Delhi District Court
State vs . Puran Chand & Ors. Page 1/144 on 26 November, 2019
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KHANAGWAL
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)-02 (ACB), ROUSE
AVENUE COURTS NEW DELHI
CNR No. : DLCT110005902019
FIR No. : 61/04
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
CC No. : 133/19
Under Section : 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Sec.
420/467/468/471/120-B IPC
State Versus
1. Puran Chand
S/o. Sh.Inder Singh
R/o. C-73, Madipur Colony,Delhi-73
2. Rai Singh
S/o.Sh. Bala Ram
R/o.H.NO.9,Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi-85.
3. Dharambir Singh
S/o.Sh. Raj Singh
R/o. H.NO.865, Sector-23, Sonipath, Haryana
4. Dharampal
S/o.Lt.Sh.Tara Chand
R/o.M-266, Shakarpur,
Delhi-34 (Since deceased, proceedings abated
on 01.10.2016)
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 1/144
-:2:-
5. Sh.Roop Ram Sharma
S/o.Lt.Sh.Ram chander
R/o.H.NO. H-52, Laxmi Park, Kunwar Singh
Nagar Nangloi, Delhi-41.
6. Sh. Baldev Prasad Sharma
S/o.Lt.Sh. Sita Ram Sharma
R/o.C-110, Vishwas Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-59.
7. Sh. Hira Lal Gupta
S/o.Sh. Devi Dayal,
R/o.F-191/B, Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar Delhi.
8. Satbir Singh
S/o. Brahm Singh
R/o. B-2/355, Sultanpuri, Delhi-86.
... Accused persons
Date of institution : 05.07.2013
Offences charged with : u/s 13 (1)(d) PC Act
r/w S.420/467/468/471/
120-BIPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving the judgment: 16.11.2019
Date of pronouncement
of judgment : 26.11.2019
Final Order : Accused Roop Ram
Sharma, Puran Chand, Rai
Singh and Satbir are
convicted
Accused Baldev Prasad
Sharma, Hira Lal Gupta
and Dharambir are
acquitted.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 2/144
-:3:-
JUDGMENT:-
1). In Brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.2004 complainant Rajesh gave a written complaint to Addl. CP ACB to the effect that he is working as temporary (Aivazidar) Safai Karamchari in CSE Department West zone, Circle no.22-JJR 2nd, MCD. He was not given any work by Assistant Sanitary Inspector Puran Chand (accused no.1) up to 01.02.2004 and whenever he used to visit Puran Chand (accused no.1) to depute him to do some work, he used to refuse for the same. Subsequently the complainant came to know that accused no.1 Puran Chand was withdrawing salary in the name of the complainant by showing that the complainant had also been working in the year 2003. When complainant mentioned this fact to the accused no.1 Puran Chand, the accused no.1 asked him not to discuss this matter with anyone and asked him to come for work on 02.02.2004. Accordingly he started working from 02.02.2004 and was working till date (date of the complaint) but he has not received his salary for the period from 02.02.2004 to 30.04.2004. From May 2004 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 3/144 -:4:- onwards, all the MCD Safai Karamcharies including him have been receiving salaries credited to their bank accounts. Whenever the complainant demanded his salary for the period 02.02.2004 to 30.04.2004, accused no.1 Puran Chand declined the same stating that his salary had not been cleared and the same would be handed over to the complainant when it is cleared.
2). It was also alleged by the complainant Rajesh that accused no.1 had obtained his signature on 12 revenue stamps by representing to him that he will receive his salary for the period 02.02.2004 to 30.02.2004 only when he would sign the revenue stamps. However till date he had not received his salary for the period 02.02.2004 to 30.02.2004. It was also alleged that ever since he has been working under accused no.1, only 14- 15 safai karamchari used to be present there whereas names of 45-50 safai karamchari were found mentioned in the muster roll.
3). The complaint was got registered as MC No. 635/04 dated 16.09.2004 and was marked to Insp.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 4/144 -:5:-Sunder Dev for enquiry. During enquiry, muster rolls for the year 2003-04 of CSE/West zone, Circle-22 JJR-II were checked by the IO and it was revealed that as per Muster Roll Nos. (28351, 35713, 17530, 50898, 83058) complainant Rajesh was shown to have worked during April 2003 for 21 days, in May 2003 for 16 days, in August 2003 for 17 days, in December 2003 for 6 days and in March 2004 for 12 days respectively and had drawn salary of Rs.2215/-, Rs.1625, Rs.1793/-, Rs.652/- and Rs.1304/- respectively. On further enquiry, it was revealed that complainant Rajesh had neither worked on the aforesaid days nor had received any salary. The payments reflected in the Muster rolls acknowledged by the receiver by putting thumb impressions whereas the complainant never affixed his thumb impression but always received salary by putting his signatures. On observing the Muster Roll No. 11715, 11751, 11745, 11754 and 11755, it was found that there was tampering in the attendance of muster roll employees and in the amount paid. The names of the Karamcharies in muster roll were not in chronological order and their salaries had also not been calculated correctly. Hence, accused no.1 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 5/144 -:6:- Puran Chand, ASI, CSIs and others had not followed the CPWD Manual and its provisions and had thereby hatched a conspiracy to cheat the MCD of its money by using forged muster rolls and by affixing forged thumb impressions. Pursuant to the enquiry, FIR No. 61/04 dated 02.12.2004 was registered u/s 13 (1)(d) POC Act r/w sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.
4). During further investigations, Insp. Sunder Dev also made enquiries from other temporary safai karamcharies of CSE/West zone Circle-22, JJR, IInd and seized 139 muster rolls for the year 2003-04. He obtained specimen thumb impressions of the temporary safai Karamcharies whose names were found mentioned in 34 muster rolls out of those 139 muster rolls and sent them to Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar. On comparison, it transpired that the thumb impressions found in those 34 muster rolls were not of the safai karamcharies whose names were mentioned in the muster rolls and were shown to have received salaries against their alleged thumb impression. These 34 muster rolls were also found to have been countersigned by accused Puran Chand/ASI FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 6/144 -:7:- (Assistant Sanitary Inspector), Rai Singh/SI (Sanitary inspector), Dharmabir Singh/SI (Sanitary inspector), Dharampal/SI (Sanitary Inspector), Roop Ram Sharma/ CSI (Chief sanitary Inspector), Baldev Prasad Sharma/SS (Sanitary Superintendent), Hira Lal Gupta/CSI (Chief Sanitary Inspector) and Satbir Singh/ASI (Assistant Sanitary Inspector). On further scrutiny of these 34 muster rolls, it also transpired that complainant Rajesh was shown to have obtained salary of Rs.1304/- and Rs.1,354/- against his alleged thumb impression in the Muster Roll No.83058 and 1238 appearing on 12.03.2004 and 12.05.2004 respectively. The opinion on the remaining 105 muster rolls could not be obtained from FSL and Finger Print Bureau as no Safai karmacharies whose names were mentioned in those 105 muster rolls were found available.
During further investigation, IO/Insp. Sunder Dev made inquiries from one Anju, a Safai Karmachari, whose name was found mentioned in the muster roll dated 23.03.2004 and was shown to have received salary. She disclosed to him that on 23.03.2003, she never FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 7/144 -:8:- worked as Safai Karamchari as she had delivered a baby on the said date and had not worked for almost 1½ month during the said period.
Consequent upon the investigation, accused Puran Chand/ASI, Rai Singh/SI, Dharambir Singh/SI, Dharampal/SI, Roop Ram Sharma/CSI, Hira Lal Gupta/CSI and Baldev Prasad Sharma/SS who were signatories to the forged muster rolls were arrested. Prosecution sanction against all accused except accused Hira Lal Gupta/CSI and Baldev Prasad Sharma/SS since they had retired was obtained and charge sheet against all the accused persons was filed u/s 13(1)(d) of POC Act and sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC. Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet u/s 13(1)(d) of POC Act and section 420/468/471/120B IPC against accused Satbir Singh, ASI was also filed as he was found to have signed Muster Roll No.64626 in which one Raj Kumari W/o. Dharamvir was shown to have been paid money of Rs.326/- against her alleged thumb impression which on investigation was found not to be hers.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 8/144 -:9:-Period under consideration in the present case, is 2003-04 in which accused persons were working as under :-
S. Name of Accused Designation
No
1. Puran Chand Assistant Sanitary Inspector
(Officiating Sanitary Inspector)
2. Rai Singh Sanitary Inspector
3. Dharambir Singh Sanitary Inspector
4. Dharam Pal Sanitary Inspector
5. Roopram Sharma Chief Sanitary Inspector
6. Baldev Prasad Sanitation Superintendent
7. Hira Lal Gupta Chief Sanitary Inspector
8. Satbir Singh Assistant Sanitary Inspector
As per the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (Conservancy and Sanitation Engineering Department), the working and hierarchy of the Sanitation Department is as under:-
Post Duties Sanitation Roll Call Checking:- surprise checks
Superintendent of morning and afternoon calls of Safai Karamcharies as directed by EE CSE.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 9/144- : 10 : -
Executive Duties:- He will be responsible for routine office work as he will be drawing and Disbursing Officers for all the conservancy and supervisory sanitation staff in the zone and ensure that the salary to the above staff is disbursed within stipulated time.
Chief Sanitary Roll Call Checking:- He will carry Inspector surprise check of morning roll calls of Safai Karamcharies at least once a week and evening roll call twice a week and submit his report to Sanitation Supdt. In addition, he will regularly check the attendance of SIs/ASIs.
Sanitary Roll Call Checking:- Morning roll call Inspector at least twice a week and afternoon roll call daily.
Assistant Sweepers' attendance:- To take Sanitary attendance of the sweepers, who as Inspector per the duty list will reach the place of sweeper's Roll Call at least five minutes before the fixed time at the appointed place. Attendance register will be completed by him and put up to Sanitary Inspector daily. Maximum 15 minutes margin will be given for the late coming people.
During the course of trial, accused Dharampal is expired on 19.08.2016 and proceedings FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 10/144
- : 11 : -
against him were abated vide order dated 01.10.2016.
After the completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons.
5). Formal charge for commission of offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as 'the PC Act') r/w section 120-B IPC and Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6). In order to prove the charges in the present case prosecution has examined as many as 60 witnesses. The testimony of material witnesses out of the same is being discussed here under:-
6 (i). PW-1 Rajesh Kumar was working as substitute safai karamchari in CSE department West Zone, MCD circle 22, JJR-II for last about 16 years. In year 2004 accused (Puran Chand) was his Daroga and he also made a complaint dated 16.9.2004 to ACB FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 11/144
- : 12 : -
Ex.PW1/A against him. He further stated that he was enrolled as substitute safai karamchari in year 2000 in MCD and he alongwith other Karamchari used to be given work subject to availability of work in MCD.
6(ii). PW-4 Ramesh Kumar. On 17.3.2010 he was posted as LDC in sanitary department of MCD, Rohini and used to maintain the service record of all ASIs/SISs/ and CSIs and he handed over the documents i.e. joining report of Balkishan, leave application and optional form of pay fixation to the IO Ex.PW4/A, B and C. 6(iii). PW-6 Mahesh Chandra. He was working as UDC at Delhi Financial Corporation, Connaught Place. He further stated that he had signed as witness to the thumb impression given by the aggrieved Safai Karamchari of MCD in his presence before IO vide Ex.PW-6/A1 to A-23 and Ex.Pw-5/A1 to A3.
6(iv). PW7 Sh. Ashok Kumar. He was working as LDC in Irrigation and Flood Control Civil Division. On 1.10.2004 he was assigned duty of panch witness and in FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 12/144
- : 13 : -
his presence, complainant Rajesh's thumb specimen signatures was taken by IO Y.S. Negi Ex.PW1/B1 to B4.
6(v). PW8 Sh. Shiv Ram Meena. He was working as JEE in Irrigation and Flood Control Civil Division. On 3.2.2005 he was assigned duty as panch witness and in his presence, specimen signatures of accused Balraj Sharma was taken by IO which are Ex.PW8/A1 to A3.
6(vi). PW9 Dhan Singh. On 21.04.2005 he had gone to ACB as panch witness and accused Dharambir Singh had given his specimen signatures on four pages Ex.PW9/A1 to A4.
6(vii). PW10 Narender Kumar. On 17.1.09 he had gone to ACB as panch witness and in his presence IO had interrogated accused Puran Chand. Thereafter disclosure statement of PW-10 Ex.PW10/A was recorded.
6(viii).PW-11 constable Veerpal. He stated that on 12.5.17 Inspector Y.S. Negi handed over to him one authority letter to collect the report from Finger Print FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 13/144
- : 14 : -
Bureau and on the basis of same he collected the report vide diary No.657/CW/FPB/New Delhi dated 15.5.07 alongwith 9 muster rolls and 34 pages of specimen of thumb impression.
6(ix). PW12 constable Ravinder Singh. On 10.10.2008 he was posted at ACB. Inspector Y.S. Negi IO handed him one sealed envelope sealed with the seal of YSN alongwith RC No.91/08 dated 10.10.08 which he deposited in FSL vide docket No. FSL 2008/3926 dated 10.10.08.
6(x). PW-13 HC Suraj Pal. On 19.11.2008 he was posted as constable at ACB and Inspector Y.S. Negi IO handed him over one authority letter to collect the report from FSL Rohini and on the basis of same he collected the report No.2008/D-3926/6860 dated 07.11.2008 and handed over to IO.
6(xi). PW-15 Mrs. Meena. She is teacher in MCD school. She stated that as per record student Diya D/o. Manoj and Smt. Anju was admitted in her school. The FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 14/144
- : 15 : -
copy of birth certificate and admission form from the school was seized by IO vide Ex.PW-15/A and the copy of the form is Ex.Pw-15/B and 15/C and the copy of admission register is Ex.PW-15/D. 6(xii). PW16 Smt.Renu. She is Teacher in MCD Primary school no.1 Tilak Nagar. She stated that as per register student Bindu D/o. Manoj Kumar and Anju was having date of birth of 18.8.2001 and was admitted in school on 03.04.2007 vide entry Ex.Pw-16/A, original admission form and declaration Ex.PW-16/B and Ex.Pw- 16/C and the photocopy of birth certificate Mark Pw- 16/PX.
6(xiii). PW17 Rajesh Kumar. He was working as Baildar in MCD. He had produced the last pay certificate of co-accused Baldev Prasad Sharma Ex. PW17/B seized by IO vide Ex.PW-17/A. He had also produced the service record/personal file of co-accused Sh.R.R.Sharma, Rai Singh, Dharampal, Dharambir and accused Puran Chand seized by IO vide Ex.PW-17/C. The original application of co-accused R.R.Sharma dated 07.08.2003 is Ex.PW-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 15/144
- : 16 : -
17/D1, original office order dated 16.07.2007, original joining report of accused Dharampal dated 01.08.2003, original EL application of accused Dharambir Singh dated
13.12.2016 and original joining report of accused Puran Chand dated 20.01.2004 to the IO Ex.PW-17/D2 to Ex.PW-17/D6 vide seizure memo Ex.PW-17/C. 6(xiv). PW18 Madan Mohan. He is Assistant Commissioner MCD, West Zone Rajouri Garden in June 2008. He stated that there were three type of Safai Karamchari in MCD at that time i.e regular, daily wage and substitute Safai Karamchari and the payment of wages to substitute and daily wages were made through muster rolls and it was duty of Asstt. Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary Inspector and Sanitary Supervisor to supervise the work of Safai Karamchari as per charter of duties. He further stated that it was the duty of ASI to take and mark attendance of Safai Karamchari and ASI places the same before SI who puts its initial / signature on the muster roll. He further stated that CSI and SS would conduct surprise check regarding attendance of Safai Karamchari and also sign the muster roll and also mention the date of surprise FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 16/144
- : 17 : -
check against the column of date. If these official do not follow the above work they would be responsible for it and ASI also have to ensure about the cleaning work done in the area and Sanitary Inspector, Chief Sanitary Inspector and Sanitary Supdtt. would ensure the same by conducting the surprise checking.
6(xv). PW-21 Krishan Bihari. He was working as cashier in MCD zone. He stated that the muster roll used to be maintained by sanitary inspector or assistant Sanitary inspector and after the same is prepared in all respect i.e attendance of temporary karamchari, calculation of their working days and wages as per the working days, the same is signed by concerned Sanitary superintendent and sent to Accounts Department by SS, the Concerned official of the accounts department check the same and make entry in ECR register. Thereafter DDO would issue authority letter to concerned ASI or SI to receive money and thereafter the same is sent to the cashier. He further stated that vide authority letter Ex.Pw-21/A issued by SS to Puran Chand, he was authorized to collect the amount of Rs.1,35,799/- in cash FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 17/144
- : 18 : -
from the cashier and the signatures of Puran at point A to A1 was identified by him.
He further stated that as per the original cash register i.e Ex.Pw-21/B which corresponds the Ex.PW- 21/A i.e authority letter, Puran Chand had received Rs.1,37,799/- from the cashier and the entry in that respect was in the handwriting of Pw-21.
He further stated that as per the authority letter Ex.PW-21/C bearing his signature at point A and A1 wherein Puran chand was authorized by SS Balraj (Since expired) to receive about of Rs.1,39,073/- from cashier and as per the corresponding cash register i.e Ex.Pw- 21/D the payment of Rs.1,39,073/- was given to Puran Chand on his acknowledgement at point A of Ex.Pw-21/D by head cashier Sri Nath. The entry of the same was in the handwriting and signature of Sri Nath (since expired) and the same was identified by PW-21 as he was acquainted with signature and handwriting of Sri Nath. He further stated that as per the authority letter Ex.PW- 21/G bearing signature at point A, A1 and A2 wherein FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 18/144
- : 19 : -
Puran were authorized by SS Balraj (Since expired) to receive about of Rs.1,29,459/- from cashier and this was received by Puran chand against his acknowledgement. He further stated that at point A2 of Ex.Pw-21/E Puran Chand had signed for SI also. As per original cash disbursement register Ex.Pw-21/H, on 15.01.2004, PW-21 had given Rs.1,19,969/- to co-accused Rai Singh against the receipt at point A. As per the entry in original cash disbursement register Ex.Pw-21/J, the head cashier Sri Nath Aggarwal (since deceased) had given Rs.1,47,308/- to Puran Chand and he signed on the acknowledgement at point A and further identified the handwriting of Sri Nath Aggarwal being his colleague.
