Delhi District Court
Title : State (Cbi) vs . on 9 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE,
CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CC No. : 20/12
RC No. : AC 02(A)/2010, CBI, ACUVII, New Delhi.
Unique Case ID No. : 02403R0007492012
Title : State (CBI)
Vs.
1.Ram Prakash S/o. Late Sh. Barkhat Ram R/o. 98, Friends Colony, Jalandhar, Punjab.
2. M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Sh. N. Thirupathi Rao, Director (Finance)) Corporate Office At : S2, Technocart Industrial Estate, Balanagar, Hyderabad.
U/s : 11 and 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Date of Institution : 04.01.2011
Date of reserving order : 07.6.2014
Date of pronouncement : 09.6.2014
Appearance:
Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI.
Accused no. 1 Ram Prakash.
Sh. Yudishtor Kahol, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 1 of 42 J U D G M E N T
1. The instant case was registered on 11.8.2010 in CBI/ACB against accused Ram Prakash under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged that in the year 2009, accused Ram Prakash while working as Public Servant in the capacity of Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad CommissionerateIV had indulged in corrupt practice by abusing his official position as Public Servant in availing hotel accommodation in Hotel Sheraton, New Delhi District Centre, Saket, New Delhi110017 from 03.7.2009 to 04.7.2009. The accommodation was booked by Sh. Amit Kaushik as representative of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and bill payment was also settled by Sh. Amit Kaushik.
2. It is further alleged that accused Ram Prakash had also availed transport facilities from M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad during the said period.
3. Both the accused persons appeared in the Court and copies of documents, as required by Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them to their satisfaction.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 2 of 42 CHARGE
4. The charge against the accused Ram Prakash under Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. CBI in support of their case have examined 24 witnesses.
5. PW 1 - Sh. T. Brahmananda Rao, LDC, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade stated that on 13.8.2010 he had joined search team of CBI, Hyderabad. He has proved search memo as Ex. PW1/A. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Prakash he denied that he is deposing falsely.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.
6. PW2 Sh. N. Subba Rao, Senior Photographer, Archaeological Surey of India, Maharashtra stated that a search memo was prepared in respect of proceedings conducted during search seizure on 13.8.2010 and details of seized documents, articles were mentioned at CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 3 of 42 serial no. 1 to 11 of the search list.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Prakash he denied that he is deposing falsely.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.
7. PW3 Sh. Nishant Negi, Front Office Manager, Hotel Sheraton, New Delhi stated that he had forwarded the registration card in the name of accused Ram Prakash to CBI and the same was Ex. PW3/A. He stated that Ms. Aparna had prepared the registration card in which the details of guest who had stayed in Room No. 846 were given. He stated that before giving accommodation in the hotel to any guest, the procedure which is followed is that a photo identification approved by the Government of India is obtained, and the guest has to fill the details in the registration card including the address and their signatures are also obtained. He stated that the contact number is also asked from the guest and in this case also the contact number was written on the registration card. He has proved computer generated copies of bills raised for room no. 846 dated 03.7.2009 and 04.7.2009 and the same were Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Prakash he stated that when a guest checks in the hotel, as per the procedure they are supposed to take Government Approved Photo Identity CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 4 of 42 and address, contact details and signatures on the registration card and by signing the registration card, the guest approves the details mentioned therein. He stated that all registration cards are computer generated and the serial number is also printed on the said generated registration card automatically by the computer itself. He stated that the particulars are filled by the guest himself in his own handwriting at the time of check in. He stated that he was called by CBI only once and CBI officers had also visited his hotel once or twice in context of the investigation of this case and they had also searched some places in the hotel. After seeing the registration card he stated that mobile number 9891749797 pertains to accused Ram Prakash. He stated that he had not personally prepared any of the bills/receipts.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.
8. PW4 Ms. Megha Ahuja, Lobby Executive, Hotel Sheraton, New Delhi stated that Ms. Aparna was also working in the same hotel as Customer Relation Executive and her duty was check in and check out of the guests. She stated that she had prepared the registration card Mark X. She has proved the registration card Ex. PW4/A. She stated that the typing of this registration card is computer generated, however, the details of the guest have been filled in the handwriting of Ms. Aparna. CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 5 of 42 On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Prakash she stated that the Lobby Executive takes care of front desk operations in shifts and each shift is of nine hours and there are three shifts. She stated that her duty as lobby executive was also to supervise check in and check out of the guests. She did not remember the duty hours of Ms. Aparna on 03.7.2009 and 04.7.2009. She stated that the Front office Manager, Duty Manager, and Receipt employees who are on duties in the same time shift sit at separate places to do their duties. She did not remember as to when Ms. Aparna had joined the hotel and when she had left the services as she was not keeping well. She stated that she does not remember the date or the year when she was called by CBI for investigation. She did not remember whether CBI had visited the hotel or had conducted the search at the hotel during the investigation of this case.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure did not examine the witness despite opportunity given.
