 had been sent to CFSL. The computer generated statement of account (D75) is Ex. PW 15/C for the period 05.05.2004 to 09.05.2007 which has been proved by PW15 who delivered the said copy to IO during the investigation.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.63/ 64
128. There are 20 entries as reflected in TABLE 'P' above which are reflected in the statement of account and the cheques of which are Ex. PW 14/A16, Ex. PW 14/A19, Ex. PW 14/A27, Ex.PW 14/A30, Ex. PW 14/A33, Ex. PW 14/A39, Ex. PW 14/A40, Ex. PW 14/A41, Ex. PW 14/A51, Ex. PW 14/A52, Ex.PW 14/A54, Ex. PW14/A59, Ex. PW 14/A60, Ex. PW 14/A61, Ex. PW 14/A66, Ex. PW 14/A67, Ex. PW 14/A68, Ex. PW 14/A96. There is a visible pattern in the statement of account that soon after clearance of the cheques, the cheque amounts had been withdrawn to self by the account holder. The testimony of IO is that no person by the name of Rakesh Bhalla was found existing.
129. It may be indicated that as per letter Ex.PW 15/D, it was informed to the State(CBI) that that each of the 20 cheques in the TABLE 'P' had the credit entries in the statement of account that had been cleared by accused Rajinder Singh. However, there is little twist to the story in the testimony of PW15 who identified the signatures of Mr. D. C. Nangolia, Manager at point A in the account opening form Ex. PW 4/DA and also testified that the said form had been filled up by accused Rajinder singh. He also testified that the 17 pay in slips had been supplied to the IO which are Ex. PW 15/A1 to A17 besides 35 cheques pertaining to this account Ex. PW 15/B1 to B35. He further testified that the cheques Ex. PW 14/A16, Ex. PW 14/A19, Ex. PW 14/A27, Ex.PW 14/A30, Ex. PW 14/A33, Ex. PW 14/A35, Ex. PW 14/A39, Ex. PW State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.64/ 65 14/A41, Ex. PW 14/A51, Ex. PW 14/A52, Ex. PW 14/A54, Ex. PW 14/A55, Ex. PW 14/A60,Ex. PW 14/A61, Ex. PW 14/A62,Ex. PW 14/A66, Ex. PW 14/A67,Ex. PW 14/A68 and Ex. PW 14/A96 had been deposited through pay in slips Ex. PW 15/A1 to A17. He further testified that pay in slips Ex. PW 15/A3 dated 26.09.2005, Ex. PW 15/A5 dated 19.10.2005, Ex. PW 15/A7 dated 12.11.2005 and Ex. PW 15/A14 dated 22.03.2006 had been filled up in the handwriting of accused Rajinder singh at point X. He further deposed without any challenge that although the pay in slips recorded the account of Rakesh Bhalla, none of the cheques that are marked Ex. PW 14/A16, Ex. PW 14/A19, Ex. PW 14/A27, Ex.PW 14/A30, Ex. PW 14/A33, Ex. PW 14/A35, Ex. PW 14/A39, Ex. PW 14/A41, Ex. PW 14/A51, Ex. PW 14/A52, Ex. PW 14/A54, Ex. PW 14/A55, Ex. PW 14/A60,Ex. PW 14/A61, Ex. PW 14/A62,Ex. PW 14/A66, Ex. PW 14/A67,Ex. PW 14/A68 and Ex. PW 14/A96 were in the name of Rakesh Bhalla.
130. PW15 in this regard stated that it was in the domain of the Branch Manager or the Supervisor concerned for the day to allow deposit of cheque in any account of the customer other than the payee described on the cheques. PW15 was unable to decipher from the pay in slips who was the person who had put his initials on the pay in slips to allow deposit of cheques in the account of Rakesh Bhalla on the date mentioned therein thereby exculpating A6 from the case slapped upon him by the CBI. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.65/ 66
131. It is pertinent to mention that PW25 deposed that Priyanka Sharma was his younger sister who was owning DL 8CP 7699. He testified that her sister never received any claim cheque for Rs. 27,909/ vide cheque no. 674411 dated 15.09.2005; that she did not receive three other cheque no. 675824 for Rs.22,500/ dt. 22.11.2005; cheque no. 420400 for Rs.23,500/ dt. 11.05.2006 and cheque no. 421539 for Rs.28,520/ dt. 22.07.2006 marked X3 to X6 which cheques are found credited in the account of Rakesh Bhalla.
