Delhi District Court
Cbi...... vs .....Inderjeet Singh Etc. on 26 May, 2007
1
1N THE COURT OF SHRI G.P. MITTAL : SPECIAL JUDGE, DELHI.
CBI......VS.....INDERJEET SINGH ETC.
RC No.92(A)/95/CBI/ACB/ND.
CC No. 43 of 1998
JUDGMENT.
1. Accused Inderjeet Singh (A1) Shri Manpreet Singh Hanse (A2)
Mrs. Girlinde Bankemper (A3) Mr. Ulf Bankemper (A4) and M/s.
Indo German Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd.(A5) (hereinafter referred
to as travel agency) have been sent up to this court to face trial for
the offence punishable U/s. 120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) r/w
Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section
143 (1) (2) of the Railways Act, 1989.
2. On the basis of a source information that the Booking Clerks at
Northern Railway Central Reservation Office at IRCA Building
New Delhi were indulging in some malpractice a surprise check
was conducted by the CBI on 28.9.95. The CBI team headed by
Inspector A.G.L. Kaul joined independent witnesses in the raiding
party. During the checking at counter no.145 manned by accused
Inderjeet Singh at 2.05 PM, it was found that Shri Inderjeet Singh,
Booking Clerk had declared a personal cash of Rs.55/- at the start
of his duty at 8.00 AM. He was found in possession of an excess
cash amounting to Rs.7495/-. In addition to this 7 requisition slips
in different names of various trains and 5 reserved tickets were
22
recovered from him. The cash at the counter of Inderjeet
Singh was found to be short by Rs.638/-. The prosecution
alleges that accused Inderjeet Singh told the IO that he had
been booking tickets for a travel agency, which was owned by
one Vince s/o Shri Bhupender Singh and the requisition slip
found in his possession belonged to the travel agency. It is the
case of the prosecution that Shri Inderjeet Singh was
unauthorisedly booking tickets for the travel agency by
charging illegal gratification from the partners of travel
agency.
3. It is further the case of the prosecution that during
investigation, the office premises of the travel agency at WZ
242 Inder Puri, New Delhi and house of Shri Inderjeet Singh
were searched on 27.10.95. During the course of the search,
some registers showing booking of railway tickets for various
persons/firms by charging commission were recovered from
the premises of travel agency. From the house search of
accused Inderjeet Singh, a diary containing telephone
no.5736420 of accused Manpreet Singh one of the director of
the travel agency was recovered. During investigation it was
found that no person could carry on the business of procuring
and selling of railway tickets without licence of Rail Travelers
33
Service Agency or Rail Tourist Agents from railways. The
authorised agents were permitted to charge a fixed amount of
commission for procuring the railway tickets. In the case of
first class and above it was Rs.15/- per ticket for one
passenger and Rs.8/- per additional passenger. In the case of
sleeper class, the charges were Rs.10/- from the first
passenger and Rs.5/- for each subsequent passenger. It is
alleged that the travel agency was charging commission of
Rs.25/- per ticket for a single person. It was also revealed
that Shri Inderjeet Singh used to assist the travel agency in
procuring railway tickets. It was also found that Shri
Manpreet Singh Hanse, Smt. Girlinde Bankemper and Urf
Bankemper were the active directors of the travel agency and
were involved in the day to day affairs of the business.