9. PW5 Sh. Shrikant Shankar Rao Patel, IRS, Commissioner, Custom, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Surat stated that the Internal Audit Working of the Commissionerate is detailed by the Government of India in Manual called EA2000 which contents elaborate mechanism proforma and other details relating to the working of internal audit of a Commissionerate. He has proved notice dated 29.12.2008 sent to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and the same was Ex. CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 6 of 42 PW5/A. He stated that the draft audit report including all its enclosures and considering the discussions, queries, supplementary questions raised by the various officers, draft audit report is finalized then it becomes audit report and such AR is issued to all concerned including party and other departmental officers for information and necessary action. He has proved the audit report bearing no. 31/200910 and the same was Ex. PW5/B. He stated that the Audit Section does not have the legal power of search, seizure and arrest against any offender which separate section called the Anti Evasion Section is empowered and working in the Commissionerate. He has proved noting dated 31.12.2008 as Ex. PW5/C. He has proved the proposal dates of audit i.e. 21.01.2009 and 23.01.2009 as Ex. PW5/D. He has also proved the completion report dated 20.7.2009 as Ex. PW5/E. He has also proved Ex. PW5/F. He has proved completion of MMC on 24.6.2009, the scoring sheet indicating the qualitative parameter of the audit work called as scoring sheet as Ex. PW5/G. On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he stated that he does not remember the date of the transfer and relieving of the accused as a Commissioner (Appeal), Hyderabad. He stated that MMC never considers individual audit para of draft audit report but it considers complete audit report as a whole and take appropriate decision thereon. He admitted that the minutes of MMC are not available in the audit file.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 7 of 42 him.
10. PW6 Sh. M. Sridhar Reddy, Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerela stated that so far as the system, procedure and the practice followed by the Department of Central Excise in making assessment of Service Tax is concerned, the basic scrutiny of service tax is done by the Superintendent Incharge of the group and the service tax assesses are subjected to audit by the Departmental Audit and Central Excise Revenue Audit Wings. He stated that the Audit Report is issued to the respective for taking action, like collecting service tax, if any, not paid by the assesses after completion of audit and issuing show cause notice if they contest the audit objection and do not pay the Service Tax. He stated that the AntiEvasion and Audit Wings do not receive and scrutinize any service returns filed by the assesses.
Attention of the witness was drawn to the file No. HQAE No. 82/2008 pertaining to the investigation in respect of service tax evasion by M/s Megha Engineering and after going through the same he stated that vide noting portion of the file, the note regarding visit to the unit was put up by Inspector (AntiEvasion) and the same is dated 10.12.2008. He stated that he can not identify the signatures of the person who had prepared the note dated 10.12.2008. He has proved Ex. PW6/A pertains to Service Tax of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. which was dealt with by accused Ram Prakash.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 8 of 42 On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. he admitted that after 12.5.2009, accused Ram Prakash, the then Commissioner had not dealt with this case in any manner. He further admitted that he was transferred somewhere in May or June from this Department to other wing of this Department.
Accused Ram Prakash adopted the same cross examination as conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.
11. PW7 Sh. R. Sai Surya Prasad, Superintendent of Central Excise, HyderabadII Commissionerate, Hyderabad stated that he alongwith Sh. P. Uma Shankar, Superintendent of Central Excise had conducted the Audit Since February, 2008 to March, 2009 of the unit M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad. He has proved report submitted for holding monthly meeting as Ex. PW7/A. He has also proved Ex. PW7/B. He has proved the verification paper I to VI as Ex. PW7/C. He stated that working papers running into four sheets are also part of audit report and the same are Ex. PW7/D. He has proved documents from page no. 74 to 232 as Ex. PW7/E. He stated that the audit plan was mooted by him and approved by Sh. Shrikant Patil, Additional Commissioner and the same was Ex. PW7/F. He has proved Ex. PW7/G. He stated that the audit plan was prepared by them after CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 9 of 42 perusal of the details given by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and the documents including memorandum and articles of association of M/s Megha Engineering and the same was Ex. PW7/H. On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he admitted that File D4 does not bear signatures of accused Ram Prakash. He admitted that the Monthly Monitoring Committee was held on 24.6.2009 and as far as he remembers in the month of June, 2009 Sh. P.N. Rao was the Commissioner and had presided over the meeting.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.
12. PW8 Sh. V. Prakash Babu, Superintendent of Central Excise, Hyderabad stated that the note sheet file Ex. PW6/A at page V from Portion B to B was put up by him before the Additional Commissioner (InCharge of the Section). He stated that at that time accused Ram Prakash was the Commissioner. He stated that he had dealt with the file of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and it was found that there was evasion of service tax on the part of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd as investigated by AntiEvasion Wing. He stated that at the starting time of investigation of evasion of service tax by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd., accused Ram Prakash was the Commissioner and was over all InCharge of Commissionerate. He stated CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 10 of 42 that AntiEvasion Wing falls under the jurisdiction of Commissionerate. He stated that letter dated 12.5.2009 addressed to the Commissioner, Service Tax, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad Commissionerate was sent by accused Ram Prakash. He has proved letter dated 12.5.2009 aas Ex. PW8/A. On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he stated that on Ex. PW6/A page no. I to IV, the signatures/initials of accused Ram Prakash appear. He admitted that accused had relinquished his charge as concerned Commissioner in June, 2009.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to him.
13. PW9 Sh. B. Joseph, Superintendent, Central Excise and Service Tax, Tirupati Commissionerate, Tirupati stated that note sheet file Ex. PW6/A at page no. III & IV from portion A to A was put up by Inspector AntiEvasion before him and after going through the same he had put his signatures on it. He stated that he had sent letter to Chief Account Officer, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad and the same was Ex. PW9/A. Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 11 of 42
14. PW10 Sh. B. Balachandra Sekhar, Air Customs Officer, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Hyderabad stated that during the period 2007 to 2009, CBI had made inquiries from him and had shown a file pertaining to investigation in respect of service tax evasion by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
15. PW11 Sh. S. Ramana Rao, Superintendent of Central Excise, HyderabadIV, Commissionerate, Hyderabad stated that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded by the IO.