132. In so far as accused Rajender Singh is concerned, culpability can not be fixed for mere act of filling up the account opening and/or four payin slips out of twenty in question. PW15 did admit in his cross examination that accused Rajender Singh used to man the desk "MAY I HELP YOU" and used to fill up bank forms or withdrawal slips for bank customers in the ordinary course of business. There is no evidence that he was the beneficiary of the ill gotten money. I, therefore, find that the charge is not made out beyond reasonable doubt against accused Rajender Singh(A6).
133. I am afraid same is the fate of accused Sachinder Mohan Singh who can not be made culpable merely on the basis of his photograph on the account opening form. Unfortunate for the prosecution, evidence on his signatures on the debit notes/withdrawal cheques is inadmissible in evidence since State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.66/ 67 permission of the Court had not been taken before taking the specimen handwriting and signatures. Reference can be had to decision in Sapan Halder v. State, 2012 (8) AD Delhi 533. Lastly, there is no one from the Bank who could identify A7 as the person operating the account and perhaps such evidence could have been given by A6 who instead has been made an accused. I, therefore, accord benefit of doubt to the accused Sachinder Mohan Singh(A7).
BANK ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED VINOD KUMAR ANAND (A8)
134. Evidence on the record is not assailed by the defence that PW51 Ms. Madhu Arora had introduced her sister Urmil Anand and real brother in law V. K. Anand (A8) for opening an account with Punjab and Sind Bank, Jaspal Kaur Public School, Shalimar Bagh Branch. Ex. PW 51/A is the account opening form vide account no. 1604 which bears the photograph of accused (A8) at point A1 and his wife at point A2 besides signatures of accused A8 at point Y; and the computer generated statement of account for the period 25.5.1998 to 09.6.2008 running into 19 pages is marked Ex. PW 56/D1 in the testimony of IO.
135. Although the copies of the statement of account no. 1604 of which A8 was a joint holder has not been proved in terms of Section 2 A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act or as per section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in so far as A8 admitted such account in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C and the fact that State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.67/ 68 certain cheques were indeed deposited in his account, it would be relevant to reflect about details of certain cheques that had been credited in his account. On 02.5.2005 there was a credit of cheque for an amount of Rs.16,800/; another dated 28.7.2005 for Rs.28,673/; then third dated 08.8.2005 for Rs.27,629/; and lastly dated 06.9.2005 for Rs.21,534/ which cheques are PW14/A1, PW14/A18 and PW14/A77 respectively. In the statement of account I am unable to find credit of cheque amount of Rs. 26,200/ on 07.6.2005 as alleged in the charge sheet.
136. In the case of Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1058, in the context of section 34 Bankers' Books Evidence Act, it was observed that mere entries from bank's books of account or mere copies thereof are not sufficient to charge person with liability except where person concerned accepts correctness of entries.
137. I am afraid in the absence of any direct or cogent circumstantial evidence that A8 was in criminal conspiracy with A1, A2 or A3, the possibility that he was duped by his servant/assistant as brought in the testimony of DW1 can not be ruled out. Although such evidence is quite shaky in as much as A8 was a seasoned Insurance surveyor and this is not what A8 had stated to the Inquiry Team in his statement dated 06.06.2007 forming part of report Ex. PW54/A. All the same, IO failed to collect the pay in slips and the withdrawal forms/debit cheques State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.68/ 69 in respect of false claim cheques and in as much as it was a joint account no presumption could be drawn that A8 must have been depositing cheques and making withdrawal in the ordinary course of business. Thus I find that the prosecution fails in bringing home his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Bank account of Kuldeep Singh(A9)
138. The original account opening from (D55) is in the name of one Kuldeep Singh for SB A/c no. 19950 is Ex PW 56/J1 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch. The computer generated statement of account for the period 01.04.1997 to 16.06.2008 accompanied with Certificate u/s 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891 is Ex.PW 56/I2 (Colly) (D56).