4. Accused Inderjeet Singh failed to give any explanation for the
excess cash found in his possession and shortage of cash in
the cash box. According to the case of prosecution, 7
requisition slips and 5 tickets recovered in one envelope of
M/s. Indo German Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. were found to
be connected to serial nos. 334, 335, 343, 345 in register no.5
and serial nos.297-B and 320 in register no.1 recovered from
the premises of travel agency. The reserved tickets recovered
44
from accused Inderjeet Singh bearing no.26147699 (A),
26147700 (B), 26147704 (C), 26147711 (E) had been
reserved in the name of fictitious persons. The prosecution
alleges that accused Inderjeet Singh used to get a commission
of Rs.5/- per person per ticket through Shri Bhagwan Ji an
employee of the travel agency. The commission was being
paid by Shri Bhagwan Ji to Inderjeet Singh with the
knowledge and as per instructions of Shri Manpreet Singh
Hanse, Girlinde Bankemper and Urf Bankemper. During
investigation, specimen signatures and handwriting of
Bhagwan Ji, Arun Sharma, Devender, Virender and Ashok
Kumar, who were the employees of travel agency were
obtained. The entries in the registers maintained in the
premises of travel agency and recovered during the search
were found to be in the handwriting of Shri Bhagwan Ji, Shri
Arun Sharma, Shri Devender, Shri Manpreet Singh Hanse and
other employees of the firm. According to the prosecution,
Shri Inderjeet Singh by reserving tickets out of the way for the
travel agency and by accepting illegal gratification has
committed a criminal misconduct by abusing his position as a
public servant. On completion of the investigation, a report
U/s. 173 Cr.PC. was presented against the accused persons,
whereas Mrs. Noor Aarohi, Mrs. Regina Maria, Shri Kashmira
55
Singh Thakur and Shri Sunil Kumar Vaid , directors of travel
agency were kept in Column No.2 as no evidence of their
involvement in the commission of the offence could be
collected during investigation.
5. A charge for the offence punishable U/s. 120-B r/w Section
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act r/w Section 143 (1)(2) of
Railways Act was framed against all the accused persons. An
additional charge for the offence punishable U/s.143 (1) of the
Railways Act, was also framed against A.2 to A.4. A charge
for the substantive offence U/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and Section
143(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 against accused A.1 were
ordered to be framed vide order dated 30.1.03. The accused
persons pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution was
therefore called upon to produce its evidence to prove the
charges.
6. PW1 Shri R.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Grade I in Food
Corporation of India was associated in the house search of
accused Inderjeet Singh at GH-1/272 Paschim Vihar, New
Delhi. One telephone diary containing telephone no of various
persons including accused Manpreet Singh is alleged to have
been recovered by the raiding party. He proved the search
66
cum seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and the telephone diary as
Ex.PW1/A1. During cross examination, the witness denied the
suggestion that he was not associated with the search or that
he had signed the seizure memo in the office of CBI
subsequently. To the same effect is the testimony of P.W.6
Shri Y.P. Aggarwal and PW10 Shri Joginder Kumar,
Assistant Grade II in Food Corporation of India.
7. PW2 Shri SC Mishra and PW11 Uday Kumar were part of
the raiding party , who conducted search at premises no. WZ
242 Inder Puri, New Delhi, which is the registered office of
the travel agency. It was also the residential address of
accused Manpreet Singh @ Vince , who in the search cum
seizure memo Ex.PW2/A has been described as the proprietor
of the travel agency. These witnesses deposed about the
seizure of the documents (19 registers, 10 used invoice books
and one partly used invoice books of the travel agency and
some papers).
8. PW3 Shri V.P. Indoria had accorded sanction Ex.PW3/A for
prosecution of accused Inderjeet Singh, who was working as
Inquiry cum Reservation clerk at the time of the surprise
check.
77
9. PW4 Shri Arvind Kumar, Divisional Commercial Manager
deposed about the duties of the Railway Travelers Service
Agents and Railway Tourist Agents. Admittedly accused
Inderjeet Singh was an employee of the Indian Railways and
none of the rest of the accused had claimed himself/herself to
be authorised railway travelers service agents. To the same
effect is the testimony of PW5 Shri Aslam Mohd. Chief
Commercial Manager.
10.PW7 Shri D.R. Chaturvedi was working as an Assistant
Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana in 1996. He gave
information in respect of the various persons, who had been
appointed/resigned as Directors of the travel agency from time
to time as Annexure A with Ex.PW7/A. PW14 Shri Ram
Adhar deposed that the letter Ex.PW7/A and annexure A to
the said letter is in his handwriting and signed by him. He
deposed that annexure was prepared on the basis of the
official record.
11.Statement of PW8 Shri SC Sharma, Assistant Manager, FCI
is not a very relevant in view of the fact that handwriting of
Shri Arun Sharma who is alleged to be one of the employees
88
of the travel agency had been taken in his presence, but said
Arun Sharma has not been produced and examined as a
witness by the prosecution.
