Delhi District Court
Regular Safai Karamcharis Namely Sh. ... vs State Of on 10 April, 2018
CBI/6/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Registration No. : CBI/6/2016
Under Section : 120-B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC & section
13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
Zone : CBI/ACB/ND
FIR No. : RC/47(A)/2005
CNR No. : DLET01-000034-2008
In the matter of :-
CBI
VERSUS
1. SH. OM PRAKASH
(proceedings against him abated vide order dated 05.04.2018)
S/o Sh. Kali Charan,
R/o H. No. 9/168, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
2. SH. JEET RAM
S/o Sh. Rakhan Lal
R/o Flat No. 4, Type- III, DJB Flat, Najafgarh,
Near Sai Baba Mandir, Delhi.
3. SH. SURESH @ LALE
S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o H. No. 8/201, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
4. SH. MAM CHAND
S/o Sh. Sant Ram
R/o H. No. 239, JJ Colony,
Sector- 16, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar.
........ACCUSED PERSONS
Name and particulars of complainant : Source Information
Date of Institution : 31.03.2008
Date of reserving judgment : 20.03.2018
Date of pronouncement : 10.04.2018
Decision : Acquitted.
(Section 437-A Cr.P.C. complied with by accused A2, A3, & A4)
Page 1 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
CBI/6/2016
JUDGMENT
THE CASE SET UP BY THE PROSECUTION :-
1. Regular Safai Karamcharis namely Sh. Jaipal Singh and Others filed a Crl. W.P. No. 58/03 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in respect of irregularities being practiced by the MCD officials in Shahdara (South Zone), pertaining to leave records of regular safai karamcharis, which were being forged thereby showing them on leave and employment of Ebzedars (Substitute Safai Karamcharis) in lieu of them for that particular date or period. High Court of Delhi directed the Vigilance Department of MCD to conduct investigation and to submit it's report before the court and ultimately on a written complaint dated 27.09.2005, bearing no. ADOV/Spl. Cell/Vig./PR/2005/5277, present case was registered against the erring officials of MCD Shahdara (South Zone), who were found involved in fraudulent engagement of Ebzedars in Ward no. 68, Trilok Puri, Delhi, thereby projecting regular safai karamcharis on leave.
2. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that accused Om Prakash was working as Sanitary Guide in MCD Shahdara (South Zone), Delhi. Accused Jeet Ram was a Sewer Gang Beldar of Delhi Jal Board, working on diverted capacity as Sanitary Guide, MCD Shahdara (South Zone), Delhi. Accused Suresh @ Lale and accused Mam Chand were working as Ebzedar Safai Karamchari in MCD, Ward no. 68, Block no.
18, Shahdara (South), Delhi.
3. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused Om Prakash and Jeet Ram engaged Ebzedars Safai Karamcharis against regular Safai Karamcharis namely Sh. Jai Pal S/o Sh. Sumera; Sh. Ranjit S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop; Sh. Asha Ram S/o Sh. Siya Ram; Sh. Rajender S/o Sh. Gopi Ram; Sh. Brij Pal S/o Sh. Sohan Lal; Sh. Vijay Pal S/o Sh. Kishan Lal; Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Miththan; Sh. Suresh S/o Sh. Yadram; Sh. Mahavir S/o Sh. Jhumri and Sh. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Birbal; who all were petitioners Page 2 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 in a Crl. W.P. No. 58/2003 filed before the High Court of Delhi, posted in Ward no. 68, Trilok Puri, Shahdara (South) Zone, thereby showing them on leave. During investigation, attendance registers of Ward no. 68 for the period 1995-2003 and muster rolls alongwith personal files cum service books of these employees were seized and leave applications of these employees were sent to CFSL alongwith their specimen thumb impressions and later on these leave applications were found to be false and forged as the specimen of thumb impressions of regular safai karamcharis did not match with those impressions available on the leave applications.
4. It was alleged that accused Om Prakash and Jeet Ram were Sanitary Guides, who hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the MCD and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy, engaged Ebzedar Safai Karamcharis against the regular Safai Karamcharis thereby falsely showing them on leave on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, knowing fully well that the same were forged and fabricated. They used them to be as genuine and got released payments to Ebzedars on their identification and verification and thus, dishonestly misappropriated the government fund, thereby causing pecuniary loss to the government. It was further alleged that during the course of investigation, a chit allegedly prepared by accused Om Prakash was seized wherein certain amounts against name of some safai karamcharis were mentioned to the tune of Rs. 47364/-. It is further alleged that accused Om Prakash and accused Jeet Ram, both SGs showed that the ebzedars mentioned in the list of paper were engaged as per muster roll for the period 26.10.2002 to 25.11.2002 and withdrew payments by verifying them at the time of payment and by marking their attendance. It is further alleged that the deployment of the safai karamcharis was found to be false and forged by the CFSL expert and the muster roll did not contain the thumb impression of concerned Ebzedar Safai Karamcharis. It is further alleged Page 3 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 against accused Suresh @ Lale and accused Mam Chand that they forged the thumb impressions on the alleged leave applications. Since, accused Om Prakash and Jeet Ram were public servants, hence, sanction was obtained to prosecute them. CHARGE :-
5. After completion of investigation, accused persons namely Sh. Om Prakash, Sh. Jeet Ram, Sh. Suresh @ Lale and Sh. Mam Chand were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as for substantive offences.
