Delhi District Court
(Pc Act) vs A1.Ramesh Chandra Shukla on 7 June, 2014
1 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT), CBI03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 09/12
RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
U/s 120B r/w 420, 467 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation
Versus
A1.Ramesh Chandra Shukla
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Shukla,
R/o H.No. RZ E668/42A Gali No. 18,
C11 Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi (since expired).
A2. Sh. Lakhmi Chand
S/o Sh. Habuda Singh,
R/o H.No. D50, First Floor,
Chandra Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) &
Assistant, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A3. Sh. Diwakar Dixit
S/o Sh. Anand Kishore Dixit,
R/o H.No. CA/56C, DDA Janta Flats,
2 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Hari Nagar, New Delhi64
Assistant, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi (since
expired).
A4. Sh. S.K.D. Dass Naik
S/o Shri Devi Dass Naik,
R/o H.No. 1/55, IInd Floor,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi & now
working in Ministry of Rural
Development Krishi Bhawan,
New Delhi.
A5. Sh. Bale Singh Kasana
S/o Shri Hari Kishan Singh Kasana
Village & P.O. Sunpura (Bhola Rawal)
Tehsil Dadri Distt. G.B. Nagar, (UP) &
Peon, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A6. Sh. Bhagwan Singh
S/o Sh. Rattan Singh
R/o H. No. E422A, Pitampura, Delhi
& Permanent R/o Village Lubh,
P.O. Makrahall, Distt. Kangra (HP) &
working as Peon, Ministry of Finance,
3 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A7. Sh. Purshottam Lal
S/o Sh. Paras Ram
R/o H.No. 648 Chirag Delhi, New Delhi
& Peon, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A8. Sh. Raghuvender Kumar
S/o Sh. Hardawari Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Dhoori,
Distt. Ghaziabad (UP) &
Working as Peon, Ministry of Finance,
Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A9. Sh. J.L. Chopra
S/o Sh. Sant Ram Chopra
R/o H.No. D41, Vikas Puri, New Delhi
& Working as Section Officer, Ministry of
Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
Date of FIR : 24.04.2000
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 28.10.2003
Arguments heard on : 16.05.2014
Date of judgment : 07.06.2014
4 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Appearance:
For prosecution : Sh Raj Mohan Chand, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
For accused : A2 Diwakar Dixit has already expired.
Sh. Sudhir Batra, advocate for A9 J.L. Chopra.
Sh. Y.K. Gautam, advocate for A4 S.K.D. Dass Naik.
A5 Sh. Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh and
A8 Raghuvender Kumar.
Sh. M.P. Singh, advocate for accused A2 Lakhmi
Chand.
Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma, advocate for accused
Purshottam Lal, A7.
JUDGMENT
1.1 Chargesheet was filed by CBI against accused Ramesh Chandra Shukla (now expired, hereinafter referred as A1), accused Lakhmi Chand, (hereinafter referred as A2), accused Diwakar Dixit (now expired, hereinafter referred as A3), accused S.K.D Dass Naik (hereinafter referred as A4), accused Bale Singh Kasana (hereinafter referred as A5), accused Bhagwan Singh (hereinafter referred as A6), accused Sh. Purshottam Lal, (hereinafter referred as A7), accused Sh. Raghuvender Kumar, (hereinafter referred as A8) and accused Sh. J.L. Chopra, (hereinafter referred as A9). As disclosed in the charge sheet, the brief facts of the case are as under: 1.2 On the complaint dated 20.04.2000 of Ms. Indira Murthy ,Under 5 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Indira Murthy/or complainant) FIR of this case was registered. It was alleged in the FIR that a case of financial impropriety relating to the fraudulent drawl and disbursement of LTC claims was detected in the Department of Revenue and the Special audit conducted for the period 1.4.96 to 31.3.98, unearthed embezzlement of Rs. 4.20 lakhs by way of fraudulent withdrawal and disbursement as LTC advances. 1.3 As per prosecution case during the period 1.4.96 to 31.3.98, accused Sh. J.L. Chopra (A9), S.O. and accused Sh. Ramesh Chandra Shukla (A1 since expired) were posted as DDO and LTC advance dealing clerk respectively, in Cash Section, Department of Revenue,Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. A1 used to prepare the proposals and A9 being DDO used to pass the bills. As per allegations, both of them in connivance with each other without proper LTC applications, prepared proposals and without obtaining the due sanctions from the concerned Under Secretary or S.O. passed the bills in total 44 LTC advance bills which were cleared and advances were drawn fraudulently by accused persons in pursuance to criminal conspiracy.
1.4 As per charge sheet, accused Bale Singh Kasana (A5) received a total amount of Rs. 20,050/ against six LTC advance bills from 24.09.1996 to 6 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 06.08.1997 and the said bills were drawn in the name of six different officials. The details of the bills received by Sh. Bale Singh Kasana @ B.S Kasana and the amounts received by A5 are shown in detail in the following table A5: Table "A5"( first table) Sl. Bill drawn in favour of Bill No. and date Amount By No. (S/Shri) received cash/bank (Rs.) 1 Fatech Singh, Peon NG798/96; 24.9.96 3,000/ Cash 2 Madhu Thota, PA NG1375/96; 3.3.97 7,000/ Cash 3 M.K. Nirbheek, Asstt. NG928/96; 1.11.96 3,150/ Cash 4 R.P. Singh, P.A. NG184/97; 1.5.97 3,800/ Cash 5 Rakesh Kumar, Asstt. NG906/97; 22.10.97 1,800/ Cash 6 Subhash Chand, LDC NG620/97; 6.8.97 1,300/ Cash Total (6) 20,050/ 1.5 Similarly, the amounts received by accused Lakhmi Chand @ Lakshmi Chand (A2) are shown in detail in the following table: 7 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Table "A2" (first table) Sl. Bill drawn in favour of Bill No. and date Amount By cash/bank No. (S/Shri) received (Rs.) 1 Self NG812/96; 13,520/ Cheque No. 3.10.96 A084187 dated 8.10.96 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 2 Self NG1154/96; 27.12.96 12,500/ Cheque No. A085660 dated 02.01.97 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 3 Ram Prasad, Asstt. NG688/96; 2.9.96 8,000/ Cash 4 R.K. Mehandiratta, Asstt. NG57/96; 11.4.96 4,427/ Cash 5 Dalip Singh, P.A. (T.A. NG1217/96; 13.1.97 3,500/ Cash Advance) 6 M.K. Nirbheek, Asstt. NG1024/96; 26.11.96 3,150/ Cash 7 Self NG172/97; 29.4.97 17,000/ Cheque No. A091072 dated 29.4.97 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 8 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 8 Self NG93/97; 11.4.97 11,500/ Cheque No. A090649 dated 16.4.97 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 9 Self NG607/97; 4.8.97 14,000/ Cheque No. A092970 dated 11.8.97 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 10 Self NG846/97; 13.10.97 12,000/ Cash 11 Self NG1013/97; 19.11.97 13,000/ Cheque No. A095285 dated 21.11.97 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. 12 Self NG1296/97; 23.1.98 16,000/ Cheque No. A096978 dated 27.1.98 SBI Central Secretariat, N.D. Total (12) 1,28,597/ 1.6 The amounts received by accused Diwakar Dixit (A3 since expired) are shown in detail in the following table: 9 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Table "A3" (first table) Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank favour of date received (Rs.) (S/Shri) 1 Self NG1066/96; 13,500/ Cheque No. 10.12.96 A085340 dated 13.12.96 PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 88979 2 Self NG1458/96; 14,500/ Cheque No. 25.3.97 A087212 dated 29.3.97 PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 88979 3 M.K. Bhardawaj, NG1334/96; 7,200/ Cash SO 14.2.97 4 S.A. Khan, Asstt. NG291/96; 3,760/ Cash Librarian 23.5.96 5 Ram Prasad, NG419/96; 5,900/ Cash Asstt. 25.6.96 6 Self NG275/97; 14,000/ Cheque No. 20.5.97 A091400 dated 23.5.97 PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 88979 10 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 7 Self NG396/97; 11,000/ Cheque No. 23.6.97 A092244 dated 3.7.97 CBI, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 33322 8 Self NG657/97; 13,000/ Cheque No. 18.8.97 A093151 dated 21.8.97 CBI, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 33322 9 Self NG1127/97; 16,000/ Cheque No. 16.12.97 A096001 dated 19.12.97 CBI, Parliament Street, New Delhi. A/c No. 33322 Total (9) 98,860/ 1.7 The amounts received by accused Ramesh Chand Shukla, UDC (A1) are shown in detail in the following table : 11 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Table "A1" ( first table) Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank favour of date received (Rs.) (S/Shri) 1 Ramesh Chand, NG642/96; 16,200/ Cheque PA/Assistant 19.8.96 No.A83088 dt.
23.8.96SBI, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
2 As above NG851/96; 12,000/ Cheque 10.10.96 No.A084234 dt.
11.10.96SBI, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
3 As above NG683/96; 13,000/ Cheque 27.8.96 No.A083387 dt.
30.8.96SBI, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
4 As above NG1204/96; 12,500/ Cheque 10.1.97 No.A085825 dt.
14.1.97SBI, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.
12 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
As above NG294/97; 13,000/ Cheque
23.5.97 No.A091505 dt.
27.5.97SBI,
Central
Secretariat, New
5 Delhi.
6 As above NG363/97; 13,000/ Cheque
11.6.97 No.A091873 dt.
18.6.96SBI,
Central
Secretariat, New
Delhi.
7 As above NG528/97; 14,000/ Cheque
14.7.97 No.A092470 dt.
21.7.97SBI,
Central
Secretariat, New
Delhi.
8 As above NG617/97; 12,000/ Cheque
13.8.97 No.A093150 dt.
21.8.97SBI,
Central
Secretariat, New
Delhi.
9 As above NG1202/97; 12,000/ Cheque
5.1.98 No.A096457 dt.
8.1.98SBI,
Central
Secretariat, New
Delhi.
13 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
10 As above NG798/97; 2,000/ Cash
22.9.97
Total (10) 1,19,700/
1.8 The amounts received by accused S.K.D. Dass Naik (A4) are shown in
detail in the following table:
Table "A4" ( first table)
Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank
favour of date received (Rs.)
(S/Shri)
1 Ms. Chandra NG857/97; 2,000/ Cash
Katyal, LDC 15.10.97
2 Self NG726/97; 12,000/ Cheque No.
1.9.97 A093519, dt.
4.9.97 PNB,
New Rajendra
Nagar, New
Delhi.
3 Self NG1117/97; 13,000/ Cheque No.
A093519, dt.
4.9.97 PNB,
New Rajendra
Nagar, New
Delhi.
14 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
4 Self NG1222/97; 13,000/ Cheque No.
8.1.98 A093519, dt.
4.9.97 PNB,
New Rajendra
Nagar, New
Delhi.
5 Total (4) 40,000/
1.9 The amounts received by accused Bhagwan Singh (A6) are shown in
detail in the following table:
Table "A6" ( first table)
Sl. No. Bill drawn in favour Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank
of (S/Shri) date received (Rs.)
1 N.Vishwanathan, NG1434/96; 2,800/ Cash
Asstt. 14.3.97
2 Rakesh Kumar, Asstt. NG1199/97; 1,800/ Cash
5.1.98
1.10 The amounts received by accused Purushottam Lal (A7) are shown
in detail in the following table :
15 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Table "A7" (first table)
Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank
favour of date received (Rs.)
(S/Shri)
1 Rajender Paul, NG1282/96; 6,000/ Cash
P.S. 28.1.97
1.11 The amounts received by accused Raghuvender Kumar (A8) are
shown in detail in the following table :
Table "A8" ( first table)
Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and Amount By cash/bank
favour of date received (Rs.)
(S/Shri)
1 R.R. Bhsakar, NG418/96; 2,564/ Cash
Asstt. 25.6.96
1.12 It is alleged that A9 being DDO used to mention the mode of payment. Payments of LTC advances were made either in cash or through the open cheque. In cases of payments through cheque, requisition were being sent to issue open cheque in favour of S.O. (Cash), Department of Revenue. A1 used to withdraw the money against the cheques issued by Pay & Accounts Office 16 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. (PAO) from the concerned bank. A1 used to prepare the acquittance roll and to give the same to the cashier. As per prosecution case in the instant case of cash payments, LTC bills were passed in the names of some other Govt. officials whereas the payments were made against the said bills by mentioning the names of the accused officials in acquittance rolls.
1.13 As per charge sheet, A1 being the LTC advance clerk prepared 19 bills in the name of different officials, but the acquittance rolls were prepared in the name of accused persons who received the payment fraudulently in connivance with A1 and A9. The details of the said 19 bills are shown in following table J: Table "J"
Sl. Bill drawn in Bill No. and date Amount received Withdrawn by
No. favour of (Rs.)
(S/Shri)
1 Fatech Singh, NG798/96LTC dt. 3,000/ Bale Singh Kasana
Peon 24.9.96 Peon (A5)
2 Madhu Thota, NG1375/96LTC dt. 7,000/ Bale Singh Kasana
PA 3.3.97 Peon (A5)
3 M.K. Nirbheek, NG928/96LTC dt. 3,150/ Bale Singh Kasana
Asstt. 1.11.96 Peon (A5)
4 R.P. Singh, NG184/97LTC dt. 3,800/ Bale Singh Kasana
P.A. 1.5.97 Peon (A5)
17 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
5 Rakesh Kumar, NG906/97LTC dt. 1,800/ Bale Singh Kasana
Asstt. 22.10.97 Peon (A5)
6 Subhash NG620/97LTC dt. 1,300/ Bale Singh Kasana
Chand, LDC 6.8.97 Peon (A5)
7 Ram Prasad, NG688/96LTC dt. 8,000/ Lakshmi Chand,
Asstt. 2.9.96 Asstt. (A2)
8 R.K. NG57/96LTC dt. 4,427/ Lakshmi Chand,
Mehandiratta, 11.4.96 Asstt. (A2)
Asstt.