12.PW12 Shri Rajiv Arya was one of the first directors of the
travel agency. His statement is also not very much relevant as
far as the present case is concerned.
13. PW13 Shri Virender Singh deposed that in the year 1995 he
had gone to M/s. German Tours at Inderpuri and deposited
Rs.200/- to the person sitting there for booking ticket from
New Delhi to Jallundhar from Shane Punjab Train. He went in
the evening to collect the ticket. The person told that the ticket
could not be booked and returned his money. He stated that
Ex.P4 did not bear his handwriting and signatures.
14.PW16 Pema and PW17 Shri Balwinder Singh and Pw22
Madan Lal were examined by the prosecution to lead
negative evidence. PW16 Shri Pema stated that since October
1995 he was living at E-A-21 Inderpuri. He stated that he did
not know any person by the name of Mr. N.Paswan. He never
got any ticket from M/s. German Tours and Travels. He
stated that Ex.P5 which contained the address of his house
99
was neither in his handwriting nor bore his signatures.
Similarly PW17 Shri Balwinder Singh stated that no person
by the name of Shri B.Kumar was residing at WZ 250 . On
seeing ticket Ex.P7 he deposed that it contained his residential
address, but the requisition slip was not related to him and he
had never got any ticket booked from Delhi to Samastipur
from Indo German Tours and Travels. PW22 Madan Lal
deposed that he had not filled the reservation form Ex.P6 and
Ex. P7. Persons by the name of S.Singh and B.Kumar were
not the members of his family and they were not residing at
the address WZ 250 Inderpuri, New Delhi.
15.Specimen writings and signatures of accused Inderjeet Singh
were taken in presence of Sanjay Kandpal (PW18) and were
proved as Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B and whereas
signatures of Manpreet Singh were taken in presence of BK
Bhalla, (PW19) and same were proved as Ex.PW19/A to
Ex.PW19/C. During cross examination Shri BK Bhalla
deposed that he could not identify Manpreet Singh. He could
not say if he was sikh or a non sikh.
16.PW20 Shri Devender Kumar is an important witness. He was
one of the employees of M/s. Indo German Tours & Travels
1010
Pvt. Limited. He stated that the company was doing the
business of hotel booking, bus hire, air tickets, car hire etc.
He stated that one Shri Bhagwan used to work as a driver with
Manpreet Singh. He also used to clean the office. He stated
that the entry dated 28.9.95 in the register Ex.PW2A-10
(D.32) was not in his hand. He deposed that he could not say
as to who was maintaining registers Ex.PW2/A9 (D.31) and
Ex.PW2/A-11 (D.35) and who had prepared bill nos.599 and
600. The witness was allowed to be cross examined by the
learned public prosecutor. During cross examination he stated
that so long as he was working in the travel agency, it was not
in the business of booking of railway tickets. The witness
denied having stated to the police that company was in the
business of booking of railway tickets or that Shri Bhagwan
was doing the work of booking railway tickets. He denied that
company used to pay Rs.10/- to Shri Bhagwan for every
booking, which included Rs.5/- for his expenses and Rs.5/-
for the booking clerk. The witness was confronted with his
statement Ex.PW20/A. He denied having made entry at Mark
X from bill no. 599 and 600 in Ex.PW2/A-11. He denied any
knowledge if the travel agency had booked railway tickets of
the value of Rs.4 lacs during the period April 1995 to
September 1995. He denied having made any such statement
1111
to the CBI. He denied that the registers Ex.PW2/A-9 and
Ex.PW2/A-10 were maintained by him.
17.PW21 Kishan Lal has also made a general statement that a
reservation clerk cannot charge any commission for booking
any railway ticket. The reservation agents known as Rail
Travel agents do not enjoy any special privilege. They are
also to stand in queue like any other person for the booking.