On 06.12.2010, charges were framed against accused persons namely Sh. Om Prakash (A1), Sh. Suresh @ Lale (A3) and Sh. Mam Chand (A4) for aforesaid offences and on 04.02.2011 again separate charges were framed against accused namely Sh. Jeet Ram (A2) for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w section 420/468/471 IPC & section 13(2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which all the four accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :-
6. Prosecution examined 58 witnesses in support of its case, as per following descriptions :-
Name Description Exhibited Documents PW1/ He retired from MCD in the year -
Sh. 2003 as Superintendent
Ramesh Sanitation. He described three
Chand categories of sweepers
Garg (Sanitation Officials) in MCD as
permanent, daily wagers and
ebzedars. He further described working of sweepers. According to him, Assistant Sanitation Inspector or Sanitary Guide used to assign work to ebzedars Page 4 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 during absence of regular -
sweepers. They used to maintain attendance register of sweepers and used to prepare duty chart for a month. Duty chart and muster role was submitted to Sanitary Inspector, who used to forward it to Chief Sanitary Inspector. Chief Sanitary Inspector used to mark it to Establishment Clerk, who used to keep such record and also used to verify leave record of sweepers. Ebzedars used to get payment by signing in muster role, against verification of ASI or SG.
PW-2/Sh. He was working as Member Ex. PW-2/A (Sanction X.K. Administration in Delhi Jal order); Mehto Board in 2008. He accorded sanction to prosecute Jeet Ram in this case. Jeet Ram was employee of DJB, who was working as Sanitary Guide, in MCD, in diverted capacity.
PW-3/Sh. In March 2008 he was working Ex. PW-3/1 (Sanction Naresh as Additional Commissioner Order); Kumar (Engineering) in MCD and was in-charge of Engineering and Sanitation Department and Shahdara South and North Zone. He accorded sanction to prosecute Om Prakash in this case.
PW-4/Sh. He worked as Vigilance Ex.PW-4/A (Enquiry Manish Inspector in MCD during the report); Kumar year 2003. On direction of High Ex.PW-4/1 (Folder of leave Court of Delhi passed in CR applications);
No.58/2003 and Cr.
No.53/2003, he conducted Ex.PW-4/2 to Ex.PW-4/9
internal inquiry along with Sh. (Service book & personal
Mithlesh Bhardwaj (PW5) and file of Asha Ram; Mahavir;
Sh. A.N. Gaur regarding Suresh; Ranjeet; Jaipal;
Page 5 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 fraudulent engagement of Raj Kumar; Brij Pal; ebjedar, in circle 68, Shahdara Rajinder; South Zone. He proved inquiry Ex. PW4/9 & Ex. PW-4/12 report. (Service book & personal file of Vijay Pal and Ram Kumar);
PW-5/Sh. He was also member of team Ex.PW-5/A (letter dated Mithlesh which conducted internal 27.09.2005, sent by Sh. Bhardwaj enquiry in MCD and submitted H.P.S. Saran to SP, CBI) report Ex. PW-4/A. PW-6/Sh. In July 2006, he worked as Rajpal Sanitary Superintendent, Singh Shahjdara South Zone, Ward -
68, MCD. He explained that all staff connected with sanitation work were under control of Conservancy Sanitation and Engineering Wing. He further explained that ASI and SG were responsible for marking attendance of sweepers including Ebjedars. They used to prepare muster roll and salary bills and payments were made by cashier with help of verification officer.
PW-7/Sh. He was working as sweeper in Ex.PW-7/1 (thumb Jaipal Ward - 68 since 1989. In 1999, impression); Ex.PW-7/2 to Singh he came to know that he was Ex.PW-7/9 (leave being shown on leave, though applications in his name); he did not move any leave application. He gave his specimen thumb impression.
He denied having put his thumb impression or signature or his handwriting on 8 leave application in his name.
PW-8/Sh. He also worked as regular Ex.PW-8/1, Ex.PW-8/2, Rajender sweeper in MCD since 1983. Ex.PW-8/4, Ex.PW-8/6 Page 6 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 He was also shown to be on (leave applications); leave, when he actually did not Ex.PW-8/3 & Ex.PW-8/5 apply for any leave. He denied (fitness certificate); moving and putting his thumb impression on 4 leave Ex.PW-8/7 (specimen applications, or submitting two thumb impressions); fitness certificates. He gave his specimen thumb impression.
He had filed writ petition alleging bungling in payments to Ebjedars.
PW-9/Sh. He started working as Ebjedar Ex.PW-9/1 (receipt of Mukesh (Substitute Sweeper) since payment) Kumar 1997 in Ward - 68 of MCD. He Ex.PW-9/2 (Specimen identified Jeet Ram as Sanitary thumb impression) Guide of Block -10, in his ward. He explained that he used to sign on muster roll and on the receipt against payment. He denied having put thumb impression on receipt of payment i.e. Ex. PW-9/1. He had given thumb impressions and finger prints as specimen to CBI.