6(xvi). PW23 Kanhaiya Pandit. He was working as LDC in Directorate of Education. On that day he was on duty as Panch witness. On 13.04.2009, IO had taken the specimen signatures of witness Inderjeet vide Ex.Pw-2/A1 to A3 and he signed on the same.
6(xvii). PW25 Maharaj Singh Negi, Panch witness states that on 19.01.2009, IO in his presence, FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 19/144
- : 20 : -
interrogated two persons namely Lal Chand and Brahmey obtained their thumb impression Ex.PW-25/A and Ex.Pw- 25/B. 6(xviii). PW26 Chander Pal Singh. He was on duty as panch witness. On 13.02.2009 ACP and IO interrogated the co-accused Baldev Prasad and Heera Lal Gupta and were arrested vide Ex.PW26/C and Ex.Pw- 26/B. 6(xix). PW27 Inspector Avdesh Kumar. He has been examined as Finger Print Expert. In the present case, on the basis of questioned documents i.e. Muster rolls he examined the admitted and specimen signature; and thumb impression of accused persons as well as Safai Karamchari on examination and comparison of these documents he prepared his report Ex.PW-27/A dated 14.05.2007, Ex.PW-27D dated 07.03.2009, Ex.PW- 27/A28 dated 21.01.2011.
The result of the reports of PW-27 based on the examination of respective documents is following:-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 20/144
- : 21 : -
i). Some questioned thumb impression are NOT IDENTICAL with the thumb impression.
ii) Some questioned thumb impression are IDENTICAL with the thumb impression.
iii) Some questioned thumb impression are partial blur / fainted, or super imposed, therefore unfit for comparison,
iv) Some questioned thumb impression are interse IDENTICAL means these are the impression are of same finger / thumb of the same person. Further these are not identical with any of the specimen/ thumb/ finger impression.
He stated that on 20.3.2007 Inspector Sukhdev Meena of ACB submitted the documents as well as specimen thumb impression mentioned in his report under the caption enclosures for comparison. The original muster rolls which were sent and seen by him are muster roll No.28351 (mark E/PW1) having questioned mark Q1A to Q6A, muster roll No.69221 (Mark PW14/PA) questioned mark QBB, muster roll No.83048 mark PW27/A questioned mark QD, Q4C, Q3D, Q5D & Q7D, muster roll No.17530 already mark C/PW1 having questioned mark Q1C, muster roll No.35713 already mark FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 21/144
- : 22 : -
D/PW1 having questioned mark Q1B, Q2B, Q3B, Q4B, Q5B, Q6B & Q7B, muster roll No.69219 (Mark PW27/B) having questioned mark QC, Q4D, QC3, Q5C, Q7C, muster roll No.683044 (mark PW27/C) having questioned mark Q8A, muster roll No.50898 (mark A/PW1) having questioned mark Q1D, muster roll No.83053 (mark B/PW1) having questioned mark Q1E.
He further stated that the above documents with specimen thumb impression of following persons provided by the IO, Rajesh (Ex.PW1/B1 to B4), Jai Lal (Ex.PW6/A1 to A4, Mukesh ( Ex.PW6/A5 to A8), Phool Singh Ex.PW6/A9 to A12, Hari Kishan Ex.PW6/A13 to A19, Sanjay Ex.PW6/A20 to A23, Anju Ex.PW5A1 to A3, Sushil Ex.PW14/A 1 to A04. He also proved the report Ex.Pw-27/A after analyzing and comparing the questioned thumb impression with the specimen thumb impression.
On 12.2.09 the ACB sent two original muster rolls i.e. Muster roll Number 69221 Ex.PW28/J bearing thumb impression mark Q9A, Q10A, Q8B, Q11A, Q12A and Q13A Ex.PW27/B bearing questioned thumb FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 22/144
- : 23 : -
impression mark Q10B, Q9B, Q8A, Q11B and Q14A. He further stated that the investigating agency also sent specimen finger impression of Lal Chand marked S9A, S9B and S9C Ex.PW25/A, Brahmay (marked S10A, S10B, S10C and S10D Ex.PW25/B(colly.), Raj Kumar mark S11A, S11B, S11C and S11D Ex.PW27/C. He gave his report Ex.PW27/D. He also received 16 muster rolls for comparison Ex.PW28/V bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q15A and Q16A, muster roll No. 64609 ex.PW28/W bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q17A and Q18A, Q19A and Q20A, muster roll No. 64610 Ex.PW28/X bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q21A and Q22A, Q23A and Q24A, Q25A and Q26A, muster roll No. 64611 Ex.PW28/Y bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q27A, muster roll No. 64613 Ex.PW27/E bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q28A, Muster Roll No.64615 Ex.PW28/Z bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q29A and Q30A, muster roll No.64616 Ex.PW28/AA bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q31A and Q32A, muster Roll No.64617 Ex.PW28/AB bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q33A, Q34A. Q35A and Q36A, muster FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 23/144
- : 24 : -
roll No. 64618 Ex.PW28/AC bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q37A and Q43A, muster roll No. 64619 Ex.PW28/AD bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q44A and Q50A, muster roll No.64620 Ex.PW28/AE bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q51A and Q55A, muster roll No. 64621 Ex.PW28/AF bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q56A and Q61A, muster roll No. 64622 Ex.PW28/AG bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q62A, muster roll No. 64623 Ex.PW28/AH bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q62A, muster roll No. 64624 Ex.PW28/AI bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q65A and Q36B, muster roll No.64626 Ex.PW28/AJ bearing questioned thumb impression mark Q64A. He further stated that the investigating agency also sent specimen finger impression of various persons Ex.PW27/F to Ex.PW27/Z and Ex.PW27/A1 to Ex.PW27/A28 bearing his signature at point A. He also proved the report Ex.PW-27/D and Ex.PW27/A28.
6(xx). PW-28 Sh. Anurag Sharma. He was working as Assistant Director, FSL. He further proved his FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 24/144
- : 25 : -
report Ex.Pw-28/C wherein he has held that after comparison he has found that the specimen signature of Laxmi Narayan, admitted signature of Laxmi Narayan was not identical with the questioned signature of Laxmi Narayan. He also prepared his report Ex.Pw-28/C1 and Ex.Pw-28/C2 about examination of signature of accused Puran on questioned documents i.e muster rolls with his admitted and specimen signatures.
PW28 further stated that on 22.4.09 exhibits including muster rolls, specimen signatures and admitted signatures were received from ACB office in the laboratory containing muster roll bearing No.28351 Ex.PW-28/D bearing question marking i.e Q15 to Q46, Q388 to Q391 and Q438, muster roll bearing no. 35713 i.e Ex.PW-28/B having questioned signature i.e Q47 to Q79, Q399 to Q401 and Q460, muster roll bearing no. 17530 I.e Ex.PW-28/E having questioned signature i.e Q80 to Q87, Q89 to Q113, Q428, Q429 and Q449, muster roll bearing no. 50898 i.e Ex.PW-28/F having questioned signature i.e Q114 to Q142, Q427 and Q437, muster roll bearing no. 83058 i.e Ex.PW-28/G having questioned signature i.e Q143 to Q174, Q422, Q426. Q436 and FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 25/144
- : 26 : -
Q447, muster roll bearing no. 83048 i.e Ex.PW-28/H having questioned signature i.e Q205 to Q236, Q411 to Q413, Q416, Q417,Q434, Q435 and Q446, muster roll bearing no. 69221 i.e Ex.PW-28/J having questioned signature i.e Q265 to Q293, Q402 to Q405, Q414 and Q440, muster roll bearing no. 17529 i.e Ex.PW-28/K having questioned signature i.e Q430, Q431 and Q452, muster roll bearing no. 83053 i.e Ex.PW-28/L having questioned signature i.e Q453 to Q486, muster roll bearing no. 8374 i.e Ex.PW-28/M having questioned signature i.e Q451.
He further stated that the muster rolls also contained the questioned signature/writing on the documents Mark S12 to S18 Ex.PW-9/A1 to A4 specimen signature of co-accused Dharambir Singh, Mark S19 to S24 Ex.PW-28/N i.e specimen signature of accused Rai Singh, mark S25 to S27 Ex.PW-8/A1 to A3 i.e specimen signature of accused Balraj Sharma, mark S28 to S30 Ex.PW-28/O i.e specimen signature of accused Hira Lal Gupta, mark S31 to S33 Ex.PW-28/P i.e specimen signature of accused Baldev Prasad Sharma, mark S34 to FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 26/144
- : 27 : -
S37 Ex.PW-28/Q i.e specimen signature of accused Dharam Pal, mark S38 to S42 Ex.PW-28/R i.e specimen signature of accused Puran Chand, Mark S43 to S45 Ex.PW-28/S i.e specimen signature of accused Roop Ram Sharma, 3 sheets bearing mark S46 to S48 Ex.PW- 2/A1 to A3 i.e specimen signature of accused Inderjeet Singh @ Inder, 6 sheets bearing mark S49 to S54 Ex.PW- 28/T i.e specimen signature of accused Satbir Singh, 5 sheets bearing mark S55 to S59 Ex.PW-28/U i.e specimen signature of your accused Bal Kishan.
PW-28 also received admitted signature of accused Dharambir Singh Ex.PW-17/D5, Rai Singh Ex.PW-17/D3, Hira Lal Gupta Ex.PW-24/A and 24/B, 1 sheet mark A8 containing admitted signature of co-accused B.P.Sharma Ex.PW-17/B, 1 sheet mark A5 containing admitted signature of co-accused Dharam Pal Ex.PW-17/D4, 1 sheet mark A7 containing admitted signature of you accused Puran Chand Ex.PW-17/D6, 2 sheet mark A2 and A3 containing admitted signature of co-accused R.P. Sharma Ex.PW-17/D1 and D2, 2 sheet mark A11 and A12 containing admitted signature of co-accused Satbir Singh FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 27/144
- : 28 : -
Ex.PW-22/A and B, 3 sheet mark A13 to A15 containing admitted signature of accused Bal Kishan Ex.PW-4/A, B and Ex.PW-4/C. He further stated that he also received 1 sheet mark A6 containing admitted signature of accused Dharambir Singh Ex.PW-17/D5, 1 sheet mark A4 containing admitted signature of co-accused Rai Singh Ex.PW-17/D3, 2 sheet mark A9 and A10 containing admitted signature of co-accused Hira Lal Gupta Ex.PW- 24/A and 24/B, 1 sheet mark A8 containing admitted signature of co-accused B.P.Sharma Ex.PW-17/B, 1 sheet mark A5 containing admitted signature of co-accused Dharam Pal Ex.PW-17/D4, 1 sheet mark A7 containing admitted signature of accused Puran Chand Ex.PW- 17/D6, 2 sheet mark A2 and A3 containing admitted signature of co-accused R.P.Sharma Ex.PW-17/D1 and D2, 2 sheet mark A11 and A12 containing admitted signature of co-accused Satbir Singh Ex.PW-22/A and B, 3 sheet mark A13 to A15 containing admitted signature of co-accused Bal Kishan Ex.PW-4/A, B and Ex.PW-4/C. FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 28/144
- : 29 : -
PW28 further stated that on 28.06.2011 he further received exhibits for comparison i.e Muster roll bearing no. 8374 Ex.Pw-28/M marked as Q451, Muster roll bearing no.17529 Ex.Pw-28/K questioned signature marked as Q452, Muster roll bearing no. 83053 Ex.PW- 28/L questioned signature marked as Q453 to Q486, Muster roll bearing no.50898 Ex.Pw-28/F questioned signature marked as Q437, Muster roll Ex.Pw-28/V to Ex.Pw-28/Z and Muster roll Ex.PW28/AA to Ex.PW28/AJ.
He further stated that the aforesaid muster rolls also contained other question signatures. The following specimen and admitted writing/signatures of the persons i.e. S19 to S24 (Ex.PW8/N), A4 (Ex.17/D3) of co- accused Rai Singh, S25 to S27 of co-accused Balraj Sharma already Ex.PW8/A1 to A3, S38 to S42 (Ex.PW28/R),(colly) & A7 (Ex.PW17/ D6) of Puran Chand, S43 to S45 already Ex.PW28/S, A to A3 (Ex.PW17/D1 and D2) of co-accused R.R.Sharma, S46 to S48 of co- accused Inderjeet @ Inder Ex.PW2A1 to A3., S49 to S54 (Ex.PW28/T) and A11 and A12 (Ex.PW22/A and B) of accused Sh. Satbir Singh.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 29/144
- : 30 : -
He further proved the report Ex.PW-28/C2 wherein he has held that after comparison he has come to the conclusion that signature marked Q15 to Q113, Q143 to Q174, Q205 to Q236, Q265 to Q239 and S38 to S42 and A7 were written by accused Puran Chand. He further proved the report Ex.PW-28/C2 wherein he has held that after comparison he has come to the conclusion that signature marked Q114 to Q142 and S55 to S59 and A13 to A15 were written by co-accused Bal Kishan and signature marked Q388, Q389, Q391, Q399, 400, Q401, S12 to S18 and A6 were written by co-accused Dharambir, signature marked Q402 to Q405, Q411 to Q417, Q422 to Q423, Q425 to Q427, S19 to S24 and A4 were written by accused Rai Singh, signature marked Q438, Q440, S31 to S33 and A8 were written by accused B.P.Sharma, signature marked Q428 to Q431, S34 to S37 and A5 were written by accused Dharampal (since deceased), signature marked Q435, Q436, S28 to S30, A9 and A10 were written by accused Hira Lal Gupta.
He further proved the report Ex.PW-28/C1 wherein he has held that the specimen signature S19 to FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 30/144
- : 31 : -
S24 and admitted signature of co-accused Rai Singh matched with the questioned signature marked Q501, Q501F to Q501R, Q501P1, Q501P3, Q501Q1, Q501R2, Q501 R3, Q501R4, Q501R6, Q501R11 and Q501R12. He has also proved the specimen signature S49 to S54 and A12 and admitted signature of co-accused Satbir Singh matched with the questioned signature marked Q503B18 and Q503B83.
The result of reports of PW-28 based on the examination of respective document as following:-
i) Similarity in questioned signature and standard signature is observed.
ii) It has not been possible to express opinion on the questioned signature on basis of material at hand and in the absence of some more specimen as well as admitted genuine signature of the person concerned.
iii) Questioned signature indicating the common authorship of specimen signature 6(xxi). PW29 Sh.G.S. Meena, IAS, Home Secretary gave sanction against co-accused Satbir Singh FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 31/144
- : 32 : -
working as Asst. Sanitary Inspector vide sanction order Ex.PW29/A and forwarding letter is Ex.PW29/B. 6(xxii). PW30 Sh.Madan Mohan at the request of ACB prepared the bio data of accused Satbir, B.P.Sharma, Roop Ram, Rai Singh, Dharambir Singh, Puran Chand and Hira Lal Gupta Ex.PW30/A to Ex.Pw- 30/G. 6(xxiii). PW31 Surender Singh was working as Asstt. Sanitary Inspector in MCD on 01.04.88 and remained posted at Najafgarh, Narela, West and civil line zone and remained posted in west zone in year 2001- 2010. He further stated that the sanitation work of MCD is conducted under the supervision of Engineer in Chief who was assisted by Director, Joint Director and Executive Engineer, Asstt. Engg. Supdt. Sanitation works directly under the Asstt. Engineer. He is assisted by the chief sanitation officer and thereafter by Sanitary Inspector. ASI report directly SI alongwith sanitary guide. He further stated that at the ground root level Safai Karamchari execute sanitation work and they report directly to ASI FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 32/144
- : 33 : -
and during the period when PW 31 remained in west zone Safai Karamchari engaged by MCD were on regular basis, daily wage basis and substitute Safai Karamchari. Further the substitute Safai Karamchari were deputed in case of temporary vacancy on account of illness or leave of daily wage of regular safai karamchari. He further stated that attendance of all safai karamchari were to be marked by ASI and if a need to depute substitute karamchari arose, ASI was authorized to depute one out of already maintained list of substitute Safai Karamchari. If 10% of daily and regular wage safai karamachari were not present only one substitute Safai Karamchari then was to be deputed and the list of substitute Safai Karamchari existed since 1992 or earlier.
He further stated that ASI used to maintain attendance register and prepare muster rolls for ascertaining wages and further he also maintained one register for recording the consumable supplies and the challan book. The attendance register as well as muster roll are counter signed by SI, CSI and Sanitary Supdt. and physical presence of Safai Karamchari can be checked by any officer at any time. He further stated that co-accused FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 33/144
- : 34 : -
Baldev Prasad Sharma was working as SS at West zone, Roop Ram Sharma co-accused Heera Lal Gutpa, Rai Singh, Satbir Singh was working as CSI Dharambir was working as SI at west zone during the period he remained posted at west zone.