He deposed that one person can tender one reservation form at
one time for a single journey. If he is booking return ticket ,
he can tender two forms, one for outward journey and other
for inward journey. He stated that cash summary is prepared
at the end of the shift or at any time if some checking is to be
done. He deposed that as per the daily terminal cash summary
Ex.PW15/DA the operator of window no.145 was to deposit
an amount of Rs.25408/- at the end of shift. During cross
examination the witness stated that on 28.9.95 bonus was
disbursed to its employees. The bonus received during the day
is not shown in the computer. PW23 Smt. Kamla Lagoon
corroborated the statement of PW21 Kishan Lal.
18.PW24 Shri V.K.Khanna is a Principal Scientific Officer ,
CFSL. He had compared the specimen handwriting of certain
1212
witnesses and accused Inderjeet Singh and Manpreet Singh
with their specimen handwriting and signatures. He proved
his detailed report Ex.PW24/G.
19.PW25 Shri Bhushan Kumar was examined to prove that the
salary amounting to Rs.3277/-, received by Inderjeet Singh
vide entry at page 307 Ex.PW25/A. He stated that bonus of
Rs.4110/- for the year 1994-95 was paid to accused Inderjeet
Singh on 28.9.95 vide document Ex.PW25/B.
20. PW26 Smt. Lila Aswal was working as Reservation
Supervisor at Counter No.152 in IRCA Building from 8.00
AM to 2.00 PM. She deposed that Inderjeet Singh was
working as Reservation Clerk at counter no.145. She gave the
details of the total tickets issued by Inderjeet Singh and the
cash received by him. During cross examination, the witness
admitted that commercial manual may be followed by Chief
Booking Supervisor. Sometimes, there is shortage/excess of
cash by the Reservation Clerk on the counter. The excess
cash goes to the govt. whereas the shortage of cash has to be
made good by the concerned Reservation Clerk. She stated
that no complaint was ever received against Inderjeet Singh
that he was issuing bulk tickets to any person or he was asking
1313
for extra money for doing reservation. Statement of PW27
Smt. Narender Kumari is also to the same effect as the
statement of PW26 Smt. Lila Aswal.
21.PW28 Constable Bijender Singh was working as a motor
cycle rider. The witness was examined to prove that certain
persons whose requisition slips had been allegedly seized
from the counter of Inderjeet Singh were not residing at the
addresses as notice U/s. 160 Cr.PC could not be served at the
said addresses.
22.PW19 Dy.S.P. A.G.L. Kaul was working as Inspector CBI on
28.9.95. He had conducted a surprise check at various railway
reservation counters at IRCA Building, New Delhi. He
deposed about the seizure of the envelope Ex.P1, requisition
slips Ex.P2 to P8, railway tickets Ex.P9 to Ex.P30 and
Ex.P.17. He also deposed about the presence of excess
personal cash about Rs.7400/- and shortage of cash at the
counter. PW29 Inspector Varinder Thakran is the
Investigating Officer of the case. He deposed about the role
played by him during the investigation of the case.
1414
23.The incriminating evidence appearing in the case of the
prosecution was put to the accused persons in their
examination U/s. 313 Cr.PC. Accused G.Bankemper admitted
that she was one of the directors of M/s. Indo German Tours
and Travels Pvt. Ltd. alongwith Mr.Urf Bankemper and Shri
Manpreet Singh. She showed her ignorance if accused
Inderjeet Singh was working as Inquiry cum Reservation
Clerk or that any surprise check was conducted at his counter
no.145 on 28.9.95. She denied that any envelope with printed
name of M/s. Indo German Travels containing requisition
slips and tickets were recovered. She denied that PW13 Shri
Varinder Singh had come to the office of M/s. German Tours
for booking a ticket from New Delhi to Jallandhur by Shane
Punjab Train. She denied that any register containing
booking of railway tickets or any other documents were
recovered from the office of Indo German Tours and Travels
Pvt. Ltd. She took up the plea that their firm never dealt in
the booking of railway tickets. A similar plea was taken by
accused Urf Bankemper and accused Manpreet Singh Hanse.