139. The entries of 02 cheques for Rs.13,963/ and Rs.23,000/ are reflected in the statement of account which are Ex.PW 14/A2 and Ex.PW 14/A85 respectively. Unfortunate for the prosecution case, no evidence is led as to how or in what manner accused Kuldeep Singh (A9) was related to the said account holder. No pay in slips or the withdrawal forms / debit cheques had been seized by the prosecution during the course of investigation.
140. Further, in regard to account of accused Kuldeep Singh himself with HDFC, Pitampura, Delhi, computer generated statement of A/c Ex. PW 52/2A2 (D97) is not authenticated as per the Bankers' Books Evidence Act or as per Section 65B of the State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.69/ 70 Indian Evidence Act. Although there is an entry for credit of Rs. 21,100 and Rs. 19600/ which cheques are Ex. PW 14/A33 and Ex. PW 14/A22 respectively, I am afraid the case of the prosecution qua against this accused is also not proved in the absence of any direct evidence on criminal conspiracy with A1, A2 and A3. BANK ACCOUNTS ATTRIBUTED TO ACCUSED DEVENDER SINGH (A10) (1). Account no. 55022717650 in the name of Rajesh Kumar
141. IO Inspector Ajeet Singh testified that vide seizure memo Ex. PW 56/G he seized account opening form of account no. 55022717650 in the name of Rajesh Kumar introduced by one Shri Bhagwan, resident of C177, Rama Vihar, Delhi110081. The introducer has not been examined by the prosecution. The computer generated statement of account is D46 Ex. PW 56/G2 which shows credit entries of three claim cheques for Rs. 24,500/, Rs.23,670/ and Rs.26,495/ on 26.12.2005, 24.4.2006 and 27.6.2006 respectively but not authenticated as per Section 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 . (2). Account no. 55022688447 of Manoj Kumar
142. PW56 testified that vide seizure memo Ex. PW 56/G, he seized account opening form in the name of Manoj Kumar for account no. 55022688447 with State Bank of Patiala, Karala, Delhi Ex. PW 56/G3. Accused Devender Singh is not introducer of this State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.70/ 71 account and no evidence is led that it was at his behest that the account was opened. The computer generated statement of account is D48 Ex. PW 56/GH which shows an entry for a claim cheque of Rs.26,891/ on 28.2.2006 but the statement of account is neither authenticated as per Section 2A of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 nor under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(3). Bank account of accused Devender S/o Sh. Sri Ram Singh
143. Account opening form D49 Ex. PW 56/G5 is in the name of Devender Singh, S/o Sri Ram Singh introduced by one Darshan Kumar. The statement of account is D50 Ex. PW 56/G6 for the period 22.2.2002 to 19.4.2006. Perusal whereof shows entry of cheque no. 677021 for Rs.24,800/ on 06.01.2006 which cheque is Ex. PW 14/A38 (D30). Then there is an entry of another cheque no. 421382 for Rs.20,886/ on 06.7.2006 and there is further a credit entry vide cheque no. 420570 for Rs.20,986/ on 29.5.2006.
144. In respect of the above said three accounts, the investigation by the CBI is questionable smacking of pick and choose policy since on the same footing while account holder Manoj Kumar and Rajesh had been let off, accused Devinder has been arraigned as accused. IO failed to collect the pay in slips and the withdrawal forms/debit cheques in respect of false claim cheques. There is no evidence that accused Devender had any role to play in the deposit of false claim cheqeus in their account. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.71/ 72 Although Manoj and Rajesh are cited witnesses, they have not been examined either. Therefore, I find that prosecution fails to prove its case against accused Devinder(10). Bank account of accused Kishan (A11)
145. Inspector Ajit Singh testified seizing vide memo Ex. PW 56/H original account opening form for account no. 16644 in the name of Kishan Ex. PW 31/P3 introduced by one Dharam Pal. The computer generated statement of account is Ex. PW 31/P4 for the period 26.11.2003 to 21.6.2008 in four sheets. Suffice to state that each of the 17 entries for the claim cheques as reflected in TABLE 'L' including cheques PW14/A3, PW14/A29 and PW14/A36 during the factual narration of this case is reflected in the statement of account. There is also a visible pattern of withdrawal of amount in cash on each occasion soon after the credit of cheque amount.