He had identified the signatures of accused persons during the investigation of the present case i.e 139 muster rolls and also signed the list of the said muster rolls Ex.Pw 31/A. He had identified the signature of accused Puran Chand and co-accused persons namely Roop Ram Sharma, Rai Singh, Dharambir, Dharampal; and B.P.Sharma on muster roll 8374 Ex.PW-28/M, Muster roll no. 50898 Ex.Pw-28/F, muster roll no.64607 Ex.Pw-28/V, muster roll no.64609 Ex.Pw-28/W, muster roll no.64610 Ex.Pw-28/X, muster roll no.64611 Ex.Pw-28/Y, muster roll no.64613 Ex.Pw-31/105, muster roll no.64615 Ex.Pw-
28/Z, muster roll no.64616 Ex.Pw-28/AA, muster roll no.64617 Ex.Pw-28/AB, muster roll no.64618 Ex.Pw- 28/AC, muster roll no.64619 Ex.Pw-28/AD, muster roll FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 34/144
- : 35 : -
no.64620 Ex.Pw-28/AE, muster roll no.64621 Ex.Pw- 28/AF, muster roll no.64622 Ex.Pw-28/AG, muster roll no.64623 Ex.Pw-28/AH, muster roll no.64624 Ex.Pw- 28/AI, muster roll no.64626 Ex.Pw-28/AG, 17529 Ex.PW- 28/K, muster roll no.83053 Ex.Pw-28/L, muster roll no.69221 Ex.Pw-28/J, muster roll no. Ex.Pw-28/H, muster roll no.1238 Ex.Pw-31/107, muster roll no.69219 Ex.Pw- 31/108, muster roll no.83044 Ex.Pw-31/109, 28363 Ex.PW-31/110, 35721 Ex.PW-31/111, 48511 Ex.PW- 31/112. He also identified signatures of accused persons on muster rolls Ex.PW-31/1 to Ex.PW-31/104.
6(xxiv). PW32 Sh.R.K.Chabra is the panch witness. He stated that on 14.03.2012 in the presence of Pw-31 Sh. Surender Singh and Akbar Ali Supdtt. checked the muster roll of MCD which were 166 in number and identified the signatures on those muster rolls. He further stated that IO had prepared two seizure memos of the above said muster roll as after bifurcation of muster rolls. The seizure memo of 139 muster rolls I.e Ex.Pw-32/A and Seizure memo of 27 muster roll Ex.Pw-32/B bears his signature at point B. FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 35/144
- : 36 : -
6(xxv). PW35 Ram Rattan Solanki. On 21.04.2009, he was on duty as panch witness and in his presence IO obtained the thumb impressions of co-
accused Satbir Singh vide Ex.PW-28/T. 6(xxvi). PW36 Rajesh Kumar. On 16.01.2009 he was on duty as panch witness and in his presence, Puran Chand alongwith co-accused Dharampal, Dharambir Singh and Rai Singh were interrogated by the IO and also obtained their thumb impression. He further stated that Ex.Pw-36/G, Ex.Pw-36/H, Ex.Pw-36/I, Ex.Pw- 36/J and Ex.Pw-28/R are the specimen handwriting and signature of you, Ex.Pw-36/A, Ex.Pw-36/B, Ex.Pw-36/C are the specimen handwriting and signature of co- accused Dharambir Ex.Pw-36/D, Ex.Pw-36 /E and Ex.Pw- 36/F are the specimen handwriting and signature of co- accused Rai Singh.
6(xxvii). PW52 ACP/Insp Kailash Chander. He was posted as inspector in ACB and the file of the present case was marked to him and vide application Ex.Pw-52/A he had sent the exhibits to FSL alongwith specimen FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 36/144
- : 37 : -
handwriting of all accused persons. He further stated that during investigation he recorded statement of witnesses, prepared bifurcation cum identification signature memo and seized the muster rolls memo Ex.Pw-32/A and 32/B and also received the list of account functionaries who were posted in the account branch of MCD Ex.PW-52/E. He further stated that he had also sent the admitted signatures I.e Ex.PW-52/A to Ex.PW-52/D to Finger print bureau.
6(xxviii). PW53 Inspector Sunder Dev. He stated that in the year 2004 one complaint of Rajesh (PW1) was marked to him on which he conducted the preliminary inquiry wherein he found that on inspection of the muster roll, the wages were not properly calculated and Puran Chand alongwith other co accused persons did not maintain the muster roll as per CPWD manual. He further stated that during preliminary inquiry he also seized muster roll bearing NO.28351, 35713, 17350, 50898, 83053, 11715, 11741, 11745, 11754, 11755.
6(xxix). PW54 Retired Insp./ACP Yashwant Singh Negi. He stated that on 16.4.2008 the present FIR FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 37/144
- : 38 : -
was marked to him for investigation and he received the finger print bureau report Ex.PW57/A. He has also recorded the statement of witnesses and also obtained the specimen handwriting of co-accused Dharambir, Heera Lal, Baldev and Dharampal. He also seized the admitted handwriting of Puran Chand, R.R. Sharma, Rai Singh, Dharampal, Dharambir Singh, Baldev, and Heera Lal. He also sent the exhibits to the FSL for seeking expert opinion. On 16.9.98 he received the cash book/register disbursement of Safai karamchari with regard to muster rolls vide forwarding letter Ex.PW54/A and documents Ex.PW54/B and also received the five muster rolls vide Ex.PW54/C and the letter showing the number of muster roll Ex.PW54/D. He also received the letter Ex.PW54/E in respect of supply of copy of register of disbursement of salary of safai karamchari/muster roll and the copy of extract was also provided. He further stated that on his requisition i.e. Ex.PW54/I, he received charter of duties of the concerned officials who were responsible for supervision of work, preparation of muster roll and release of payment vide Ex.PW54/F and the document showing the duty Ex.PW54/G and also FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 38/144
- : 39 : -
received the noting with regard to the additional work of accused Rai Singh, Dharambir, Dharampal, Puran Chand, Satbir Singh vide Ex.PW54/H. PW-54 also obtained the transfer and posting order of Puran, Roop Ram Sharma and other co accused vide Ex.PW54/J and the documents in this regard are mark 54/K. He also obtained the specimen handwriting of suspect accused Balkishan and also obtained finger print of various other persons.
He also received the charter of duties of MCD officials with regard to the attendance marked on the muster roll of substitute Karamchari vide mark Pw-54/M, the document with regard to handing over of muster roll to co-accused Satbir Singh marked Pw-54/O, the copy of the order with regard to the duty of accused SI Rai singh regarding additional work I.e mark 54/P and 54/Q, the copy of order of accused Hira Lal Gupta about his transfer to west zone Mark 54/R, copy of non availability of register of circle no. 22, JJR -II marked 54/S, copy of order of distribution of work of west zone of Balraj Sharma Mark 54/T, letter regarding the period of posting of officials FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 39/144
- : 40 : -
at circle 22, copy of reply JJR-II marked PW-54/U. PW54 further stated that during investigation he also seized the register Ex.Pw-54/Y containing list of approved Afzidar Safai Karamchari working in west zone and also received the posting order of accused Rai Singh and promotion order of other co-accused vide Mark 54/J and marked 54/Z1. He also obtained posting order of Puran Chand marked PW-54/Z2 and the posting order of co-accused Dharambir Mark Pw-5. He also received the muster rolls of February 2004 to May 2004 vide forwarding letter Ex.54/Z4.
6(xxx). PW-57 Naresh Kumar. He was posted as Addl. Commissioner Engg. MCD and granted sanction against accused persons except Balraj Sharma vide Ex.Pw-57/A. 6(xxxi). PW-58 Lal Chand. He brought the summoned record and proved the entry in cash book register vide Ex.PW-58/1 to Ex.PW-58/6 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 40/144
- : 41 : -
6(xxxii). PW-59 Sh. Inspector Kailash Chand. He filed the application for grant of sanction and after getting the sanction Ex.Pw-29/A alongwith forwarding letter Ex.Pw-29/B he filed the supplementary charge sheet against co-accused Satbir as well as the FSL report.
6(xxxiii). PW-60 S.N.Vashisht, He brought the original record i.e office order of Addl. Dy. Commissioner Ex.PW-60/3 and Ex.Pw-60/4.
7). After recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses statement of accused were
recorded. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC all accused persons had denied the incriminating material came up in evidence against them.
7(i). Accused Puran Chand stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7(ii). Accused Dharambir stated that he was having two additional charge, before further charge of FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 41/144
- : 42 : -
ward no.22, JJRII, Raghubir Nagar was given to him. He was already Incharge of Store of entire west zone and SI of Circle no. 22, Tagore garden and was posted in this ward only for 3-4 months. He further stated that he never marked attendance of Safai Karmachari or distributed wages to substitute safai karamchari's. He further stated that he had checked the roll call and the same was found to be correct and all safai karamchari's were on duty at that time.
7(iii). Accused Roop Ram Sharma stated that he was posted as CSI at the time of occurrence in west zone. The co-accused Puran chand has not been working with him. ASI Bal Kishan working with him in the month of December 2003 and January, 2004. He had not made any connivance with co-accused persons and had not taken any benefit in collusion with co-accused Puran Chand.
7(iv). Accused Satbir stated that he was ASI and was taking attendance of safai karmachari's on their reporting on duty and took work from them. He never deposited muster rolls at accounts branch. He also not FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 42/144
- : 43 : -
received wages of substitute safai karamchari in cash from cashier and not distributed the same to them. He further stated that there was no connivance between himself and any other ASI or higher officials. He further stated that no complaint was ever lodged by any Safai karamchari against him and has been unnecessarily involved in the present case.
7(v). Accused Rai Singh stated that he was having charge of ward no.22, JJRII, Raghubir Nagar additionally alongwith the charge/duty of Tilak Nagar. He further stated that work of payment of wages of Substitute Safai Karamchari was done by concerned ASI and he was not involved in the same. Complainant had not made any written or even oral complaint to him and any higher officials. Besides he, himself have initiated two/three complaints about misconduct of ASI Puran Chand and had duly forwarded them to higher authorities during the concerned period i.e 2003-04 but no action was taken by higher authorities against said ASI.
7(vi). Accused Baldev Prashad Sharma FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 43/144
- : 44 : -
stated that none of the co-accused worked under his supervision. They were working in separate area which was not under his jurisdiction. He further stated that no complaint has been made by anyone in the area under his jurisdiction.
7(vii). Accused Hira Lal stated in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC that as per established procedure, the dues of wages to Safai Karamcharis for February, 2004 were paid in March, 2004 and so on. He further stated that he joined the concerned ward on 18.03.2004 as Chief Sanitary Inspector and had nothing to do with the dues of complainant for the month of February, 2004 payable in March, 2004. He further stated that as per muster roll bearing No.83058, PW-1 had worked as substitute Safai Karamchari only till 18.03.2004 as his attendance was marked only upto 18.03.2004 in the month of March, 2004 as such there was no occasion for him to have come across with the complainant PW-1.
He further stated that there is nothing in evidence to show that he ever forged or falsified any documents or received any wrongful gain by abusing his official position.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 44/144- : 45 : -
8). In his defence, accused Puran Chand has examined DW-1 Sh. Sadanand, ASI, West Zone, MCD.
He has proved the ECR (Establishment Cash Report) register of Puran Chand Ex.DW1/A. As per the said record, Puran Chand, ASI was under suspension from 3.9.2003 to 19.1.2004. Puran Chand was posted in West Zone till 2012. The relevant entry regarding his suspension in the same is at point A and B. Accused Rai Singh and Dharambir has examined in his defence, DW2 Ms.Sunita, ASI (Diary Dispatch), West Zone, MCD. She deposed that no record of year 2001-04 is available despite best efforts and the report regarding the same is Ex.DW2/1.
9). Arguments advanced by Sh.Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Yogesh Verma Advocate for accused Hira Lal Gupta, Sh.S.Prem Chandra Ld. Counsel for accused Roop Ram Sharma, Sh. Saurabh Tiwari Ld. Counsel for accused Satbir Singh, Dharambir Singh and Rai Singh, Sh.M.K.Duggal, Ld. Counsel for accused Puran Chand FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 45/144
- : 46 : -
and Sh.Mukesh Sharma, Counsel for accused Baldev Prashad Sharma.
10). It is argued by Sh.Yogesh Verma Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of accused Hira Lal that the present case was registered on the complaint of one substitute Safai Karamchari in West Zone ward No.22 under ASI Puran Chand that he was not paid wages for the period 2.2.2004 to 30.4.2004. As per extant procedure, the dues of ages to Safai Karamcharis for February 2004 were paid in March 2004 and dues of wages for work done in March 2004 was to be paid in April 2004 and wages for April was to be paid in May 2004.
It was further averred that as per deposition of complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar PW1 he got his wages for April 2004 onwards in his bank account directly so no foul play could be inferred for any wages payable to him from 1st April 2004 onwards.
It was further averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused Hira Lal Gupta was allocated work FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 46/144
- : 47 : -
of ward No.22, JJR II on 17.3.2004 as per Ex.PW31/D1 and in pursuance of the said order he took charge of the allocated work on 18.3.2004, hence accused Hira Lal Gupta could not be held as having anything to do with the dues of complainant for the month of February 2004 payable in March 2004 since all the action qua the same had already been taken place prior to his assuming charge of the ward concerned on 18.3.2004.
It was further averred that as per muster roll bearing No.83058, PW1 had worked as substitute safai Karamchari only till 17.3.2004 as his attendance was marked only upto 17.3.04. Thus, there was no occasion for accused Hira Lal to have come across the complainant PW1 in the month of March 2004.
It was further averred that as per the procedure of MCD, it was the duty of cashier to disburse the wages/salary to the safai karamcharis/substitute safai karamcharis on muster roll after their identification by their respective sanitary guide/assistant sanitary inspector. Hence there was no connection between the safai FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 47/144
- : 48 : -
karamcharis/substitute safai karamcharies and the accused Hira Lal Gupta in the relevant period for the disbursement of the salary/wages.
It was further argued that complainant has nowhere deposed that accused Hira Lal Gupta ever met him or ever demanded any money from him nor there is any evidence to prove his signature on any of authorization to collect salary. It was further averred that the duty of the accused Hira Lal Gupta was to forward the muster roll to sanitary supdt. that had already been verified and signed by Asstt. Sanitary Inspector and further by sanitary inspector. It was for the Sanitary Supdt. to refer the said muster rolls to the accounts department for passing the bills.
It was further argued by the Ld. Defence counsel that PW54 IO of the case did not give satisfactory answers to the questions put to him by him and gave evasive and ambiguous replied to strengthen the contention that accused Hira Lal Gupta had nothing to do with the present offence.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 48/144
- : 49 : -
Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the following judgments:-
i) S.P. Bhatnagar etc v. State of Maharashtra 1979 AIR 826, 1979 SCR (2) 875.
ii) S.K. Kale v. State of Maharashttra on 17 December 1976; Equivalent citations 1977 AIR 822, 1977 SCR (2) 533.
iii) Abdulla Mohammad Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) AIR 1980 S.C.499
iv). A. Sivaprakash v. State of Kerala (2016 AIR SC) 2287
v). John Pandian v. State (2010) 14 SCC 129
vi) Kehar Singh & Ors. v. State (Delhi Admn) 1988 (3) SCC 609 at 731
vii) Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1973 AIR 2773
viii) State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram singh Ex.
Constable [1992 (4) SCC 54]
ix) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 49/144
- : 50 : -
11). It was argued by Sh.S.Prem Chandra Ld. Counsel for accused Roop Ram Sharma that accused Roop Ram Sharma joined as ASI under the MCD on 11.6.1973 and promoted to the post of SI in the year 1990. Accused was further promoted to the post of CSI w.e.f. 19.8.2003.
It was further averred that accused was not Incharge of JJ22 the alleged ward and was not concerned with collection and distribution of wages of safai karamcharis.
It was further averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused countersigned one muster roll No.50898 at serial NO.3 for December 2003 as the incharge of the said area Sh. Akbar Ali was absent and according to ASI of the area, the labour concerned was demanding his wages for his need. The said countersign was done by the accused in good faith and fair intention in the interest of laborers involving an amount of Rs.652/- only.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 50/144- : 51 : -
It was further averred that accused Roop Ram has never worked with accused Puran Chand and he has never collected or distributed any wages at any time. The accused has not named in FIR/complaint. The accused was suspended on 3.3.2009. It is further averred that accused Roop Ram Sharma was never posted with accused Puran Chand in December 2003. It is further averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that none of the witnesses appeared in the case deposited against the accused in any manner.
12). Sh.Saurabh Tiwari Ld. Counsel for accused Satbir Singh, Dharambir Singh and Rai Singh argued that ASI Puran Chand has obtained signatures of the complainant on 12 revenue tickets on the pretext that as and when salary for the period from 2.2.2004 would be released, complainant would be paid the said amount against the said signatures. It is further stated that when the complainant went to work under ASI Puran Chand he found that only 14-15 safai karamchari were working but ASI puran Chand had marked the presence of 45-50 working safai karamcharis on the muster roll and if a raid FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 51/144
- : 52 : -
is conducted then the design of the said corrupt official shall be exposed.
It is further averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that no procedure was followed by the IO in obtaining the specimen signatures/thumb impressions nor the admitted and disputed signatures were sent to FSL in sealed cover. Ld. Counsel further averred that PW28 Sh. Anurag Sharma i.e. handwriting expert has stated in his cross examination dated 13.7.2019 that the exhibits in respect of case No.FSL-2009/D-1469 were sent to his laboratory in unsealed condition and the chances of tampering with the questioned signatures as well as that of specimen signatures of the accused persons cannot be ruled out.
It is further averred that PW31 Sh.Surender Singh has not identified the signatures of accused Satbir Singh on muster roll No.64626 in his examination dated 7.10.2017.
Ld. Counsel further averred that in the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 52/144
- : 53 : -
evidence of PW53 he has stated that the document of thumb impressions/finger prints which were taken by him were not kept in sealed envelope. He has further stated from the testimony of this witness it cannot be said that the allegations against the accused persons Rai Singh or Dharambir has been proved.