PW-10/ She also joined MCD as Ex.PW-10/1 (Receipt of Smt. Rani Ebjedar in 1996 in Block 03, payment) Trilok Puri. She never put her Ex.PW-10/2 (specimen thumb impression on muster thumb impression) roll. She did not receive amount of Rs. 1160/- as shown in receipt Ex. PW-10/1, nor did she put her RTI on the same.
She had given her specimen thumb impression to CBI.
PW-11/ She turned hostile so as to Ex.PW-11/P1 (Her Smt. deny that she worked in MCD statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.) Geeta as Ebjedar. She had given her Ex.PW-11/1 (purported specimen finger print thumb impressions of impressions to CBI. But in her witness on Q-350) cross she said that she had received payment once from Ex.PW-11/2 (specimen MCD and thereafter she never thumb impressions of Page 7 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 worked. witness) PW-12/ He worked as Sanitary Gopi Inspector in Ward - 68 from Chand March 2001 to August 2001. He Rakheja also explained duties and functions of ASI and SG vis a vis sweepers.
PW-13/ She also joined MCD as Ex. PW-13/1 (muster roll Sh. Smt. Ebjedar in 1995 and worked in no. 26587 for the period Renu the area of Trilok Puri. She 26.10.02 to 25.11.02, worked under Om Prakash as wherein at Sr. no. 9 name well as under Jeet Ram. She of witness appears); used to record attendance in a Ex. PW-13/2 (specimen register and sign on muster roll thumb impression of for payment. She did not put marked S-41 to S-50 of thumb impression on muster witness); roll for getting payment. She denied putting her thumb impression on muster roll in her name i.e. Ex. PW-13/1. She gave her specimen thumb impression to CBI.
PW-14/ He was doing private business Ex.PW-14/1 (Muster roll in Sh. and never worked in MCD in his name) Munim any capacity. He did not Ex.PW-14/2 (specimen receive any payment as shown thumb impression) in muster roll in his name i.e. Ex. PW-14/1. He did not sign or put thumb impression on this muster roll. He gave his specimen thumb impression to CBI.
PW-15/ He was on the panel of Safai Sh. Raj Karamchari in MCD since Kumar 1997-98 and worked under the supervision of Om Prakash during the year 2000 to 2003.
He explained that he used to work for two days in a month and he used to get Rs. 100/-
per day from Anaj Mandi Shahdara, Delhi. He used to Page 8 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 put his thumb impression on the receipt against payment.
He identified Om Prakash, Jeet Ram and Lalle (Suresh).
PW-16/ He was working as Safai Ex.PW-16/1 to Ex. PW-16/ Sh. Karamchari in MCD and got 13 (alleged leave Ranjeet regularised in the year 1995. In applications of PW-16) the year 2002, he came to Ex.PW-16/14 (finger print know that recovery from his impressions. It also bears salary was being made on signature of PW-16 at point account of excess leave taken A). by him. However, he denied having availed the leaves shown in his record as he used to apply for leave, written by someone else but signed by him. Leave applications Ex.
PW-16/1 to Ex. PW-16/13 were
not applied by him nor bear his
thumb impressions. His
specimen finger print
impressions Mark S-303 to S-
312 (Ex.PW-16/14) were taken
and on their representation to
High Court, matter was
investigated by CBI in
pursuance to the directions of
High Court.
PW-17/ He was working as Safai Ex.PW-17/1 to Ex. PW-
Sh. Asha Karamchari. In the year 2002, 17/14 (alleged leave
Ram he came to know that an applications of PW-17);
amount of Rs. 13,027/-was Ex.PW-17/15 (finger print
deducted from his salary on impressions in file marked
account of excess leave taken as Mark S-219 to S-228);
by him. However, he denied
having availed the leaves Ex.PW-17/P1 (medical
shown in his record. He denied certificatge dated
having availed leaves as per 16.04.2000);
leave applications Ex. PW-17/1 to Ex. PW-17/14. Neither these applications were in his handwriting nor bore his left thumb impression. His Page 9 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 specimen finger print impressions Mark S-219 to S-
228 (Ex.PW-17/15) were taken and It also bears his signature at point A. PW-18/ He was working as Manager Ex.PW-18/1 (seizure Sh. HO Vigilance Department of memo) Mohinder Punjab & Sind Bank and Pal Singh proved seizure memo, Bedi containing house search details of Smt. Parveen Messy.
PW-19/ He was working as DOV and Ex.PW-19/1 (letter dated Sh. H.P.S. forwarded a letter dated 26.08.2003 containing Sran 26.08.2003 containing signature of Sh. R.K. investigation report for further Pahuja) action by the CBI. He also referred the said investigation report to CBI for registering a criminal case vide letter no.