146. The prosecution here examined PW 26 who denied receiving any claim cheques that are reflected in the account no. 16644. PW31 Sri Kishan further who deposed that he was owner of Maruti Zen car no. DL 6 CH 8603. He denied maintaining any account no. 16644 in Syndicate Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. He denied that he lodged or received any claim cheque from the Insurance Company for any damage to his car. The pay in slips of various deposits in the account are D81 (1 to 12) and the withdrawal forms are D13 to D23 and the same appears to have State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.72/ 73 been signed by accused Kishan. The withdrawal forms are Ex. PW 56/Q2 (Colly).
147. Unfortunate for the prosecution case, the introducer of this account has not been examined and the computer generated statement of accounts are not authenticated as per the Bankers' Books Evidence Act and it is difficult to make a corelation with accused Ram Pal except that in view of the testimony of PW26 and 31, there is accusing finger against A5 signifying a pattern about issuance of false claim cheques.
BANK ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED MAHESH KUMAR A12
148. A12 is the real brother of A5. The original signature card in respect of a/c of accused Mahesh Kumar no. 6244 at PNB, Nangal Rai Branch is Ex. PW 56/C1 and its accompanied with Certificate u/s 2A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act 1891 Ex.PW 56/L2 in respect of the computer generated statement of account for the period 20.06.2003 to 10.06.2008. The same are admitted by accused Mahesh in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P.C. Bare perusal of it reflects entries of seven cheques in such statement as shown in the TABLE 'J' in the factual narration including cheques PW14/A4, PW14/A6, PW14/A9, PW14/A55, PW14/A56 and PW14/A92 and again there is a visible pattern that soon after credit / clearance of the cheques, the amounts on several dates had been withdrawn in cash. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.73/ 74
149. The withdrawal slips are D83 (59 to 69) Ex. PW 56/D1 to Ex. PW 56/D11. Each of this withdrawal form for various amounts appears to have been signed by accused Mahesh Kumar on the front as well as on the back except the withdrawal cheques for Rs.13,000/ dated 27.12.2003 Ex. PW 56/D3 that appears to have been signed by accused Rampal. No challenge has been made to such documentary evidence by the defence in any manner. Further, A12 has not offered any explanation as to how such claim cheques had been deposited in his bank account to which he wasn't even entitled to. Since the account belonged to him, there arise a presumption that it was he alone who was depositing cheques and withdrawing amounts operating the same in the ordinary course of business.
150. Now the only challenge is that such documents were not sent to the CFSL to check his handwriting and signatures. At the cost of repetition, in view of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, this Court is competent to make comparison of the signatures on the documents above purportedly signed by person Mahesh visavis the documents of accused Mahesh (A12) on the judicial record. The comparison of such signatures from statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C besides the written submissions filed on the judicial record ex facie bring out the similarities in such signatures on general writing pattern about letters particularly the letter 'M', space as amongst other letters, freenatural flow of State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.74/ 75 writing and ending of terminal strokes.
151. I, therefore, find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Mahesh (A12) beyond reasonable doubt.
OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS
152. In the recent case of N. V. Subba Rao v. State, (2013) 2 SCC, the ingredients of offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act were explained to be : (a) that the accused should be a public servant; (b) that he should use some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abuse his position as a public servant; (c) he should not have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; and (d) for himself or any other person, and we have already noted the materials placed by the prosecution to substantiate the abovesaid offence. As regards criminal conspiracy, in a recent case of Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 613, at page 620 onwards, their lordships recapitulated the entire proposition of law as under:
"15. ... The most important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. In a case where criminal conspiracy is alleged, the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to pursue the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators but the latter does. For the offence of conspiracy some kind of physical manifestation of agreement is required to be established. The express agreement need not be proved. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient. A conspiracy is a continuing offence which continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice of necessity. During its State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.75/ 76 subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or a series of acts, he would be held guilty under Section 120B of the Penal Code, 1860."