It is further averred that the charter of duties of the concerned officials has been proved as Ex.PW54/G (colly) and had also proved the additional work of accused Rai Singh, Dharambir and Satbir vide Ex.PW54/H. Ld. Counsel further averred that accused persons Rai Singh and Dharambir were assigned lot of extra work and might have committed some small mistake being over burden with work and has relied upon mark PW54/P and mark PW54/Q which shows the extra work of SI Rai Singh. It is further averred that PW54 admitted in his cross-examination that accused Dharambir was looking after JJR II Raghubir Nagar ward No.22 as additional charge besides the ward already allotted to him.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 53/144
- : 54 : -
It was further averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused SI Rai Singh had already made two complaints to the higher authorities regarding the misconduct and corrupt practices by ASI Puran Chand vide Ex.PW54/DX and Ex.PW54/DX1. It is further averred that accused Satbir Singh never disbursed the salary to the Abzidar Safai Karamchari and only on one occasion he has marked the presence of the abzidar safai Karamchari in the muster roll but for the work of that date the salary was distributed by ASI Puran Chand.
Ld. Counsel further averred that from the evidence there are no allegations of IPC and POC Act are made out against any of the accused namely Rai Singh, Dharambir and Satbir Singh.
13). It is averred by Sh.Mukesh Sharma, Ld.Counsel for accused Baldev Prasad Sharma that he was posted as SS and has not been named in the FIR, his signatures were found only on one muster roll.
Counter signing the Muster Roll is not sufficient to alleged FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 54/144
- : 55 : -
commission of offence against him as no malafide intention can be gathered from that. He had put his counter signature only believing the report of his junior as true and correct.
14). It is averred by counsel Sh.M.K Duggal for accused Puran chand that during the period of commission of offence he was already suspended. No offence is committed during his tenure and has been falsely implicated in this case.
15). On the basis of offence alleged and charge framed and witnesses examined, the prosecution is required to prove the following points to establish the commission of offence by the accused persons:-
1). Whether during the years 2003-04 all the accused persons were working at CSE department, West zone, Circle 22 as JJR IInd, MCD?
2). During this period :-
a) Whether accused Hira Lal Gupta posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector;FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 55/144
- : 56 : -
b) Accused Satbir Singh posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector
c) Whether accused Dharambir Singh posted as Sanitary inspector;
d) Whether accused Bal Dev Prasad posted as Sanitation Superintendent;
e) Whether accused Roop Ram Sharma posted as Chief Sanitary inspector,
f) Whether accused Rai Singh posted as Sanitary inspector;
g) Whether accused Puran Chand was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector;
3). Whether accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other to commit the offence? (u/s 120 B IPC)
4). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD induced government (MCD) to deliver money on pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/ Substitute Safai Karamcharies as per muster rolls and thereby they got wrongful gain and caused wrong loss to the government? (420 IPC) FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 56/144
- : 57 : -
5). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD forged a document which purports to be a valuable security i.e the muster roll charts to commit the cheating?
(467 IPC).
6). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD commit the forgery of muster rolls showing the payment/ receipt of money for the purpose of cheating? (u/s 468 IPC)
7). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD used false muster roll charts to show the payment/ receipt of money as genuine? (U/s 471 IPC)
8). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD by using of corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage from the government u/s 13(1)(d)(i) POC Act ?
16). Point No.1 and 21). Whether during the years 2003-04 all the accused persons were working at CSE department, West zone, Circle 22 as JJR IInd, MCD?
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 57/144- : 58 : -
2). During this period :-
a) Whether accused Hira Lal Gupta posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector;
b) Accused Satbir Singh posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector
c) Whether accused Dharambir Singh posted as Sanitary inspector;
d) Whether accused Bal Dev Prasad posted as Sanitation Superintendent;
e) Whether accused Roop Ram Sharma posted as Chief Sanitary inspector,
f) Whether accused Rai Singh posted as Sanitary inspector;
g) Whether accused Puran Chand was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector;
Posting of accused persons.
16(i). So far as posting of Rai Singh is concerned he has not disputed his posting as Sanitary Inspector in the year 2003-04. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he has stated that he was having charge of Ward FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 58/144
- : 59 : -
No.22, JJR II, Raghubir Nagar additionally alongwith the charge/duty of Tilak Nagar. Apart from this, his signatures were found on several muster rolls of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen / admitted signatures. The FSL report in this regard are Ex.PW-28/C1, Ex.PW-28/C2. His posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw- 30/D. His posting order dated 23.04.2002 at the said place is Ex.Pw-60/1. Promotion of Rai Singh to the post of Sanitary Inspector vide order dated 15.02.94 has been proved vide Ex.Pw-60/2.
16(ii). Dharambir Singh was posted as Sanitary Inspector. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, he stated that he was having two additional charge before further charge of Ward No.22, JJR IInd, Raghubir Nagar was given to him. He was already incharge of store of entire west zone and SI of Circle no. 22, Tagore Garden. He further stated that he never marked attendance of Safai Karamchari and distributed wages to them. In the testimony of PW-17 dated 13.12.2006 one EL application Ex.Pw-17/D5 was produced to show that he was posted FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 59/144
- : 60 : -
as SI in C No. 22. Apart from this, his signatures were found on several muster rolls of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen / admitted signatures. The FSL report in this regard are Ex.PW-28/C2. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw-30/E. 16(iii). Roop Ram Sharma was posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he stated that he was posted as CSI at the time of occurrence in west zone. The accused Puran Chand was not been working with him. PW-17 proved a joining letter dated 07.08.2003 of accused RR Sharma as CSI to show that he was CSI of Circle 22, JJR-II, MCD. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw-30/C. Office order dated 05.08.2003 regarding his transfer posting to west zone as CSI is Ex.Pw-60/4.
16(iv). Heera Lal Gupta was posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he stated that he joined the concerned ward on 18.03.2004 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 60/144
- : 61 : -
as CSI. He was allocated work of Ward no. 22 JJR-II also on 17.03.2004. Apart from this, his signatures were found on muster rolls Ex.PW-28/H of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen/ admitted signatures. The FSL report in this regard is Ex.PW-28/C1. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw-30/G. Office order regarding posting of Hiralal west zone as CSI is Ex.Pw-60/3.
16(v). Baldev Prasad was posted as Sanitation Superintendent. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he stated that he was posted as Sanitation Superintendent. Apart from this, his signatures were found on muster rolls Ex.PW-28/D, Ex.PW-28/J of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen/admitted signatures. The FSL report in this regard is Ex.PW-28/C2. His signatures were also identified by PW-31 on the muster rolls Ex.PW-28/M, Ex.PW-28/J, Ex.PW-28/D, Ex.PW-28/A at point C and also on Ex.PW-31/D1 at point A and B. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.PW-30/B. FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 61/144
- : 62 : -
16(vi). Puran Chand was posted as Sanitary Inspector. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he stated that he was posted as Sanitary Inspector and Mukhtiar Singh and Balkishan were also Daroga at that time. His joining report in C22 JJR-II dated 20.01.2004 has been proved by PW-17 as Ex.Pw-17/D6. Apart from this, his signatures were found on several muster rolls of year 2003-04, some of them has been exhibited as Ex.PW-28/E, Ex.PW-28/D, Ex.PW-31/109 of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen/admitted signatures. The FSL report in this regard is Ex.PW-28/C2. His signatures were also identified by PW-31 on all the muster rolls pertain to him. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw-30/F. 16(vii). Satbir was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC he stated that he was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector and was taking attendance of Safai Karamchai on their reporting to duty and took work from them. Apart from this, his signatures were found on muster rolls Ex.PW-28/AG, FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 62/144
- : 63 : -
ExPW-28/AJ of this period and of this circle when it were compared with the specimen/admitted signatures. His joining report in C22 JJR-II dated 26.03.2003 has been proved by PW-22 as Ex.Pw-22/A. The FSL report in this regard is Ex.PW-28/C1. His signatures were also identified by PW-31 on the muster rolls. To prove his posting as public servant has been proved through his bio data Ex.Pw-30/A.
17). Therefore, in view of the above observation it has been established that Puran Chand was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector; Accused Rai Singh posted as Sanitary inspector; Accused Dharambir Singh posted as Sanitary inspector; Accused Roop Ram Sharma posted as Chief Sanitary inspector, Accused Bal Dev Prasad posted as Sanitation Superintendent;
Accused Hira Lal Gupta posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector; Accused Satbir Singh posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector in Circle no.22 JJR -II, MCD during the period 2003-04.
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 63/144- : 64 : -
18). Point No. 3 to 83). Whether accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other to commit the offence? (u/s 120 B IPC)
4). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD induced government (MCD) to deliver money on pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/ Substitute Safai Karamcharies as per muster rolls and thereby they got wrongful gain and caused wrong loss to the government? (420 IPC)
5). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD forged a document which purports to be a valuable security i.e the muster roll charts to commit the cheating?
(467 IPC).
6). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD commit the forgery of muster rolls showing the payment/ receipt of money for the purpose of cheating? (u/s 468 IPC)
7). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD used false muster roll charts to show the payment/ receipt of money as FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 64/144
- : 65 : -
genuine? (U/s 471 IPC)
8). Whether accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD by using of corrupt or illegal means or by abusing their position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage from the government u/s 13(1)(d)(i) POC Act ?
19). In this case, several muster rolls were seized by the IO in order to show the commission of offence wherein accused persons has forged the thumb impressions of several safai Karamcharies to release the amount for payment of wages. During the investigation it was revealed that the thumb impression of several Safai karamcharies whose name was appearing on a particular muster roll does not match with the specimen thumb impression of the actual safai Karamchari. In some cases, the thumb impressions of several Safai karamcharies whose names are appearing in the Muster Roll are interse identical but not matched with the specimen thumb impression of the Safai karamcharies against whose name the same has been put to show the disbursement of wages. It shows that only one person has put thumb FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 65/144
- : 66 : -
impression against the name of several Safai karamcharies in order to show that payment / wages has been released to the said Safai karamcharies against whose name the thumb impression has been put. In actual the payment was never released to such Safai karamcharies. These Muster Rolls are containing incriminating piece of evidence to show the involvement of accused persons in forging the public document and releasing money wrongfully from the government exchequer. These muster rolls are Ex.PW-28/A, Ex.PW- 28/B, Ex.Pw-28/D to Ex.PW-28/H, Ex.PW-28/J and Ex.PW-28/L, Ex.PW-28/AA to Ex.PW-28/AJ and Ex.Pw- 31/105, Ex.Pw-31/108 and Ex.Pw-31/109.
In these muster rolls the forgery of thumb impression/ signature has been committed. These Muster Roll bears the signature of ASI, SI, CSI and SS in order to authenticate the information as true and correct. ASI was the officer who takes attendance of Safai Karamchari and send it for release of money to pay wages whereas so far release of amount, the Muster Rolls is counter signed by the ASI, SI, CSI and SS. In this manner, the payment was released against the forged thumb impressions. The FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 66/144
- : 67 : -
public document I.e Muster Roll was forged and the same is a valuable security for the purpose of attendance and release of wages. The forgery was done for the purpose of cheating the Safai karamcharies against whose name the payments were released. The department of MCD was also cheated in this manner by using the Muster Roll for the release of payment in such manner.
20). There are 29 Muster Roll where thumb impression found in the name were not of the Safai Karamchari where names are mentioned in the Muster Roll and were shown to have received wages against their alleged thumb impression.
These muster rolls were sent to the FSL for the expert opinion to examine and compare the signatures of accused persons, and thumb impression/ signatures of Safai karamcharies appearing on it. The report regarding the FSL result qua the comparison of signatures of accused persons is Ex.PW-28/C1 and Ex.PW-28/C2. The report regarding the FSL result qua the comparison of thumb impression/signature of Safai karamcharies are Ex.PW-27/D, Ex.PW-27/A28, Ex.PW-
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 67/144- : 68 : -
27/A and Ex.PW-27/C. Apart from these 29 Muster Rolls there are several other Muster Rolls which were recovered by IO. These muster rolls could not be sent for FSL examination of thumb impression of Safai Karamchari as they failed to participate in investigation. These Muster Rolls are Ex.Pw-31/1 to Ex.Pw-31/104.
21). The specimen signature of accused and specimen thumb impression/signature of safai Karamchari alognwith the questioned documents i.e. Muster Rolls were obtained and sent to FSL in following manner.
21(i). Specimen and admitted signatures of accused persons in the FSL reports Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/A28, Ex.PW28/C1 & Ex.PW28/C2 are following:-
1. Puran Chand, Assistant Sanitary Inspector- S38 to S42 and A7 (Ex.PW28/R, Ex.PW36/G, Ex.PW36/H, Ex.PW36/I, Ex.PW36/J and A-7(Ex.PW52/D)
2. Rai Singh, Sanitary Inspector-
S-19 to S-24, A-4 (Ex.PW28/N(S-19 to S21), FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 68/144
- : 69 : -
Ex.PW36/D to Ex.PW36/F (S-21 to S-24) and A- 4(Ex.PW52/C) ?
3. Dharambir singh, Sanitary Inspector-
S-12 (Ex.PW9/A1 to Ex.PW9/A4 S-12 to S-15) Ex.PW36/A to Ex.PW36/C (S-16 to S-18, A6(Ex.PW17/D5)
4. Dharam Pal, Sanitary Inspector S-34 to S-37, (Ex.PW28/Q (colly) A5 (Ex.17/D4)
5. Roop Ram, Chief Sanitary Inspector S-43 to S-45Ex.PW28/S(colly), A-2Ex.PW52/A, A3 (Ex. PW52/B)
6. Baldev Prashad, Sanitary Supdt.
S-31 to S-33 (Ex.PW28/P(colly) and A8 (Ex.PW17/B)
7. Hira Lal Gupta, chief Sanitary Inspector-
S-28 to S30; (Ex.PW28/O)(colly) A-9 and A-10 (Ex.24/A and Ex.PW24/B)
8. Satbir Singh, Assistant Sanitary Inspector S-49 to S54, (Ex.PW28/T(colly) A-11 and A-12 (Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B).
21(ii). Specimen thumb/finger impressions of Safai Karamcharis in the FSL reports Ex.PW27/A, Ex.PW27/B, Ex.PW27/A28, Ex.PW28/C1 & Ex.PW28/C2 are following:-
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 69/144- : 70 : -
1. Lal Chand S9A, S9B and S9C (Ex.PW25/A (colly)
2. Brahmay S10A, S10B, S10C and S10D Ex.PW25/B (colly)
3. Raj Kumar S11A, S11B, S11C and S11D Ex.PW27/C(colly).
Specimen and admitted signatures of Safai Karamchari in the FSL reports Ex.PW28/C are following:-
1. Laxmi Narayan S1 to S3 and A1 (Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A3).
2. Rajesh S1A to S1D (Ex.PW1/B1 to Ex.PW1/B4)
3. Jai Lal S2A to S2D (Ex.PW6/A1 to Ex.PW6/A4)
4. Mukesh S3A to S3D (Ex.PW6/A5 to Ex.PW6/A8)
5. Phool Singh S4A to S4D (Ex.PW6/A9- Ex.PW6/12)
6. Hari Kishan S5A to S5G (Ex.PW6/A13 to Ex.PW6/A19)
7. Sanjay S6A to S6D (Ex.PW6/A20 to Ex.PW6/A23)
8. Anju S7A to S7C (Ex.PW5/A1 to Ex.PW5/A3)
9. Sushil S8A to S8D (Ex.PW14/A1 to Ex.PW14/A4) Specimen finger impressions of Safai Karamcharis in the FPB reports Ex.PW27/A28 are following:-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 70/144