9 Dalip Singh, NG1217/96LTC dt. 3,500/ Lakshmi Chand,
P.A. (T.A. 13.1.97 Asstt. (A2)
Advances)
10 M.K. Nirbheek, NG1024/96LTCdt. 3,150/ Lakshmi Chand,
Asstt. 26.11.96 Asstt. (A2)
11 M.K. NG1334/96LTC dt. 7,200/ Diwakar Dixit
Bhardawaj, SO 14.2.97 (A3)
12 S.A. Khan, NG291/96LTC dt. 3,760/ Diwakar Dixit
Asstt. Librarian 23.5.96 (A3)
13 Ram Prasad, NG419/96LTC dt. 5,900/ Diwakar Dixit
Asstt. 25.6.96 (A3)
14 Lakhmi Chand NG846/97LTC dt. 12,000/ Lakshmi Chand,
16.10.97 Asstt. (A2)
15 Ms. Chandra NG857/97LTC dt. 2,000/ S.D. Naik, Asstt.
Katyal, UDC 15.10.97 (A4)
16 N.Vishwanatha NG1434/96LTC dt. 2,800/ Bhagwan Singh,
n, Asstt. 14.3.97 Peon (A6)
18 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
17 Rakesh Kumar, NG1199/97LTC dt. 1,800/ Bhagwan Singh,
Asstt. 5.1.98 Peon (A6)
18 Rajinder Paul, NG1282/96LTC dt. 6,000/ Purshottam Lal,
P.S. 28.1.97 Sr. Peon (A70
19 R.R. Bhaskar, NG418/96LTC dt. 2,564/ Raghuvinder
Asstt. 25.6.96 Kumar, Sr. Peon
(A8)
Total 83,151/
1.14 The respective persons obtained the above mentioned amounts shown in table "J" fraudulently in cash by acknowledging the amount on acquittance rolls. Whereas neither they had applied for such advance nor they were entitled and all these bills were passed by A9 ignoring the prescribed norms. 1.15 As per charge sheet, A1 also prepared 25 bills in his own name and in the names of other accused officials without any valid proposal and sanctions. The said bills were passed by A9 being DDO. The withdrawal against these 25 bills were taken by respective accused persons through the cheques in their names. The said cheques were deposited by accused persons in their respective bank accounts through the paying slips filled in by accused persons. The bank accounts and statements reflects the payments in respect of the said cheques and subsequently withdrawal of money by respective accused persons. A1 prepared the bills in favour of Ramesh Chand, Personal Asstt. & Asstt. and 19 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. received the cheques for said amounts which were subsequently deposited in his account. The details of the said 25 LTC advance bills are shown in following "K" table: Table "K"
Sl. No. Bill drawn in Bill No. and date Amount Cheque Bank/A/c
favour of (S/Shri) No.
1 Ramesh Chand, NG642/96; 19.8.96 16,200/ A083088 SBI, C. Sectt
Assistant SB A/c No.
44349
2 As above NG851/96; 10.10.96 12,000/ A84234 do
3 Ramesh Chand, NG683/96; 27.8.96 13,000/ A83387 do
P.A.
4 As above NG1204/96; 10.1.97 12,500/ A085825 do
5 Ramesh Chand, NG294/97; 23.5.97 13,000/ A091505 do
Asstt.
6 As above NG363/97; 11.6.97 13,000/ A091873 do
7 As above NG528/97; 14.7.97 14,000/ A092470 do
8 As above NG617/97; 13.8.97 12,000/ A093150 do
9 As above NG1202/97; 5.1.98 12,000/ A096457 do
10 Lakshmi Chand NG812/96; 3.10.96 13,520/ A084187 SBI, Central
Sectt New
Delhi, SB
A/c No.
23855
11 Lakshmi Chand NG1154/96; 27.12.96 12,500/ A085660 do
20 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
12 Lakshmi Chand NG172/97; 29.4.97 17,000/ A091072 do
13 Self NG93/97;11.4.97 11,500/ A090649 do
14 Self NG607/97; 4.8.97 14,000/ A092970 do
15 Self NG1013/97; 19.11.97 13,000/ A095285 do
16 Self NG1296/97; 23.1.98 16,000/ A096978 do
17 Diwakar Dixit NG1066/96; 10.12.96 13,500/ A085340 PNB, Sansad
Marg, SB
A/c. No.
84219
18 do NG1458/96; 25.3.97 14,500/ A087212 do
19 do NG275/97; 20.5.97 14,000/ A091400 PNB, Sansad
Marg, SB
A/c No.
88979
20 do NG396/97;23.6.97 11,000/ A092244 Central Bank
of India,
Sansad
Marg, S.B.
A/c No.
33322
21 do NG657/97; 18.8.97 13,000/ A093151 do
22 do NG1127/97; 16.12.97 16,000/ A096001 do
23 SD Naik (A4) NG726/97; 1.9.97 12,000/ A093519 PNB, New
Rajinder Nagar
SB A/c 17218
24 NG1117/97; 15.12.97 13,000/ A096530 do
25 NG1222/97; 8.1.98 13,000/ A095867 PNB, SB A/c
20391
21 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
1.16 As per charge sheet, A1 obtained total payment of Rs. 1,17,700/ through cheques/cash against the bills drawn in favour of Ramesh Chand, P.A./Asstt. whereas he himself was a UDC and was not entitled for such payments. A1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with A9 and other accused persons. A1 made forged signatures on the applications for LTC advance in the name of accused Lakshmi Chand, accused S.K.D. Dass Naik and himself and mentioned "block year".
1.17 It is alleged in charge sheet that A2 Lakshmi Chand entered into the criminal conspiracy with A1 and AS9 and received total amount of Rs. 1,28,597/ against 12 bills. These 12 bills were prepared by A1 either in his name or in the name of other officials. A2 received Rs. 31,077/ in cash through acquittance roll prepared by A1 and Rs. 97,520/ through cheques after depositing the same in his account no. 23855 at State Bank of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. The amounts against 12 bills were received by A2 dishonestly and knowingly that he was not entitled for the said amounts. 1.18 Diwakar Dixit (A3) received total amount of Rs. 98,860/ against the nine bills prepared by A1 out of which an amount of Rs. 16,860/ was obtained fraudulently by himself in cash through acquittance roll prepared by A1 and an 22 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. amount of Rs. 82,000/ was received by him by way of crosscheques which were deposited by him in his saving bank account no. 88979 at Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and 33322 at Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi and he received the said amount of Rs. 98,660/ in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 with dishonest and fraudulent intention knowingly that he was not entitled for the said amount. 1.19 Similarly, Accused S.K.D. Dass (A4) received total amount of Rs. 40,000/ against the four bills prepared by A1 out of which an amount of Rs. 2,000/ was obtained fraudulently by him in cash through acquittance roll prepared by A1 and an amount of Rs. 38,000/ was received by him by way of crosscheques which were deposited by him in his saving bank account no. 17218 and 20391 at Punjab National Bank, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. A4 received the said amount of Rs. 40,000/ in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 with dishonest and fraudulent intention knowing full well that he was not entitled for the said amount.
1.20 Accused Bale Singh Kasana (A5) received total amount of Rs. 20,050/ against the six bills prepared by A1 whereas in the acquittance rolls, the bills were shown in the name of accused and payments were made to him. Accused Bale Singh Kasana, in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 had received the 23 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. payment of Rs. 20,050/ dishonestly and knowingly that he was not entitled for the said amount.
1.21 Accused Bhagwan Singh (A6) received total amount of Rs.4,600/ against the two bills prepared by A1 whereas in the acquittance rolls, the bills were shown in the name of accused and payments were made to him. Accused Bhagwan Singh, in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 had received the payment of Rs.4,600/ dishonestly and knowingly that he was not entitled for the said amount.
1.22 Accused Purshottam Lal (A7) received total amount of Rs. 6,000/ against the bill no. NG1282/96 dated 28.1.97, prepared by A1 whereas in the acquittance rolls, the bill was shown in the name of accused and payments was made to him. Accused Purshottam Lal, in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 had received the payment of Rs. 6,000/ dishonestly and knowingly that he was not entitled for the said amount.
1.23 Accused Raghuvender Kumar (A8) received total amount of Rs. 2,564/ against the bill no. NG418/96 dated 25.6.96, prepared by A1 whereas in the acquittance rolls, the bill was shown in the name of accused and payments was made to him. Accused Raghuvender Kumar, in criminal conspiracy with A1 and A9 had received the payment of Rs. 2,564/ dishonestly and knowingly that 24 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. he was not entitled for the said amount.
1.24 As per charge sheet, in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, above mentioned 44 bills were fraudulently and dishonestly cleared and a total amount of Rs. 4,20,321/ was drawn by the accused persons without any entitlement thereby causing corresponding loss to the Govt. As a modusoperandi, A1 and A9 either reprocessed the applications for LTC advance against which the advances were already withdrawn or prepared the proposals for LTC advance in the names of different officials without any LTC applications. As per prosecution case, in pursuance to criminal conspiracy forged acquittance rolls were prepared which were signed by respective accused persons while receiving the amounts and the forged LTC applications were prepared by A1. As per charge sheet, the sanction for prosecution was granted under section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short "P.C. Act") against the accused persons. The charge sheet has been filed for commission of offence punishable under section 120B, 420, 467 Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (d) of P.C. Act and also under substantive offences against the accused persons.
2. After filing of chargesheet, cognizance of offence was taken. After hearing arguments, following charges were framed against accused persons: 25 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
i) U/s 420,467,471 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as "IPC" )and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "P.C Act, 1988) r/w section 120 B IPC against Lakhmi Chand (A2), Diwakar Dixit (A3), S.K.D Dass Naik (A4), Bale Singh Kasana (A5), Bhagwan Singh (A6), Purshotam Lal (A7), Raghuvender Kumar (A8) and J.L. Chopra (A9).
ii) U/s 420 & 467 IPC and under section 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act read with section 13 (2) P.C Act against Lakhmi Chand (A2), Diwakar Dixit (A3), S.K.D Dass Naik (A4), Bale Singh Kasana (A5), Bhagwan Singh (A6), Purshotam Lal (A7) and Raghuvender Kumar (A8).
iii) U/s 420 IPC and under section 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act read with section 13 (2) P.C Act against J.L Chopra (A9).
3. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 57 witnesses who in brief are discussed as under : 3.1 PW1 Raj Mohan, UDC, Ministry of finance, department of Revenue was dealing with leave applications, LTC of LDC, UDC, Assistant , Translators and drivers. PW1 stated that accused J.L Chopra was Cash Section Officer at that time and identified him in the court. He further stated that he used to verify the details given in LTC applications with the help of service books/personnel files 26 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. and was putting his initials in token of verifying details mentioned in the LTC advance applications. He was shown LTC applications on behalf of accused Diwakar Dixit and he identified his signature at point A on Ex.PW1/A and identified accused Diwakar Dixit in the court. On Ex.PW1/A he identified signature of Section Officer, Sh. K.S Meena at point B. He was also shown LTC advance application of Mrs. Chandra Katyal Ex.PW1/B and he identified his signature as well as that of Sh. K.S Meena. Similarly, he was also shown LTC advance application of Rakesh Kumar Ex.PW1/C but he could not identify the signature of dealing clerk. Similarly, on application of accused Lakhmi Chand mark X, he could not identify the signature of Section Officer and the verifying Clerk. Another application of accused Lakhmi Chand is marked X1 and X2 and PW1 could not verify the signature of verifying Clerk and Section Officer. On application of LTC of accused S.D.K Dass Naik mark X3 and Ramesh Chandra mark X4 , he could not identify the signature of verifying clerk but he identified both the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Sr.PP for CBI and ld. defence counsel.
3.2 PW2 Smt. Indra Murti stated that she was working as Under Secretary during the year 2000 in department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. She proved complaint Ex.PW2/A. Smt. Indramurti (PW2) alongwith Sh. P.K Mishra 27 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. (PW17) have proved paid vouchers register/acquittance roll Ex.PW2/5 and Ex.PW17/H (D74), Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW17/A (D75), Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW17/J and Ex.PW17/K (D76), Ex.PW2/1B and Ex.PW17/C (D77), Ex.PW2/6 and Ex.PW17/B (D78), Ex.PW2/8 and Ex.PW17/E, Ex.PW17/F and Ex.PW17/D (D79), Ex.PW2/9 and Ex.PW17/G (D80), Ex.PW17/1 and Ex.PW17/L (D82), Ex.PW17/3 and Ex.PW17/N (D83),Ex.PW17/4 and Ex.PW17/O and Ex.PW8/A (D84), Ex.PW17/2 and PW17/M (D85), Ex.PW2/10 and Ex.PW17/P (D86), Ex.PW2/11 and Ex.PW17/Q (D87).
Smt. Indramurti (PW2) and Sh. P.K Mishra (PW17) have proved paid voucher register/acquittance rolls and stated that all the relevant entries in the said registers were made by A1 and A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 have signed in the said register in token of receipt of payments on account of LTC advances.
Smt. Indramurti (PW2) has proved cash books for the period from 1996 to 1998 Ex.PW2/12 (D194),Ex.PW2/13 (D195), Ex.PW2/1C (D196) which are the cash books from the Department of Revenue (Cash Section) and in these cash books there are entries pertaining to payment of LTC advances to accused persons namely Lakhmi Chand (A2), Diwakar Dixit (A3), Bale Singh Kasana (A5), S.K.D Dass Naik (A4), Bhagwan Singh (A6), Raghuvender (A8) , Late Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1) and Purshottam Lal (A7). 28 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
PW2 Smt. Indramurti has proved LTC register (of nongazetted officers) of the relevant period of department of Revenue (Cash section) Ex.PW2/1A (D197), Ex.PW2/F (D198), Ex.PW2/F4 (D199), Ex.PW2/F5 (D200 of gazetted officers), Ex.PW2/F1 (D201) and in these registers there is entry pertaining to aforesaid LTC advance bills against which payments were received by accused persons namely Lakhmi Chand (A2), Diwakar Dixit (A3), late Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1), Bale Singh Kasana (A5), S.K.D Dass Naik (A4), Bhagwan Singh (A6), Raghuvender (A8) and Purshottam Lal (A7).
PW2 Smt. Indramurti has proved bill registers (of nongazetted officers) of the relevant period of Department of Revenue, Cash Section Ex.PW2/4 (D202), ExPW2/7 (D203), Ex.PW23/B (D204) and Ex.PW2/F6 (D205) and Ex.PW2/F7 (D206) pertaining to the above LTC advance bills against which payments were received by accused persons namely Lakhmi Chand (A2), Diwakar Dixit (A3), Bale Singh Kasana (A5), S.K.D Dass Naik (A4), Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1), Bhagwan Singh (A6), Raghuvender (A8) and Purshottam Lal (A7).
PW2 Smt. Indramurti has proved the cheques delivery registers of department of Revenue, Cash section of the relevant period which were Ex.PW2/F8 (D207), Ex.PW2/F2 (D208) pertaining to the entries/delivery of 29 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. questioned cheques to accused persons.
PW2 Smt. Indramurti has also proved diary registers of her department of the relevant period and in these diary registers there are entries about the receipt of Dak/different application which are Ex.PW2/E16 (D209), Ex.PW2/E17 (210), Ex.PW2/E18 (211), Ex.PW2/E12 (212), Ex.PW2/E2 (D213), Ex.PW2/E13 (D214), Ex.PW2/E19 (D215), Ex.PW2/E5 (D216), Ex.PW2/E14 (D217), Ex.PW2/E15 (D218), Ex.PW2/E20 (D219), Ex.PW2/E7 (D220), Ex.PW2/E8 (D221), Ex.PW2/E9 (D222), Ex.PW2/E6 (D223), Ex.PW2/E10 (D224), Ex.PW2/E11 (D225), Ex.PW2/E4 (D226), Ex.PW2/E3 (D227).