153. Their lordships referred to earlier decision in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI [(2003) 3 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 869] wherein dealing with the conspiracy the majority opinion laid down that:
"342.... The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. ... no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which coconspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design."
154. Their lordships in the case Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki (Supra) reiterated the proposition of law that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence and that "the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused." State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.76/ 77
155. In the light of said proposition of law, coming to the instant case, individuals roles played by each of the accused, namely:
Dhara Singh (A1), Devi Prasad (A2), Ram Pal (A5) and Mahesh Kumar (A12) as well as the cumulative effect of such proved circumstances on the judicial record, it brings out that the accused persons had been acting in concert in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. The act of commission or omission attributed to each of the accused persons was conscious and clear enough to infer that they were acting in pursuance of common design and its execution. Although, there is no direct evidence as to how accused Dhara Singh (A1) and Devi Prasad (A2) got benefited out of whole exercise, in view of proved evidence of passing of false claims cheques, there is strong inference that accused Ram Pal (A5) was used as a conduit to withdraw the ill gotten money and apportion the same as amongst themselves. Although A5 was a lowly ranked official in the hierarchy of the DO XI, it is but apparent that he was being ably guided by accused Dhara Singh (A1).
156. To sum up, accused Dhara Singh (A1), Devi Prasad (A2) and Ram Pal (A5) were public servants and they are undoubtedly abused their official position and indulged in corrupt or illegal means to derive pecuniary advantage and thereby heavy pecuniary loss to the Insurance Company. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.77/ 78
157. At the cost of repetition, repeated acts of passing claims after claims without appointment of surveyors on incomplete claim files, getting cheques issued in the name of persons other than insured persons and ultimately such cheques finding its way into the accounts of near and dear of accused Ram Pal (A5) leading to withdrawals in cash soon after credit entries on clearance inter alia through accused Mahesh Kumar (A12) exemplifies the magnitude of criminal misconduct indulged into by Dhara Singh (A1), Devi Prasad (A2) and Ram Pal (A5). Without much further ado, accused Mahesh Kumar (A12) facilitated his brother accused Ram Pal (A5) in misappropriating the amounts of cheques derived in such manner. FINAL CONCLUSION
158. In view of the detailed discussion above, I accord benefit of doubt to accused Ram Lal (A3), accused Bhagwan Das (A4) and hereby acquit them.
159. Further, this court finds that the prosecution miserably fails to prove its case against accused Kuldeep Singh (A9), Devinder Singh (A10) and Kishan (A11). Accused Sachinder Mohan Singh (A7) and Vinod Kumar Anand (A8) are hereby given benefit of doubt. I hereby acquit them.
160. Lastly, in view of the detailed discussion above, I hold the accused Dhara Singh (A1), Devi Prasad (A2) and Ram Pal (A5) guilty as charged offences u/s 120B r/w 418/419/ 420/ 467/ State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.78/ 79 468/ 471 of IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act besides substantive offences. Accused Mahesh Kumar (A12) is held guilty as charged for offences u/s 120B r/w section 420 and 471 IPC.
161. Let they be heard on the point of sentence on 03.04.2013. ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 01.04.2013 (DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
...
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.79/ 80 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE03, CBI NEW DELHI,DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 54 /2011 Case ID No. 02403R0967872008 RC No. 4E/2007/CBI/EOW1/ND U/s 120B/420/467/468/471 IPC & Sec. 13 (2) r/w S. 13 (1) (d) of P. C. Act In re:
STATE (CBI) VS
1. Dhara Singh S/o Late Jai Kishan R/o 121, Azadpur Village, Delhi
2. Devi Prasad S/o Late Sh. Mahi Lal R/o A428, Madipur Colony, New Delhi.
3. Ram Lal S/o Late Sh. Gyan Chand H. No. 2/27, Harijan Basti, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi
4. Bhagwan Das S/o Late Sh. Babu Lal R/o RZR 19, Nanda Block, Mahaveer Enclave, Delhi.
5. Ram Pal S/o Sh. Horam Singh R/o RZ 30/284, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, Delhi
6. Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Rampal R/o G44, Gopal Nagar Extn.