- : 71 : -
1. Dinesh S13A to S13B (Ex.PW27/F-colly).
2. Sunita S14A to S14B (Ex.PW27/G(colly).
3. Sanjay S15A to S15B (Ex.PW27/H(colly).
4. Prem Kumar S16A to S16B (Ex.PW27/I).
5. Raj Kumar S17A to S17B (Ex.PW27/J).
6. Bimla S18A to S18B Ex.PW27/K & mark 20B
7. Sanjay S19A to S19B (Ex.PW27/L (colly).
8. Sangeeta S20A to S20B (Ex.PW27/M (colly).
9. Praveen S21A to S21B Ex.PW27/N (colly).
10. Ram Niwas S22A to S22B-Ex.PW27/O(colly)
11. Sumitra S23A to S23B - Ex.PW27/P(colly)
12. Karamvir S25A to S25B - Ex.PW27/Q.(colly).
13. Laxmi S26A to S26B- Ex.PW27/R(colly)
14. Rampal S27A to S27B - Ex.PW27/S (colly).
15. Saraswati S28A to S28B - Ex.PW27/T (colly).
16. Bedo S29A to S29B - Ex.PW27/U (colly).
17. Raju S30A to S30B - Ex.PW27/V(colly)
18. Sunita S31A to S31B - Ex.PW27/W (colly)
19. Sher Singh S32A to S32B - Ex.PW27/X (colly)
20. Satish S33A to S33B - Ex.PW27/Y (colly).
21. Asha Lata S34A to S34B - Ex.PW27/Z (colly).
22. Sumitra S35A to S35B -Ex.PW27/A1 (colly).
23. Geeta S36a to S36B - Ex.PW27/A2 (colly)
24. Rani S37A to S37B - Ex.PW27/A3(colly)
25. Bir Singh S38a to S38B - Ex.PW27/A4 (colly)
26. Nirmala S39A to S39B - Ex.PW27/A5 (colly)
27. Sanjay S40A to S40B - Ex.PW27/A6(colly)
28. Asha S41A to S41 B- Ex.PW27/A7(colly)
29. Bimla S43A to S43B - Ex.PW27/A8(colly)
30. Sushila S44A to S44B - Ex.PW27/A9(colly)
31. Sunita S45A to S45B - Ex.PW27/A10(colly)
32. Narender S46A to S46B - Ex.PW27/A11(colly)
33. Seema S47A to S47B - Ex.PW27/A12(colly) FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 71/144
- : 72 : -
34. Vinod S48A to S48B - Ex.PW27/A13(colly)
35. Nafe Singh S49A to S49B - Ex.PW27/A14(colly)
36. Om Pal S50A to S50B - Ex.PW27/A15(colly)
37. Pawan S51A to S51B - Ex.PW27/A16(colly)
38. Bijender S52A to S52B- Ex.PW27/A17(colly)
39. Vinod S53A to S53B Ex.PW27/A18(colly)
40. Sunita S54A to S54B - Ex.PW27/A19(colly)
41. Mukesho S55A to S55B - Ex.PW27/A20(colly)
42. Ramesh S56A to S56B - Ex.PW27/A21(colly)
43. Ashok S57A to S57B - Ex.PW27/A22(colly)
44. Birmati S58A to S58B - Ex.PW27/A23(colly)
45. Tanuja S59A to S59B - Ex.PW27/A24(colly)
46. Vidya S62A to S62B - Ex.PW27/A25(colly)
47. Nirmala S63A to S63B - Ex.PW27/A26(colly)
48. Raj Kumari S64A to S64B - Ex.PW27/A27(colly)
22). The muster rolls which were sent to FSL for opinion on signatures of accused persons and thumb impressions / signatures of Safai Karamcharies has been summarized in tabulated form alongwith the details of Exhibits, muster roll no., details of accused persons, details of safai karamcharies, FSL reports and opinion of scientific expert. This also contain the identification of signature of accused persons on Muster Roll by PW-31. The table in this regard is following :-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 72/144
- : 73 : -
S. Muster Roll Sign. of accused Remarks MCD FSL result of Sign. of Name and thumb Remarks Safai FSL result of No no. and persons officials MCD officials accused impression of Safai Karamchari (Thumb Safai Exhibits (signature) on persons Karamcharies/worke impression/ signatures) Karamchari muster rolls identity by rs on Muster Rolls on Muster roll PW-31 Sh.Surender Sharma SS (CZ)
1. 8374 Baldev Prasad Not sent to FSL - BP Sharma Inderjeet Q-451 No opinion Ex.PW-28/C2 Ex.PW-28/M PW-2 (Q-451)
2. 17529 Ex.PW-28/C2 ------------------ Inderjeet PW-2 (Q- Q-452 No opinion Ex.PW-28/C2 Ex.Pw-28/K 452) Puran Chand - (Not sent)
3. 17530 Puran Chand Q81 to Signature matched Ex.PW-28/C2 of Puran Chand Rajesh S/o. Ram Q1C - Not identical with Ex.Pw-27/A Ex.PW-28/E Q111 Puran Chand Singh Q1C the specimen thumb S38 to S42, A7 impression Balraj Q-449 No result Dharampal (Q-429) Signature matched Ex.PW-28/C2 of S34- S37 Dharampal
4. 50898 Balkishan (expired) Ex.PW-28/C2 Puran Chand, Rajesh Q437 No opinion -
Ex.PW-28/F Rai Singh,
Rai Singh Not sent RR Sharma. Raj Kumari PW-33
RR Sharma (Q-437), No Result Raj Kr-Pw-42
5. 28351 Puran chand Q15 to Matched FSL result Ex.PW- Puran Chand Jai Lal Q2A Q1A, Q2A, Q3A, Q4A, Q5A
Ex.PW-28/D Q44 27/A & BP Sharma Mukesh Q-3A Q6A no opinion as unfit for
Phool singh comparison
Q4A
Hari Kishan Q5A
Sanjay Q6A
Anju Q1A Kaushalya
Dharambir Q388 to matched
Q391
FSL result Ex.PW-
28/C2
BP Sharma Q438 Matched
6. 35713 Puran Chand Q47- Matched FSL Ex.PW-28/C2 Puran chand. Jai Lal Q2B Q3B - Not identical
Ex.PW-28/B Q77 of Puran chand & Mukesh Q-3B FSL Ex.PW-27/A
Dharambir Phool singh (Q1B, Q2B, Q4B, Q5B, Q6B, of Mukesh
Q4B Q7B - unfit for comparison)
Dharambir Q-399- Matched Hari Kishan Q5B
401 Sanjay Q6B
Anju Q7B
Rajesh S/o. Ram
Singh Q-1B
7. 83044 Ex.PW- Puran Chand- - Puran chand Sumitra Q10B Thumb impression on this FSL of finger
31/109 at point A & Nirmal Q-9B muster roll are interse print Ex.PW-
Signatures were not A1, Rai Singh Sushil Q-8A identical means these all 27/D
Rai Singh sent to FSL at Point B1 to Phoolwati Q-11 B impressions are of the
B5 Joginder Q-14A same finger/ thumb. It
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 73/144
- : 74 : -
shows that some other
persons thumb impression
were taken against
several persons to
disburse the payments.
8. 83048 Puran Chand signature matched FSL result qua Phool Singh Q4D Q4D not identical with
Ex.PW-28/H Q205 to Q236 Puran chand & Rai Mukesh Q-3D specimen of Phool Singh
Singh Ex.PW- Hari Kishan Q5D
Rai Singh Q411 - Signature matched 28/C2 Jai Lal Q2D Q3D - no opinion
Q417 Anju Q-7D
Q5D- no opinion
Hira Lal Signature matched
Q435 Q2D & Q7D- no opinion
Anju was at home after
delivery
9. 83053 Satbir Q453 to Q484 No opinion -- Rai Singh Roshani Q-485 Q-485 & Q486 - No opinion
Ex.PW-28/L identified Inderjeet Q-486
Rai Singh Not sent
10. 83058 Puran Chand - Rajesh Q-1E Q1E unfit for match with FSL Ex.PW-27/A
Ex.PW-28/G Rajesh impression
Rai Singh Q422 to Signature matched FSL result qua Rai
Q425, 427 Singh Ex.PW-
28/C2
11. 64607 Puran Chand No opinion FSL qua Puran Puran chand, Dinesh Q-15A FSL Ex.PW-
Ex.PW-28/V Q504, Q504/1, Chand, Rai Singh, Rai Singh and sa W/o.Raj Kumar Q- No opinion 27/A28
Q504A, Q504A1 to RR Sharma and RR Sharma 16A
Q504A8) Balraj Ex.PW-
28/C1
Rai Singh Q501, Signature matched
501A, 501B, 501C & No opinion
501D
RR Sharma Q502, No opinion
Q502A
Balraj Q505 No opinion
12. 64609 Satbir (Q503A20 to No opinion Ex.PW-28/C1 Puran Chand, Sanjay Q-17A Q17A, Q18A Q19A, Q20A Ex.PW-27/A28
Ex.PW-28/W 503A50 Rai Singh, RR Prem Q-18A are interse identical means of Safai
Sharma Raj Kumar Q-19A only some of the persons Karamchari
Rai Singh Bimla Q-20A has put thumb impression
(Q501F to 501 I)-- Matched against the name of four
different persons. They
also not matched with any
Roop Ram Sharma Not Matched specimen thumb
Q502 & 502B impression.
Bal Raj Q505A No opinion
Puran Chand
Q504A9 to Q504A18 No opinion
13. 64610 Puran Chand Not matched Puran Chand, Sanjay Q-21A Q21A to Q26A are interse Ex.PW-27/A28
Ex.PW-28/X Q503A51 to A68 and Sangita Q-22A identical it means only
Q501A-19 to A28 Sanjay S/o.Peru (Q- some other person has put
23A, 24A) thumb impression against
Rai Singh Q501 J to Parveen (Q-25A) the names of several
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 74/144
- : 75 : -
Q501N Signature matched Ex.PW-28/C1 Ram Niwas Q-26A persons. They does not
match with any specimen
RR Sharma (Q502C, thumb impression.
502D) No opinion
Balraj Q505B No opinion
14. 64611 Puran chand Q504A Not matched Rai Singh and Sumitra Q-27A Q27A interse identical it
Ex.PW-28/Y 29 RR Sharma means only some other
person has put thumb
Rai Singh Q501O Signature matched Ex.PW-28/C1 impression against the
names of several persons.
They does not match with
RR Sharma Q502E No opinion any specimen thumb
impression.
Balraj Q505C
Satbir Q503A69 No opinion
15. 64613 Satbir Not sent to FSL - Rai Singh and Karamvir Q-28A Q28A matched with Ex.PW-27/A28
Ex.PW31/105 Puran chand Not sent to FSL RR Sharma specimen
Rai singh Not sent to FSL
RR Sharma Not sent to FSL
Bal Raj
16. 64615 Satbir Not sent to FSL Ex.PW-28/C1 Puran Chand, Laxmi Q-29A Q-29A - No opinion
Ex.PW-28/Z Rai Singh Not sent to FSL Rai Singh and Rampal Q-30A Q30A - Matched with the
RR Sharma specimen
RR Sharma Q502F No opinion
Balraj Q505D) 512 Not matched
page no.516
17. 64616 Satbir Puran Chand, Saraswati Q-31A, Q31A, Q32A - No opinion
Ex.PW-28/AA Rai Singh Rai Singh and Bedo (Q-32A)
RR Sharma
RR Sharma Q502G No opinion
Balraj Q505E
No opinion
18. 64617 Satbir Q503A70 to Rai Singh and Raju (Q-33A) Interse identical but not Ex.Pw-27/A28
Ex.PW-28/AB Q503A91 No opinion RR Sharma matched with any
Sunita W/o.Raj Singh specimen shows thumb
Puran chand Q-34A impression put by some
Q504A30 to No opinion other persons instead of
Q504A37 Sher Singh Q-35A that safai Karamchari.
Satish S/o.Jai Singh
Rai Singh Q501P1 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1 Q-36A
and Q501P3
RR Sharma Q502H No opinion
Balraj Q505F
19. 64618 Satbir Q503A92 to No opinion RR Sharma Asha Lata Q-37A Q-37A, 38AQ-40A, Q41A, Ex.Pw-27/A28
Ex.PW-28/AC Q503A96 Sumitra 38A Q42A interse similar but
Geeta W/o. Ramesh not matched with any
Puran chand (Q-39A), specimen thumb
Q503A38 to No opinion Rani W/o. Suresh Q- impression
Q504A42 40A
Bir Singh Q-41A,
Rai Singh Q501Q1 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1 Nirmala W/o. Balraj Q-
42A
RR Sharma No opinion Santosh Q-43A
Q502(1)
Balraj Q505G
20. 64619 Satbir Q503A97 to No opinion Rai Singh and Asha Q44A Q44A, Q45A, Q46A, Q49A -
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 75/144
- : 76 : -
Ex.PW-28/AD Q503A127 RR Sharma Bimla Q45A No opinion
Sushila Q46A
Rai Singh Q501R, Matched Ex.PW-28/C1
Q501R2 to Q501R3 Sunita W/o.Brahampal Q-47A & Q48A not
Q47A identical with specimen of
RR Sharma No opinion Narender S/o. Umed Sunita and Narender
Q502J Q48A
Balraj Q505H No opinion Seema Q49A
Vinod Q50A
Q-50A identical
21. 64620 Satbir Q503B1 to No opinion Rai Singh and Name Singh Q51A Q-52 A - Not identical with Ex.PW-27/A28
Ex.PW-28/AE Q503B16 RR Sharma Ompal Q-52A specimen of Ompal
Pawan Q53A
Puran chand No opinion Bijender Q54A Q-51A, Q53A, Q54A, Q55A
Q504A43 to Vinod Q55A - no opinion
Q504A52
Rai Singh Q501R4 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1
and Q501R6
RR Sharma Q502K No opinion
Balraj Q505(i) No opinion
22. 64621 Satbir Q503B17 No opinion Rai Singh and Sunita Q56A Q-56A- not identical with Ex.PW27/A28.
Ex.PW-28/AF RR Sharma Mukesh Q57A specimen of Sunita
Rai Singh Q501R8 No opinion Ramesh Q58A
Ashok Q59A Q57A, Q58A, Q59A, Q60A &
RR Sharma Q 502L No opinion Birmati Q60A Q61A - No opinion
Tanuja Q61A
Balraj Q505J Matched
Ex.PW-28/C1
23. 64622 Satbir Q503B18 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1 Rai Singh and Vidya Q62A Q62 A- No opinion Ex.PW27/A28.
Ex.PW28/AG RR Sharma
Rai Singh Q501R9 No opinion
RR Sharma Q502M No opinion
Balraj Q505K
24. 64623 Puran Chand No opinion Rai Singh and Nirmala Q63A Q-63 A - No opinion Ex.PW27/A28.
Ex.PW28/AH Q504A53 RR Sharma
Ex.PW-28/C1
Rai Singh Q501R10 No opinion
RR Sharma Q502N No opinion
Balraj Q505L -
Satbir Q503B19 to No opinion
Q503B33
25. 64624 Satbir Q503 B34 to No opinion Rai Singh and Sushil Q65A Q-65A- Ex.PW27/A28.
Ex.PW-28/AI Q503B50 RR Sharma Satish Q36B Q-36B- No opinion
Puran Chand
Q504A54 to No opinion
Q504A55
Rai Singh Q501R11 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1
RR Sharma Q502O No opinion
Balraj Q505M No opinion
FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19
State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 76/144
- : 77 : -
26. 64626 Satbir Q503B51 to Matched Ex.PW-28/C1 ------------------ Raj Kumari W/o. Q-64A- not identical with Ex.PW27/A28.
Ex.PW-28/AJ Q503B82, Q503B83 Dharam Veer Q64A the specimen of Raj
Kumari
Rai Singh Q501R12 Matched Ex.PW-28/C1
RR Sharma Q502P
No opinion
Balraj Q505N -
27. 69219 Puran Chand Not sent - Rai Singh Phool Singh Q4C Q3C- not identical with Ex.PW27/A
Ex.PW31/108 Rai Singh not sent Mukesh Q3C specimen of mukesh
BP Sharma not sent Dhara Q7C
Hari Kishan Q5C Q4C-identical
Jai lal Q2C
Anju Q7C, Q5C & Q2C - No
opinion
28. 69221 Puran Chand Q265 Matched Ex.PW-28/C2 Rai Singh, Sushil Q-8B Q8B- not identical with FSL result
Ex.PW-28/J to Q293 Puran Chand Nirmal Q-9A specimen of sushil Ex.PW27/A
and BP Sumitra Q-10A
Rai SinghQ402 to Matched Ex.PW-28/C2 Sharma Phoolwati Q11A Questioned thumb FSL result
Q405, Q414 Satish Q12A impression Q9A, Q10A, Ex.PW-27/D
Ajay Q13A Q11A, Q12A, 13A, Q8B
interse identical which
shows same were put by
BP Sharma Q440 Matched Ex.PW-28/C2 the same persons against
the name of several safai
karamchari.
29. 69222 Puran chand Not sent - Puran Chand Laxmi Narayan Q1 Q-1 signature not matched FSL Ex.PW28/C
Ex.PW-28/A BP Sharma Not sent & BP Sharma with the specimen
signature of Laxmi
Narayan
23). In the present case, prosecution has
examined several official witnesses, in order to prove the muster rolls of the Safai Karamcharies. The muster rolls is the document in which the name of Safai Karamcharies and their attendance against the work done by him on a particular day of the month is mentioned. The attendance of every muster roll on each day is signed by the concerned SI/ ASI which is further counter signed by the Sr. officers i.e. SI/CSI/SS. On the basis of the attendance FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 77/144
- : 78 : -
mentioned in the muster roll after calculating the days of working in a particular month the wages are calculated. Against the attendance of Safai Karamcharies a total amount which is disbursed is mentioned against the thumb impression/ signature of the particular Safai Karamcharies.
PW-31 has been examined as official of MCD who remained posted in West zone from 2001- 2010, he proved the muster roll Ex.PW-31/1 to Ex.PW- 31/104.
PW-31 has also identified the signatures of Baldev Prasad Sharma as SS; Roop Ram Sharma as CSI; Hira Lal Gupta as CSI; Rai Singh as CSI on the muster rolls as he remained posted at the west zone when these officers/accused were working there. Apart from this he has also identified the signature of BP Sharma (SS), Dharambir (SI) and Puran Chand (ASI).
24). Prosecution has also proved the signature of the accused persons and thumb impression / FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 78/144
- : 79 : -
signature of Safai Karamcharies in the muster rolls and it is also proved in evidence that their specimen were taken in the presence of independent witnesses. PW-32 R.K.Chabra was assigned the duty of panch witness. In his presence PW-31 Surender Singh identified the signatures of accused persons in the muster rolls and he signed the seizure memo of the same vide Ex.Pw-32/A and Ex.Pw-32/B. PW-35 Ram Ratan Solanki was also on panch witness duty at ACB. Accused Satbir had given his specimen signature in his presence. Similarly, in the presence of Panch witness PW-36 Rajesh Kumar specimen signature/handwriting of accused Dharambir Singh, Rai Singh and Puran Chand were taken. PW-9 Dhan Singh proved witnessing the specimen signature of accused Dharam Singh.
PW-36 Rajesh Kumar who was also assigned the duty of panch witness deposed that specimen signature/handwriting of accused persons namely Rai Singh at Ex.PW-36/D to Ex.PW-36/F; Puran Chand at FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 79/144
- : 80 : -
Ex.PW-36/G to Ex.PW-36/J and Ex.PW-28/R. PW-6 Mahesh Chand who was also assigned the panch witness duty witnessed the specimen thumb impression of the aggrieved Safai Karamcharies of MCD. PW-7 Ashok Kumar, panch witness had witnessed the specimen thumb impression of complainant Rajesh.