3.4 PW3 Sh. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Assistant, State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi deposed that he was deputed by Sh. S.K Gagrou to hand over (by hand) the documents mentioned in letter Ex.PW3/A.1 to Sh. Om Parakash, Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He proved account opening form of account no.44349 in the name of Ramesh Chandra Shukla. He also proved certified copy of statement of account Ex.PW3/A.2. 3.5 PW4 Sh. Madhu Thota, Personal Assistant in department of Ministry of Finance stated that he applied for the LTC advance for the block year 19961997 but did not avail the LTC and did not receive advance amount 30 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. of Rs.7000/. He stated that bill Ex.PW2/B for amount of Rs.7000/ in his name but this payment has been received by some body Kasana. He further stated that he did not sign receipt in acquaintance roll and his name is not shown in register of cash section Ex.PW2/H where entries are made at page no.186 in red encircled portion mark A. 3.6 PW5 Sh. Fateh Singh was working as Peon in WT OT section in the department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance. He stated that he had taken the advance of Rs.3000/ towards LTC advance during July 1996 but he could not avail the LTC due to his domestic problem and returned the amount. He stated that bill Ex.PW2/H is in his name and in register of cash section Ex.PW2/4 at page 110 name of B.S Kasana shown in red encircled portion mark A. 3.7 PW6 Sh Subhash Sharma, LDC in the ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , North Block deposed that he availed LTC facility in the year 1997 and 2002 for which he had taken advance of Rs.1300/ and thereafter he submitted the adjustment bill. He deposed that Ex.PW2/Z7 which is bill for LTC was neither submitted by him nor he received any LTC advance against that bill. He deposed as per Ex.PW2/6 i.e acquaintance roll, the payment was received by Bale Singh Kasana for Rs.1300/. 31 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 3.8 PW7 Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mehendiratta, LDC was in Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue . He stated that bill Ex.PW2/B was neither submitted by him nor he received any LTC advance against said bill. He deposed that as per entry in the acquaintance roll mark A at page 115 dated 17.4.96, the said bill was received by Laxmi Chand for Rs.4427/. 3.9 PW8 Sh. Raja Ram Bhaskar, Assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue deposed that had had worked in various sections till August 2006 and availed LTC other than home town during the year 1978 and availed LTC for his home town for every block of two years. He stated that bill Ex.PW2/D was in his name for amount of Rs.2564/ as an LTC advance for block year 1994 to 1997. He deposed that he never applied for LTC for said block year and he was not aware that how that bill was prepared in his name. He deposed that payment shown as per voucher Ex.PW8/A (D84 , page 214) was never received by him and the said payment was received by one Raghuvender Kumar as per Ex.PW8/A. 3.10 PW9 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Assistant in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue deposed that he availed LTC for home town. He further deposed that bill already Ex.PW2/2016 is in his name for payment of Rs.5500/ as LTC advance and for which amount of Rs.1800/ was paid as LTC for block 32 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. year 19961997 and he had not taken any such payment as shown in the said bill. He further deposed that application for LTC claim Ex.PW1/C signed by him but the corrections made in application marked AS X1 to X1, X2 to X2, X3 to X3 , X4 to X4 , X5 to X5 X6 to X6 had not been done by him. He deposed that bill Ex.PW2/212 for LTC advance of Rs.5500/ is in his name but he never took any payment against the said bill.
3.11 PW10 Ram Parshad, Assistant in Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue deposed that bill Ex.PW2/Z20 is in his name for payment of Rs. 5900 for block year 19941997 but he never availed said LTC facility. He further deposed that bill Ex.PW2/G for Rs.8000/ is also shown in his name but he never took payment against the said bill.
3.12 PW11 Sh. Dilip Singh, LDC, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi deposed that Ex.PW2/Q is advance TA bill shown in his name for amount Rs.3500/ for official tour to Hyderabad. He deposed that he never received any payment against said bill as he never gone to Hyderabad for official tour during the year 1996 to 1997. He deposed that Ex.PW2/Q is fake bill as he never went to Hyderabad for official tour. 3.13 PW12 Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Under Secretary Assistant, Financial Advisor, Ministry of Finance deposed that bill Ex.PW2/S dated 14.2.97 is 33 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. shown in his name but he never applied for such LTC bill and said LTC bill is fake one. He had been further shown acquaintance roll already Ex.PW2/3 and the relevant entry at page 141 mark A but said payment was received by Diwakar Dixit but shown in his name. He had also seen Ex.PW2/4, as per which payment was made to Diwakar dixit. He deposed that he never received payment against bill no.1334/96LTC.
3.14 PW13 Smt. Chandra Katyal , Junior Accounts Officer, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance deposed that bill already Ex.PW2/Z11 is shown in her name for amount of Rs.2000/ but she never received any such payment of Rs.2000/ as LTC advance. 3.15 PW14 Sh. M.K Tyagi was Computer Operator, Punjab National Bank, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. He proved production cum seizure memo Ex.PW14/A vide which he handed over original specimen signature slip of SB a/c no.17218, Copy of statement of account of account no.17218, original specimen signature slip of joint SB account no.20391, original account opening form of SB a/c no.20391 and copy of statement of account. He proved signature slip Ex.PW14/B of account holder Sh. S.K.D Naik. He deposed that account statement for account no.17218 in the name of Shashi Kant and Bharat Naik of the bank of PNB from the period 19.0.2008 to 23.03.1999 is certified by 34 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Manager and collectively Ex.PW14/C. He also proved specimen signature slip of account no.20391 as Ex.PW14/D and account opening form in the joint name of Shashi Kant Naik and Bharat Naik which is Ex.PW14/E. He was further shown production cum seizure memo dated 06.06.2000 vide which he provided certain documents alongwith credit clearing voucher and statement of account no.17218 and proved the same as Ex.PW14/F. He proved letter dated 06.06.2000 Ex.PW14/G which was in favour of Om Parkash , Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Branch through which attested copies of vouchers were provided. He further proved credit voucher for account no.17218 dated 09.09.97, 22.01.98 in the name of S.D.K Naik for Rs.12000/ and Rs.13000/ as Ex.PW14/H and Ex.PW14/I. He also proved Ex.PW14/J credit voucher of account no.17218 dated09.09.97 in the name of S.K.D Dass Naik for Rs.12000/ which is true copy and he further proved Ex.PW14/K which is original copy of credit voucher a/c no.17218 dated 22.01.98 in the name of SKD Dass Naik. He also proved computer generated statement of account for a/c no.17218 in the name of S.K.D naik from the period from 01.7.97 to 23.06.98 as Ex.PW14/L. 3.16 PW15 Sh. S.K. Khan, Assistant Librarian in Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. He stated that bill Ex.PW2/C for Rs.3760/ was shown in his name but he never obtained any LTC against the said bill. 35 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 3.17 PW16 Sh. R.K. Virmani was examined partly in chief but he was dropped vide order dated 15.03.2013 as he was expired. PW16 R.K Virmani, has proved LTC application dated 28.12.97 for Rs.4600/ of S.K.D Dass Naik for home town Ex.PW16/A/ mark X3 (D55). Testimony of PW16 cannot be read in evidence.
3.18 PW18 Sh D.P Singh deposed that he worked as Sr. Accountant in PAO (Revenue) , Church Road, Lucknow, UP. He proved letter dated 05.06.2000 as Ex.PW18/A and production cum seizure memo dated 06.06.200 as Ex.PW18/B. 3.19 PW19 Sh. M.K Biswas worked as Section Officer (Cash) in Department of Revenue, North Block, Delhi. He proved production cum seizure memo dated 05.06.2000 as Ex.PW19/A. 3.20 PW20 Sh. Gulshan Rai Chopra, Clerk cum Cashier in Seelampur branch, New Delhi. He proved production cum seizure memo dated 01.6.2000, 10.01.2002 and 19.06.2000 as Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B and Ex.PW20/C. 3.21 PW21 Sh. Chunni Lal, Clerk in Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg Branch proved letter dated 21.02.2002 as Ex.PW21/A vide which credit vouchers dated 23.12.96 and 31.03.97 were handed over to Sh. Om Parkash , Inspector CBI. He proved productioncumseizure memo dated 12.06.2000 as 36 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Ex.PW21/B. He also proved statement of account no.88979 of Sh. Diwakar Dixit for the period from 27.05.97 to 23.06.97 as Ex.Pw21/C. He further proved forwarding letter dated 12.06.2000 addressed to Sh. Om Parkash, Inspector, CBI by his Manager S.K. Batta as Ex. PW21/D . He also proved photocopy of voter identity card of Sh. Diwakar Dixit as Ex.PW21/E. 3.22 PW22Sh. Ranjeet Singh worked as Accountant in office of Pay and Account, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. He proved already exhibited bills viz Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/F. 3.23 PW23 Babu Lal, Senior Accountant in department of CCA Revenue, Ministry of Finance has deposed about the procedure of availing LTC, sanction of leave and further deposed that in this case,entries in bill registers were incomplete; there were no valid sanctions; and there was no entitlement. Acquittance rolls were fraudulently filled up by dealing assistant with connivance of DDO; there were no proper entry in LTC registers and DDO had given false certificate on the bills. He proved Ex.PW23/A1 to A12, bill register Ex.PW23/B, counterfoils Ex.PW23/C1 to C34. 3.24 PW24 M.K Nirbheek, an official in department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance has deposed that he did not apply for LTC advance of Rs. 3150/as shown in LTC bill no.NG1024/96 and he did not receive the said 37 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. amount.
3.25 PW25 Sh. Suresh Kumar was posted in CBI head quarters, CGO complex. He proved specimen/handwriting of accused Diwakar Dixit as Ex.PW25/A (colly).
3.26 PW26 Ramesh Chand , an official of Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, North Block stated that eight bills already eX.PW2/E, ExPW2/K, Ex.PW12/P, Ex.PW2/Z1.ExPW2/Z2, Ex.PW2/Z4, Ex.PW2/Z6 and Ex.PW2/Z17 were prepared in name of Ramesh Chand, Assistant but these eight bills were not applied by him. 3.27 PW27 Vinod Kumar Ranga, official/Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi has proved production cum seizure memo Ex.PW27/A (D28) , DDO wise bill passing cum expenditure control register of Department of Revenue, Cash Section (of relevant period) Ex.PW27/B (D228), Ex.PW27/C (D229), Ex.PW27/D (D230), Ex.PW27/E (D231). PW27 also proved the above different cheques Ex.PW27/A1 to Ex.PW27/A24 (D89 to D112) pertaining to amount of LTC advances received by accused Lakhmi Chand, late Diwakar Dixit, late Ramesh Chand Shukla, S.KD. Dass Naik and the said cheques were deposited by these accused persons in their respective accounts and the amount was subsequently withdrawn . 38 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 3.28 PW28 Sh. P.N Pandey proved production cum seizure memo dated 22.01.2002 as Ex.PW28/A vide which he handed over documents mentioned therein from point 1 to 4 to Inspector CBI. He also proved payin slips dated 23.12.1996, pay in slip dated 31.03.97 pertaining to account no.84219, account opening form pertaining to account no.84219 in the name of Diwakar Dixit and copy of statement of account no.84219 as Ex.PW28/A1 to A4. 3.29 PW29 Sh.Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Section Officer, Ministry of Finance deposed that LTC bill already Ex.PW2/5 (D22) for Rs.7200/ for block year 19941997 appears to be in his name but he did not know in what respect that bill was prepared and he never applied for any other LTC for the said block year.
3.30 PW30 Sh. Bhola Dutt was working as a Daftari in Punjab National Bank, New Rajender Nagar Branch, Delhi. He proved production cum seizure memo as Ex.PW30/A. He also proved original pay in slip (D166) dated 22.12.1997 for amount of Rs.13,000/ and letter dated 14.2.2002 as Ex.PW30/ B and Ex.PW30/C. He also proved statement of account of a/c no.SF20391 maintained in joint name of Shashi Kant Naik and Bharti Naik for period from 05.01.98 to 12.03.99 as Ex.PW30/D. 3.31 PW31 Sh. Rajender Pal was working as Office Assistant on 39 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. contract basis in Serious Fraud Investigation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Lodhi Road CGO. He deposed that he remained in Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue as a Principal, Private Secretary. He deposed that LTC bill Ex.PW2/R shown in his name for Rs.6000/was never filled up by him. 3.32 PW32 Bhishan Dass, PW33 Satyapal Sharma, PW48 K. Touthang and PW51 Sh. N.S.K Rao, all the officials of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi have deposed about audits conducted in relation to the fraudulent withdrawals of LTC advance payments relating to this case and have also proved special audit report Ex.PW32/B (D116). 3.33 PW34 Sh.R.K Mitra , Under Secretary , Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance , New Delhi has deposed that accused J.L Chopra , DDO was responsible to ensure that LTC bills were in accordance with rules and procedure and that accused J.L Chopra used to get his counter signatures on the bills without showing the supporting documents. 3.34 PW35 Sh. Kailash Chand, Sr. Accounts, officer in Pay & Accountants office, IRLA, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. He proved letter dated 01.01.2002 as Ex.PW35/A and annexure attached with it proved as Ex.PW35/A1.
3.35 PW36 Sh. C.L Gupta, Head Clerk, PWD Flyover Project proved 40 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. specimen writing and signature of Diwakar Dixit from sheets S248 to S263 (16 sheets) as Ex.PW36/A. 3.36 PW37 Sh. Subhash Chand Sehgal, Computer operator in Central Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi proved production cum seizure memo dated 12.06.2000 as Ex.PW37/A. He also proved original specimen signature card (D119), photograph of account holder Diwakar Dixit , three original pay in slips dated 09.7.97, 28.08.97 and 24.12.97 for amount of Rs. 11000/, Rs.13000/ and Rs.16000/ and computer generated statement of account no.33322 as Ex.PW37/A1 to Ex.PW37/A8 respectively. 3.37 PW38 Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma was Section Officer, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. He proved seizure memo dated 21.12.2001 as Ex.PW38/A vide which acquittance rolls for the month of April 1996, June 1996, July 1996, September 1996 , January 1997 and May 1997 were handed over . He also proved three receipts (part of D237) which were handed over with letter Ex.PW38/B and receipts were Ex.PW38/B1 to Ex.PW38/B3. He also proved letter/certificate dated 25.02.2002 as Ex.PW38/C and proved attested copy of receipt Ex.PW38/C1.
3.38 PW39 Sh. Gajender Giri was Supervisor, Delhi Jal Board in the office of Executive Engineer (Sewer) Shahdara, North Zone. He proved his 41 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. signature on specimen signatures ( 8 pages) of accused S.D Naik as Ex.PW39/1 to 8.
3.39 PW40 Sh. R.K Kalra was Manager Personal Banking devision with State Bank of India branch, Central Secretariat. He proved letter dated 01.06.2000 addressed to Sh. Om Parkash ,CBI , Inspector of Police , Anti Corruption branch as Ex.PW40/A. Vide Ex.PW40/A credit vouchers dated 27.8.1996 , 06.09.1996 and 16.10.1996 were handed over to CBI and proved vouchers as Ex.PW40/B to D respectively. I also proved statement of account for the period from 06.01.1995 to 11.05.2000 of SB a/c no.23855 in the name of Lakhmi Chand as Ex.PW40/E. He proved letter dated 19.6.2000 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI as Ex.PW40/F and six credit vouchers as Ex.PW40/G1 to G6. He also proved letter dated 16.06.2000 as Ex.PW40/H. 3.40 PW41 Sh. Chaman Lal, Manager, Punjab National Bank, 5 ,Sansad Marg, New Delhi was discharged on request of Ld.PP vide order dated 24.02.2012.