ADOV/Spl. Cell/VIG/PR/2005/ 5277 dated 27.09.2005 to SP CBI Anti Corruption Branch. He also identified signature of Asst. DOV Sh. R.K. Pahuja and signature of Sh. Sh. B.S. Brar on investigation report of Vigilance Department.
PW-20/ In November 2005, he was Ex.PW-20/1 (production Rajiv working as Accountant in MCD, cum seizure memo dated Sharma Shahdara South Zone, KKD. 21.11.05) He handed over documents i.e. Ex.PW-20/2 to Ex.PW- nine muster rolls of Safai 20/10 (muster rolls from Karamchari, Ward no. 68 for 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2001).
the period 01.01.2000 to
September 2005, vide
production cum seizure memo.
PW-21/ He was working as Sr. Ex.PW-21/1 (production
Sh. Vigilance Inspector from seizure memo dated
Pushkar January 2003 to June 2010 in 21.04.2006)
Raj MCD and proved production
seizure memo dated
21.04.2006.
Page 10 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 PW-22/ He had witnessed the finger Ex.PW-22/1 (Finger print Sh. V.S print impressions given by impressions of Sh. Sani different employees of MCD to Dharampal (S-347 to S-
the CBI official and proved the 356); same, which bore his signature Ex.PW-22/2 (Finger print at point A. He also proved the impressions of Sh. Om signature of respective Prakash (S-468 to S-477); employees, who put his/their signature(s) in his presence at Ex.PW-22/3 (Finger print point B on the said exhibit. impressions of Sh. Ram Krishan (S-629 to S-638);
Ex.PW-22/4 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Nathu Singh (S-569 to S-578);
Ex.PW-22/5 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Om Prakash (S-458 to S-467);
Ex.PW-22/6 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Nathu Singh (S-579 to S-588);
Ex.PW-22/7 (Finger print impressions of Sh.
Dharampal (S-327 to S-
335);
Ex.PW-22/8 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Surinder Singh (S-387 to S-396);
Ex.PW-22/9 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Surinder Singh (S-407 to S-416);
Ex.PW-22/10 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Inder Raj (S-508 to S-517);
Ex.PW-22/11 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Inder Raj (S-528 to S-537);
Ex.PW-22/12 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Ram Kishan (S-649 to S-658);
Ex.PW-22/13 (Finger print Page 11 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 impressions of Sh. Babu Khan (S-689 to S-698);
Ex.PW-22/14 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Babu Khan (S-699 to S-708);
Ex.PW-22/15 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Dharam Pal (S-336 to S-345);
Ex.PW-22/16 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Surinder Singh (S-397 to S-406);
Ex.PW-22/17 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Om Prakash (S-448 to S-457);
Ex.PW-22/18 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Inder Raj (S-518 to S-527);
Ex.PW-22/19 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Nathu Singh (S-589 to S-598);
Ex.PW-22/20 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Ram Kishan (S-639 to S-648);
Ex.PW-22/21 (Finger print impressions of Sh. Babu Khan (S-709 to S-718);
PW-23/ He was posted as Sanitation Ex. PW23/PD1 (Statement Sh. Superintendent (SS) in Ward made to the CBI); Partap 68. He described working of Singh SS. He also described three categories of sanitation employees (safai Karamchari) in MCD as permanent employees, secondly daily wagers (sanctioned post) and thirdly ebzedar (Safai Karamchari). He further described that the daily wagers were appointed for 89 days and they were re-employed again Page 12 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 after sanction from Dy.
Commissioner/Addl.
Commissioner, MCD, which was taken three or more times after a rotation of three months employment on each occasion.
They were regularized on the orders of Commissioner, MCD.
The record of daily wager was maintained in office of Sanitary Inspector (SI). He explained that Ejbedar (substitute employees) were given employment by DC or Addl.
DC/Addl. Commissioner and SI used to prepare seniority list and they were given 2-4 days a month in absence of permanent employee or on his/her being on leave, on the basis of roll call taken by ASI/Sanitary Guide (SG) and record of their attendance was maintained by SG/ASI in attendance register. He further explained about procedure for daily attendance in sanitary department i.e. by writing 'P' (Present) or 'A' (Absent) and other procedure was to put attendance four times in the register i.e. first call referred to present employee, second roll call referred that employee had come at his beat and engaged in work, third roll call referred completion of work and fourth call referred returned to the roll call place, where he arrived after completing work for that day and in case of surprise check if an employee was absent then he used to be marked as absent. The attendance of daily wagers was recorded on muster rolls. Duty Page 13 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 chart used to be verified by SI and thereafter, it was sent to Bill clerk, thereafter to accounts department and after passing of payment, bills with voucher were sent to Head Clerk with employee pay roll. Thereafter, cashier used to distribute salary to the employee in the presence of SG or SI. He further explained system of sanctioning leave application of employee. The leave application of an employee used to be submitted to ASI/SG, thereafter to SI and lastly to CSI, who used to sanction the leave and thereafter the same used to go to concerned Bill Clerk. In case of having leaves in his account, he prepared the monthly salary bill and in case no leave was in credit of that employee, payment used to be made to him for that month, but recovery used to be made from his next month salary by treating him on leave without pay. Leave applications were kept in personal file of respective employee. He further explained that muster roll contained name, father's name and address of employee and it also disclosed absence and substitution of that employee in a given month.