On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he admitted that as per record the party M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. had paid Rs. 20 lakhs each respectively by two cheques in the month of December, 2008 and February, 2009 towards payment of alleged service tax evasion and after that no payment was made. He admitted that no payment was made by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. after the accused had handed over the charge.
Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 12 of 42 him.
16. PW12 Sh. Pradeep Goel, Chief Executive, ISG Car and Bus Company stated that this company is dealing in the rental service of the cars. He stated that he was called by CBI and he asked to produce some documents which he has produced. He stated that bill/invoice no. 963 dated 06.7.2009 was issued by his company towards the hire charges for an AC Honda City Car provided to the guest for an amount of Rs. 3,592/. He stated that usage details statement in respect of the use of vehicle no. DL 1 YA 6547 Honda City for 04.7.2009 amounting to Rs. 3,450/ pertains to their company which is part of the invoice bill No. 963. He stated that duty voucher no. 1970 dated 04.7.2009 in respect of duty assigned to driver Sh. Asif was also part of the invoice/bill no. 963. He stated that car parking slip bearing no. 018119 bears the car No. DL 1 YA 6547. He stated that invoice/bill no. 964 dated 06.7.2009 was issued by their company in the name of Ram Prashad. He stated that voucher no. 1964 of dated 03.7.2009 in respect of vehicle no. DL 1 YA 1155 by driver Sh. Adil for guest Mr. Ram Prashad was issued by their company and the documents were exhibited as Ex. PW12/A. He stated that the documents were maintained by their company in respect of the travel details booked by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd., Hyderabad with its local office at Delhi. He stated that he knows that one Mr. Amit Kaushik was local employee of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. who had booked CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 13 of 42 the vehicle for their company on 03.7.2009 & 04.7.2009. He stated that bills no. 963, Ex. PW12/A and Bill No. 964, Ex. PW12/B were raised by him in the name of the company against the booking of vehicles which includes the booking of vehicle no. DL 1 YA 115 for 03.7.2009 and 04.7.2009 for Ram Prashad on behalf of M/s Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd. He stated that duty vouchers no. 1970, 1968 and 112 (Ex. PW12/A) bear the signatures of the guest who had utilized the vehicles. He stated that he had handed over the documents as mentioned in the seizure memo dated 09.9.2010 from serial No. I to VI to CBI Inspector S.K. Sharma and the same was Ex. PW12/B. He has proved original of duty voucher no. 1968 dated 04.7.2009 and another duty voucher no. 1964 dated 03.7.2009 and the same were Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW12/D. On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he stated that M/s ISG Car and Bus Company is a proprietorship firm whose proprietor at that time was Ms. Swapna Goel. He stated that car no. 6547 (Honda City) referred to in invoice no. 963 was outsourced by them whereas car no. DL 1 YA 1155 (Accent) referred to in invoice no. 964 is owned by them. There was only an oral agreement with Ms. Amit Kaushik, the then Representative of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. regarding hiring of cars on day to day basis. He stated that all the invoices were issued by their company staff. He stated that he does not remember as to how the original documents relating to hiring of CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 14 of 42 vehicle were delivered to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. and Mr. Amit Kaushik as he does not have any covering letter currently for delivery of such documents. He denied that Ex. PW12/B which is office copy/carbon copy was not taken out from the bound booklet. He admitted that one of the journeys undertaken and billed vide bill number 964 raised in favour of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. with user as Mr. Ram Prashad. He stated that their company accepts payment through cheque or cash and by no other mode. He stated that as per norms, they raise their invoices/bills once the services get concluded as per their convenience. In normal course, a credit period of 30 days is given to all the corporate houses undertaking their services. He stated that the mode of delivery of invoices and related documents was sometimes by courier and sometimes by hand to the concerned official of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. He stated that after verifying his records, he can produce evidence that M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructed Ltd. paid them Rs. 1,23,987/ against bills mentioned in Ex. PW12/B. He stated that their bill nos. 963 and 964 were not prepared by him. They were prepared by one of his employees Sh. Ashwani Kumar Jha. He stated that he does not know whether CBI had summoned their driver Mr. Adil or whether his statement was recorded or not.
17. PW13 Sh. P.V. Krishna Reddy, Managing Director, MEIL, Hyderabad stated that he did not know Sh. Amit Kaushik during 200709 CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 15 of 42 and later on he had come to know that he was his employee. He stated that he knows Sh. Prasad Rao, GM, Account and Sh. Thirupati Rao, Director of our company. He stated that at no point of time any of his employees had informed him that the accommodation in a hotel was to be provided to accused Ram Prakash. He did not know whether accommodation was provided to accused at only that point of time through one Amit Kaushik.
The witness was declared hostile by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI and on being cross examined by him he stated that he had never made any statement to the IO. He denied that his statement was recorded by the IO and he is deposing falsely to save the accused.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
18. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the statement of PW14 Sh. Babulal Mukherjee, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 16 of 42 despite opportunity given to them.