Nanak Pyau, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.80/ 81
7. Sachinder Mohan Singh (Pvt. person) S/o Sh. J. N. Singh, R/o D39, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi.
8. Vinod Kumar Anand (Pvt. person) S/o Late Madhusudan Lal Anad, R/o 344, Sunahari Bagh, Appt. Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi.
9. Kuldeep Singh (Pvt. person) S/o Late Sardar Tejinder Singh, R/o 1497, 1st Floor, Rani Bagh, Delhi.
10. Devinder Singh (Pvt. person) S/o Sh. Ram Singh, R/o Village - Majhari, PO Karala, Delhi.
11. Kishan (Pvt. person) S/o Late Sh. Indraj R/o A389, Kusumpur Pahari, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
12. Mahesh Kumar (Pvt. person) S/o Sh. Horam Singh R/o 30/284, Geetanjali Park, West Sagarpur, Delhi Date on which charge sheet was filed 22.12.2008 Date on which charges were framed 26.10.2009 Date on which judgment was reserved 16.03.2013 Date on which judgment was pronounced 01.04.2013 APPEARANCES: Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI). Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Ld. Counsel for accused A1 Mr. Israr Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for accused A2 Mr. R. S. Tomar, Ld. Counsel for accused A5 Mr. M. C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused A12 State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.81/ 82 03.04.2013 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE.
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Ld. Counsel for convict Dhara Singh (A1) submits that convict is about 57 years of age and the sole bread earner of his family; that his family comprises of his wife who is a chronic patient of BP and diabetics and two married daughters besides one widowed daughter with two children; and convict is also having a son who is currently unemployed.
3. It is urged by Ld. Defence counsel that the convict has been under suspension by his department soon after this incident in May 2007 and he is surviving on a meager subsistence allowance as per the rules. He urged that convict had put more than 27 years of unblemished service in his department before the present incident and otherwise his track record is quite impeccable. Mr. Digpaul, Ld. Defence counsel urged that convict is a first time offender and he was merely guilty of gross negligence in performance of his duties.
4. As regards convict Devi Prasad, Mr. Israr Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for convict A2 submits that convict is about 49 years of age and also the sole bread earner of his family having a wife and two married daughters living separately but the son is dependent upon him who is studying in 12th Standard . It is also urged that the convict is also taking care of his old aged widowed mother. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.82/ 83
5. It is also pointed out that the convict has been under suspension by his department soon after this incident since May 2007 and he and his family has been surviving on a meager subsistence allowance. He urged that convict had put more than 20 years of unblemished service in his department before the present incident and otherwise his track record was quite impeccable. Mr. Israr Ahmed, Ld. Defence counsel urged that convict is a first time offender and it is urged that convict being the accounts officer had been signing almost 5060 cheques every day that were coming before him from various departments and he was merely guilty of gross negligence in performance of his duties.
6. As regards convict Ram Pal, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Ld. Counsel for convict A5 submits that convict is about 54 years of age, also the sole bread earner of his family having a wife, two unmarried daughters and one minor son all of whom doing their schooling.
7. It is also pointed out that the convict too has been under suspension since May 2007 and he has been surviving on a meager subsistence allowance. He urged that convict had put more than 22 years of unblemished service in his department before the present incident and otherwise his track record was quite impeccable. Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Ld. Defence counsel urged that convict is a first time offender and he was merely guilty of gross negligence in performance of his duties.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.83/ 84
8. As regards convict Mahesh Kumar, Mr. M. C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for convict A12 submits that convict is about 47 years of age, also the sole bread earner of his family having a wife and two school going sons. It is pointed out that convict Mahesh Kumar is a tailor by profession and it is urged that he has been duped by his brother.
9. Ld. Counsel for all the convicts have vehemently urged to take a lenient view in favour of the convicts.
10. Per contra, Mr. S. C. Sharma, Ld. PP for the State (CBI) has urged that no mitigating circumstances exists in this case so as to take a lenient view in favour of the convicts and it is urged that maximum punishment be awarded under the law. Ld PP has also relied on decision in A. Wati AO v. State of Manipur, 1995 SOL Case NO.56 to canvass that none of the convicts deserve any leniency on account of they having dependents or losing their service benefits.