24.Accused Inderjeet Singh in his statement admitted the surprise
check at counter no.145 Railway Reservation Centre on
28.9.95 at 2.05 PM. The accused denied that one envelope
1515
Ex.P1 with the name M/s. Indo German Travels containing
some requisition slips Ex.P2 to Ex.P8 and railway tickets
Ex.P9 to Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.17 was recovered from him. He
stated that the same were handed over to Inspector AGL Kaul
by member of CBI team from outer counter. The accused
denied that any diary was seized from his house during house
search or that any register/documents Ex.PW2/A1 to A13
were seized from the office of M/s. Indo German Tours &
Travels Pvt. Limited. The accused stated that in September,
1995 some person had come inside the reservation counter
and claimed himself to be Sub Inspector of CBI. He forced
him to issue reservation ticket of III AC from New Delhi to
Bombay out of turn. He requested the said officer to come in
the queue. He got annoyed and threatened him to teach a
lesson. The accused further took up the plea that he received
bonus of Rs.4110/- on 28.9.95 and Rs.3400/- from his relation
to make purchases. He stated that he was innocent and had
not violated any rule or procedure prescribed for reservation.
He was forced to sign on reservation tickets, requisition slips
and envelope collected by one member of the raiding team
from outer counter of the reservation. One of the tickets out
of them issued from counter no.171, which would show that
the tickets had been amalgamated to implicate him falsely.
1616
The accused explained that no reservation slip is connected
with the ticket collected from the outer counter. The accused
stated that the IO had not collected the concerned reservation
slips (in respect of the railway tickets) and that he was
innocent.
25.Accused Inderjeet Singh examined his brother Kulwant Singh
in his defence. Shri Kulwant Singh testified that on 28.9.95
he had received telephonic call from Inderjeet Singh that he
needed Rs.4000/-. He had Rs.3500/- with him and handed
him over the money by calling him in the canteen. During
cross examination the witness stated that phone was received
at no.27418191. He denied the suggestion that he did not
receive any call from accused or that he did not pay him any
money.
26.I have heard Shri Akhilesh, Senior PP for the CBI and Shri
RNP Sinha, advocate for accused Inderjeet Singh (A.1) and
Manpreet Singh Hanse (A.2) and Shri S.C.Bhuttan, advocate
for accused Mrs. Girlinde Bankemper (A3), Mr. Ulf
Bankemper (A4) and M/s. Indo German Tours & Travels Pvt.
Ltd. (travel agency) (A5).
1717
27. Accused Inderjeet Singh is the Booking Clerk with whose
connivance Indo German Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. were
alleged to be getting illegal reservation of the railway tickets.
28. The evidence that has come against accused Inderjeet Singh
is the recovery of requisition slips Ex P-2 to P-8 and railway
tickets Ex P-9 to P-13 from his possession; recovery of the
excess cash of Rs. 7495/- as against the declared cash of Rs.
55; shortage of Rs. 638/- in the cash box at the counter;
recovery of a diary Ex PW1/A-1 containing telephone of co
accused Manpreet Singh @ Vince and an entry in register Ex
PW2/A-4 which according to the Hand writing Expert PW24
was in the hand of co-accused Manpreet Singh containing
certain datas of refund and bearing name of Inderjeet Singh.
The prosecution was unable to examine Bhagwanji cited as a
witness at serial No.18 who was the star witness of the
prosecution and Arun Kumar cited at sr. no.19 on the ground
that their whereabouts are not known. Both of them were
alleged to be employees of Indo German Tour and Travels
Pvt. Ltd. Accused Inderjeet Singh has denied the recovery of
Requisition Slips Ex P-2 to P-8 and Railway Tickets Ex P-9 to
P-13 and P-17 from his possession. He has taken up the plea
1818
that the tickets and requisition slips were recovered from the
outer counter as the surprise check was done on all the
counters simultaneously. Of course, testimony of PW6 Sh. Y
P Aggarwal that the requisition slips and tickets were
recovered from possession of the accused Inderjeet Singh was
not challenged during cross examination by the accused but a
specific question was put to PW15 Dy. S P Sh. A G L Kaul
who was the heading the raiding party. He was unable to tell
during cross examination as to wherefrom the six tickets and
six requisition slips were seized by him. He did not try to
verify as to from which counter the tickets had been issued.