19. PW15 P.S.V. Subba Rao, Administrative Officer, Hyderabad K Division, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad - IV, Commissionerate has proved Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B. The witness was declared hostile by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI and on being cross examined by him he stated that he cannot identify the signatures of accused Ram Prakash. He denied that the facts from portion B to B on mark 15/Y and the ITR portion were stated by him to CBI Inspector. He denied that he was shown by Inspector S.K. Sharma the IPR File while recording his statement and that he had identified the signatures/initials of accused Ram Prakash.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
20. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the Statement of PW16 Sh. R. Raghvendra Rao, Retired Superintendent of Central Excise since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under
Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 17 of 42 Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
21. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the statement of PW17 Sh. S.N. Rama Sharma, Inspector, Central Excise, HyderabadI Commissionerate, Hyderabad since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
22. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the statement of PW18 Sh. T. Srinivasan, Superintendent of Central Excise, HyderabadIII since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under
Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 18 of 42
23. PW19 Dr. Venkateshwarlu, Senior CMO, CGHS, Hyderabad stated that at page no. 84 and 85 of the file No. I/22/34/2007, there are two medical certificates bearing no. 409 and 2315 in respect of illness and certificate of fitness to resume duties. He stated that certificate no. 409 is a medical certificate issued by him as Chief Medical Officer for Dispensary No. II, Humayu Nagar, Hyderabad recommending 20 days medical rest to accused Ram Prakash, Commissioner w.e.f. 03.7.2009 due to Hyper Tension and Vertigo. The other certificate bearing no. 2315 was also issued by him on 20.7.2009 declaring accused fit to resume duty. He has proved certificate no. 409 Ex. PW19/A. He has further proved certificate no. 2315 Ex. PW19/B. He stated that both these medical certificates were issued by him to accused after medically examining him.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
24. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the statement of PW20 Inspector Pawan Kumar, ITBP, Guwahati, Assam since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 19 of 42 Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
25. Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not record the statement of PW21 DSP S.C. Shukla, CBI, New Delhi since his statement was already recorded in CC No. 45/12 which was under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1988. He stated that the statement regarding procedure was relevant in that case and the charge in the present case pertains to Section 11 and 12 of PC Act, 1988.
Accused Ram Prakash and Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
26. PW22 Sh. R.S. Rana, ScientistB, CFSL, Shimla stated that after careful and thorough examination of documents, he had expressed his opinion No. CX23/2011 dated 12.12.2011 and the same was Ex. PW22/A. He stated that the reasons for his opinion are on two sheets. He stated that the documents of this case were also examined by Dr. B.A. Vaid the then GEQD and he has also came to the same conclusion. He stated that the documents alongwith the report were sent back to SP, CBI, ACUVII, New Delhi vide letter No. CX23/2011459 dated 12.12.2011 in a sealed cover and the same bears the signatures of Dr. B.A. Vaid. CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 20 of 42 Ld. Counsels for accused Ram Prakash and accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. did not examine the witness despite opportunity given to them.
27. PW23 IO DSP Sh. S.K. Sharma stated that he had conducted investigation in the present case. He stated that during the course of investigation, searches were conducted by him and he had collected the documents from various persons/department and had recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C as per their version correctly. He stated that he had also sent the questioned documents alongwith specimen handwriting/signatures of accused and other persons to CFSL/GEQD for seeking its expert opinion and collected the expert reports. He stated that since the accused was the officer of level of Joint Secretary as such prior to registration of the FIR, the permission under Section 6(A) of DSPE Act was obtained from the Competent Authority i.e. the Finance Minister vide letter dated 19.5.2010 of Sh. Jasdeep V. Singh, Director General Vigilance, Customs and central Excise addressed to Sh. Hitesh C. Awasthi, Joint Director, CBI. He stated that the said letter was received in their office and the same was Ex. PW23/B. He stated that file pertaining to M/s Megha Engineering & infrastructure Ltd. was received by him during the course of investigation through letter dated 06.9.2011 of Sh. S. Pallepogu and the said letter was Ex. PW23/C. He stated that he had seized the file pertaining to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 21 of 42 regarding evasion of service tax from Sh. T. Naga Mahesh, Inspector, Central Excise Commissionerate through seizure memo and the same was Ex. PW23/D. He has also proved file no. V/Gen./Audit/1/91/2007 GR III pertaining to audit of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. from page no. 1 to 6 and correspondence from serial no. 1 to 192 and the same were Ex. PW23/E and Ex. PW23/F. He further stated that he had also issued notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C to Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, Hotel Sheraton vide which record pertaining to