11. The facts and circumstances bringing out criminal conspiracy between convicts and the entire acts of misappropriation, cheating and forgery besides criminal misconduct committed by them have already been detailed in judgment dated 01.04.2013 and not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. At the cost of repetition, as per brought out in para 157 of the judgment, repeated acts of passing claims after claims without appointment of surveyors on incomplete claim files, getting cheques issued in the name of persons other than insured persons and ultimately such cheques State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.84/ 85 finding its way into the accounts of near and dear of accused Ram Pal (A5) leading to withdrawals in cash soon after credit entries on clearance inter alia through accused Mahesh Kumar (A12) exemplifies the magnitude of criminal misconduct indulged into by Dhara Singh (A1), Devi Prasad (A2) and Ram Pal (A5).
12. It is well settled that punishment must commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence. Cheating, commission of forgery and misappropriation of public money by public servants is a very serious offence. In the case of State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 391, discussing the principles of penology, it was observed: Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of "order" should meet challenges confronting the society. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or the deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats.
13. In the light of the said guiding penal principles, the convicts had been doing such acts of manipulation in an brazen manner over a long period of time and misappropriated the claim cheques without any fear in an unabashed manner showing total lack of State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.85/ 86 honesty and integrity. I do not see as to how a lenient view could be taken in favour of the convicts except that in so far as convict Devi Prasad (A2) is concerned, ld Defence counsel reiterated that his client had played no role in the processing of the claims passed by coconvict Dhara Singh and it manifestly appears that he signed the disputed cheques more or less on the dictates of his superior convict Dhara Singh and allowed free hand to coconvict Rampal. Convict appears to be full of remorse for his criminal misconduct. The proved facts and circumstances on the record very cogently bring out that it was convicts Dhara Singh and Rampal who were the main conspirators in the entire insurance scam.
14. Further, I propose to impose lesser quantum of punishment in terms of sentence and fine on convict Mahesh (A12)since he was probably blinded by his love, devotion or faith in his elder brother and facilitated the commission of crime. SENTENCE/PUNISHMENT
15. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 120B of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
16. I further sentence convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 420 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.86/ 87 one year ;
17. I further sentence convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 467 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
18. I further sentence convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 468 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
19. I further sentence convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 471 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
20. I further sentence the convict Dhara Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years u/s 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year; CONVIT DEVI PRASAD
21. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 120B of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months;
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.87/ 88
22. I further sentence convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 420 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months ;
23. I further sentence convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 467 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months ;
24. I further sentence convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 468 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months ;
25. I further sentence convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 471 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months ;
26. I further sentence the convict Devi Prasad to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months; CONVICT RAMPAL
27. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 120B of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.88/ 89 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
28. I further sentence convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 419 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
29. I further sentence convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 420 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
30. I further sentence convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 467 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
31. I further sentence convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 468 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs 50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
32. I further sentence convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years u/s 471 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of one year ;
33. I further sentence the convict Rampal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years u/s 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.50,000/ in default to further State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.89/ 90 undergo RI for a period of one year;
CONVICT MAHESH
34. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Mahesh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 120B of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months
35. I further sentence convict Mahesh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 420 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six Months.
36. I further sentence convict Mahesh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years u/s 471 of IPC and also pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months ;
37. The above sentences shall run concurrently. It is borne out from the judicial record that convicts Dhara Singh, Devi Prasad and Rampal remained in judicial from the date of their arrest on 19.09.2008 to 20.12.20009. Benefit u/s. 428 Cr.PC. shall be given to the convicts.
38. Copy of the judgment dated 01.04.2013 as well as order on sentence passed today be supplied to the convicts free of costs.
39. In view of the judgment dated 01.4.2013 it is needless to point out that personal bonds and surety bonds of the convicts are hereby cancelled and endorsement, if any, on their documents or FDs, if State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.90/ 91 any, on the record be released to them.
40. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 03.04.2013.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. Dhara Singh & Ors. Page No.91/