3.41 PW42 Sh. Sukumar Mistry was LDC, in Division IX, Central Zone, MCD, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He proved specimen signatures of accused Ramesh chander Shukla as Ex.PW42/1 to Ex.PW42/32. 3.42 PW43 Smt. Anita Chauhan, the then Under Secretary, Department 42 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance has proved data input sheets attached with aforesaid LTC bills. She proved Date entry sheet as Ex.PW43/A and Date Input Sheets as Ex.PW43/B to Ex.PW43/S. 3.43 PW44 Sh. Mam Raj Singh, Assistant Account Officer, Ministry of Finance proved documents which were already proved by PW2 and PW17. 3.44 PW45 Sh. R.K Chadha was Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jail Road, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. He proved specimen handwriting of Sh. Ramesh Chander i.e S403 to S410 as Ex.PW45/A and specimen handwriting of Lakhmi Chand i.e S387 to S402 as Ex.PW45/B. 3.45 PW46 Sh. K.S Verma, Sales Tax Department, ITO , New Delhi proved specimen handwriting of Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1) as Ex.PW46/A (S1 to S30) and Ex.PW46/B (S63 to S179).
3.46 PW47 Sh. R.K Gautam, Duty Officer, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra, Sansad Marg proved specimen handwriting of Ramesh Chand Shukla as Ex.PW47/A (S291 to S334).
3.47 PW49 Sh. V.P Bhardwaj, competent authority has proved sanction for prosecution Ex.PW49/B .
3.48 PW50 Sh. R.K. Malhotra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , North Block proved sanction for prosecution against 43 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. accused Lakhmi Chand (A2) granted by Finance Minister on behalf of Hon'ble The President of India as Ex.PW50/A. 3.49 PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. Government Examiner of Questioned documents, CFSL, Shimla proved opinion dated 14.6.2002 as Ex.PW52/A. He proved letter dated 08.7.2002 as Ex.PW52/B and detailed reasoning as Ex.PW52/A1.
3.50 PW53 Sh. Rajneesh Kumar, Sr. Manager, Indian Overseas Bank proved letter dated 08.01.2002 as Ex.PW53/A, statement of account of a/c no. 15173 as Ex.PW53/B, photocopy of account opening form of account no.15173 as Ex.PW53/C. 3.51 PW55 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Record Keeper, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi proved production cum seizure memo dated 05.11.2001 as Ex.PW55/A. He proved signature of Sh Algu Ram Pandey on service books of accused Lakhmi Chand (A2) and Purshotam Lal (A7) as Ex.PW55/B and Ex.PW55/C. 3.52 PW56 Sh. V.K. Sharma, retired Officer, Punjab National Bank, new Rajender Nagar proved letter dated 09.02.2002 as Ex.PW56/A. 3.53 PW57 Sh. Om Parkash, Investigating officer of case has proved the FIR Ex.PW57/A (D1) of this case. PW57 has deposed that during investigation 44 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. he seized various documents pertaining to this case, prepared seizure memo on record, recorded the statement of witnesses, obtained sanction for prosecution and opinion of the expert and thereafter filed the chargesheet Ex.PW57/E. 4 Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they admitted some of the incriminating evidence but denied the other. I will discuss the statements of accused in relevant portion of judgment. Accused persons did not opt for defence evidence except accused J.L Chopra. 5 Accused J.L Chopra examined one witness in his defence. DW1 Sh. V. Sreekumar, Under Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi brought the photocopy of office order no.A/86 of 2010 dated 25.05.2010, original of confidential letter/complaint by Sh. J.L Chopra, DDO (Cash) dated 14.07.1999 against late Ramesh Chand Shukla, UDC and photocopy of statement of Sh. R.C Shukla dated 14.07.99 certified by Sh. R.K. Virmani, SO (Administration) from the official record. He deposed that the original confession statement of late R.C Shukla was sent to SHO, Parliament Street, New Delhi for filing of FIR and only one original copy of the office order no.A/86 of 2010 was prepared which was given to accused J.L Chopra. He proved above said documents as Ex.DW1/A, Ex.DW1/B and Ex.DW1/C respectively.
45 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.6 I have heard the Ld. Sr.PP for CBI and Ld. defence counsel for the accused. I have carefully gone through the testimony of witnesses and documents proved on record. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced at bar and written submissions filed by the accused persons. 7 The elements of criminal conspiracy may be stated as: An object to be accomplished;
(a) A plan or scheme embodied means to accomplish that object;
(b) An agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in agreement, or by any illegal means;
(c) The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it is necessarily following that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need to be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not to be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. For reference - Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2002 SCC (Cri) 978; Noor Mohammed Yusuf Momin Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 885; State Vs. Nalini, AIR 1999 SC 2640 may be referred.
46 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.In the case of Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati Vs. CBI, 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121 it was held that...
"To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120B, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing unlawful act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence"
7.1 In order to prove offence u/s 420 IPC, prosecution is required to establish:
(a) That there was fraudulent or dishonest inducement by accused person;
(b) That such inducement was to deceit someone/person;
(c) The person so deceived was induced to deliver any property to person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
(d) the person so deceived was intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything.
7.2 In the case of B. Parameshwaran Vs. State of A.P., 1999 Cr.LJ 2059 (AP) it was held that...
47 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
"A reading of this provision would make it clear that all the three wings of clause (d) of Sec. 13(1) are independent and alternative and disjunctive for constituting the ingredients of the offence under Sec. 13(1) (d) as is clear from the use of word or (at the end of each sub clause). Thus under Sec. 13(1)
(d) (i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would satisfy the requirement of criminal misconduct under Sec. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. on the same reasoning "obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage merely by abusing official position "as contemplated under Se. 13 (1) (d) (ii) in itself would satisfy the ingredients of criminal misconduct under Sec. 13(1) (d) (i) of the Act, 1988."
7.3 In order to prove charge u/s 467 IPC , prosecution is required to prove that :
a) That some document was forged.
b) That the forged documents purported to be valuable security, or a will or an authority to adopt a son or an authority to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive the principal , interest or dividend thereon, or to receive or 48 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. deliver any money, movable property or valuable security , or any document purported to be an acquaintance or receipt to acknowledge the payment of money, or an acquaintance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security.
Role of accused Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1) (since expired) 8 A1 was expired during the trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, his role is important for consideration of the entire case. In view of the evidence discussed above, it is proved beyond any doubt that A1 was posted as LTC advance dealing clerk. All 44 LTC advance bills were processed by him and were put up before A9 J.L Chopra (DDO). It has also been established that A1 prepared all the acquaintance rolls and cash registers which bears his handwriting.
8.1 As per evidence on record accused A1 himself received amount of Rs.1,17,000/ against nine fake LTC bills which is reflected in following chart: 49 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. ChartA1 (second table) Sl. D No. Bill Drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount By cash/bank No in favour of Date received D9 Ramesh NG642/96 Bill Ex.PW2/E 16,200/ Cheque no.A83088 Chand,PA, dt.19.08.96 and Data input dt 23.08.96, SBI, Assistant sheet Central Secretariat, Ex.PW34/C New Delhi A/c 1 44349 2 D14 Ramesh NG851/96 Bill Ex.PW2/K Rs.12000/ Cheque Chand dt.10.10.96 & Data input no.A084234 dt sheet 11.10.96, SBI, Ex.PW34/H Central Secretariat, New Delhi A/c 44349 3 D10 Ramesh NG683/96 Bill Ex.PW2/F Rs.13000/ Cheque Chand dt.27.08.96 and Data input no.A083387 dt sheet 30.08.96, SBI, Ex.PW34/D Central Secretariat, New Delhi A/c 44349 4 D19 Ramesh NG1204/96 Bill Ex.PW2/P Rs.12500 Cheque Chand dt.10.01.97 and Data input no.A085825 dt sheet 14.01.97, SBI, Ex.PW43/E Central Secretariat, New Delhi A/c 44349 50 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 5 D30 Ramesh NG294/97 Bill Rs.13000/ Cheque no.A091505 Chand dt.23.05.97 Ex.PW2/Z1 & dt 27.5.97, SBI, Data input Central Secretariat, sheet New Delhi A/c Ex.PW43/R 44349 6 D31 Ramesh NG363/97 Bill Rs.13,000/ Cheque no.A091873 Chand dt.11.06.97 Ex.PW2/Z2 & dt 18.6.96, SBI, Data inpue Central Secretariat, sheet New Delhi A/c Ex.PW43/S 44349 7 D33 Ramesh NG5286/97 Bill Rs.14,000/ Cheque Chand dt.14.7.97 Ex.PW2/Z4 no.A092470 dt and Data input 21.07.97, SBI, sheet Ex.X2 Central Secretariat, New Delhi A/c 44349 8 D35 Ramesh NG617/97 Bill Rs.12,000/ Cheque Chand dt.13.08.97 Ex.PW2/Z6 & No.A093150 dt.
Data input 21.8.97, Central
sheet Bank of India,
Ex.PW43/U Parliament Street,
A/c 33322
9 D46 Ramesh NG1202/97 Bill Rs.12,000/ Cheque no.A096457,
Chand dt.05.1.98 Ex.PW2/Z17 & dated 08.01.98, Central
Data input sheet Bank of India,
Ex.PW43/F1 Parliament Street, A/c
33322
51 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
8.2 Late Ramesh Chand Shukla (A1) obtained the cheques as
discussed above which are D90 Ex.PW27/A2, D93 Ex.PW27/A5, D91 Ex.PW27/A3, D108 Ex.PW27/A20, D99 Ex.PW27/A11, D100 Ex.PW27/A12, D101 Ex.PW27/A13, D109 Ex.Pw27/A21, D107 Ex.PW27/A19. The aforesaid cheques were deposited by A1 in his aforesaid bank account through pay in slips i.e D143 Ex.PW40/B, D145 Ex.PW40/D, D144 Ex.PW42/C, D148 Ex.PW40/G1, D149 Ex.PW52/D23, D153 Ex.PW40/G6, D152, Ex.PW52/D26, D151 Ex.PW52/D25, D150 Ex.PW52/D24 and the amount was subsequently withdrawn by him. 8.3 All the accused facing trial admitted that they received the amounts in cash or through cheques. Further accused persons have also admitted that the amount received through cheques were deposited by them in their respective bank accounts.
Role of accused Lakhmi Chand (A2)
9. As per prosecution case accused Lakhmi Chand obtained LTC advances on 12 occasions during the period from 11.04.1996 to 23.01.1998 and details are shown in the following chart: 52 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. ChartA2 (second table) Sl. D Bill drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount By No No. in favour of date received cash/cheque which was deposited by him in his bank account.
D13 Lakhmi NG812/96 dt. Bill Ex.PW2/J 13,520/ Cheque no.
Chand 03.10.96 and data input A084187 dt.
sheet 08.10.96, SBI,
Ex.PW34/G Central
Secretariat,
New Delhi A/c
1 23855
2 D18 Lakhmi NG1154/96 Bill Ex.PW2/O Rs.12,500/ Cheque
Chand dt.27.12.96 & Data input no.A085660
sheet dt.02.01.97,
Ex.PW43/D SBI, Central
Secretariat A/c
23855
3 D11 Ram Prasad, NG688/96 Bill Ex.PW2/G Rs.8000/ Cash
Asstt. dt.02.09.96 and data input
(PW10) sheet
Ex.PW34/E
53 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
4 D6 R.K. NG57/96 Bill Ex.PW2/B Rs.4427/ Cash
Mehandiratt dt.11.04.96 and data input
a (PW7) sheet
Ex.PW34/A
5 D20 Dalip Singh NG1217/96 Bill Ex.PW2/Q Rs.3500/ Cash
PA (PW11) dt.13.01.97 & Data input
sheet
Ex.PW43/F
6 D16 M.K. NG1024/96 Bill Rs.3150/ Cash
Nirbheek, dt.26.11.96 Ex.PW2/M &
Asstt. Data input
(PW24) Sheet
Ex.PW43/B
7 D27 Lakhmi NG172/96 dt. Bill Ex.PW2/X Rs.17,000/ Cheque
Chand 29.04.97 and Data input no.A91072 dt.
sheet 15.04.97, SBI,
Ex.PW43/N Central
Secretariat, A/c
23855
8 D26 Self NG93/97 Bill Rs.11,500/ Cheque
dt.11.04.97 Ex.PW2/W & No.A090649
Data Input dt.15.04.97,
sheet SBI, Central
Ex.PW43/M Secretariat, A/c
23855
54 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
9 D34 Self NG607/97 Bill Rs.14,000/ Cheque
dt.04.08.97 Ex.PW2/Z5 & no.A092970,
Data Input SBI, Central
sheet Secretariat A/c
Ex.PW43/T No.23855
D39 Self NG846/97 Bill Rs.12,000/ Cash
10 dt.13.10.97 Ex.PW2/Z10
& Data input
sheet
Ex.PW43/Y
11 D42 Self NG1013/97 Bill Rs.13,000/ Cheque
dt.19.11.97 Ex.PW2/Z13 no.A095285,
& Data input dt.21.11.97, SBI,
sheet Central
Ex.PW43/B1 Secretariat. A/c
no.23855
12 D48 Self NG1296/97/ Bill Ex. Rs.16,000/ Cheque
LTC PW2/Z19 and no.A096978 dt.
Dt.23.01.98 Data input 27.01.98, SBI,
sheet Ex. Central
PW52/D1 Secretariat A/c
No.23855
9.1 As per evidence on record, A2 obtained the cheques as discussed
above which are proved by PW27 Shri Vinod Kumar Ranga, an official of Pay 55 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. & Accounts Department, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and such cheques are D92 Ex.PW27/A4, D95 Ex.PW27/A7, D96 Ex.PW27/A8, D97 Ex.PW27/A9, D102 Ex.PW27/A14, D104 Ex.PW27/A16. The said cheques were deposited by the accused Lakhmi Chand in his bank account through payin slips i.e D158 Ex.PW52/D29, D159 Ex.PW52/D30, D160 Ex.PW52/D31, D161 Ex.PW52/D32, D162 Ex.PW52/D33, D163 Ex.PW52/D34, D164 Ex.PW52/D35 . In the said pay in slips PW52 Shri Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has proved the signature of accused Lakhmi Chand. In total (through aforesaid 12 LTC advance bills) he obtained Rs. 31077 in cash through acquittance roll by putting his signatures on acquittance rolls and Rs. 97520/ through cheques which were deposited by him in his bank account referred above in chartA2 and thus total amount of Rs.1,28,597/ was obtained by him as LTC advance for which he was not entitled. 9.2 The acquittance roll have been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance rolls name of accused Lakhmi Chand (Lakshmi Chand) (A2) has been mentioned and accused Lakhmi Chand has obtained the amount by putting his signatures in the acquittance rolls. Such acquittance rolls are as under: In acquittance roll D74 Ex. PW2/5 at page 69 Ex. PW17/H, there is 56 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. entry of Rs. 8000/ received in cash against bill NG/688/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Ram Prasad, Assistant) and at Q287 accused Lakhmi Chand has signed in token of receiving the said amount. The signature at Q287 of accused Lakhmi Chand has been identified by PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra at point C and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed the said signatures of accused at Q287.