PW-24/ He was posted as Safai Ex.PW-24/1 (death Sh. Karamchari and proved death certificate of father of Parveen certificate of his father. He witness); Kumar worked in beat no. 6 Trilok Puri Ex.PW-24/1 (statement under his father and denied made to CBI by the having worked under Jeet witness); Ram. He further deposed that Page 14 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 he used to get work for 2,4 or 6 days in a month, as Ebjedar and he used to put his thumb impression on muster roll and sometimes put his signature on the same. He further proved his statement given to CBI.
PW-25/ He was working as LDC cum Ex.PW-25/P1 (statement Suman Cashier in CSE in accounts made to CBI) Kumar department of Shahdara South Zone and dealing with Ward 68 & 76. His job was to disburse cash and prepare salary bills. He explained the procedure of payment of salary to Safai Karamchari. He further deposed that at the relevant time, Om Prakash was working as SG in Ward 68 and he used to disburse payment on the verification of Om Prakash, who used to be with him at the time of making payment to Safai Karamchari. He identified Om Prakash. He further explained about Acquaintance roll, which was prepared by BC, wherein payment due to a regular Safai Karamchari was mentioned.
Payment was received by daily wager through muster roll, on the verification made by Om Prakash and by putting his initial in the muster roll. He further proved entries of Mukesh S/o Ved Parkash, Mukesh S/o Mukundi Lal, Sunil S/o Lalu Ram, Rakesh S/o Sardara, Suresh S/o Mahender, Kavita W/o James, Krishna W/o Saran Lal, Geeta W/o Jaychand, Rani W/o Mahender, Vinay W/o Chottey Lal, Minni W/o Vinay, Sunita W/o Mukesh, Yamuna W/o Bhupender, Swaran Singh Page 15 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 S/o Surat Singh, Munim S/o Parkash, Harish S/o Jaypal, Nisha W/o Ajay Kumar, Sanjay S/o Chottey Lal made in his handwriting and the initial of Om Prakash made in his handwriting and identified initial of Om Prakash verifying the respective employee by putting his initial at point A. PW-26/ He was Safai Karamchari in Ex.PW-26/1 (specimen Sh. Ward 68 and identified his thumb impression to CBI S- Mukesh thumb impression on muster 109 to S-1011) roll Ex. PW-20/10 of Ward no.
68 at Sr. no. 7 against receiving salary. He further deposed that he gave his specimen thumb impressions to CBI and identified his signature at point A. PW-27/ She was Safai Karamchari and Ex.PW-27/1 (Statement) Smt. she identified her thumb Sunita impression on muster roll Ex.
PW-20/10 of Ward no. 68 at Sr. No. 7 against receiving salary. She denied having given her specimen thumb impressions to CBI.
PW-28/ He was working as CSE, Sh. Shahdara South Zone and Mahender being head cashier, his job was Singh to send income of the zone collected by LDC/cashier, to hand over the same to official of HQ, Town Hall for depositing the same in main treasury.
Sanitary Superintendent used to give cheque for collecting amount from bank for salary disbursement. Salary was disbursed to daily wagers and ebzedars through cheques /ECS w.e.f. March 2004 and Page 16 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 disbursement of salary of regular safai Karamchari started through ECS /cheque from December 2002. Earlier cashier used to disburse the salary to all the safai Karamcharis in cash on the authentication of concerned supervisory staff i.e. Sanitary Guide/ASI on the instructions of his SI or CSI. Muster roll was duly checked by the SG, ASI and CSI and duly verified by SS and thereafter, accounts clerk used to reverify the same and pay order used to be prepared, which was signed by Accountant and finally passed by Assistant Chief Accountant. Thereafter, same was sent to cheque writer for preparation of cheque and thereafter to DDO/SS for disbursement of salary. The Cashier was appointed by SS for disbursement of salary on the identification and verification of of concerned Safai Karamchari by ASI, SG and SI. He further identified initial of Sh. Sumarn Kumar, LDC/Cashier at point A on last page of Ex. PW-20/10.
PW-29/ He was working with MCD as Ex.PW-29/1 to Ex. PW- Sh.Brij Safai Karamchari and proved 29/12 (leave applications); Pal his leave applications and Ex.PW-29/13 (specimen identified his thumb thumb impression given to impressions from S-249 to CBI); S258.