The contents of the Search cum Seizure Memo Ex PW6/A
contradicts PW6 Sh. Y P Aggarwal as it is mentioned there
that only one ticket was recovered from the possession of the
accused while five tickets, requisition slips and the envelope
of Indo German Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. were recovered
from the counter. In view of this vacillating evidence, the
plea of the accused that somebody has left the envelope on the
outer side of the counter cannot be easily brushed aside.
29. As far as recovery of excess cash is concerned it may be
stated that it has come during prosecution evidence (See PW
1919
25 Bhushan Kumar and PW 21 Krishan Kumar) that bonus of
Rs. 4110/- was paid to accused Inderjeet Singh on 27.10.95.
Accused has also produced his brother Kulwant Singh as DW
1 who testified that he has delivered Rs. 3500/- to accused
Inderjeet Singh as he wanted to purchase some sofa and that
the accused had also told him that he had already received
some bonus and was short of some money. DW-1 Kulwant
Singh was cross examined by Ld. Sr. PP but nothing has come
during his cross examination which may suggest that he was
telling a lie. Assuming for a moment that accused Inderjeet
Singh was found in possession of some excess cash of about
Rs. 3,000/- and DW-1 Sh. Kulwant Singh is disbelieved in
this regard still no inference can be drawn from recovery of
some excess cash that this was the money paid by Indo
German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. to accused Inderjeet Singh
to purchase any ticket or it was illegal gratification passed on
by the said company to the accused. It has come during cross
examination of PW27 Smt. Narinder Kumari that if excess
amount is found with the Counter Clerk the same has to be
deposited with the Cash Office and if cash is found short the
same is to be paid by the concerned clerk. To the same effect
is the testimony of PW 26 Smt. Leela Aswal during her cross
examination. The presence of excess cash or even some
2020
railway tickets/requisition slips may give rise to a suspicion
that the accused may have indulged in illegal booking of
railway tickets. It has been held in Krishnand Agnihotri vs.
State of M P, AIR 1977 SC 796 that it is not enough merely to
show circumstance which might create suspicion because the
court cannot decide on the basis of the suspicion. It has to act
on legal grounds established by evidence. In this case no
direct evidence has come that accused Inderjeet Singh
indulged in illegal booking of railway tickets by charging any
illegal gratification or even otherwise. As stated above some
circumstances that too of doubtful nature have come on
record. It was held in Jaharlal Dass Vs. State of Orissa, AIR
1991 1388, 'that where the case depends upon circumstantial
evidence the prosecution must specify three conditions (1) the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be
drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those
circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (iii) the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so
complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that
within all human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of
explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of
2121
the accused. Further in cases depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence there is always a danger that the
conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and
such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take
the place of proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure
that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal
proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various
circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established
clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule
out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused.'
30. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the
existence of a telephone No. of co-accused Manpreet Singh @
Vince on page 78 of the diary recovered from the residence of
the accused. The prosecution has examined PW24 Sh. V K
Khanna, Principal Scientific Officer to prove that the entry on
page 78 containing words/letters 'Vince 5736420' to be in the
hand writing of accused Inderjeet Singh. There is no
corroboration to the opinion of Hand-writing Expert. Of
course, there is no rule of law nor any rule of prudence which
has crystalised into a rule of law that opinion of an Hand-
writing Expert must never be acted upon unless substantially
2222
corroborated but in appropriate cases corroboration may be
sought. In this particular case, there is only a few letters and
figures which are alleged to be in the hand writing of the
accused apart from the fact that it is not incriminating in
nature. The Handwriting Expert has given general reasons of
similarity between the letters and the figures in specimen
writings and the questioned writings. Thus, apart from the fact
that evidence of Hand-writing Expert like any other expert
evidence is of weak type I am not inclined to place much
reliance on the same without corroboration in the
circumstances of the case.
31. As far as accused Manpreet Singh is concerned, the evidence
that has come is that on the date of surprise check he was one
of the Directors of Indo German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd.
Further in the cash book Ex PW2/A-4 on page 82 certain
words like Inderjeet Singh, Dr. Pathak, ticket, Mrs. Wadhwa,
refund and some figures are in the hand of accused Manpreet
Singh. The reasons given for comparison by the expert are
general in nature. It has been stated interalia in the report Ex
PW24/A that the similar points observed in the execution of
the English small letter f in the word refund and there is
2323
similarity in execution of the small letter d in the word refund.