In acquittance roll D79 Ex. PW2/8 at page 31 Ex. PW17/E, there is entry of Rs. 12000/ received in cash against bill NG/846/97LTC (The bill was in the name of accused) and at Q301 accused Lakhmi Chand has signed in token of receiving the said amount. The signature at Q301 of accused Lakhmi Chand has been identified by PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra at point C and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed the said signature of accused at Q301.
In acquittance roll D82 Ex. PW17/1 at page 115 Ex. PW17/L there is entry of Rs. 4427/ received in cash against bill NG/57/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Sh. R.K. Mahandiratta) and at Q348 accused Lakhmi Chand has signed in token of receiving the said amount. The signature at Q348 of accused Lakhmi Chand has been identified by PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra at point C and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed the said signatures of 57 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. accused at Q348.
In acquittance roll D85 Ex. PW17/2 at page 86 Ex. PW17/M there is entry of Rs. 3150/ received in cash against bill NG/1024/96LTC (The bill was in the name of M.K. Nirbheek, Assistant) and at Q356 accused Lakhmi Chand has signed in token of receiving the said amount. The signature at Q356 of accused Lakhmi Chand has been identified by PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra at point C and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed the said signature of accused at Q356.
In acquittance roll D86 Ex. PW2/10 at page 217 Ex. PW17/P there is entry of Rs. 3500/ received in cash against bill NG/1217/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Dalip Singh, P.A.) and at Q360 accused Lakhmi Chand has signed in token of receiving the said amount. The signature at Q360 of accused Lakhmi Chand has been identified by PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra at point C and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed the said signatures of accused at Q360.
PW7 R.K. Mehendiratta, PW10 Ram Prasad, PW11 Dalip Singh and PW24 M.K. Nirbheek have deposed that they are officials in the Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in their name are false as they did not apply for any LTC/TA and that they did not receive any amount 58 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. against such bills.
The accused Lakhmi Chand (A2) did not apply for any leave to avail LTC and also there is no entry to this effect in his service book Ex. PW55/B (D176). During investigation only three LTC applications in the name of Lakhmi Chand were found available in his service record/official record which are Ex. PW52/D7 (D64), Ex. PW52/D11 (D64) and Ex. PW52/D15 (D67). In these three LTC applications (A2) has given false names of his wife and children and thus has dishonestly and fraudulently submitted the false particulars. These LTC references and particulars/ leave are not reflected in his service book.
Role of accused Diwakar Dixit (expired) (A3) 10 Accused Diwakar Dixit has already expired during the course of trial but in order to understand the case, his role is required to be discussed. There is sufficient evidence on record to show that accused Diwakar Dixit has received an amount of Rs.98,860/ against nine fake LTC bills which is reflected in following chart: 59 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. ChartA3 (second table) Sl. D No. Bill drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount By cash/bank No in favour of date received D17 Diwakar NG1066/96 Bill Ex.PW2/N 13,500/ Cheque Dixit dt.10.12.96 and Data input no.A085340 dt sheet 18.12.96, PNB, Ex.PW43/C Parliament Street, New Delhi A/c 84219 1 2 D25 Diwakar NG1458/96 Bill Ex.PW2/V Rs.14,500/ Cheque Dixit dt.25.03.97 & Data input no.A087212 dt.
sheet 26.03.97, PNB,
Ex.PW43/L Parliament Street,
New Delhi A/c
84219
3 D22 M.K NG1334/96 Bill Ex.PW2/S Rs.7200/ Cash
Bhardwaj, dt.14,02.97 and Data input
SO sheet
Ex.PW43/H
4 D7 S.A Khan, NG291/96 Bill Ex.PW2/C Rs.3760/ Cash
Astt. dt.23.05.96 and Data input
Librarian sheet
Ex.PW43/H1
60 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
5 D48 Ram NG419/96 Bill Rs.5900/ Cash
A Prasad, dt.25.06.96 Ex.PW2/Z20
Asstt. & Data input
sheet
Ex.PW34/J
6 D29 Diwakar NG275/97 Bill Ex.PW2/Z Rs.14,000/ Cheque
Dixit dt.20.05.97 & Data input No.A091400
sheet dated 23.5.97
Ex.PW43/A PNB, Parliament
Street,
NewDelhi ,A/C
88979
7 D32 Diwakar NG396/97 Bill Rs.11,000/ Cheque
Dixit dt.23.06.97 Ex.PW2/Z3 no.A092244 dt.
and Data input 03.07.97, Central
sheet Ex.X1 Bank of India,
Parliament Street,
A/c 33322
8 D37 Diwaker NG657/97 Bill Rs.13,000/ Cheque
Dixit dt.18.08.97 Ex.PW2/Z8 & No.A093151 dt.
Data input 21.8.97, Central
sheet Bank of India,
Ex.PW43/W Parliament Street,
A/c 33322
61 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
9 D44 Diwakar NG1127/97 Bill Rs.16,000/ Cheque
Dixt dt.16.12.97 Ex.PW2/Z15 no.A096001,
& Data input dated 19.12.97,
sheet Central Bank of
Ex.PW43/D1 India, Parliament
Street, A/c 33322
10.1 Accused Diwakar Dixit obtained the cheques as discussed above
which are D89 Ex.PW27/A1, D94 Ex.PW27/A6, D98 Ex.PW27/A10, D106 Ex.PW27/A18, D110 Ex.PW27/A22, D112 Ex.PW27/A24. The aforesaid cheques were deposited by accused Late Diwakar Dixit in his above bank accounts through pay in slips i.e D120 Ex.PW37/A3, D121 Ex.PW37/A4, D122 Ex.PW37/A5, D130 Ex.PW52/D22, D170 Ex.PW28/A1, D171 Ex.PW28/A2 and the amount was subsequently withdrawn by him.
10.2 During evidence, the acquittance rolls have been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance rolls name of accused Diwakar Dixit has been mentioned and accused Diwakar Dixit has obtained the amount by putting his signatures in the acquittance rolls. The acquittance rolls are discussed as under: In acquittance roll D76 Ex. PW2/3 at page 141 Ex. PW17/K there is 62 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. entry of Rs. 7200/ received in cash against bill NG/1334/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Shri M.K. Bhardwaj PW12).
In acquittance roll D83 Ex. PW17/3 at page 46 Ex. PW17/N there is entry of Rs. 3760/ received in cash against bill NG/291/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Shri S.A. Khan PW15).
In acquittance roll D84 Ex. PW17/4 at page 14 Ex. PW17/O there is entry of Rs. 5900/ received in cash against bill NG/419/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Shri Ram Prasad, Assistant PW10).
PW12 M.K. Bhardwaj, PW15 S.A. Khan and PW10 Shri Ram Prasad have deposed that they are official in the Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in their name are false as they did not apply for any LTC and that they did not receive any amount against such bills.
The role of accused S.K.D Dass Naik (A4) 11 As per evidence on record, accused S.K.D. Das Naik has received an amount of Rs. 40000/ against 4 fake LTC bills out of which Rs. 2000/ were received by him in cash which is reflected in following chart.
63 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
ChartA4 (second table)
Sl. D No. Bill drawn in Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount By cash/bank
No favour of date received
D40 Ms. Chandra NG857/97 dt. Bill 2,000/ Cash
Katyal, UDC 15.10.97 Ex.PW2/Z11,
and Data input
sheet
1 Ex.PW43/Z
2 D38 S.D Naik NG726/97 Bill Rs.12,000/ Cheque
dt.01.9.97 Ex.PW2/Z9 & no.A093519 dt.
Data input sheet 05.09.97,PNB, New
Ex.PW43/X Rajinder Nagar, SB
a/c 17218
3 D43 S.D Naik. NG117/97 dt. Bill Rs.13000/ Cheque
15.12.97 Ex.PW2/Z14 no.A096530 dt.
and Data input 13.01.98 ,PNB, New
sheet Rajinder Nagar, SB
Ex.PW43/C1 a/c 17218
4 D47 S.D Naik NG1222/97 Bill Rs.13000/ Cheque
dt.08.01.98 Ex.PW2/Z18 no.A095867 dt.
and Data Input 17.12.97 ,PNB, New
sheet Rajinder Nagar, SB
Ex.PW43/G1 a/c 20391
11.1 The acquittance rolls have been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira
Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance roll name of accused S.K.D. Das Naik (S.D. Naik) has been mentioned. PW17 P K Mishra has 64 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. deposed that S .K.D Dass Naik himself attended the cash section and he has obtained the amount by putting his signature in the acquittance roll at point C in his presence. The acquittance roll are discussed as under: In acquittance roll D79 Ex. PW2/8 at page 55 Ex. PW17/F there is entry of Rs. 2000/ received in cash against bill NG/857/97LTC (The bill was in the name of Ms. Chandra Katyal, PW13 ). The accused has admitted the receipt of said amount in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC.
PW13 Ms. Chandra Katyal has deposed that she is official in Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in her name is false as she did not apply for any LTC/TA and that she did not receive any amount against such bills.
11.2 As per evidence on record, accused S.K.D Dass Naik obtained the cheques as discussed above are Ex.PW27/A15 (D103), Ex.PW27/A23 (D111) and Ex.PW27/A17 (D105). The said cheques were deposited by him in his aforesaid banks account through the payin slips i.e Ex.PW14/J ( D138), Ex.PW14/K (D139), Ex.PW30/B (D166) and the amount was subsequently withdrawn by him.
65 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Role of accused Bale Singh Kasana( A5) 12 Accused Bale Singh Kasana has received an amount of Rs. 20050/ against 6 fake LTC bills in cash which is reflected in following chart.
ChartA5 (second table)
Sl. D No. Bill drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount Mode of payment
No in favour of date received
D12 Fateh Singh, NG798/96 Bill 3000/ Cash
Peon dt.24.9.96 Ex.PW2/H
(PW5) and Date input
1 sheet PW34/F
2 D23 Madhu NG1375/96 Bill Ex.PW2/T Rs.7000/ Cash
Thota, PA dt.03.03.97 and Data Input
(PW4) Sheet
Ex.PW43/J
3 D15 M.K NG928/96 Bill Rs.3150/ Cash
Nirbheek, dt.01.11.96 Ex.PW2/L and
Asstt. Date input
(PW24) sheet
Ex.PW43/A
4 D28 R.P Singh, NG184/96 Bill Rs.3800/ Cash
P.A dt.01.05.97 Ex.PW2/Y
and Date input
sheet
Ex.PW43/P
66 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
5 D41 Rakesh NG906/97 Bill Rs.1800/ Cash
Kumar, dt.22.10.97 Ex.PW2/Z12
Asstt. & Date input
(PW9) sheet
Ex.PW43/A1
6 D36 Subhash NG620/97 Bill Rs.1300/ Cash
Chand, LDC dt.06.08.97 Ex.PW2/Z7
(PW6) & Date input
sheet
Ex.PW43/V
12.1 The acquittance rolls have been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira
Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance rolls name of accused Bale Singh Kasana has been mentioned which proved that he (accused Bale Singh Kasana) has obtained the amount by putting his signatures in the acquittance rolls. Some of such acquittance rolls are discussed as under: In acquittance roll D75 Ex. PW2/1 at page 81 Ex. PW17/A there is entry of Rs. 3150/ received in cash against bill NG/928/96LTC (The bill was in the name of M.K. Nirbheek, Assistant PW24) and at pointC . The signature of Shri Bale Singh Kasana at Page 81 has been identified by PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra.
In acquittance roll D78 Ex. PW2/6 at page 46 Ex. PW17/B, there is 67 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. entry of Rs. 1300/ received in cash against bill NG/620/97LTC (The bill was in the name of Subhash Chand, PW6) and at pointC at page - 46, the signature of Shri Bale Singh Kasana has been identified by PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra.
In acquittance roll D79 Ex. PW2/8 at page 177 Ex. PW17/D there is entry of Rs. 1800/ received in cash against bill NG/906/97LTC (The bill was in the name of Rakesh Kumar, PW9) and at pointC at page177, the signature of Shri Bale Singh Kasana has been identified by PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra.
In acquittance roll D87 Ex. PW2/11 at page 54 Ex. PW17/Q there is entry of Rs. 3800/ received in cash against bill NG/184/96LTC (The bill was in the name of R.P. Singh) and at pointC the signature of Shri Bale Singh Kasana at Page 54 has been identified by PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra.
PW4 Shri Madhu Thota, PW5 Fateh Singh, PW6 Shubhash Chand, PW9 Rakesh Kumar and PW24 M.K. Nirbheek have deposed that they are officials in the Department of Revenue and the bills referred above shown in their name are false as they did not apply for any LTC/TA and that they did not receive any amount against such bills.
The accused Bale Singh Kasana did not apply for any leave/ to avail LTC and there is no entry to this effect in his service book Ex. PW2/F9 (D178). 68 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Role of accused Bhagwan Singh (A6) 13 Accused Bhagwan Singh has received an amount of Rs. 4600/ against 2 fake LTC bills in cash which is reflected in following chart.
ChartA6 (second table)
Sl. No D No. Bill drawn in Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount Mode of
favour of date received payment
D24 N. NG1434/96 Bill 2800/ Cash
Vishwanathan dt.14.3.97 Ex.PW2/Q
and Data
input Sheet
1 PW43/K
2 D45 Rakesh NG1199/97 Bill Rs.1800/ Cash
Kumar, Asstt. dt.05.01.98 Ex.PW2/Z16
(PW9) and Data
input sheet
Ex.PW43/E1
13.1 As per evidence, the acquittance roll have been proved by PW2
Smt. Indira Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance rolls name of accused Bhagwan Singh has been mentioned. PW17 P K Mishra has deposed that accused Bhagwan Singh himself attended the Cash Section and accused Bhagwan Singh has obtained the said amount by putting his signature 69 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. in the acquittance rolls at point C. The acquittance rolls are discussed as under: In acquittance roll D77 Ex. PW1/B at page 210 Ex. PW17/C there is entry of Rs. 2800/ received in cash against bill NG/1434/96LTC (The bill was in the name of N. Vishwanathan, Assistant ). The accused has admitted the receipt of said said amount in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC .
In acquittance roll D80 Ex. PW2/9 at page 22 Ex. PW17/G; there is entry of Rs. 1800/ received in cash against bill NG/1199/97LTC (The bill was in the name of Rakesh Kumar, Assistant PW9 ). The accused has admitted of receiving of the said amount in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC .
PW9 Rakesh Kumar has deposed that he is official in the Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in his name are false as he did not apply for any LTC/TA and that he did not receive any amount against such bills.