Ex.PW-29/14 & Ex.PW-
29/15 (witness neither admitted nor denied his thumb impressions on these exhibits at point A);
Page 17 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 PW-30/ He was posted as Safai Ex.PW-30/1 to Ex. PW- Sh. Karamchari (regular) and 30/17 (leave applications); Suresh proved his leave applications Ex.PW-30/18 (leave and identified his thumb application);
impressions from S-233 to
S242. Ex.PW-30/19 (specimen
thumb impression given to
CBI);
Ex.PW-30/DA (service
details of Suresh);
Ex. PW-30/DB (joining
report of Suresh Yadram);
Ex. PW-30/DC (notice
issued to witness regarding
his absence);
Ex. PW-30/DD (Affidavit
given by witness regarding
his absence from 01.03.01
to 21.02.01);
Ex. PW-30/DE ();
PW-31/ He was the Safai Karamchari Ex.PW-31/1 to Ex.PW-31/3
Sh. and deposed that he availed (Leave applications);
Mahavir leaves vide leave applications Ex.PW-31/4 (specimen
dated 14.12.2000 to thumb impressions S-317
16.12.2000, 26.12.2000 till to S-326);
31.12.2000 and 26.02.2001 till 28.02.2001. This witness was Ex.PW-31/5 (Statement declared hostile and cross- made to CBI); examined and he admitted having given specimen thumb impressions and further denied having made any statement to the CBI official.
PW-32/ He Proved thumb impression/ Ex.PW-32/1 (S-199 to S- Sh. Sunil signatures of Raj Kumar, which 208 thumb impressions of Kumar were taken before him. He Raj Kumar dated identified thumb impression/ 14.07.2006). signatures of Asha Ram Siya Ram, Suresh, Brij Pal, Rajinder, Jaipal, Ranjeet and Mahabir which were taken before him.
Page 18 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 PW-33/ He was the Director CFSL and Ex. PW-33/1 (letter dated Dr. S.R. proved letter dated 07.05.2007, 07.05.2007); Singh 01.06.2007 vide which he Ex. PW-33/2 (letter dated forwarded documents/exhibits 01.06.2007) to CBI.
PW-34/ He proved specimen thumb Ex.PW-34/1 (S-112 to S- Sh. impressions of accused namely 1121 thumb impressions of Kishan Maya and Surersh, which were Maya dated 14.02.2007). Kumar taken before him. Ex.PW-34/2 (S-1122 to S-
1131 thumb impressions of Suresh dated 14.02.2017).
PW-35/ He proved file D-37 containing Ex. PW-35/1 (thumb Sh. the finger print impression and impression and signature of Kalyan signature of Vinay Kumar, Vinay Kumar); Singh Minny Messy, Renu Messy, Ex. PW-35/2 (thumb Rawat Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar and impression and signature of Praveen Messy, wich were Minny Messy); collected in his presence.
Ex. PW-35/3 (thumb
impression and signature of
Vijay Kumar);
Ex. PW-35/4 (thumb
impression and signature of
Ajay Kumar);
Ex. PW-35/5 (thumb
impression and signature of
Praveen Messy);
PW-36/ He was Sr. Scientific Officer Ex. PW-36/1 (finger print
Sh. Grade-II, Finger Print, who had impressions of Krishna (S-
Yogendra taken finger print impressions 985 to S-987);
Singh of several persons. Ex. PW-36/2 (finger print
impressions of Rakesh
Kumar (S-991 to S-993);
Ex. PW-36/3 (finger print
impressions of Harish (S-
997 to S-999);
Ex. PW-36/4 (finger print
impressions of Sunil (S-
1000 to S-1002);
Page 19 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Ex. PW-36/5 (finger print impressions of Pritam (S-
1003 to S-1005);
Ex. PW-36/6 (finger print impressions of Avinash (S-
1006 to S-1008);
Ex. PW-36/7 (finger print impressions of Jamuna (S-
1015 to S-1017);
Ex. PW-36/8 (finger print impressions of Kavita (S-
1018 to S-1020);
Ex. PW-9/2 (finger print impressions of Mukesh (S-
1021 to S-1023);
Ex. PW-36/9 (finger print impressions of Jamuna (S-
1015 to S-1017);
Ex. PW-36/10 (finger print impressions of Suman (S-
1135 to S-1137);
Ex. PW-36/11 (finger print impressions of Jasbir (S-
1138 to S-1140);
Ex. PW-36/12 (finger print impressions of Babu Khan (S-1141 to S-1143);
Ex. PW-36/13 (finger print impressions of Kamlesh (S-
1144 to S-1146);
Ex. PW-36/14 (finger print impressions of Jaipal (S-
1147 to S-1149);
Ex. PW-36/15 (finger print impressions of Ranjit (S-
1050 to S-1152);
Ex. PW-36/16 (finger print impressions of Usha (S-
1153 to S-1155);
Page 20 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Ex. PW-36/17 (finger print impressions of Jrakesh (S-
1156 to S-1158);
Ex. PW-36/18 (finger print impressions of Ashok (S-
1159 to S-1161);
Ex. PW-36/19 (finger print impressions of Jitender (S-
1162 to S-1164);
Ex. PW-36/20 (finger print impressions of Rambir (S-
1165 to S-1167);
Ex. PW-36/21 (finger print impressions of Phoolwati (S-1168 to S-1170);
Ex. PW-36/22 (finger print impressions of Jasrati (S-
1171 to S-1173);
PW-37/ He was the finger print expert Ex.PW-37/1 (report dated Sh. A.D. and proved his report no. 30.04.2007); Shah CFSL-2007/A-200 dated Ex.PW-37/2 (report dated 30.04.2007. He further 26.11.2007); deposed that he received letter dated 01.11.2007 with Q-419 to Ex.PW-37/3 (Annexures Q-446 and specimen finger enclosed with report print S-1132 to S-1173. He regarding enlargement of submitted his reports. finger print mark Q-420);
Ex.PW-37/4 (Annexure regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-423);
Ex.PW-37/5 (Annexure regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-432);
Ex.PW-37/6 (Letter dated 26.11.2007 sent by Director CFSL, addressed to SP CBI);
Ex.PW-37/7 (report dated 31.05.2007);
Ex.PW-37/8 (Annexure -1 Page 21 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-2);
Ex.PW-37/9 (Annexure -2 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-3);
Ex.PW-37/10 (Annexure -3 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-142);
Ex.PW-37/11 (Annexure -4 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-248);
Ex.PW-37/12 (Annexure -5 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-5);
Ex.PW-37/13 (Annexure -6 regarding enlargement of finger print mark Q-302);
Ex.PW-37/14 (report dated 26.10.2007);
Ex.PW-37/15 (Letter dated 26.11.2007 addressed to SP CBI sent by Director CFSL);
PW-38/ He was working as sweeper in Ex.PW-38/1A to Ex.PW-
Sh. Ram MCD, in Ward no. 68 and 38/1H (Leave applications
Kumar proved leave applications for 8 in number.)