stay of accused Ram Prakash in Hotel Sheraton from 03.7.2009 to 04.7.2009 was collected vide the said notice signed by him and the same was Ex. PW23/G. He has also proved letter dated 21.01.2011 of Superintendent (Audit), MIS addressed to him and the same was Ex. PW23/H. He has proved photocopy of PAN Card in favour of accused Ram Prakash and the same was Ex. PW23/J. He has also proved the bills Mark X2 and Mark X3 provided by Sh. Nishant Negi and the same were Ex. PW23/K and Ex. PW23/L. He has proved letter dated 19.01.2011 of Superintendent, CCO addressed to him and the same was Ex. PW23/M. He has proved the documents marked as Mark 22/44 and the same were Ex. PW23/N. He has proved files D44 and D45 and the same were Ex. PW23/O and Ex. PW23/P. He stated that these files were handed over to him through letter Ex. PW23/M from which the documents Ex. PW23/N were taken out during the course of the investigation. He stated that the photocopy of PAN Card Ex. PW23/J was sent to the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 22 of 42 vide his letter dated 04.01.2011 and the same was Ex. PW23/Q. He has proved letter dated 31.01.2011 and the same was Ex. PW23/R vide which the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax had furnished the details regarding PAN Card issued in favour of accused Ram Prakash. He has proved letter dated 21.9.2010 addressed to Director (General), Directorate of Vigilance which was sent by Sh. G.K. Verma, the then SP for supply of the service book, personal file and IPRs and the same was Ex. PW23/S. He has proved letter of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. sent by Mr. Prasad Rao, AGM (Accounts) addressed to him vide which copy of ledger for ISG Car and Bus Company from period 01.7.2009 to 31.7.2009 was sent to him and the same was Ex. PW23/T. He stated that during the course of investigation, he had arrested Sh. Amit Kaushik. He has proved arrest memo dated 04.3.2011 of Sh. Amit Kaushik and the same was Ex. PW23/U. He has proved personal search memo regarding personal search of Sh. Amit Kaushik and the same was Ex. PW23/V. He has proved bond and bail bond of Sh. Amit Kaushik and the same was Ex. PW23/W. He has proved application for recording of statement of Sh. Amit Kaushik under Section 164 Cr.P.C which was Ex. PW23/X. He has proved certified copy of statement of Sh. Amit Kaushik recording under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the same was Ex. PW23/Y. He has proved letter dated 29.3.2011 alongwith Annexure A to D and the same was Ex. PW23/Z. He has proved the questioned documents Q1 to Q4, specimen initials and handwritings S1 to S43 and the same were Ex. PW23/A1 to CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 23 of 42 Ex. PW23/A43. He has also proved Ex. PW23/A44 to Ex. PW23/A59 and A1 to A7 alongwith annexures A to D. He has proved photocopy of registration card and the same was Ex. PW23/B1. He has further proved photocopy of bill Ex. PW23/A and the same was Ex. PW23/B2. He has proved Ex. PW23/B3 regarding two receipts of payment issued by Hotel Sheraton provided to him by Sh. Nishant Negi. He stated that he had seized documents from Sh. Pradeep Goel as detaild in the seizure memo Ex. PW12/B from serial no. 1 to 6.
On being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he stated that he does not remember at this stage whether he had examined Sh. D. Parthasarthy and Sh. G.A. Nurani. He also does not remember as to how many witnesses out of notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C dated 07.01.2011 Ex. PW23/DA1 were examined by him and out of them how many statements were relied upon and filed and how many were not filed and for what reason. He stated that the FIR in this case was drafted by the SP and was approved by the Head Office, CBI. He admitted that he used to investigate this case in light of the contents of the FIR. He admitted that he did not bifurcate the pecuniary gain allegedly gained by him qua the taxi charges and the hotel stay. He stated that as per D22 Voucher No. 964 dated 06.7.2009, Rs. 3,255/ is the bill amount towards taxi charges in the name of Sh. Ram Prasad, C/o. M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. He admitted that the charge sheet is based on voucher No. 964 dated 06.7.2009. He admitted that during his investigation, he CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 24 of 42 has not come across any assessment or adjudication order or issuance of any Show Cause Notice in any matter qua M/s Megha Engineering Ltd. during the period of posting of accused Ram Prakash as Commissioner, HyderabadIV.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused no. 2 M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. he admitted that GEQD, Shimla had not been able to give any opinion on the initial documents sent in this case as they had found samples inadequate in this case. He stated that they wanted more documents and samples and he cannot give any answer as to why he had sent it to GEQD, Shimla and not to CFSL.
28. PW24 Sh. S.P. Acharya, Retired as Reporting Officer (Documents), CFSL, CBI, New Delhi stated that in the present case, vide letter dated 14.12.2011, the questioned documents Q1, Q2 (carbon copy), Q3 and Q4 alongwith standard documents S1 to S43, S103 to S118 and A1 to A7 were received on 15.12.2011 for forensic examination and Expert opinion. He stated that the questioned initials Mark Q1, Q2, Q3 and Q4 were found consistent with the standard English initials Mark A1 to A7, S1 to S43 and S103 to S118. He stated that he had not observed any fundamental difference between the questioned and standard initials. He stated that the documents were examined jointly by him and Dr. Deepak H. Handa, HOD and Senior Scientific Officer cum Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government of India, CFSL, CBI and CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 25 of 42 prepared the handwriting expert report jointly.