The accused Bhagwan Singh did not apply for any leave to avail LTC and there is no entry to this effect in his service book Ex. PW2/F10 (D179).
Role of accused Purshotam Lal (A7) 14 Accused Purshottam Lal has received an amount of Rs. 6000/ against one fake LTC bill in cash which is reflected in following chart: 70 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. ChartA7 (second table) Sl. D No. Bill drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount Mode of payment No in favour of date received D21 Rajender NG1282/9 Bill 6000/ Cash Paul, PS 6 dt. Ex.PW2/R (PW31) 28.01.97 and Data input sheet 1 PW43/G 14.1 As per evidence on record, the acquittance roll has been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance roll name of accused A7 has been mentioned and accused A7 has obtained the amount by putting his signatures in the acquittance roll at pointC and the acquittance roll discussed as under: In acquittance roll D76 Ex. PW2/3 at page 39 Ex. PW17/J there is entry of Rs. 6000/ received in cash against bill NG/1282/96LTC (The bill was in the name of Rajender Paul, P.S. PW31) and at pointC the signature of Shri Purshottam Lal at Page 39 has been identified by PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma, Dy. GEQD has also confirmed. Accused has also admitted the receipt of the said amounts in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. 71 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
PW31 Shri Rajender Paul has deposed that he is officials in the Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in his name is false because he did not apply for any LTC/TA and that he did not receive any amount against such bills.
The accused Purshottam Lal did not apply for any leave to avail LTC and there is no entry to this effect in his service book Ex. PW55/C (D180).
Role of accused Raghuvender Kumar (A8) 15 Accused Raghuvendra Kumar has received an amount of Rs. 2564/ against one fake LTC bill in cash which is reflected in following chart: ChartA8 (second table) Sl. D No. Bill drawn Bill No. & Exhibit No. Amount Mode of payment No in favour of date received D8 R.R NG418/96 Bill 2564/ Cash Bhaskar, dt.25.06.96 Ex.PW2/D Asstt. and Data (PW8) input sheet 1 PW34/B 72 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 15.1 The acquittance roll has been proved by PW2 Smt. Indira Murthy and PW 17 Shri P.K. Mishra. In the acquittance rolls name of accused Raghuvender Kumar has been mentioned. The accused Raghuvender Kumar himself attended the cash section and obtained the amount by putting his signature in the acquittance roll at pointC. The acquittance roll is discussed as under: In acquittance roll D84 Ex. PW17/4 at page 214 there is entry of Rs. 2564/ received in cash against bill NG/418/96LTC (The bill was in the name of R.R. Bhaskar PW8) PW17 Shri P.K. Mishra has stated that Raghuvender Kumar appeared before him and after putting his signature on acquittance roll at point C, he received the said amount as LTC advance. Accused has admitted in his statement u/s 313 Cr. PC about receipt of said amount.
PW8 R.R. Bhaskar has deposed that he is officials in Department of Revenue and that the bills referred above shown in his name is false as he did not apply for any LTC and that he did not receive any amount against said bills.
The accused Raghuvender Kumar did not apply for any leave/ to avail LTC and there is no entry to this effect in his service book Ex. PW2/F11 (D181).
73 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Role of accused J.L Chopra (A9) 16 Accused J.L. Chopra was Section Officer cum DDO in cash Section of Department of Revenue. All the 44 LTC advance bills were passed by him. On bills, and data input sheets the signatures of Shri J.L. Chopra are not in dispute. PW2 Smt. Indira Murthy (Complainant), PW17 P.K. Mishra (Cashier) and PW52 Dr. R. Sharma (Dy. GEQD) have confirmed the signatures of Shri J.L. Chopra on such documents.
17 Ld. Counsel for accused Lakhmi Chand (A2) submitted that the cheques and cash payments were received by him in the normal course which were in his name. When A2 came to know that the wrong payments were made to him, he returned the amount received by him vide receipts mark DXA2 with prior permission of the competent authority. It was argued that A2 was not involved in preparation of cheques, passing of LTC advance or sanction of LTC advance as he was not posted in accounts or cash branch. It was further argued that if A2 was not entitled for the LTC advance, the department could have reject his applications. It was further argued that application of LTC advance submitted by him to the department were concealed by IO as well as by department and were not produced before the court and the noting/order on application could have reflect his bonafide. It was submitted that record of LTC 74 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. applications was in possession of department and A2 did not have copies of same and therefore, could not produced the same. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that as per the admitted case of the prosecution, accused made his own signature on the acquittance rolls and other records. He received the cheques of LTC advance in his own name and deposit the same in his account. Ld. Defence counsel argued that if there would have been any dishonest or fraudulent intention on the part of A2, he would not have signed in his own name and could have deposit the cheques by opening a separate or forged bank account. ld. Defence counsel contended that bonafides of A2 are clear and there is no evidence on record to connect him with criminal conspiracy or commission of offence.
18 Ld.Sr.PP controverted the submission of Ld. Defence counsel for A2. It was argued that during the period from 11.4.96 to 23.01.98, accused Lakhmi Chand obtained LTC advance on 12 occasions by way of cash or cheques as shown in table "A2". The receipt of payments are not disputed by him. He returned the payments only when the fraud was revealed. 19 After careful consideration of respective submissions and material on record, it is clearly proved and even admitted by accused in his statement that he obtained LTC advance on 12 occasions from April 1996 to January 1998. He 75 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. returned the same only when the fraud came to the knowledge of the department. Every government servant is expected to know that LTC and home town advance are permissible once in the block of four years. Accused received the amount on account of LTC advance 12 times within the period of about 20 months. The defence of accused is not worth believing that he received the LTC advances bonafidely as the same were in his name. LTC advance could not be granted for 12 times in such a short period unless there was connivance of A1 R.C Shukla LTC clerk and A9 J.L Chopra, DDO. Without collusion between A2, A1 and A9 for the benefit of one or all, such exercises cold not have been repeated. Without any hesitation, in my view, the repayments of amount received by A2 to his department does not show his bonafide and cannot exonerate him from the charges. In my view, the defence of accused is neither convincing nor natural and the same is false and after thought. 20 On behalf of A4 S.K.D Dass Naik , A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender , ld. Defence counsel mainly argued that:
a) That PW2 Indra Murti has suppressed the material facts regarding registration of case FIR no.256/99 u/s 420/468/471/409/120 B IPC, PS Parliament Street which was registered at her instance and was pertaining to 76 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. similar transactions relating to LTC advances.
b) That A1 Ramesh Chand Shukla , A3 Diwakar Dixit have expired during trial and therefore, it was difficult to establish all relevant facts.
c) PW2 Indra Murti stated that she was not personally aware about the facts of case but she deposed on the basis of records and therefore, her testimony is not reliable.
d) That PW43 Anita Chauhan has deposed that in case any employee received payment of LTC advance in excess to the actual expenditure incurred by him, balance may be paid back to the department.
e) PW44 Sh. Mam Raj also stated that if LTC advance or any amount is wrongly paid to the government official who is not entitled for the same, the DDO office may recover the same. He further stated that he cannot say whether 80 persons were exonerated after recovery of wrongly paid amount with penal interest but with malafide intention, present accused persons were implicated in the case.
f) PW51 N.S.K Rao clearly stated that Ex.PW32/B was the special audit report pertaining to second phase and he was not aware about audit report of first phase. In audit report Ex.PW32/B , the details of 17 officials and LTC advances have been mentioned. PW32 Bhishan Dass, PW33 Satyapal Sharma, 77 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. PW48 K. Touthang and PW51 Sh. N.S.K Rao falsely deposed about special audit report Ex.PW32/B.
g) That the sanction for prosecution was not granted against accused in accordance with law which is reflected from the statements of PW49 and PW50. That amount of Rs.40,000/ was returned by S.K.D Dass Naik which was received by him from the department on account of alleged LTC advance.
h) That accused Raghuvender received Rs.2564/ from office after signing acquittance roll which were prepared by accused R.C Shukla. He wrongly received the said amount and returned the same to department.
i) Accused Bhagwan Singh received an amount of Rs.4600/ in cash in two installments of Rs.2800/ on 14.03.1997 and Rs.1800/ on 15.01.1998 under the wrong impression that the same were on account of arrears but as soon as he realized that the amount does not belong to him, he returned the same with prior permission of the head quarter.
j) Accused Bale Singh Kasana received amount in six installments without any malafide intention. He returned said amount to the department after getting prior permission of the senior officials. Accused Bale Singh Kasana deposited the cheque of LTC advance in his own account without any intention to cheat the department and his action was bonafide. 78 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
k) That matter was not properly investigated by IO PW57 Om Parkash. During investigation he received Ex.PW57/G i.e receipt of Rs.6,173/ deposited by accused Bhagwan Singh but he did not file the same which was admitted during his evidence. PW57 did not implead 17 other officials who were pointed out by special audit report, phaseII for similar receipt of LTC advances.
l) That accused S.K.D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, Bhawan Singh and Raghuvender have not made any false document in their favour. They did not forge signature of anyone. They received the amount by putting signature in acquittance rolls which does not mention the head of amounts.
On the basis of above mentioned contentions, Ld. Defence counsel for S.K.D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, Bhagwan Singh and Raghuvender Singh tried to impress upon the court that these accused persons are the victim of the circumstances. They innocently and bonafidely received the amount which they returned to their department.
21 On behalf of A4 S.K.D Dass Naik, A5 Sh. Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Sh. Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender Kumar, ld. defence counsel further argued that PW2 Indra Murti suppressed the material facts and due to death of A1 and A3 it was difficult to establish the relevant fact. Ld. defence 79 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. counsel also added that PW2 was not personally aware about the facts of the case and she proved only on the basis of documents. This contention of Ld. defence counsel is without any merit. This case is mainly based on documentary evidence pertaining to receipt of LTC advance. It is not disputed by above mentioned four accused that they received the LTC advances without any entitlement and even returned the amounts to the department. In view of these facts,the contention of ld. defence counsel appears to be merit less. 21.1 Ld. defence counsel argued that if accused were not entitled for the LTC advance , application could have been rejected by the department. In case, the amount was wrongly paid to the accused persons, the same could have been recovered. Ld. defence counsel tried to argue that accused persons were innocent. In my opinion, this contention is contrary to the records and against the basic rules of reasoning. It is not a case of negligence/ error of one or two instances. The accused persons availed the LTC advances to which they were not entitled on number of occasions which could not have been possible without dishonest and fraudulent intention and criminal conspiracy between one or other accused persons. Ld. defence counsel tried to take the shelter on the ground that there were number of other officials who were also pointed out during special audit report but they were not chargesheeted by the IO. The cases 80 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. of those employees is not before the court and thereafter, this court cannot take any view in this regard.
21.2 After careful consideration of respective submissions and material on record, it is clearly proved and even admitted by accused persons in their statements that they obtained LTC advances and returned the same only when the fraud was came to the knowledge of the department. The defence of accused is not worth believing that they received the LTC advances as the same were in their name. In my view the defence of accused is neither convincing nor natural and is false and after thought.
22 On behalf of accused Purshotam Lal (A7) , ld. Defence counsel submitted that he was working as Peon and posted with Chairman (CBC). He was instructed by his Chairman to check from Sh. R.C Shukla (A1) about the TA bills. When A7 enquired from A1, he gave him papers and instructed him to collect the cash amount from Cashier Mr. Mishra. A7 went to Mr. Mishra and received the amount of Rs.6000/ and he came back and handed over the amount of Rs.6000/ to A1. A7 was under the impression that Mr. Shukla had requested his assistance to collect the cash from Sh. Mishra in respect of routine affairs of the branch. A7 came to know on 15.05.2000 when he received notice from CBI office, New Delhi that said amount of Rs.6000/ was shown as LTC 81 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. advance in his name. Thereafter, he deposited the said amount with penal interest to the department. In fact, accused Purshottam Lal was not aware that the said amount of Rs.6000/ would be shown as LTC advance in his name and mischief was played by A1 and Sh. Mishra. It was argued that A7 was not involved in conspiracy with anyone. It was further argued that PW17 has clearly stated that A7 could hardly sign in Hindi and he has received many awards and letter of appreciation for his honesty and dedication to work. PW17 further deposed that Ex.PW2/ R and acquittance role Ex.PW17/A is in the hand of A1.
PW Om Parkash (IO) has admitted that A7 deposited the amount of Rs.8940/ with department with penal interest. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that A7 was having any malafide intention to receive amount of Rs.6000/ as LTC advance. It is stated that A7 studied up to only 4th standard and he was mis used by A1. 22.1 Ld. Sr.PP controverted the submission of Ld. Defence counsel. It was submitted that there is clear evidence on record that accused received Rs. 6000/ on account of LTC advance and deposited the same at very later stage when the the entire matter was revealed.
22.2 The case of A7 is different from all other accused. As per admitted case of prosecution there is only one instance of receipt of LTC advance of Rs. 82 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 6000/ against him which was received in cash. The defence of A7 is also different from all other accused. Whereas all other accused admittedly received the LTC advance on different occasions either by cheque or in cash and later on returned it, A7 took the plea that he received the amount of Rs.6000/ from cashier on the request of A1 and gave amount to him. A7 has studied upto 4th class and was working as Peon. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, there may be two possibilities. The first possibility is that A7 received amount of Rs.6000/ on the request of A1 and immediately handed over amount to A1. Second possibility is that in pursuance to criminal conspiracy, he received amount of Rs.6000/. Therefore, in my opinion when two clearly plausible views are possible in the case of A7, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 23 Ld. counsel for A9 (J.L Chopra) mainly argued that :
a) That A9 was posted as DDO wherea A1 was UDC who used to deal with LTC advance bills. A9 was recently posted in the department whereas A1 was posted much prior to the accused and was dealing with the LTC advance bills.
b) That as per the procedure every applicant of LTC advance was required to apply in his own department which was being verified and sanctioned by his own department. Thereafter, the bills were being cleared by 83 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. A1 who was dealing clerk after verifying the veracity of bills. A1 used to place bills alongwith documents before A9 who being DDO used to forward the same to the Under Secretary concerned who was head of department for passing of bills. This procedure was prevalent in the department much prior to the posting of accused.
c) That PW2 Mrs. Indra Murti stated that on 14.07.99, A9 while working as DDO brought it to the notice of Under Secretary (Cash) that certain officers had fraudulently received payments of amounts of LTC advance. Thereafter, preliminary investigation was conducted and confidential complaint given by A9 was found correct. Accordingly, matter was reported to Delhi police and speical audit was directed. Ld. defence counsel tried to built an argument that it was A9 who bonafidely acted as a whistle blower and revealed the entire fraud.
d) That in FIR lodged by PW2, name of A9 was not mentioned. IO of the case called A9 only once during the investigation and obtained his signature. Accused was not even arrested by CBI. Even a single penny was not obtained by accused in fraudulent manner. In second FIR lodged by PW2 in Ps Parliament street relating to similar matter, accused was named as a witness. Ld. defence counsel tried to impress upon that it was not possible to name A9 as an accused in case of CBI and as a witness in case of PsParliament Street relating to 84 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. similar transactions.
e) That as per rule 92 of Receipt and Payment Rules 1983, head of office was personally responsible for the amount drawn by him unless it is paid to the entitled person. In the present case, Under Secretary concerned was the head of the office who is personally responsible. IO of the case intentionally impleaded A9 as an accused, though, there was no evidence of embezzlement against him.
f) That A1 in departmental enquiry confessed his crime and admitted embezzlement of money which was returned by A1 and other accused. In departmental enquiry, A9 was exonerated and he was reinstated in service. Ld. defence counsel tried to shift entire burden on A1 and argued that if accused would have been guilty, he would not have been exonerated in departmental enquiry.
g) That as per procedure, the duty of A9 was to receive the bill from A1 and to forward all the bills which were pre sanctioned by the department concerned of the employee. Section officer of cash section was different person from the account office who used to check the bills at the time of clearance. Ld. defence counsel summarized the arguments that as per the prevalent practice in the department, being DDO, A9 was only required to forward the LTC advance bills.