the period 20.6.2001 to
12.7.2001, 11.10.99 to 21.10.99, 8.11.99 to 11.11.99, 18.4.2000 to 22.4.2000, 24.5.2000 to 27.5.2000, 19.6.2000 to 23.6.2000, 21.7.2000 to 25.7.2000, 26.2.2001 to 28.2.2001 (from page 3 to 11 of Ex.PW4/12), which were not in his handwriting and also did not bear his signatures.
PW-39/ He was working as sweeper in Ex.PW-39/1 to Ex. PW- Sh. Raj MCD, and proved leave 39/20) (Leave applications Kumar applications for the period 20 in number.) period 23.4.2001 to 29.4.2001, Page 22 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 15.10.99 to 18.10.99, 1.12.99 to 4.12.99, 5.4.2000 to 8.4.2000, 26.4.2000 to 30.4.2004, 1.5.2000 to 8.5.2000, 24.5.2000 to 25.5.2000, 27.6.2000 to 30.6.2000, 24.7.2000 to 25.7.2000, 9.10.2000 to 12.10.2000, 14.11.2000 to 18.11.2000, 18.12.2000 to 21.12.2000, 15.1.2001 to 18.1.2001, 18.1.2001 to 23.1.2001, 18.1.2000 to 23.1.2000, 8.2.2000 to 14.2.2000, 28.3.2001 to 31.3.2001, 12.2.2001 to 22.2.2001, 12.3.2001 to 15.3.2001, 13.9.2001 to 17.9.2001 (from page 105 to 127 of Ex.PW4/7), which were not in his handwriting and did not bear his signatures.
PW-40/ He was working in MCD as Ex.PW-40/A1 (His Sh. ebzedar in Ward no. 68, Block statement recorded by Harish 1. He identified his thumb CBI);
impressions and finger print. PW-41/ She was working in MCD as Ex.PW-41/A1 (Her Smt. ebzedar in Ward no. 68, Block statement recorded by Krishna 1. He identified his thumb CBI);
impressions and finger print. PW-42/ He was Manager in Punjab & Ex.PW-42/1 (thumb Sh. Sind Bank, Nehru Place. In his impressions and signatures Kanwar presence thumb impressions of Kamlesh);
Ashok and signatures of Kamlesh, Ex.PW-42/2 (thumb
Mam Chand, Suresh @ Lale impressions and signatures
were taken of Mam Chand);
Ex.PW-42/3 (thumb
impressions and signatures
of Suresh Lale);
PW-43/ She was working as ebzedar in
Smt. Block 10 of MCD since 1995
Kavita and deposed that she never
received an amount more than
Page 23 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- in any case during period 2001-2003. She never received Rs. 1160/-
as per muster roll no. 26622 internal page 35 (already Ex.
PW-11/1) for the period 26.10.02 to 25.11.02. She further identified her finger print impressions already Ex. PW-
36/8.
PW-44/ She was working as Safai Smt. Karamchari in MCD, Beat no. Kamlesh 10 in the area of Trilok Puri.
She further deposed that she was paid salary of Rs. 100/- per day from the office of MCD at Shahdara and the amount of Rs. 100/- or Rs. 200/- per month was being received without any acknowledgement, either through thumb mark or signature.
PW-45/ He was working in MCD as Sh. Sunil Ebzedar since 1996 and he was engaged at Block 10 for a period of 7 to 10 days in a month during the year 2001- 2003 in a month on average basis and used to receive Rs.
700/- to Rs. 1000/- in a month.