He stated that the handwriting examination report consisted of four sheets. He stated that the said report was sent to SP, CBI vide letter dated 27.12.2011 signed by Sh. Abhijeet Dey, Officiating Director, CFSL, CBI. The said letter alongwith the handwriting examination report was collectively exhibited as Ex. PW24/A. He has proved letter dated 14.12.2011 and the same was Ex. PW24/B which also shows the receipt of the documents in the Document Division of CFSL on 15.12.2011 and the same was Ex. PW24/C. One being cross examined by accused Ram Prakash he admitted that the Director, CFSL was on leave on the day when the Committee was constituted. He voluntarily stated that the Officiating Director Sh. Abhijeet Dey had approved the constitution of the committee." He was of the equivalent rank of Director. He denied that Sh. Dey was not competent to constitute the committee. He stated that they had compared all the specimen handwritings i.e. S1 to S43 and S103 to S118 and the admitted handwriting i.e. A1 to A7 before giving the final opinion. He stated that as per practice IOs are not allowed to meet the expert who are examining the exhibits pertaining to the IOs and therefore, there is no need to maintain any visitor's register for any visit. He admitted that the suspects or accused are not allowed to inspect the questioned documents while obtaining the specimen handwriting because of the reason that suspect may disguise, simulate or imitate writings. He stated that so in the CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 26 of 42 process of examination, they asked for admitted signatures of the suspect person in the course of normal official duty. He stated that he has not examined the documents D46 in CC No. 21/2012 renumbered CC No. 45/12 and, therefore, he cannot express his opinion on them. He stated that there are no strict parameters on documents examination. It is the Expert's view and his experiences during the course of document examination and if satisfied that all the characteristics are there in the questioned documents then the opinion is expressed accordingly. He admitted that there is an element of subjectiveness of the Expert in the course of examination of the document. He has again stated that it is not subjective it is objective. He stated that since the specimen and the admitted signatures were only 'initials', containing no words, letters or dates, the opinion was based mainly on the consistency in the signatures i.e. between the admitted 'initials' and the parameters and principles otherwise used when they are examining full signatures or handwriting could not be put to full use. He did not remember whether there was writing request from the IO to give opinion on prior. He stated that one examine one can reexamine the documents on request of Joint Director of CBI for the purpose of further investigation. However, in that case it will be supplementary report. The report given in the present case is not the supplementary report. He stated that when he had examined the exhibits in the present case, he was not informed that the exhibits had already been examined by someone. He stated that he had examined the CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 27 of 42 handwriting exhibits prior to being sent to GEQD.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. he stated that according to different authors different parameters for giving opinion upon handwriting have been laid down. There are no fixed parameters for the same. He has also stated that opinion on handwriting is a progressive science as all other sciences are. He, therefore, admitted that the opinion in most of the cases will be on the basis of general laid down principles and experience of the person concerned. He admitted that in the present case since only initials were available, therefore, on the basis of consistency, the present opinion had been given. In case of full signatures the opinion is more definite and scientific as all features can be studied alongwith alignment, movement, spacing, slant etc. He stated that in the present case the opinion had been given on the basis of probabilities and consistencies.
29. Sh. Amit Kaushik was examined as Court witness after an application moved by the prosecution was decided.
30. CW1 Sh. Amit Kaushik, Associate Manager, M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. has stated that accommodation and one car was provided to one Ram Prakash by Delhi Office of their company but, he does not remember the date and month on which the accommodation and car was provided. He stated that he had got CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 28 of 42 instructions from Mr. Prasad Rao of their company to do the job of providing accommodation and car and whatever bills pertaining to accommodation for hiring and taxi used to be received by them used to be sent to the company for its clearance. He proved his statement recorded by Ld. Magistrate and the same was exhibited as Ex. CW1/A. On being cross examined by Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that a room of Hotel Sheraton was provided to accused Ram Prakash. He stated that the payment of hotel room was made by him in cash and the payment of taxi was made through cheque by their company. He stated that IO had shown him some documents including bills, but he cannot tell exactly if any registration card of Hotel Sheraton was also shown to him during recording of his statement. He stated that he was examined by the IO about the contents mentioned in the registration card Ex. PW4/A. He stated that he had never visited the hotel on 03.7.2009 to ensure that accused Ram Prakash was comfortable in the hotel.
On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons he stated that he was summoned to CBI office 56 times and he was interrogated and had remained in CBI office for more than four hours. He admitted that whenever the officer of the company used to come to Delhi, the rooms were booked either in the name of the company or in the name of the officer's concerned. He admitted that the taxis were also booked in the name of the officers. He stated that as per practice some CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 29 of 42 cash is always kept with him to take care of company bills or any work he is asked to do for which he pay. He stated that he does not know whether such vouchers or certain receipts or cash payments are reflected in the books of accounts of the company or not since he is not concerned with those books of accounts. He denied that the bills submitted by him in this case pertaining to use of taxi by accused Ram Prakash are forged. He voluntarily stated that the duty slip which comes alongwith the taxi is signed by the person who uses the taxi. He stated that he cannot remember as to whether he had booked the taxi as mentioned in Ex. PW12/A.
31. Prosecution Evidence was closed thereafter.
32. Statements of accused Ram Prakash and M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C in which accused persons had stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Both the accused persons did not express their willingness to lead defence evidence, therefore, the case was listed for final arguments on behalf of both the accused persons and CBI.
33. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Sh. Akshay Gautam Ld. Special PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons. I have heard arguments at bar and have carefully gone through CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 30 of 42 the case file.
34. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has stated that most of the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and have turned hostile. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for accused that Sh. Amit Kaushik has also stated that he has booked the hotel accommodation as well as taxi for one Sh. Ram Prakash. PW12 Sh. Pradeep Goel in his examination in chief has also stated that the taxi bills were issued in the name of one Sh. Ram Prasad. He, therefore, pleads that the accused persons be acquited.
35. The Ld. Senior PP for CBI has argued to the contrary and states that CBI has proved its case vide documentary and occular evidence and accuseds be convicted.