85 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
h) That there was no motive for A9 to indulge in the crime. He is innocent and has no involvement in embezzlement in any manner. 23.1 From the testimony of witnesses and documents proved on record, without any doubt, it has been proved that A9 was posted as DDO. All the 44 advance bills were forwarded/passed by him. None of the LTC advance bills could be passed unless signed by A9. The role of drawing and disbursing officer (DDO) is always very sensitive in any department. DDO is the person who withdraw and disburse all the finances on behalf of department. It is prime duty of DDO to act in accordance with the Rules and to avoid any kind of mis use funds. The contentions of A9 that he was only a forwarding authority is without any merit. Being DDO, A9 was under a duty to comply with the applicable rules and to ensure proper utilization of funds and to avoid any fraud. Without doubt, it has been proved on record that A1 was UDC and dealing clerk of LTC advance bills and DDO has passed all 44 bills. A1 was working under A9. Being DDO, A9 must have the knowledge that LTC advance could be availed by an employee once in a block of 4 years. A1 who was working under A9 himself availed LTC advance on nine occasions within the short period of about two years. LTC advance bills of A1 on nine occasions could not be passed by A9 without his involvement in criminal conspiracy with A1. I 86 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. am not able to accept the contention of ld. defence counsel that A9 forwarded the bills of A1 as it was already pre sanctioned. If A9 would have been working bonafidely, the LTC advance bills of A1 on nine occasions in such a short period would have drawn his attention and he would have raised objections. But, A9 forwarded/passed all nine bills of even A1 who was his subordinate and was under his direct control on day to day basis. Even in balance of probabilities, the defence of A9 does not appear to be genuine. It was not a case of lapse/error/negligence on one or two occasions. A9 passed number of bills in favour of same employee which could not have been possible without his active involvement in the criminal conspiracy with A1 and other employees.
23.2 The plea of A9 that he reported that matter to Under Secretary and was exonerated in departmental enquiry is also without any merit. When everything was done by A9 in conspiracy with other accused persons, there is no use of reporting the matter. The scope of departmental enquiry and criminal trial is entirely different. The result of departmental enquiry in no way can help the A9. The testimony of DW1 V. Sri Kumar examined by A9 also established that officials were required to submit application for earned leaves since LTC was allowed only during earned leaves. After sanctioning earned leaves and 87 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. LTC advance, entries were required to be made in the service book of official concerned. After processing of LTC advance by dealing clerk, it was required to be put up before DDO (Cash) and it was duty of dealing clerk and DDO (i.e. A1 and A9) to ensure the relevant entries in service books. DW1 further deposed that DDO was responsible and was under duty to draw and disburse the funds in accordance with rules and to ensure proper utilization and accounting of funds. DW1 also stated that despite financial sanction, DDO was under duty to scrutinize LTC bills and to raise valid objection in accordance with the bills. From the evidence on record, it is clearly established that neither any objection was raised by A9 nor any entry was made in service book and most of the LTC advance bills in question were sanctioned even without proper application for LTC advance.
23.3 Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case , in my opinion, prosecution has been able to prove allegations against A9 beyond any doubt and defence of accused does not inspire any confidence.
SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION 24 Pw49 Sh. V.P Bhardwaj, Dy. Secretary , Government of India proved sanction for prosecution against accused S.K.D Dass Naik (A4). He stated that he was competent to consider the sanction for prosecution against 88 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. officers of cadre of UDC. The SP report, statement of witnesses and documents related to accused were sent to him by CBI for grant of sanction for prosecution against A4. Being the competent authority, the matter was placed before him and after satisfying himself he granted sanction for prosecution Ex.PW49/B. PW49 also granted sanction for prosecution Ex.PW49/A against A1 (Ramesh Chand Shukla).
24.1 PW50 Sh. R.K. Malhotra, Under Secretary, Ministry of defence, department of Revenue has stated that request was received from CBI for sanction for prosecution against accused Lakhmi Chand (A2) (alongwith statement of witnesses and documents of case) who was working in department as Assistant. Being Under Secretary of the concerned department, he dealt with the processing of the file which was placed before the Finance Minister for consideration of sanction for prosecution against A2. The Finance Minister by exercising powers (granted under government of India allocation of business rules) on behalf of the President of India approved the sanction for prosecution on file which was conveyed by him vide sanction Ex.PW50/A. PW50 further submitted that similar request for sanction for prosecution was requested against A9 J.L. Chopra, A3 Diwakar Dixit who were working as Assistants in the department of Revenue, Ministry of Defence, Government of India which was 89 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. processed by him and approved by Finance Minister . The sanction Ex.PW50/A1 against accused J.L Chopra and Ex.Pw50/A2 against accused Diwakar Dixit was conveyed by him. PW50 also stated that in the case of group "D" employee he was competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution being the appointing, removing and discipline authority. The sanction for prosecution was requested by CBI against A5 Bale Singh Kasana (Peon), A6 Bhagwan Singh (Peon), A7 Purshotam Lal (Peon) and A8 Raghuvender Kumar (Peon). He considered the material sent by CBI and granted the sanction for prosecution against said employees i.e Ex.PW50/B against accused Bale Singh kasana ; Ex.PW50/C against accused Bhagwan Singh; Ex.PW50/D against accused Purshotam Lal and Ex.PW50/E against accused Raghuvender Kumar.
24.2 During cross examination nothing material could be achieved by Ld. defence counsels to doubt the competence of sanctioning authority or the non application of mind by him. Sanction for prosecution on record itself reflect that same are speaking and reasoned orders/sanctions which has established the application of mind by the sanctioning authorities. I do not find any illegality or error in the sanctions for prosecution granted against accused persons. 90 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Forgery of documents and role of respective accused persons 25 U/s 463 IPC forgery has been defined as : " Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title , or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
25.1 Definition of making forged documents is given under 464 IPC. Explanation (1) of section 464 provides that " a man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Illustration of such cases are also given." 25.2 Nine bills as shown in chart "A1" are drawn in the name of accused Ramesh Chand Shukla with respective bills and exhibits of bills and input data sheets in the same chart. Against the said bills A1 received the payments of LTC advances through the cheque mentioned in chart "A1" which has been duly proved on record and said cheques were deposited by him in his bank accounts through pay in slips discussed in the role of "A1" . There was no LTC advance applications for the said bills and therefore, it is clear that these LTC advance bills, data input sheets and cheques were prepared without any 91 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. entitlement and were not genuine documents. It is proved that these nine bills and data input sheets shown in chart "A1" bears signature of A1. It is confirmed by the report of handwriting expert and testimony of witnesses which clearly falls under the definition of section 464 IPC and are the false documents prepared by A1 himself. Clearly these documents are related to the payment of money and covered under the definition of "valuable security". Therefore above mentioned nine bills and data input sheets are the documents which were forged by A1 himself.
25.3 In the case of (A2) Lakhmi Chand, the details of the bills with document number, respective exhibits of bills and date input sheets, cheques etc are shown in chart "A2". Out of the total 12 LTC advance bills pertaining to A2 , 7 bills were in the name of accused Lakhmi chand himself whereas five bills were in the names of other officials i.e PW10, PW7, PW11 and PW24. As shown in chart "A2" payments were received in cash or cheques and respective cheques were deposited by A2 in his bank account through the pay slips which are proved through handwriting expert PW52 and other witnesses. 25.4 The perusal of all the acquittance rolls pertaining to A2 have shown that on the top bills number etc has been mentioned and same bears the signature of A2 which has been proved by the statement of witnesses and 92 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. report of handwriting expert PW52. A2 has also not disputed his signature on the acquittance rolls. On acquittance rolls, A2 has made signature but from the signature, the full name of A2 Lakhmi Chand can not be made out. Below the signature, his full name, employee code or identity is also not mentioned which makes it clear that he signed in his own name in a manner so that the same may not be easily identified or verified. It is proved on record that A2 was not entitled to receive the payments against said 12 bills and therefore, acquittance rolls signed by A2 were not genuine documents. In other words, the same are the false documents which have been forged by "A1" and "A2" in relation with the valuable securities. The forgery of these acquittance rolls further established from the fact that PW7 , PW10, PW11 and PW24 have stated that they did not apply for any LTC and same are the forged bills. The forgery of documents is also supported as it is proved on record that A2 did not apply for any LTC and still received 12 LTC advances. In this regard, no entry was found in service book Ex.PW52/B. In these entire circumstances, it is clearly proved by prosecution beyond any doubt that acquittance rolls, bills and date input sheets pertaining to 12 LTC advance received by A2 were false documents and said documents were forged in relation to valuable securities by A1 and A2. A1 prepared documents and A2 signed the same while receiving the payments. 93 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 25.5 Similarly, as discussed above, the respective documents shown in chart "A3" and discussed in the role of accused Diwakar Dixit; shown in chart "A4" and discussed in the role of accused S.K.D Dass Naik; shown in chart "A5" and discussed in the role of A5 Bale Singh Kasana; shown in charge "A6" and discussed in the role of A6 Bhagwan Singh ; shown in chart "A7"
and discussed in the role of Purshotam Lal and shown in charge "A8" and discussed in the role of accused Raghuvender Kumar have been forged by "A1"
and respective accused persons in relation with the "valuable securities". Role of A7 is doubtful as discussed above.
Criminal Conspiracy 26 All the accused are facing charge for the offence u/s 420/467/471 & 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) P. C Act, 1988 r/w 120 B IPC. As discussed above, the documents i.e bill, data input sheets , acquittance rolls and LTC advance applications in the name of different employees have been forged which are related to the "Valuable securities". On the basis of said forged documents, respective LTC advances were taken by respective accused persons by mis representing and deceiving government/officials and thereby committed offence u/s 420 IPC. The above mentioned forged documents were used to receive payment against LTC advances knowingly and having reason to believe the 94 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. same to be forged documents. All the accused were public servants and in their capacity as such public servants, by abusing their official position they received the pecuniary advantage and thereby committed offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) , 1988 P.C Act.
26.1 As discussed above, A1 being the dealing clerk process all the 44 LTC advance applications, prepared acquittance rolls, data input sheets etc; A9 being DDO forwarded /passed all 44 LTC advance bills; and A1 Ramesh Chand Shukla, A2 Lakhmi Chand, A3 Diwakar Dixit, A4 S.K.D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana , A6 Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender Kumar received the bills against the said LTC bills without their entitlement by forging the documents.
26.2 As discussed above, the evidence on record have clearly established the active role of all the accused persons except A7 at one or other stage of offence; their common object to illegally get pecuniary advantage and their meeting of mind.
26.3 In view of evidence on record there is pattern in 44 LTC advance bills and entire transactions could not be possible without a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons.
95 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.26.4 In order to prove criminal conspiracy it is not required that each and every accused should have meeting of mind with all other accused at each and every stage of commission of offence.
26.5 It is clearly proved that none of the forged LTC advance bills could have prepared, processed, passed without the active connivance of A1 and A9 and the payments against the forged LTC bills was not possible without active connivance of respective accused persons who received the payments. Therefore, in respect of each LTC advance bill, involvement of at least three accused persons i.e A1 and A9 and respective accused persons who received the payment is clearly established which proved criminal conspiracy between accused persons. The chain of circumstances; the modus operandi of commission of offence; pattern adopted in respect of forged documents; and LTC advance payments have clearly established that it could not be a case of negligence or bonafide mistake but it was a pre planned execution of criminal conspiracy to gain pecuniary advantage for one or other accused or their mutual benefit at the cost of public exchequer. Therefore, in my opinion prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all the accused except A7 entered into criminal conspiracy for commission of offence u/s 420/467/471 IPC and 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act, 1988.
96 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.27 Charges against A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh, A7 Purshottam Lal , A8 Raghuvender Kumar and A9 J.L Chopra u/s 420/467 IPC and u/s 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988 were framed. In view of above discussion, it is clearly established that A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender Kumar forged the respective acquittance rolls which comes within the definition of "valuable securities". They received respective LTC advances without their entitlement with dishonest and fraudulent intention by mis representing and deceiving the department /concerned officials. All these accused were public servants who abused their official position as such public servants and illegally received the LTC advances and thereby received the pecuniary gain for themselves and caused consequent pecuniary loss to the government. Therefore, prosecution has proved charge u/s 420 & 467 IPC and u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988 beyond any reasonable doubt against A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender Kumar 28 In view of above discussion, it is proved beyond any doubt that A9 being a public servant illegally and by abusing his official position as such 97 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. public servant entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons and give pecuniary advantage to himself or the other accused persons and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P. C Act, 1988.
28.1 There is no evidence to establish that A9 himself deceived or mis represented before any official of the department for delivery of any valuable security for himself or any other person. Therefore, substantial charge for the offence u/s 420 IPC is not proved against A9 (J.L Chopra).
29. A1 R.C Shukla and A3 Diwakar Dixit have already expired during the trial.
30 In view of above discussion, in my view, prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt against ( A2)Lakhmi Chand, (A4) S.K.D Dass Naik, (A5) Bale Singh Kasana, (A6) Bhagwan Singh , (A8) Raghuvender Kumar and (A9) J.L. Chopra. These accused are convicted for the following offences:
i) A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh, A8 Raghuvender Kumar and A9J.L Chopra are convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B IPC read with 98 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. section 420,467,471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of P. C Act, 1988.
ii) A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh, A8 Raghuvender Kumar are convicted for the offences u/s 420, 467 IPC and u/s 13(1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P. C Act, 1988.
iii) A9 J.L Chopra is convicted for the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988.
31 Benefit of doubt is given to A7 and he is acquitted. His personal bond and surety bond stands cancelled. A7 is directed to submit a personal bond of Rs.20,000/ with one surety of the like amount in accordance with section 437 A Cr.PC with an undertaking that he will appear before the Ld. Appellate Court, in case any appeal is filed by prosecution and he is summoned by the appellate court.