Therefore in these circumstances, by way of examining the above witnesses, prosecution has proved the muster rolls, specimen signature of accused persons and thumb impressions/signatures of Safai Karamcharies also. Although, accused persons have also not disputed their specimen signatures on the muster rolls but by examining these witnesses, prosecution has proved the same without any reasonable doubt.
Duties and Working of MCD - taking Attendance, Supervision of Sanitation work, inspection of area and disbursement of wages to the Safai Karamcharies
25). In the present case, accused Rai Singh, Dharambir Singh and Dharampal were posted as FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 80/144
- : 81 : -
Sanitary Inspector. Whereas Satbir was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector. Puran Chand who was posted as Assistant Sanitary Inspector was also working as officiating Sanitary inspector. RR Sharma was posted as CSI I, and Hira Lal Gupta was posted as CSI IV.
In order to affirm the posting and duties of accused persons prosecution has examined PW-31 and Pw-18. PW-31 Surender Singh Retired Superintendent, Sanitation, MCD described the working and duties of ASI,SI,CSI,SS. He stated that "The Sanitation work is conducted under the supervision of Engineer Chief who is assisted by Director, Jt. Director, Exec. Engg. Asstt. Engineer. Superintendent Sanitation works directly under the Asstt. Engineer. He is assisted by Chief Sanitation officer and thereby sanitary Inspector. Assistant Sanitary Inspector (ASI) reports directly to Sanitary Inspector SI alongwith Sanitary guide. At the ground root level, Safai Karamcharies execute sanitation work and they report directly to ASI. During the period I was posted in West zone, Safai Karamcharies FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 81/144
- : 82 : -
engaged by MCD were on regular basis, daily wages basis and substitute Safai Karamchari. The substitute Safai Karamchari were deputed only in case of temporary vacancies on account of illness or leave of daily wage or regular safai Karamcharies.
Attendance of all Safai Karamcharies was to be marked by ASI. If a need to depute Safai Karamcharies arose, ASI was authorised to depute one out of already maintained list of substitute Safai Karamcharies. If 10% of regular or daily wages Safai Karamcharies were not present, only one Substitute Safai Karamcharies was to be deputed. The list of substitute safai Karamcharies existed since 1992 or earlier. Any alteration in the list required approval from superior / competent authority.
ASI used to maintain attendance register and prepare muster roll for ascertaining wages. He also maintained one register for recording the consumable supplies and challan book. The attendance register as well as muster roll are counter signed by SI, CSI, SS. ASI FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 82/144
- : 83 : -
signs everyday. SI signs once or twice a week, CSI and SS also signs once or twice in a month. Physical presence of safai Karamcharies can be checked by any officer at any time".
This witness has also proved Ex.Pw-31/D1 about the distribution of work among CSI (I) RR Sharma and CSI (IV) Hira Lal Gupta which was issued by Baldev Prasad Sharma in his capacity as Sanitation Superintendent West Zone.
25(i). With respect to the working of Sanitation department prosecution has also examined PW-18 Madan Mohan (Retd. Joint Accessors and collector) MCD,HQ. He deposed that "We have three type of Safai Karamchari I.e regular, daily wages and substitute Safai Karamcharies. The payment of wages to substitute and daily wagers are made through muster rolls. It is the duty of Assistant Sanitary inspector, Chief Sanitary Inspector and Sanitary Superintendent to supervise the work of Safai FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 83/144
- : 84 : -
Karamcharies and maintain muster roll. ASI,SI,CSI, SS performed their respective work as per charter of duties. It is the duty of ASI to take and mark the attendance of Safai Karamcharies, further ASI places the same before SI who puts his initial/signature on the muster roll. CSI and SS conducts surprise check regarding attendance and working of Safai Karamcharies and also sign the muster rolls. These officials also mentioned dates of their surprise check against the column of date. If these official do not follow the above work, they are held responsible for it. ASI does not only mark the attendance but also ensures that the cleaning is regularly done in the area by Safai Karamcharies and SI, CSI and SS ensure the same by conducting surprise check. Since I was a Sr. Official in MCD, I am aware of their charter of duties."
In cross examination PW-18 stated that it is the power of ASI to select and allot work to substitute Safai Karamcharies. It is the ASI concern only who disburse salary to the substitute Safai Karamcharies.
25(ii). Prosecution has also examined PW-21 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 84/144
- : 85 : -
Krishan Bihari who was working as Cashier MCD(West zone) who participated in the investigation. In his testimony he describe the procedure of disbursement of funds for the payment of wages to Safai Karamcharies.
He stated that "Muster roll is maintained by Sanitary Inspector or ASI. When the same is prepared in all respect I.e attendance of temporary Safai Karamchari , calculation of their working days and wages as per the working days etc., same is signed by concerned Sanitary Superintendent and the same is sent to A/c Department by SS. The concerned official of A/c department Checks the same and make entry in ECR register. The total working days and money (wages) are entered in ECR register and thereafter the same is sent to the Accountant, ACA (Assistant chief Accountant) or DCA (Deputy Chief Accountant) for their signatures and they signed on the back side of the muster rolls (in specified column) as per their financial limits. Thereafter instruction is issued to concerned clerk to prepare cheque accordingly. Thereafter the concerned clerk who prepare the cheque entered the detail of muster roll i.e cheque amount, muster rolls number and he also enters the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 85/144
- : 86 : -
voucher no. on the cheque register and thereafter the same is sent to SS who holds the office of DDO (Drawing and Disbursing officer). Cheque is prepared in the name of SS being DDO. Thereafter, DDO issues authority letters to the concerned ASI or SI to receive money and thereafter same is sent to the cashier. On the basis of authority letter, cashier hands over the cash to the concerned authorized SI or ASI against their signature/ receipt on the register after withdrawing the amount from the bank."
This witness further stated that "as per the procedure the person authorizes by SS, used to receive the cash from the cashier against acknowledgement by signing in the cash register as well as authority letter issued in his behalf to him."
This witness has proved the document Ex.Pw-21/A to Ex.Pw-21/G to prove that amount was received by Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. Ex.Pw-21/A and Ex.Pw-21/B showing the details of amount dated 11.06.2003 released to Puran FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 86/144
- : 87 : -
Chand; Ex.PW-21/C and Ex.PW-21/D showing the details of amount for the month June 2003 released to Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. Ex.Pw- 21/E and Ex.Pw-21/F showing the details of amount for the month March 2004 released to Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. Ex.Pw-21/G showing the details of amount for the month April 2002 released to Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages.
Ex.Pw-21/H showing the details of amount dated 15.01.2004 and Ex.PW-21/J showing the details of amount dated 05.03.2004 released to Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. Therefore, from the testimonies of PW-18, PW-31 and PW-21 the entire procedure of marking the attendance of Safai Karamchari and role of ASI, SI, CSI and SS in marking the attendance and disbursing the wages has been proved. During the cross examination of these witnesses, nothing material except some minor discrepancy has come out.
26). Testimony of Safai Karamcharies The most important aspect of this case is the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 87/144
- : 88 : -
testimony of Safai Karamchari who were aggrieved by the illegal act of the accused persons. Since these were the Safai Karamchari whose attendance were being forged by forging their thumb impression / signature for the purpose of withdrawing money from state exchequer in the name of payment of wages.
26(i). The present case was registered on the complaint of Rajesh Kumar. He deposed that he was enrolled as Safai Karamchari in MCD in the year 2000. Accused Puran Chand was his Daroga and he did not give him work till 01.02.2004 and he start getting work on 02.02.2004 for 5-7 days in a month and he was not given any work in the year 2003, but in muster rolls his attendance was shown. He also did not get any salary / wages in the year 2003. He further alleged that accused Puran Chand obtained his signatures on 12 revenue stamps/receipt in the month of Feb- March 2004. He never obtained any salary for those months. He lodged complaint to ACB against Puran Chand vide Ex.PW-1/A. He denied his signatures on muster roll FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 88/144
- : 89 : -
no.17530 Ex.Pw-28/E (August 2003) and same is proved in FSL result Ex.PW-27/A that thumb impression are not identical with the specimen of Rajesh. He also denied his thumb impression on other muster rolls Ex.PW-28/F, Ex.PW-28/B and Ex.PW-28/G but definite opinion could not be given in FSL on the basis of material provided. But Muster Roll no. 17530 Ex.Pw-28/E his thumb impression on Q1C on Muster Roll was not found identical with his specimen thumb impression. On this Muster Roll signature of Puran Chand ASI and Dharampal (deceased) are proved.
26(ii). PW-2 Inderjeet has stated that he never received full salary in February 2007. He came to know through IO that his salary was being disbursed by someone against his thumb impression. He further stated that he received the salary only against signature. Although no specific opinion could be given qua his specimen signature on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/K, Ex.Pw- 28/M and Ex.PW-28/L. Ex.Pw-28/L shows thumb impression at point A against the name of Inderjeet whereas he stated that he used to put his signature FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 89/144
- : 90 : -
against the payment of wages. This fact also creates doubt despite the fact that opinion on the thumb impression could not be given. PW-2 also stated that accused Puran Chand used to take his attendance in the year 2003-04.
26(iii). PW-3 Laxmi Narayan deposed that in the year 2003-4 he was working as Safai Karamcharies in JJR-II. ASI Puran chand was his Daroga and used to mark his attendance. He further stated that ASI Puran Chand used to disburse salary to the substitute Safai Karamcharies, except for accused Puran Chand, no other official distribute salary to Safai Karamcharies. He denied his thumb impression on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/A. Thumb impression at Q1 of Laxmi Narayan did not match with his specimen signature which means that someone else has signed on his behalf and took the payment of wages. This Muster Roll has been signed by Puran Chand and Baldev Prasad Sharma as their signatures on the same are identified by PW-31.
26(iv). PW-5 Anju has stated that she was FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 90/144
- : 91 : -
working under ASI Puran Chand at JJR-II in Mcd in the year 2003-04 and ASI Puran chand only used to disburse salary after getting thumb impression on the Muster Roll. Anju got her second daughter born on 23.03.2004 and she did not attend her duty in the month of March 2004 and also did not put any thumb impression on the muster roll for the month of March 2004. She denied her thumb impression on the Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/H of March 2004. From the testimony of witness and the documents it is observed with respect to her questioned signature Q7D on Ex.PW-28/H although no opinion has been given but PW-15 has proved the school record and copy of birth certificate Mark PW-15/PA to show the date of birth of daughter of PW-5 Anju. The admission form to show the date of birth has been proved as Ex.Pw-15/BC, copy of admission register of School of her daughter is Ex.Pw- 15/D. These documents proved that date of birth of her daughter is 23.03.2004 and it was not possible for her to go for work and mark the attendance and took the wages. Despite the fact that opinion on her question thumb impression on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/H could not be given by the FSL but it has been proved that she did not go to FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 91/144
- : 92 : -
work and her wages were not disburse against her thumb impression. Therefore, a presumption can easily withdrawn that someone else put thumb impression at Q7D. More importantly, from FSL Ex.Pw-28/C2 it has been established that Puran Chand, Rai Singh and Hira Lal signed the said muster roll as their signatures were matched with the specimen signatures.
26(v). PW-14 Sushil Kumar has deposed that ASI Puran Chand used to disburse salary to every substitute safai Karamchari. Accused Puran chand never used to disburse complete payment of their work and used to pay lesser amount. On analyzing the Muster Roll Ex.Pw-31/109, Ex.Pw-28/AI and Ex.PW-28/J and FSL result Ex.Pw-27/D, Ex.PW-27/A28 and Ex.Pw-27/D respectively.
It is observed that Ex.Pw-31/109 bears questioned thumb impression of Sushil at Q8A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Sumitra Q10B, Nirmala Q9B, Phoolwati Q11B Sushil Q8A, Joginder Q14A are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 92/144
- : 93 : -
27/D thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C2, the signature of puran Chand Q265 to Q293; of Rai Singh Q402 to Q405, Q414; of Baldel Prasad Sharma Q440 matched with their respective specimen signatures. It shows that the attendance were recorded and wages were disbursed wrongfully with malafide intentions. The signature of Puran Chand and Rai Singh were identified by PW-31 at point A and A1 and at point B1 to B5 respectively on this Muster Roll. Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
It is observed that Ex.Pw-28/J bears questioned thumb impression of Sushil at Q8B in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Sumitra Q10A, Nirmala Q9A, Phoolwati Q11A, Satish Q12A, Ajay Q13-A are also there. As per the report of FSL thumb impression on this Muster Roll, thumb impression of Sushil does not FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 93/144
- : 94 : -
matched with his specimen. It is further observed that thumb impression of Safai Karamchari are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. The signature of Puran Chand, B.P. Sharma and Rai Singh were matched and also identified by PW-31 on this Muster Roll. Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with malafide intention.
26(vi). PW-19 Sanjay has deposed that accused Puran chand never disburse him complete wages. Sometimes he used to pay Rs.1000/- and sometimes Rs. 500/-. In cross examination, this witness has stated that some times persons like baildar working under accused Puran Chand used to mark our attendance. Witness do not remember that from period July 2003-2004 accused Puran Chand used to be present or not but he used to be around. FSL result Ex.PW- 27/A28 is with respect to the thumb impression of Sanjay at Q-17A on muster roll Ex.PW-28/W. FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 94/144
- : 95 : -
On analyzing the Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/X, and FSL result Ex.Pw-27/A28.
It is observed that Ex.Pw-28/X, bears questioned thumb impression of Sanjay at Q21A. In the same muster roll the thumb impression of Sangita Q22A, Sanjay S/o. Peru Q23,24A, Praveen Q25A, and Niwas Q26A are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw- 27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons.
Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh Q501J to Q501N are matched with his respective specimen signatures. It shows that the attendance were recorded and wages were disbursed wrongfully with malafide intentions. The signature of Puran Chand, and Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma were identified by PW-31 at point A, at point B1 to B5, at point C1 and C2 respectively on this Muster Roll. Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 95/144
- : 96 : -
established that same was prepared wrongfully with malafide intention.
26(vii). PW-20 Smt. Bimla has deposed that accused Puran Chand used to pay her wages usually at work place without obtaining her thumb impression on any register/paper. She stated that she never received wages for 30 days in a month and not given work for 30 days at any point of time. She received wages at the most for 9- 10 days in a month.
It is observed that Ex.Pw-28/W bears questioned thumb impression of Bimla at Q20A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Prem Q18A, Raj Kumar Q19A, Sanjay Q17A are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh Q501F to 501I matched with his respective specimen signatures. The signature of Puran Chand, and Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma were identified by PW-31 at point FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 96/144
- : 97 : -
A, at point B1 to B5, Roop Ram Sharma at point C respectively on this Muster Roll. Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with malafide intention.
26(viii). PW-33 Raj Kumari. She was working as substitute Safai Karamchari in MCD since 1994 to 2015. She deposed that Puran Chand used to mark her attendance. He was the ASI of area JJR-II in the year 2003-04. All the time Puran Chand disburse the salary . This witness is not cross examined by Puran Chand. Testimony remain unbreach and unchallenged. She stated that she got work sometimes for 5days, some times 10 days and 15 days in a month.
It is observed that Ex.Pw-28/AJ bears questioned thumb impression of Raj Kumari at Q64A. As per FSL result Ex.Pw-28/A28 the specimen thumb impression of Rajkumari is not identical with the questioned thumb impression Q64A on Ex.PW-28/AJ.
Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 97/144
- : 98 : -
of Satbir Q503, Q503B51 to Q503B82, Q503B83 and Rai Singh at Q501R12 matched with his respective specimen signatures. It shows that the attendance were recorded and wages were disbursed wrongfully with malafide intentions. The signature of Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma were identified by PW-31 at point A1 to A4, Roop Ram Sharma at point B respectively on this Muster Roll. Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully and with malafide intention.
26(ix). PW-34 Sanjay S/o. Peru he deposed that Puran Chand was his ASI in the year 2003-04 and used to mark attendance and also used to disburse salary after obtaining signature or thumb impression on the Muster Roll. This witness has denied his signature on the Muster Roll Ex.Pw-PW28/K. He also denied his thumb impression on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.PW-31/74 Ex.PW-31/104, Ex.PW-28/G. It is observed that Ex.Pw-28/W bears questioned thumb impression of Sanjay at Q17A in the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 98/144
- : 99 : -
same muster roll the thumb impression of Prem Q18A, Raj Kumar Q19A, Bimla Q20-A are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh Q501F to 501I matched with his respective specimen signatures. The signature of Puran Chand, and Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma were identified by PW-31 at point A, at point B1 to B5, Roop Ram Sharma at point C respectively on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll also the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
26(x). PW-40 Sher Singh. This witness deposed that he came to know that accused Puran chand had shown his attendance in the register for the entire month but he was paid for 5-10 days.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 99/144
- : 100 : -
It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AB bears questioned thumb impression of Sher Singh at Q35A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Raju, Sunita, Raj singh and Satish Singh are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw- 28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501P3 matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Rai Singh, Roop Ram Sharma has been identified by PW-31 at point A2 to A4 and at point B1 respectively on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
26(xi). PW-42 Raj Kumar he deposed that he worked only for 3 month, July, August and September in 2003. He never received any payment in January 2004 and also did not put any thumb impression on the Muster FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 100/144
- : 101 : -
Roll Ex.Pw-28/W. It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/W bears questioned thumb impression of Raj Kumar at Q19A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Sanjay Prem, Raj Kumar and Bimla are also there. Vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh Q501F to 501I matched with his respective specimen signatures. It shows that the attendance were recorded and wages were disbursed wrongfully with malafide intentions. The signature of Puran Chand, and Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma were identified by PW-31 at point A, at point B1 to B5, Roop Ram Sharma at point C respectively on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll also the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
26(xii). PW-45 Geeta deposed that she used to get work only for 10-15 day in month and not received payment for 27 days and she has also not put any thumb FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 101/144
- : 102 : -
impression for the work done in January 200-4 as shown in Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AC. She is not sure about taking of her specimen thumb impression by ACB.