36. As far as taking favour regarding accommodation of hotel is concerned, PW13 Sh. P.V. Krishna Reddy, Managing Director has clearly mentioned that he did not know Sh. Amit Kaushik during 200709. He has stated that at no point of time any of his employee had informed him that accommodation and hotel was to be provided to accused Ram Prakash. He also stated that he does not know whether accommodation had been provided to accused at any point of time through one Sh. Amit Kaushik. The witness had been declared hostile by Ld. Senior PP for CBI and on being cross examined by him he stated that he had never made any CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 31 of 42 statement before the IO. He denied that his statement was recorded by the IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
37. CW1 Sh. Amit Kaushik who has been examined as Court Witness has stated that he had got instruction from Mr. Prasad Rao of his Company to provide accommodation and car to one Ram Prakash, but Sh. Amit Kaushik has not identified the accused in the Court neither he has stated that he is the same person to whom accommodation had been provided and who had used the taxi hired by him on behalf of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. He has stated that the room had been booked in the name of one Ram Prakash and was provided to one Ram Prakash whereas the taxi bills are in the name of Sh. Ram Prasad. On the registration card and the bills regarding accommodation of hotel Ex. PW4/A, it is clearly visible that initially the name Ram Prasad is mentioned and there is over writing to make it Prakash. The letter S and D are clearly visible in this record. The signatures on these documents i.e. Ex. PW23/K qua overwriting have also not been proved.
38. Staff of the hotel has also not identified the accused to be the same person who had availed accommodation in the hotel booked by Sh. Amit Kaushik.
39. As far as charge that accused had traveled in taxi provided by CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 32 of 42 M/s Megha Engineering is concerned, PW12 Sh. Pradeep Goel who is the Chief Executive of M/s ISG Car and Bus Company has clearly mentioned that as per the bill/invoice number 963 dated 06.7.2009 car had been provided to the guest for an amount of Rs. 3,592/. He also stated that the bill No. 964 dated 06.7.2009 was issued by their company in the name of one Ram Prasad. He stated that one Sh. Amit Kaushik who was local employee of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. had booked the vehicle for their company on 03.7.2009 and 04.7.2009. He stated that bills No. 963 and 964 Ex. PW12/A and Ex. PW12/B were raised by him in the name of the company; he stated that duty voucher no. 1970 and 1968 bear signatures of the guest who had utilized the vehicles Ex. PW12/C and Ex. PW12/D.
40. He has stated that there was no written agreement between their company and Sh. Amit Kaushik, Representative of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd regarding hiring of cars on day to day basis. Neither he could produce any covering letter currently for delivery of the vouchers and invoices in question. He stated that the vehicle vide bill No. 964 had been used by one Sh. Ram Prashad. He also stated that bills no. 963 and 964 were not prepared by him. He stated that these bills were prepared by one of his employee Sh. Ashwani Kumar Jha. Thus from the testimony of this witness also nothing incriminating has emerged on record against accused Ram Prakash since the alleged bills have been CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 33 of 42 issued against one Ram Prasad that he had used the vehicle in question. The accused has denied having ever taken services of taxi in question or having signed the vouchers in question.
41. After going through the case record and statements of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that a perusal of the bills towards payment of taxi charges Ex. PW 12/A and Ex. PW12/B show that the name of the person who has used the taxi is not Ram Prakash. The name mentioned on the bill is of one Ram Prasad.
42. The CFSL report on the other hand also does not support the prosecution's case since the opinion in this case regarding the handwriting on the vouchers and other documents has been taken twice. PW22 Sh. R.S. Rana, Handwriting Expert has clearly admitted in this cross examination that since the documents appear only the initials of the person signing it no definite opinion could have been given on the same. He had also given his opinion that since the handwriting were insufficient, no definite opinion could have been given. Therefore, the 1 st CFSL Report does not support the claim of the prosecution that the vouchers bear signatures of accused Ram Prakash.
43. PW24 Sh. S.P. Acharya who has given opinion for the second time has stated that there are no strict parameters on documents CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 34 of 42 examination. He has further stated that it is the Expert's view and his experiences during the course of documents examination and if satisfied that all the characteristics are there in the questioned documents then the opinion is expressed accordingly. He has stated that since the specimen and the admitted signatures were only 'initials' containing no words, letters or dates, the opinion was based mainly on the consistency i.e. between the admitted 'initials' and the parameters and principles otherwise used when they are examining full signatures or handwriting could not be put to full use.
44. PW15 Sh. P.S.V. Subba Rao, Administrative Officer, Hyderabad has also not identified signatures of accused Ram Prasad. He was declared hostile. He denied that the fact from portion B to B on Mark 15/Y and the ITR Portion were stated by him to CBI. He denied that he had ever identified the signatures or initials of accused Ram Prakash before the IO.
Even in the cross examination of the IO he has admitted that the charge sheet is based on voucher no. 964 dated 06.9.2007 which is the bill in the sum of Rs. 3,255/ amount towards taxi charges in the name of Sh. Ram Prasad, C/o M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. He has admitted that during his investigation he had not come across any assessment or adjudication order or issuance of any Show Cause Notice in any matter qua M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. during the CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 35 of 42 period of posting of accused Ram Prakash as Commissioner, Hyderayad IV. The IO has also admitted that GEQD, Shimla had not been able to give any opinion on the documents sent in this case as they had found the samples inadequate.