32 Let the convicts be separately heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Jain)
on this 07 June, 2014.
th
Special Judge (PC Act), CBI03
South District, Saket Courts
New Delhi
99 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI CC No. 09/12 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. U/s 120B r/w 420, 467 IPC and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act, 1988 Central Bureau of Investigation Versus A1.Ramesh Chandra Shukla S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop Shukla, R/o H.No. RZ E668/42A Gali No. 18, C11 Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony, New Delhi (since expired).
A2. Sh. Lakhmi Chand S/o Sh. Habuda Singh, R/o H.No. D50, First Floor, Chandra Nagar, Ghaziabad (UP) & Assistant, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A3. Sh. Diwakar Dixit S/o Sh. Anand Kishore Dixit, R/o H.No. CA/56C, DDA Janta Flats, 100 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Hari Nagar, New Delhi64 Assistant, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi (since expired).
A4. Sh. S.K.D. Dass Naik S/o Shri Devi Dass Naik, R/o H.No. 1/55, IInd Floor, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi & now working in Ministry of Rural Development Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.
A5. Sh. Bale Singh Kasana S/o Shri Hari Kishan Singh Kasana Village & P.O. Sunpura (Bhola Rawal) Tehsil Dadri Distt. G.B. Nagar, (UP) & Peon, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A6. Sh. Bhagwan Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o H. No. E422A, Pitampura, Delhi & Permanent R/o Village Lubh, P.O. Makrahall, Distt. Kangra (HP) & 101 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. working as Peon, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A7. Sh. Purshottam Lal S/o Sh. Paras Ram R/o H.No. 648 Chirag Delhi, New Delhi & Peon, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A8. Sh. Raghuvender Kumar S/o Sh. Hardawari Singh R/o Village & P.O. Dhoori, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP) & Working as Peon, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
A9. Sh. J.L. Chopra S/o Sh. Sant Ram Chopra R/o H.No. D41, Vikas Puri, New Delhi & Working as Section Officer, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi.
Date of FIR : 24.04.2000
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 28.10.2003
Date of judgment : 07.06.2014
Arguments heard on point
of sentence on : 09.06.2014
102 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
Date of order on sentence : 09.06.2014
Appearance:
For prosecution : Sh Raj Mohan Chand, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI
For accused : Sh. Ruchir Batra, advocate for A9 J.L. Chopra.
Sh. Y.K. Gautam, advocate for A4 S.K.D. Dass Naik, A5 Sh. Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh and A8 Raghuvender Kumar.
Sh. Karnail Singh, advocate for accused A2 Lakhmi Chand.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 1 By my separate judgment dated 07.06.2014, A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K.D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh, A8 Raghuvender Kumar and A9 J.L Chopra were convicted for the following offences:
i) A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 Bhagwan Singh, A8 Raghuvender Kumar and A9J.L Chopra are convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120 B IPC read with section 420,467,471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of P. C Act, 1988.
ii) A2 Lakhmi Chand, A4 S.K D Dass Naik, A5 Bale Singh Kasana, A6 103 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Bhagwan Singh, A8 Raghuvender Kumar are convicted for the offences u/s 420, 467 IPC and u/s 13(1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P. C Act, 1988.
iii) A9 J.L Chopra is convicted for the offence u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P.C Act, 1988.
2 Benefit of doubt was given to A7 Purshotam Lal and he was acquitted vide judgment dated 07.06.2014.
3 I have heard the ld. Sr.PP for CBI and Ld. Defence counsels for the convicts and carefully considered the respective submissions. 4 The complex question of determination of nature and quantum of sentence comes before the Court after the conviction of an accused. The decision of punishment depends on various relevant factors relating to the nature of offence, the manner of its commission and the gravity of the same. The horizontal and vertical competing interest between society and individual, the victim and accused and the aspiration of "object to be sought" and the limitations of law require accurate analysis and harmonization of remedial, reformative and preventive steps.
5 In Giassudin Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1977 SC 1932, it was held that...
104 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
"a proper sentences is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence, the prior criminal record (if any) of offender, the age of offender, the record of offender as to employment, the background of offender with reference to education, home life, sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of offender, the prospects for rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of the treatment or training of offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any, for such a deterrent in respect to particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken into account by the court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence"
6. Ld. Sr.PP submitted that all the convicts were public servants. They indulged in the serious offences. Ld. Sr.PP submitted that maximum sentence provided by law may be awarded against the convicts which may prove as deterrence for similar offenders.
7. Ld. Defence counsel for convict Lakhmi Chand prayed for a lenient view. Following circumstances were mentioned to be treated as mitigating circumstances on behalf of convict Lakhmi Chand: 105 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
a) The age of convict Lakhmi Chand is about 67 years.
b) He is retired person. c) He is suffering from his heart problem and other ailments. d) In his family he has to support his old aged wife who is also
suffering from various ailments and one unmarried son.
e) His two married sons are living separately.
f) There is no other person to look after his old aged wife who is also a sugar patient and had undergone major surgery.
g) He is regularly facing trial for last about 14 years.
h) There is no other criminal record against him.
i) The loss of exchequer was not intentional and it was only a procedural lapse.
j) The amount received by convict was returned with penal interest.
8. On behalf of convicts S.K.D Dass Naik, Sh. Y.K Gautam, ld. Defence counsel requested for lenient view on the ground of following mitigating circumstances:
a) He is aged about 52 years. He has old aged wife and two children. 106 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
b) Presently he is in private service. c) He is only earning member of the family. d) There has no other criminal record. e) Convict and his wife are patients of diabetics and hypertension. f) No wrongful gain was taken by convict or wrongful loss was caused to government. g) He is regularly facing trial for last about 14 years. h) He is remained in J/C for seven days i.e from 21.090.2005 to 27.09.2005.
9. Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of convict Bale Singh Kasana requested for lesser sentence on the basis of following mitigating circumstances:
a) He is aged about 55 years.
b) In his family, he has to support his wife and two daughters. One daughter is unmarried and the another married daughter is also dependent upon him.
c) There is no other source of income and he is only bread earner of 107 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. the family.
d) He is a physical challenged person. His knee was fractured and therefore, he can walk only with the help of stick.
e) There is no other criminal record against him.
f) He is regularly facing trial for last about 14 years.
10. Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of convict Bhagwan Singh requested for a lenient view on the basis of following mitigating circumstances:
a) That he is aged about 55 years.
b) In his family, he is only member to support his old aged wife and one unmarried daughter.
c) He is heart patient and undergoing treatment.
d) He is still in the government service and he may lose his job.
e) There is no other earning member in the family.
f) There is no previous criminal record. g) He is regularly facing trial for last about 14 years.
11. Ld. Defence counsel on behalf of convict Raghuvender Kumar requested for a lenient view and mentioned following mitigating circumstances: 108 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
a) He is aged about 63 years.
b) He is a retired person. c) He has to support his old aged wife. His one son is mentally
retarded person. His another son died in road accident leaving behind wife and two minor children who are also dependent upon him.
d) He is only bread earner of the family. e) There is no other criminal record against him. f) He is regularly facing trial for last about 14 years. 12 On behalf of A9 J.L Chopra, ld. Defence counsel requested for
lesser sentence on the basis of following mitigating circumstances:
a) He is age about 70 years.
b) That his wife has expired due to heart attack and he is living with his married son.
c) He is suffering from heart attack and illness of exzima.
d) No pecuniary benefit was taken by him.
e) There is no previous criminal record against him.
f) He is facing trial for last about 14 years.
109 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
13 Ld. Sr.PP submitted that mitigating circumstances pointed out by
Ld. Defence counsels are not relevant for a lesser sentence. Ld. Sr.PP contended that keeping in view the nature and gravity of offences, convicts do not deserve any leniency.
14 In the case of Kishan Dayal Vs. State, 1958 Raj LW 596 it was held that...
"A corrupt official is a menace to the society and far from helping in the proper functioning of the Government and implementing of the laws, brings the Government and the society at large into disrepute. It is through the agency of the public servants that the policy of the legislature as well as of the Government is implemented. It is through the public servants that crimes are detected and offenders are brought to book. It is through strictly honest and incorruptible public servants that the welfare of the society can be ensured. If such servants are open to corruption and coerce the public into paying them illegal gratification the whole structure of the society would be upset and the policy of the Government and of the Legislature, howsoever beneficial it may be, would gravely suffer. A public servant therefore once he is found to be guilty of accepting or obtaining illegal gratifications, deserves no soft corner or indulgence from the Courts of Law."110 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D.
15 In the case of A. Wati A.O. Vs. State of Manipur, 1996 Cr.LJ 403 (SC) it was held that...
"The fact that appellant is a Seniior I.A.S. Officer really requires a serious view of the matter to be taken, instead of soft dealing. The fact that he has a number of dependents and is going to loose his job are irrelevant considerations in as much as in almost every case a person found guilty would have dependents and if he be a public servant he would loose his job. The present being the first offence is also an irrelevant consideration. Though the delay has some relevance but as in case of the present nature, investigation itself takes time and then the trial is prolonged because of the type of evidence to be adduced and number of the witnesses to be examined, the fact of delay of about five years could not have been a ground to award the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court which really makes a mockery of the whole exercise."
16 In view of above cited cases, in the cases of corruption , age, family responsibility , previous record of convict and the possibility of loss of job cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances. The only relevant mitigating circumstances which may be considered for some leniency is that all the convicts are old aged person and suffering from various ailments. 111 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. 16.1 On the other hand , incriminating circumstances against the convicts are that being public servants, they involved themselves in cheating, forgery of documents, use of various forged documents and criminal mis conduct which are serious offences.
16.2 Large range of public servants starting from lowest rung to the highest level are covered under Prevention of Corruption Act. Similarly, the range of corruption is also wide between petty bribes to the corruption in thousands of crores by top ranked public servants. Sentence to a convict should be proportionate and appropriate in response to the nature, gravity of offence and other circumstances. It is always difficult to determine a proportionate and appropriate sentence in a particular case which may serve the object of the sentence. In the cases of corruption, the main object of sentence is deterrence and prevention of such crimes by way of deterrence. Reformation theory of punishment has comparatively lesser applicability in such cases. 16.3 In order to determine the proportionate and appropriate sentence in such cases, court may start from middle point of maximum and minimum sentence which may be inflicted against the convict. After starting from middle point, court may consider the mitigating and incriminating circumstance to enhance or reduce the sentence accordingly. Similarly, for the offence in 112 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. question, convicts are liable to pay fine. Quantum of fine may also be determined by considering the expenses incurred by the State during the investigation and trial. Though, it is difficult to determine the exact cost of such litigations, but court may notice that running investigating agency like CBI and the institution of courts is costly affair at the cost of public exchequer. Therefore, the quantum of fine should be proportionate to the gravity of offence, circumstance of convict as well as cost of litigation. 16.4 Under section 13(1) (d) r/w sec. 13(2) of P.C Act, it shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. 16.5 Section 120 B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) provides Punishment of criminal conspiracy. (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with 113 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. fine or with both.
16.6 For the offence u/s 420 IPC , convicts may be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to seven years and shall also liable to pay fine.
16.7 For the offence u/s 467 IPC, convicts may be awarded imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description which may extend upto 10 years and shall also be liable to pay fine. 16.8 For the offence u/s 471 IPC, convicts may be punished in the same manner as if he has forged such documents or electronic record. In the present case convicts have been convicted for the forgery of valuable securities punishable u/s 467 IPC and therefore, they may be sentenced accordingly. 16.9 Section 3(27) of General Clauses Act, 1897 provides "imprisonment" shall mean imprisonment of either description as defined in Indian Penal Code. Therefore, as provided under General Clauses Act, for offence u/s 13(1) (d) r/w sec 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the imprisonment may be of either description i.e. rigorous or simple. 17 Careful perusal of mitigating and incriminating circumstances reveals that there is no substantial difference in the circumstances of the 114 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. different convicts. All the convicts are old aged person; suffering from ailments and having family responsibilities. Therefore, I do not find any substantial ground to differentiate on the point of quantum of sentence. 18 There is a famous saying that "corruption is authority, plus monopoly minus transparency". Absolute power or the monopoly is contrary to the democratic philosophy. Without transparency there cannot be any democracy. Corruption is the fertile land for the misuse of powers and it is contrary to the concept of transparency. The corruption is antithesis of rule of law. No democratic country can progress if the system of rule of law is continuously damaged by the cancerous corruption. Therefore, corruption is one of the most serious offence which requires no leniency. 19 There is a famous quote by CharlesCelebColton that "corruption is like a ball of snow, once it is set a rolling, it must increase". The corruption like an infectious disease which progress day and night if not checked in time. 20 With the passage of time a perception has been made by small section of the society, as if corruption is the safest and shortest way of success which is neither correct nor true. Tolerance to corruption is intolerance to the honesty. Enough is enough. Now, this perception must be repelled. It is high 115 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. time to given a strong and clear message registrable in the mind of every one that no one can conceal corruption and save the corrupt in any way and by any means. The message should be that corruption is not safest and shortest way to success but its a way to jail. Now the writing on every wall should be " JO BHEE RISHWAT KHAAYEGA SIDHA JAIL JAAYEGA" .
21 Keeping in view above discussion, convicts are sentenced in following manner:
a) Convicts Lakhmi Chand, S.K. D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, Bhagwan Singh, Raghuvender Kumar and J.L Chopra are sentenced to undergo R.I for 3 years and to pay fine of RS.25000/ each for the offence U/S 120 B IPC r/w section 420/467/471 IPC and section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of P.C Act, 1988. In default of payment of fine, the respective convicts shall further undergo SI for one month.
b) Convicts Lakhmi Chand, S.K.D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, Bhagwan Singh and Raghuvender Kumar are sentenced to undergo RI for four years each and to pay fine of Rs.25000/ each u/s 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the respective convicts shall further undergo SI for one month.
c) Convicts Lakhmi Chand, S.K.D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, 116 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. Bhagwan Singh and Raghuvender Kumar are sentenced to undergo RI for four years each and to pay fine of Rs.25000/ each u/s 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the respective convicts shall further undergo SI for one month.
d) Convics Lakhmi Chand, S.K.D Dass Naik, Bale Singh Kasana, Bhagwan Singh , Raghuvender Kumar and J.L Chopra are sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs.25000/ each u/s 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of P. C Act. In default of payment of fine, the respective convicts shall further undergo SI for one month.
22 All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 23 It was submitted by Ld. Sr.PP and Ld. Defence counsels that except convict S.K.D Dass Naik, none of the accused remained in judicial custody during investigation or trial. Accused S.K.D Dass Naik remained in JC from 21.09.2005 to 27.09.2005 i.e for a total period of seven days. Therefore, benefit of section 428 Cr.PC be given to him for the period of seven days already undergone in jail by him.
24 Personal bond and surety bond of all the convicts stands cancelled. Necessary warrants be prepared in accordance with the order of sentence. Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to each convict 117 RC No. DAI2000A0019/ACB/N.D. separately.
25 Jail Suptd. Concerned is directed to provide necessary medical aid to the respective convicts as all of them stated that they are suffering from various ailments.
26 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Jain) on this 09th June, 2014. Special Judge (PC Act), CBI03 South District, Saket Courts New Delhi