It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AC bears questioned thumb impression of Geeta at Q39A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Ashalata, Sumitra, Ramesh, Rani and Beer Singh, Nirmala and Santosh are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw- 27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501Q1 matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Rai Singh, Roop Ram Sharma has been identified by PW-31 on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 102/144
- : 103 : -
26(xiii). PW-46 Rani deposed that in the year 2003-04 accused Puran Chand was her Daroga and he used to get work for 10-15 days in a month. She is not sure about her thumb impression on Muster Roll Ex.Pw- 28/AC.
It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AC bears questioned thumb impression of Rani at Q40A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Ashalata, Sumitra, Ramesh, Geeta and Bir Singh, Nirmala and Santosh are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw- 27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501Q1 matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Rai Singh, Roop Ram Sharma has been identified by PW-31 on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 103/144
- : 104 : -
the malafide intention.
26(xiv). PW-48 Sunita although has not fully supported the case of prosecution and denied that Puran chand forged her thumb impression on the Muster Roll but she has not denied that her specimen thumb impression were obtained by official of ACB at Ex.Pw- 27/M. When the specimen thumb impression were analyzed by FSL expert with thumb impression appearing on Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AB.
It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AB bears questioned thumb impression of Sunita at Q34A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Raju, Sher Singh, Raj Singh and Satish are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501P3 matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Rai Singh, Roop FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 104/144
- : 105 : -
Ram Sharma has been identified by PW-31 at point A2 to A4 and at point B1 respectively on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared with the malafide intention.
26(xv). PW-49 Sangita although has not fully supported the case of prosecution and denied that Puran Chand forged her thumb impression on the Muster Roll but she has not denied that her specimen thumb impression were obtained by official of ACB at Ex.Pw- 28/M. When the specimen thumb impression were analyzed by FSL expert with thumb impression appearing on Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/X. It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/X bears questioned thumb impression of Sangita at Q22A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Sanjay S/o.Peru, Praveen, Ram Niwas are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/A28 thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 105/144
- : 106 : -
thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C1, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501J to Q501N matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Puran Chand, Rai Singh, Roop Ram Sharma has been identified by PW- 31 on this Muster Roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
26(xvi). PW-51 Satish although has not fully supported the case of prosecution and denied that Puran Chand forged his thumb impression on the Muster Roll but he has not denied that his specimen thumb impression were obtained by official of ACB at Ex.Pw- 27/Y. When the specimen thumb impression were analyzed by FSL expert with thumb impression appearing on Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/J and Ex.PW-28/AB.
It is observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/J FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 106/144
- : 107 : -
bears questioned thumb impression of Satish at Q12A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Nirmala, Sumitra, Sushil, Phoolwati, Ajay are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/D thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C2, the signature of Puran Chand at Q265 to Q293 matched with his specimen signature. Rai Singh Q402 to Q405, Q414 and BP Sharma at Q440.
Therefore, in these muster rolls the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
It is further observed that Muster Roll Ex.Pw- 28/AB bears questioned thumb impression of Satish at Q36A in the same muster roll the thumb impression of Raju, Sunita, Sher Singh are also there. As per the report of FSL Ex.Pw-27/D thumb impression on this Muster Roll are interse identical which shows that all the thumb FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 107/144
- : 108 : -
impression appearing in this Muster Roll was put by one person against the name of several persons. In the same document vide FSL report Ex.Pw-27/A28, the signature of Rai Singh at Q501P1 and Q501P3 matched with his specimen signature. The signature of Roop Ram Sharma and Rai Singh has been identified by PW-31 on this muster roll.
Therefore, in this muster roll the prosecution has established that same was prepared wrongfully with the malafide intention.
27). On the aspect of criminal conspiracy this court is of the view that accused persons also been charged U/s 120B IPC of criminal conspiracy. In order to bring home the charges of conspiracy and for the purpose of drawing inferences U/s 10 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused acted in concert, either through overt or covert acts in furtherance of common objective. Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down there are satisfied, FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 108/144
- : 109 : -
the act done by one is admissible against the conspirators. The prosecution is required to prove by the chain of events which could lead to strong inference of conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred either on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence. Though direct evidence of conspiracy is difficult in most cases, the circumstances proved should reasonably point to existence of prior concert of mind.
28). It has been alleged by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Aggarwal V. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609:-
"It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having thee elements: (1) agreement (2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and (3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether this is found in the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 109/144
- : 110 : -
ultimate objects".
In E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegalact agreed to be done has not been done.
So too, it is an ingredient of the offence that ll the parties should agree to do a single illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law".
It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1981) 2 SCC 443:-
That for an offence u/s 120B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do so or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 110/144
- : 111 : -
29). The offence against the accused persons has also been alleged U/s 120B IPC and charge accordingly framed against all the accused persons. Now it is to be seen from the testimony of the witnesses examined and evidence produced from the side of the prosecution, whether it has been able to prove that all the accused persons agreed to commit the alleged offence.
30). Counsel Sh.Yogesh Verma for accused Hira Lal, Chief Sanitary Inspector averred that the complainant alleged the commission of offence against ASI Puran Chand. Hira Lal was allocated the work of ward no. 22 JJR II on 17.03.2004. If the wages/payment were not being paid by accused Puran Chand, other officials Hira Lal Gupta cannot be said to have joined the conspiracy with them. It is further averred that duty of Hira Lal Gupta was to forward the muster roll to Sanitary Superintendent which was already verified and signed by Assistant Sanitary Inspector and Sanitary Inspector.
PW-31 Surender Singh Retd. Superintendent Sanitation described the working and duties ASI, SI, CSI FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 111/144
- : 112 : -
and SS. Accused Hira Lal was posted as Chief Sanitary Inspector. The duty of ASI was to prepare the Muster Roll for ascertaining wages. The attendance register as well as Muster Roll were counter signed by the Chief Sanitary Inspector. He was required to sign once or twice in a month. Physical presence of Safai Karamchari can be checked by any officer at any time. Accused Hira Lal was posted as CSI vide officer order dated 06.02.2004 Ex.Pw- 60/3. Most of the Muster Roll which are carrying the incriminating piece of evidence against officials of MCD are pertains to year 2003. After his joining in 2004 his signatures is found only on one Muster Roll i.e Ex.Pw- 28/H. In this Muster Roll only some incriminating evidence has surfaced with respect to irregularities in recording the attendance of Safai Karamcharies. The law of conspiracy is clear that prosecution is required to established beyond reasonable doubt that accused is acted in concert either through overt or covert act in furtherance of common objective. The Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/H the questioned signature of Rajkumari Safai Karamchari is not identical with her questioned thumb impression. On this Muster Roll attendance of one Anju has been recorded for the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 112/144
- : 113 : -
month of March 2004. Infact on 23.03.2004, she delivered a baby therefore it was not possible for her to come for work for the entire month and take the wages. She has proved this fact in her testimony as PW-5. Despite the fact, that there is some discrepancy of attendance and disbursement of wages to two Safai Karamchari it cannot be said with confidence that accused Hira Lal Gupta was part of the conspiracy. Since nowhere except this Muster Roll signature of Hira Lal found. He was the Supervisory authority to check the attendance once or twice in a month. He was in the Supervisory authority to check the attendance. In order to prove the existence of conspiracy prosecution is required to prove that he and other co- accused were having a common object to record forged attendance of Safai Karamchari and obtain the amount of wages for their own. Finding his signature only in one Muster Roll and that is a counter sign in supervisary authority. He himself has not recorded the attendance, nor he was there on the field at the time of attendance and disbursement of wages. If his signatures were available on said Muster Roll it could have been a valid reason of existence of conspiracy with other official. Therefore, FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 113/144
- : 114 : -
inference of section 10 Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn in the case of Hira Lal. Moreover none of the witness has stated anything against him. Therefore, offence of conspiracy is not made out against him.
The prosecution has not been able to prove with clenching evidence that accused Hiralal himself had directed his subordinate I.e ASI, SI to record forged and false attendance of the Safai Karamchari and prepare the bill for the disbursement of wages to themselves instead of the Safai Karamchari. Therefore there is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence of forgery and use of Muster Roll for disbursement of wages for his own use and in the absence of criminal conspiracy with the other accused offence u/s PC Act is not established against Hira Lal.
31). It is argued by Ld.Defence Counsel that accused Satbir has been falsely implicated in this case.
His signatures are not there on Muster Roll and also not identified by PW-31 Surender Singh. It has been discussed earlier also that the offence of conspiracy is FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 114/144
- : 115 : -
required to be prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused is acted in concert either through covert or overt act in furtherance of common objective. Accused Satbir was posted as ASI. His joining report dated 26.03.2003 in C-22 JJR -II has been proved by PW-22 as Ex.Pw-22/A. From the evidence it is proved that he was posted there since 2003 as ASI but on examining the Muster Roll of year 2003 his signature is nowhere found on any Muster Roll. His signature is found on two Muster Rolls i.e Ex.Pw- 28/AG and Ex.Pw-28/AJ of January 2004. So far as Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AG his signatures are matched in FSL result but no opinion as to the thumb impression of Safai Karamchari appeared on the same could be given by FSL expert.
So far as Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/AJ is concerned, his signatures on Muster Roll are matched with his specimen signatures. This Muster Roll is about recording of attendance of only two Safai Karamchari. Out of which only one Safai Karamchari's thumb impression i.e Rajkumari Q64A were sent to the FSL and same was not found identical with the specimen of Rajkumari. Sum FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 115/144
- : 116 : -
of Rs.326/- only has been disbursed vide this Muster Roll and it contained the attendance for 3 days. Being the ASI accused himself had recorded the attendance of the Safai Karamchari. It is not a case where someone else had recorded the attendance of the Safai Karamchari. Accused Satbir was responsible for recording the correct attendance and disburse the amount in accordance with the same. In order to prove the commission of offence only one strong instance is sufficient. In this Muster Roll the signature of Rai Singh Sanitary Inspector is also matched with the specimen signatures of Rai Singh therefore this document is sufficient to indicate the understanding between the two to record the attendance and usurp the amount from the government exchequer in the name of Safai Karamchari for their own use. In these circumstances to infer the commission of conspiracy, direct evidence in the form of Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AJ is available. Here accused is not in supervisory capacity of just counter signing the Muster Rolls. He himself has recorded the attendance. No question by putting this Muster Roll to the concerned witness has been asked by ld. Defence counsel to deny that he has not recorded the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 116/144
- : 117 : -
wrong attendance. Even the signatures of accused is not in dispute. Even signatures of Rai Singh is also matched in this Muster Roll, despite the fact that it is not established who had disburse the money. Taking forged attendance is sufficient to infer the existence of conspiracy in the commission of offence. Otherwise, if the concerned safai Karamchari has not received the wages then who has obtained the same when thumb impression were found forged.
Therefore offence of conspiracy is proved against Satbir that he in connivance with the accused Rai Singh entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same prepared a forged Muster Roll with the intention to use the same. The said Muster Roll was used to deliver money on the pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/substitute safai Karamchari and thereby caused wrongful loss to the government. While working as public servant his act amounts to criminal misconduct.
32). Ld. Counsel for accused Dharambir FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 117/144
- : 118 : -
stated that he was posted as Sanitary Inspector. His place of posting at Ward No.22, JJR-II Raghubir Nagar has already been proved by way of testimony of PW-17, PW- 30 and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. As per the testimony of PW-31, ASI used to maintain attendance register and prepare Muster Roll for ascertaining wages.
The attendance register as well as muster roll were counter signed by SI, CSI and SS. ASI signs everyday, SI signs once or twice in a week and CSI and SS also signed once or twice in a month.
His signatures in the Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/B of May 2003, is matched with his specimen signatures, except this one Muster Roll there is no other Muster Roll wherein his signatures has been matched with his specimen signatures. This muster roll do contain the incriminating material in the form that Q3B signature of Mukesh which is not identical with his specimen signatures. Other questioned thumb impression were found unfit for comparison. As per the testimony of witnesses Sanitary Inspector was not used to take attendance. In this Muster Roll also the attendance were FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 118/144
- : 119 : -
taken by accused Puran Chand. The Muster Roll has been counter signed by him at two places. This is only one Muster Roll where his signature could be matched. It is not sufficient to believe that he was the part of conspiracy with accused Puran Chand had there been several Muster Rolls and continuity of his counter signatures on several Muster Roll where attendance was recorded wrongly then case would have been different and a presumption of connivance could have easily been drawn. When accused Dharambir himself has not recorded the attendance the existence of conspiracy and commission of offence in furtherance of the same is not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore accused Dharambir deserves benefit of doubt in view of the facts and circumstances and testimony of witnesses.
The prosecution has not able to prove with clenching evidence that he himself had directed his subordinate i.e ASI, to record forged and false attendance of the Safai Karamchari and prepare the bill for the disbursement of wages to themselves instead of the Safai Karamchari.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 119/144
- : 120 : -
Therefore there is no evidence to connect the accused Dharmabir with the alleged offence of forgery of Muster Roll and in the absence of criminal conspiracy with the other accused offence u/s PC Act is also not established.
33). Accused Baldev Prasad Sharma was posted as Sanitary Superintendent. He himself has admitted his posting as SS in the concerned area in his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC. His signatures were found on the Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/B, Ex.Pw-28/G for this period and matched with his specimen signatures vide FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C2. Not only that his signatures has been identified by PW-31 on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/J and Ex.PW-28/A. The Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/D does not contain any incriminating evidence as to the marking of attendance for release of amount. The Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/J shows that the Questioned thumb impression Q9A, Q10A, Q11A, Q12A, 13A, Q8B interse identical which shows same were put by the same persons against the name of several safai karamchari. One of the questioned thumb impression Q8B of Sushil Safai FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 120/144
- : 121 : -
Karamchari not matched with his specimen thumb impression. In this Muster Roll the signature of Puran Chand and Rai Singh ASI also matched.
Similarly, the Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/A also contained similar incriminating material where thumb impression of Safai Karamchari Laxmi Narayan not matched with his specimen handwriting. As per the law of conspiracy the prosecution is required to prove by the chain of events which could lead to strong inference of conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred either by way of direct or circumstantial evidence. As Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Ajay Aggarwal case that it is not necessary that each conspirator must know the detail of the scheme. Nor to be participant at every stage but it is necessary that conspirator should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. There is no witness examined by the prosecution who could say that accused Baldev Prasad was aware of the agreement of tempering the Muster Roll by forging the attendance of Safai Karamchari for the purpose of getting the amount of wages. Being the SS Baldev Prasad was not assigned the duty to record FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 121/144
- : 122 : -
the attendance of Safai Karamchari. He was not even present on the field to see and monitor the recording of attendance so that any doubt could be raise d on his conduct that in his supervision and permission or authorization the forged attendance had been recorded by SI and ASI. Had there been a case, where for a substantial period of time, the wrongful attendance was being recorded and same was being ignored by the SS. There a reasonable presumption could have been drawn that the forgery of attendance and thumb impression was going on under his supervision to presume the existence of conspiracy. Here in this case, only on two Muster Rolls containing incriminating material signature either could be identified or matched which is not sufficient to presume the existence of certain fact i.e conspiracy. Being the officer on Senior position the Muster Roll comes to him after several stage of counter signing of ASI, SI, CSI. In order to show his involvement in commission of offence, sufficient evidence of his direct involvement is required. Inference u/s 10 Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn here. Evidence against him are not beyond reasonable doubt.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 122/144
- : 123 : -
The prosecution has not been able to prove with clenching evidence that he himself had directed his subordinate i.e ASI, SI to record forged and false attendance of the Safai Karamchari and prepare the bill for the disbursement of wages to themselves instead of the Safai Karamchari.
Therefore there is no evidence to connect the accused Baldev Prasad Sharma with the alleged offence of forgery of Muster Roll and in the absence of criminal conspiracy with the other accused offence u/s PC Act is also not established.
34). Roop Ram Sharma Chief Sanitary Inspector. PW-31 in his testimony deposed that
attendance register as well as Muster Rolls are counter signed by the Chief Sanitary Inspector once or twice in a month. RR Sharma was CSI of the west zone from 07.08.2003 is already proved by PW-17 vide Ex.Pw- 17/D1. The office order in this regard is Ex.PW-60/4. PW- 31 has identified his signature on Ex.Pw-28/W, Ex.Pw-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 123/144
- : 124 : -
28/X, Ex.Pw-28/Y, Ex.Pw-28/AB, Ex.PW-28/AD, Ex.Pw- 28/AE, Ex.Pw-28/AF and Ex.Pw-28/AC.
Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.Pw-28/X, Ex.PW-28/Y, Ex.PW-28/AB, Ex.Pw-28/AC containing the incriminating material where the thumb impression of Safai Karamchari are interse identical to show that one person has put thumb impression against the name of several persons. In this Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/W signatures of Puran Singh and Rai Singh are identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/X signature of Puran Chand is also identified by Pw-31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/Y and Ex.Pw-28/AB signature of Rai Singh is also identified by Pw-31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AC the signature of Rai Singh are matched with is specimen signature.
In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AD, Ex.Pw-28/AE, Ex.Pw-28/AF containing the incriminating material where the thumb impression of one of the Safai Karamchari is not identical with his specimen thumb impression. In these Muster Rolls Ex.Pw-28/AD and Ex.Pw28/AE the signature of Rai Singh, Assistant Sanitary Inspector is FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 124/144
- : 125 : -
also matched with his specimen signatures. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AF the signatures of Rai Singh has been identified.