45. PW6 Sh. M. Sridhar Reddy, Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala on the other hand has stated in his cross examination that after 12.5.2009 accused Ram Prakash, the then Commissioner had not dealt with the file of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. in any manner. He also admitted that accused was transferred in May or June from Department to some other wing, whereas the alleged incident in question pertains to the month of July, 2009. Since the accused had been transferred from his posting during the relevant period, he could not have in any manner dealt with the file of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. nor could have extended any favour to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. in context of abusing his official position as Commissioner.
PW7 Sh. R. Sai Surya Prasad stated that he alongwith Sh. P. Uma Shankar, Superintendent of Central Excise had conducted the audit from February, 2008 to March, 2009 of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. However, in his cross examination he admitted that file D4 pertaining to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. does not bear the signatures of accused Ram Prakash and he had not presided CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 36 of 42 over the Monthly Monitoring Committee held on 24.6.2009. He has also stated that during June, 2009 Sh. P.N. Rao was the Commissioner and had presided over the meeting. PW8 has also stated that letter dated 12.5.2009 had been issued by accused Ram Prakash Ex. PW8/A. He further admitted that the accused had relinquished his charge as concerned Commissioner in June, 2009.
PW11 S. Ramana Rao, Superintendent of Central Excise, HyderabadIV, Commissionerate, Hyderabad has admitted in his cross examination that as per record M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. had paid Rs. 20 lakhs each respectively by two cheques in the month of December, 2008 and Feb, 2009 towards payment of alleged service tax evasion and thereafter no payment had been made. He stated that no payment was made by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd after the accused had handed over the charge.
46. The testimony of the above said witnesses clearly shows that during the period July, 2009 the accused had not been posted as Commissioner, Hyderabad, nor he had dealt with files or matters pertaining to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. It has also not come on record by way of any testimony or document that accused was abusing his official position to influence or extend favour to M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd in any manner as a public servant. CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 37 of 42
47. Proposition of Law:
Section 11 of PC Act provided as under:
Public Servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant: "Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less that six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
12 of PC Act provided as under:
Punishment for abetment of offences denined in Section 7 or 11: "Whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 of Section 11 CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 38 of 42 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine."
48. Applying the Law on the facts of the case and observations made above I am of the opinion that the testimony of witnesses, the entire facts and the circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ram Prakash had used accommodation in the five star hotel and car provided by M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. Neither any witness has identified the accused to be the same person nor the signatures on any alleged vouchers or bills of the taxi or hotel accommodation could be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the handwriting experts to be of accused Ram Prakash. The Director of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. has categorically denied having ever booked any room or having provided any taxi to the accused at any point of time. It has also emerged on record clearly that in the entire investigation the IO had not come across any assessment order or show cause notice issued by accused against his coaccused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. The concerned witnesses from the department have not identified the signatures of accused Ram Prakash and have clearly mentioned that in July, 2009 accused was not posted as CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 39 of 42 Commissioner, Hyderabad. They have also proved that accused had relinquished his charge in June and had never dealt with the file of M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. after 12.5.2009. The alleged incident in question pertains to July, 2009 and, therefore, there is no evidence on record that accused had abused his official position to give undue favour to accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. or in July, 2009 he was in any position to show any favour to accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure by abusing his official position as Government Servant.
49. Even otherwise, CFSL Report is always considered corroborative piece of evidence and independent corroboration is always needed to establish the authorship of any questioned handwriting through experts report. In the present case on the other hand, there is no such corroboration as the officers who had worked with accused Ram Prakash in his administrative capacity have not identified his signatures when Ld. Senior PP for CBI had confronted them with the signatures of accused.
50. Section 11 and 12 are so juxtapositioned and intertwined that in case Section 11 fails, Section 12 fails automatically and viceversa. In the present case since I have already stated above that prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubts that accused had dealt with the file pertaining to accused no. 2 M/s Megha Engineering & CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 40 of 42 Infrastructure Ltd. during July, 2009 and neither he was in a position to show any undue favour by abusing his official position of law by obtaining any legal gratification and, therefore, there was no occasion for accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. to have abetted an offence which could not have been committed as the person concerned who allegedly could have shown them any undue favour was not in such position to show such favour.
51. As far as payment qua taxi is concerned, it could not be proved that the same had been made qua accused Ram Prakash. Therefore, no case is made out against accused no. 2 M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. also.
52. The case thus seen in its entirety puts shadow of doubt on the veracity of statement and genuineness of the case. The prosecution has, therefore, failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
53. Before I part with this case I want to place on record my appreciation for the Ld. Senior PP for CBI who has conducted the trial of the case in the best possible manner. However, the witnesses did not support the prosecution on crucial points and, therefore, the benefit of the same has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused Ram Prakash and accused M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 41 of 42 Ltd are given benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
54. Bail bonds of both the accused persons are cancelled and their respective sureties are discharged. Documents of the sureties be returned after cancellation of endorsement, if any, thereon. However, fresh bail bonds be furnished u/s. 437 A Cr.P.C.
55. Fresh bail bond has been furnished by accused Ram Prakash and accepted till 09.12.2014.
56. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 09th day of June, 2014 (SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE, (CBI05), NEW DELHI/09.6.2014 CC No. 20/12 State (CBI) Vs. Ram Prakash & Anr. Page no. 42 of 42