It has been observed that in the execution of the English small
combination th in the word Pathak in which t crossing
intersect the staffs of English small letter t and h in the
questioned writings was similarly observed in the abbreviation
th in the specimen English writing marked S-15. Normally, a
trial Judge should not enter into the comparison of the hand-
writing of a person though Section 73 of the Evidence Act
specifically empowers a judge to do so. But in this particular
case a very weak evidence in the shape of the hand writing of
accused Manpreet Singh is the main plank of the prosecution.
Therefore, I have endeavored to compare the specimen
writing of accused Manpreet Singh with the questioned
writing Q-19 and am of the view that it cannot be said that
there is close similarity between the two. Assuming for a
moment that the hand writing Q-19 on Ex PW24/D belongs to
accused Manpreet Singh @ Vince it cannot be said that the
accused Manpreet Singh had indulged in the business of
booking of railway tickets or that he had entered into a
criminal conspiracy with accused Inderjeet Singh to book
railway tickets for illegal gratification through accused
Inderjeet Singh. The prosecution had cited three employees of
the travel agency to prove as to how the tickets were being
2424
booked through Inderjeet. Out of them Sri Bhagwanji and
Arun Kumar have not been produced and PW 20 Devinder
Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution and was
declared hostile.
32. As far as accused Mrs. Girlinde Bankemper and Mr. Ulf
Bankermper are concerned there is absolutely no evidence
against them except that they were Directors of M/s Indo
German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. at the time of the surprise
check at Reservation Counter IRCA Building, New Delhi.
There is absolutely no evidence that they were ever connected
or had mens rea to commit the offence of criminal conspiracy
or abatement U/s 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P C
Act or Section 143 (1) and (2) of the Railways act, 1989.
33. I have already held above that it is doubtful if the tickets Ex
P-9 to P-13 and P-17 were recovered from the personal
possession of accused Inderjeet Singh. Out of these tickets Ex
P-10 finds mention in the register ex PW2/A6. As per case of
the prosecution this entry is in the hand of Arun Sharma who
was an employee of Indo German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd.
2525
and who had been cited as PW19. Arun Sharma could not be
produced by the prosecution and it is not established that the
register Ex PW2/A6 belongs to the Travel Agency. Thus, the
ticket Ex P-10 is not proved to be related to Indo German
Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd.
.
34. Some requisition slips are alleged to be tallying with some entries in the booking register. But again no evidence has been led by the prosecution to establish as to who made the said entries. According to the prosecution requisition slips Ex P2, P4, P5 and P 8 are in the hand writing of one Sh. Bhagwanji. As already stated, said Sh. Bhagwanji has also not been produced by the prosecution to disclose the circumstances under which and under whose instructions, the requisition slips were filled in. The corresponding entries in register Ex PW2/A6 have not been legally proved. Simple recovery of register Ex P|W2/A6 or any other register otherwise also do not prove the contents of the register unless any witness was examined by the prosecution to prove that these registers belong to Indo German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. and were maintained or were in the hand writing of a specific person.
262635. It has been urged by the Ld. Senior PP that the invoice book Ex PW2A11, invoice no.599 and 600 dt. 28.9.95 have been `proved to be in the hand writing of Arun Sharma, an employee of Indo German Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. These entries find mention in the sales register Ex PW2/A10 as also in the account book Ex PW 2/A-3. Again P|W Arun Sharma has not been produced by the prosecution therefore, it cannot be said as to under what circumstances and under whose instructions the invoices 599 and 600 were prepared by him. The entries in register Ex PW2/A10 and A3 have also not been legally proved
36. The prosecution has adduced evidence which only leads to suspicion about involvement of accused Inderjeet , Manpreet and Indo German Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. whereas there is absolutely no evidence of involvement of accused Girlinde Bankemper and Ulf Bankemper. As stated by me herein above suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the 2727 accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused are accordingly, acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court ( G.P. Mittal) Dated 26.5.07 SPECIAL JUDGE; DLEHI