The case of RR Sharma, CSI is not where one or two instances, has been noticed with respect to matching or identifying his signatures and finding incriminating material. There are several Muster Rolls in which incriminating material has been found therefore the case of RR Sharma is such where continuously the forged attendance was being recorded and amount was disbursed in the connivance of ASI/SI. Signature of ASI Puran chand and SI Rai Singh also proved on these Muster Rolls. Therefore, it is clear that to prove conspiracy the chain of events should lead to strong inference if conspiracy and the same can be inferred either on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence. On the facts and evidence recorded by the prosecution it appears that the recording of attendance was being done by the ASI/SI under his supervision and he has deliberately ignored the commission of offence under his nose. It is true that the CSI is required to counter sign the FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 125/144
- : 126 : -
Muster Roll once or twice in a month but here it is not a case of one or two Muster Roll but several of them containing incriminating material where his sign either has been matched or identified by the witness.
Therefore, prosecution has proved the conspiracy with his respective ASI/SI in order to commit the offence of forged and cheating and criminal misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Therefore, offence of conspiracy is proved against Puran Chand that he in connivance with the accused Rai Singh and Puran Chand entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same prepared a forged Muster Roll with the intention to use the same for withdrawing for themselves. The said Muster Roll were used to deliver money on the pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/ substitute Safai Karamchari and thereby caused wrongful loss to the government while working as public servant.
35). Accused Rai Singh was posted as FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 126/144 - : 127 : -
Sanitary Inspector of Ward No.22 JJR II Raghubir Nagar in the year 2003-04. His posting order dated 23.04.2002 is already proved by Ex.PW-60/1. As per the testimony of PW-31 ASI used to maintain attendance register and prepare Muster Roll for ascertaining wages and the attendance register was counter signed by SI once or twice in a week. The Sanitary Inspector has been an important link in the chain of disbursement of wages to the temporary Safai Karamchari in MCD since he is the only official who was in and around the ASI during the period when Muster Roll are being prepared and wages were being disbursed to the Safai Karamcharies.
Ld.Defence counsel has argued that due to lot of extra work given to Rai Singh some unintentional mistake could have been done by him. His defence is without any basis. Being over burden is not a licence to commit mistake or offence. It is further stated by counsel that several complaint were made by Rai Singh regarding misconduct and corrupt practices by ASI Puran Chand. This defence is also without any logic since if it is so then why he continued the work and signed on the forged FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 127/144
- : 128 : -
Muster Rolls. He never recorded his opposition anywhere on the Muster Roll which he has signed. Moreover the SI is superior to the ASI and under his supervision and control the ASI supposed to work if he failed to control him despite knowing his corrupt activities in such circumstances he cannot deny his liability.
35(i). Signature of Rai Singh has been identified by PW-31 on Muster Roll which are containing incriminating evidence are Ex.Pw-31/109, Ex.PW-28/AF, Ex.Pw-31/108, Ex.Pw-28/J. Specimen signature of Rai Singh are matched in FSL examination with his signatures on the Muster Rolls containing incriminating material. These Muster Rolls are Ex.Pw-28/X, Ex.Pw-28/AB, Ex.Pw- 28/AD, Ex.Pw-28/AE, Ex.Pw-28/AJ, Ex.Pw-28/J, Ex.Pw- 28/W and Ex.Pw-28/Y. Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.Pw-28/X, Ex.PW-28/Y, Ex.PW-28/AB, Ex.Pw-28/AC, Ex.PW-31/109, Ex.Pw-28/J containing incriminating material where the thumb FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 128/144
- : 129 : -
impression of Safai Karamchari are interse identical to show that one person has put thumb impression against the name of several persons. In this Muster Roll Ex.PW- 28/W signatures of Puran Singh and Rai Singh are identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/X signature of Puran Chand is also identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/Y and Ex.PW-28/AB signature of Rai Singh is also identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.PW- 28/AC the signature of Rai Singh are matched with his specimen signature. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-31/109 the signature of Puran Chand are identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/J signature of Puran chand are Bal Dev Prasad are matched.
Out of these Muster Rolls signature of Roop Ram Sharma, CSI are also identified in Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.PW-28/X, Ex.PW-28/Y, Ex.PW-28/AB and Ex.PW-28/AC.
35(ii). Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AD, Ex.Pw- 28/AE, Ex.Pw-28/AF, Ex.PW-31/108, Ex.PW-28/AJ, Ex.PW-28/H containing the incriminating evidence where FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 129/144
- : 130 : -
the thumb impression of one of the Safai Karamchari is not identical with his specimen thumb impression. In these Muster Rolls Ex.Pw-28/AD and Ex.Pw28/AE the signature of Rai Singh, Assistant Sanitary Inspector are also matched with his specimen signatures. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AF the signatures of Rai Singh has been identified. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/AJ the signature of Satbir is matched. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/H the signature of Puran Chand also matched.
In all the above Muster Rolls either the signature of Rai Singh are matched or has been identified by the witnesses. It is found that other officials i.e ASI Puran Chand and RR Sharma CSI are also signed many of those Muster Rolls. The case of Rai Singh is not about one or two Muster Roll where he has counter signed the marking of attendance by the ASI but there are several Muster Rolls wherein in similar manner he has counter signed them. The chain of events and the role and duties of accused Rai Singh with respect to the recording of attendance and counter signed the Muster Rolls to affirms its authenticity despite the fact that the same are forged FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 130/144
- : 131 : -
and fabricated. It shows the strong inference of conspiracy in the entire state of affairs. Prosecution witnesses has been able to establish the commission of offence by him in connivance of Puran Chand and Roop Ram Sharma.
Therefore, offence of conspiracy is proved against him that he in connivance with the accused Puran Chand and RR Sharma entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same he participated in preparation of a forged Muster Roll with the intention to use the same. It were counter signed by him in his official capacity as public servant. The said Muster Roll were used to deliver money on the pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/substitute Safai Karamchari and thereby caused wrongful loss to the government/ MCD. The commission of offence in this case by Rai Singh while working as Public servant also amounts to criminal misconduct.
36). Accused Puran Chand was posted as ASI. His joining report dated 20.01.2004 is Ex.PW-17/D6.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 131/144
- : 132 : -
Through FSL report Ex.Pw-28/C2 his signatures are proved on several Muster Roll of the year 2003-04, which shows that he was posted as ASI at C-22 JJR II Raghubir Nagar.
His signatures has been identified by PW-31 on Muster Roll containing incriminating evidence Ex.PW- 28/W, Ex.PW-28/X, Ex.PW-28/J, Ex.PW-28/A, Ex.PW- 28/E, Ex.PW-28/B, Ex.PW-31/109.
36(i). His specimen signatures are matched with questioned signatures on Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/E, Ex.PW-28/B, Ex.PW-28/H and Ex.PW-28/J which contains further incriminating evidence against him.
36(ii). In Muster Rolls Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.Pw- 28/X, Ex.PW-31/109, Ex.Pw-28/H and Ex.Pw-28/J the thumb impression of Safai Karamchari are interse identical to show that one person has put thumb impression against the name of several persons. In this Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/W signatures of Puran Singh and Rai Singh are identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.PW- 28/X signature of Puran Chand is also identified by PW-FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 132/144
- : 133 : -
31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-31/109 the signature of Puran Chand are identified by PW-31. In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-
28/J signature of Puran Chand are Bal Dev Prasad are matched.
Out of these Muster Rolls signature of Roop Ram Sharma, CSI are also identified by PW-31 in Muster Roll Ex.PW-28/W, Ex.PW-28/X. 36(iii). In Muster Rolls Ex.Pw-28/E, Ex.Pw- 28/B, Ex.Pw-28/H, Ex.Pw-28/A containing the incriminating evidence. The thumb impression on the Muster Roll against the name of a Safai Karamchari is not identical with his specimen thumb impression.
In Muster Roll Ex.Pw-28/H alongwith signature of Puran Chand the questioned signatures of Rai Singh, Assistant Sanitary Inspector is also matched with his specimen signatures.
As per the testimony of PW-18 and PW-31 it is the duty of Assistant Sanitary Inspector to take and FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 133/144
- : 134 : -
mark the attendance of Safai Karamchari who further placed the same before Sanitary Inspector who puts his initial/signature on the Muster Roll. Several witnesses I.e PW-31, PW-2 several safai karmachari's as discussed above has deposed that Puran Chand used to obtained attendance and disburse the wages. Here in this case, accused Puran Chand was responsible for taking the attendance of the temporary Safai Karamcharies. He put his signatures being the ASI against the attendance of Safai Karamchari. From the evidence discussed above, it has been established that on several Muster Rolls as mentioned above the false attendance of Safai Karamcharies were recorded by forging the Muster Rolls. In order to commit the offence he has connived with accused Rai Singh ASI, accused Roop Ram Sharma CSI. The forgery of valuable public document i.e Muster Roll was carried out and the same was used for the purpose of obtaining money from the government exchequer on the name of Safai Karamchari. These Muster Rolls were singed by Puran Chand being the ASI and further counter signed by SI Rai Singh and CSI Roop Ram Sharma in order to process further to release the funds from FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 134/144
- : 135 : -
government exchequer. There are several documents on which Puran Chand has signed for the purpose of withdrawing the money from the exchequer. PW-21 Krishan Bihari who was working as cashier of MCD West zone described the procedure of disbursement of funds for the payment of wages to the Safai Karamcharies. He stated that Muster Rolls is maintained by Sanitary Inspector or ASI. The DDO issued authority letter to the concerned SI or ASI to receive money and thereafter the same is sent to cashier. On the basis of authority letter, cashier hands over the cash to concerned SI or ASI against their signature/ Receipt on the register after withdrawing the amount from bank. This witness has proved document Ex.Pw-21/A to Ex.Pw-21/G to prove that the amount was received by Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. Ex.Pw-21/A and Ex.Pw-21/B., Ex.Pw-21/C, Ex.Pw-21/D showing the details of amount released to Puran Chand for the purpose of disbursement of wages. These documents are showing the details of release of amount to accused Puran Chand during the year 2003-04. In these circumstances the defence of accused Puran Chand about being suspended in the year FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 135/144
- : 136 : -
w.e.f. 03.09.2003 to 19.01.2004 is unfounded. Moreover, the Muster Rolls wherein his signatures has been matched with specimen signature by the FSL examinor is sufficient to show that he was very much posted in the MCD at C-22, JJR-II for the purpose of suppressing the same taken work of Safai Karamcharies and also recorded their attendance according to the work done by a particular Safai Karamchari. On the basis of work done he used to give wages to them. Had there been a case of suspension, why the signature of accused been there on the several Muster Rolls for the year 2003 also. His signatures also there prior and post to the said period of supspension. It shows that he was very much present there and discharging his duty as ASI. Even if he was suspended,, his signatures are at several Muster Rolls shows that he was actively discharging his duty as ASI.
Therefore, offence of conspiracy is proved against him that he in connivance with the accused Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the same prepared a forged Muster Roll by recording false attendance of Safai Karamchari FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 136/144
- : 137 : -
with the intention to use the same. The said Muster Roll were used to obtain money from government/MCD on the pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/substitute Safai Karamchari and by forging their thumb impression on the basis of these forged thumb impression money was obtained by accused persons for themselves thereby caused wrongful loss to the government. The act of accused persons also amounts criminal misconduct by a public servant.
37). Reliance is further placed upon in Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI (2003) 3 SCC 641:2003 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
"Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials".
To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 137/144
- : 138 : -
to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use."
38). Therefore from the facts and circumstances, testimony of witnesses and evidence produced by the prosecution, offence of conspiracy is established against accused Satbir ASI, Roop Ram Sharma CSI, Rai Singh SI and Puran Chand SI.
It is also proved that while working in MCD as public servant Satbir as ASI, Roop Ram Sharma as CSI, Rai Singh as SI and Puran Chand as ASI in CSE, west Zone, JJR-II during the year 2003-04 in furtherance of their common intention they forged the Muster Rolls which were used for the purpose of recording the attendance of the Safai Karamcharis and also for disbursement of wages to them according to the days of work. By forging FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 138/144
- : 139 : -
these valuable security the accused persons in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy instead of paying the wages to the Safai Karamchari's obtained the money from the government exchequer for themselves. The entries in the Muster Rolls were manipulated by forging the thumb impressions in order to show that payments were received by Safai Karamchari's. The false attendance of Safai Karamchari's were recorded despite the fact that no work was actually done by these Safai Karamchari's whose name were listed in the Muster Rolls. Such Safai Karamchari's were fairly shown to have attended the duties in the said circle to generate wages. Accused Satbir and Puran Chand while posted as ASI recorded the false attendance of the Safai Karamchari's. Accused Rai Singh who was posted as SI counter signed the same to authenticate the false information contained in the Muster Rolls. Accused Roop Ram Sharma in his capacity as CSI further counter signed the Muster Rolls so that the payment from the government exchequer can be withdrawn on the pretext of paying the same to the Safai Karamcharis on the basis of forged attendance recorded in those Muster Rolls.FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 139/144
- : 140 : -
39). Therefore, it is also proved that these accused persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy used these false Muster Rolls chart for withdrawing the money and to show the false payment / receipt of money to the Safai Karamchari's on the basis of false attendance by forging thumb impression / signatures.
Therefore, it is proved that accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD induced government (MCD) to deliver money on pretext of giving this payment as salary/wages to the temporary/ Substitute Safai Karamcharies as per muster rolls and thereby they got wrongful gain and caused wrong loss to the government.
It is also proved that accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD forged a document which purports to be a valuable security i.e the muster roll charts to commit the cheating.
It is also proved that accused persons in FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 140/144
- : 141 : -
furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD commit the forgery of muster rolls showing the payment/ receipt of money for the purpose of cheating.
It is also proved that accused persons in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy while working in MCD used false muster roll charts to show the payment/receipt of money as genuine. In this manner, prosecution is also able to prove the commission of offence u/s 420/468/467/471 r/w 120B IPC by accused Satbir, Rai Singh, Puran Chand and accused Roop Ram Sharma.
40). In view of the above discussion, the offence u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC r/w 120B is already established against accused Satbir, Puran Chand, Rai Singh and Roop Ram Sharma that they are in furtherance of criminal conspiracy committed the offence. It is already established that accused persons i.e Satbir as ASI, Roop Ram Sharma CSI, Rai Singh SI and Puran Chand SI.
They were working as public servant in the government I.e MCD. The accused persons in furtherance of their FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 141/144
- : 142 : -
criminal conspiracy by forging the attendance and obtaining the money for themselves from the government exchequer on the pretext of paying the same to the Safai Karamchari acted in a corrupt and illegal manner and committed the offence of criminal misconduct as defined u/s 13 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused persons thereby in furtherance of criminal conspiracy obtained the money which was supposed to be paid as wages to the temporary Safai Karamcharis for themselves. Therefore offence u/s 13(1)(d)(i) Prevention of Corruption Act is also proved against accused.
41). Prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Baldev Prasad Sharma, Hira Lal Gupta and Dharambir beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, they are acquitted from the charges u/s 120-B IPC and 420/467/468/ 471 IPC and u/s 13(1)(d)(i) of PC Act r/w 120 B IPC.
42). Having regard to the above discussions, it is held that prosecution successfully proved through oral, documentary and circumstantial FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 142/144
- : 143 : -
evidence that accused CSI Roop Ram Sharma, ASI Puran Chand, SI Rai Singh and ASI Satbir are guilty of commission of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged documents and criminal misconduct by public servant.
Accordingly they are convicted for the commission of offence u/s 120-B IPC and 420/467/468/ 471 IPC and u/s 13(1)(d)(i) punishable u/s 13(2) of PC Act r/w 120 B IPC.
43). Accused Baldev Prasad Sharma, Hira Lal Gupta and Dharambir are acquitted. Let Bail bond u/s 437-A be furnished by them.
44). Let convicts Roop Ram Sharma, Puran Chand, Rai Singh and Satbir, be heard on the point of sentence on 27.11.2019.
Announced in open court (SANJAY KHANAGWAL) th on 26 day of Nov. 2019 Spl.Judge(PC ACT)-02 (ACB) Rouse Avenue Courts New Delhi FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 143/144
- : 144 : -
FIR No.61/04PS: ACB State vs. Puran Chand & Ors.CC No.133/19
26.11.2019 Present: Sh.Maqsood Ahmed, Ld. Chief Prosecutor for State.
All accused on bail.
Sh.Yogesh Verma, Ld. Counsel for accused Hira Lal Gupta.
Sh.Saurabh Tiwari, Ld.Counsel for accused Rai Singh, Dharambir and Satbir.
Vide separate judgment, accused CSI Roop Ram Sharma, ASI Puran Chand, SI Rai Singh and ASI Satbir are convicted for the commission of offence u/s 120-B IPC and 420/467/468/471 IPC and u/s 13(1)(d)(i) punishable u/s 13(2) of PC Act r/w 120 B IPC.
Baldev Prasad Sharma, Hira Lal Gupta and Dharambir are acquitted. Hira Lal Gupta has furnished bail bond u/s 437-A, same is accepted.
Dharambir and Baldev Prasad Sharma furnished personal bond u/s 437A as they are not having surety today. Same is accepted till 27.11.2019. They are directed to furnish their BB on the said date.
Let convicts Roop Ram Sharma, Puran Chand, Rai Singh and Satbir, be heard on the point of sentence on 27.11.2019.
(SANJAY KHANAGWAL) Spl. Judge (PC ACT)-02/(ACB) Rouse Avenue Court/Delhi/26.11.2019 FIR NO. 61/04, CC No.133/19 State Vs. Puran Chand & Ors. Page 144/144