He further deposed that he never visited MCD office situated at Anaz Mandi and he used to receive payment at the block from the Sanitary Guide and he never put his thumb impression over muster roll. He further denied the thumb impression appearing at point A (already Ex. PW-9/1) to be his thumb impression and he further denied having received any amount of Rs. 2742/- as Page 24 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 reflected in the muster roll. He further identified his thumb impressions and finger prints from S-1000 to S-1002 in Ex.
PW-36/4.
PW-46/ He was working in MCD as Sh. Ebzedar since 1995-96 and he Rakesh was engaged at Block 10, Ward no. 68 for a period of 4 to 5 days in a month during the year 2001-2003 in a month on average basis and he used to receive Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/- in a month during 2001-2003. He further deposed that he visited MCD office situated at Anaz Mandi for receiving payment and put his signatures over the muster roll. He further denied thumb impression appearing at point B (already Ex. PW-9/1) to be his thumb impression and he further denied having received any amount more than Rs. 600/- to Rs. 800/- or any amount of Rs. 2742/- as reflected in the muster roll in any case during the year 2001- 2003. He further identified his thumb impressions and finger prints from S-991 to S-993 in Ex. PW-36/4.
PW-47/ He deposed that he joined
Sh. MCD as regular safai
Harish karamchari on 01.04.95 and
Kumar before that he was working on
daily wages in MCD. He further
deposed about the procedure
adopted in their department
with regard to attendance of
regular safai karamcharis,
daily wagers, ebzedars, muster roll, leave applications such as Page 25 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Earned Leave, Medical Leave and procedure of accounts section in respect of making payment.
PW-48/ He joined MCD as Sanitary Sh. Nathu Guide in MCD on 12.02.74 and Singh also worked during his posting in Ward no. 68 with the officials posted in the said ward i.e. namely Indraj, Om Prakash, Pritam Singh, G.C. Rakheja, Sh. R.C. Garg (CSI) Shahdara South Zone. He further defined about three categories of Safai Karamcharis, payment procedure of daily wager, duties of ASI and SG, selection procedure of ebzedars and procedure to forward the leave application of Safai Karamchari and ebzedar, etc. He further identified his thumb impressions and signature from S-579 to S-588 & S-589 to S-
598 (already Ex. PW-22/6 and Ex. PW-22/19).
PW-49/ He joined MCD as Safai Ex.PW-49/1 (entry on Sh. Ram Karamchari in MCD on 1969 muster roll Ex. PW-55/5 for Kishan and he was suspended in the the period 26.10.02 to year 2003. He further defined 25.11.02, wherein name of three categories of Safai Safai Karamchari is Meeni Karamcharis, payment D/W/o Sh. Vinay engaged procedure of daily wager, against Chandrawati and duties of ASI/SI and SG, an amount of Rs. 1160/- selection procedure of was paid to her, as ebzedars and procedure to mentioned in the muster forward the leave application of roll.); Safai Karamchari and ebzedar, Ex.PW-49/2 (muster roll for etc. He further identified muster the period 26.10.02 to roll Ex. PW-20/10 for the period 25.11.02 bears name of 26.10.02 to 25.11.02 of Ward- Safai Karamchari Suresh
68. Same was prepared by S/o Sh. Mahender engaged Jeet Ram and he further against vacant post of Page 26 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 identified signature of Jeet Roshan Lal and and as per Ram, Pritam Singh, S.K. muster roll, an amount of Mudgal, A.K. Gulati and R.C Rs. 2742/- was paid to Garg. him);
Ex.PW-49/3 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Brij Pal, showing him on leave w.e.f.
26.12.2000 to 31.12.2000);
Ex. PW-49/4 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Brij Pal S/o Sohan Lal, showing him on leave w.e.f.
17.04.2001 to 18.04.2001);
Ex. PW-49/5 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Bir Singh S/o Ram Saran, showing him on leave w.e.f.
18.12.2000 to 21.12.2000);
Ex. PW-49/6 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Suresh S/o Yad Ram, showing him on leave w.e.f. 18.12.2000 to 21.12.2000);
Ex. PW-49/7 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Ranjeet S/o Ram Swaroop, showing him on leave w.e.f.
12.05.2000 to 26.05.2000);
Ex. PW-49/8 (muster roll of Safai Karamchari Ranjeet S/o Ram Swaroop, showing him on leave w.e.f.
17.07.2000 to 20.07.2000);
Ex. PW-49/9 (page 50 of muster roll Ex. PW-20/2 for the period 22.05.2000 to 25.05.2000, wherein name of ebzedar Suman W/o Bir Singh appears who was engaged against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Page 27 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Brij Pal and an amount of Rs. 382/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/10 (page 23 of muster roll Ex. PW-20/3 for the period 26.01.2001 to 25.02.2001, wherein name of ebzedar Suman W/o Bir Singh appears who was engaged for the period 07.02.2001 to 08.02.2001 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Suresh and an amount of Rs. 197/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/11 (page 2 of muster roll Ex. PW-20/4 for the period 09.04.2001 to 12.04.2001, wherein name of ebzedar Phoolwati W/o Dariow Singh appears who was engaged for the period 09.04.01 to 12.04.01 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Asha Ram and an amount of Rs. 381/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/12 (page 51 of muster roll Ex. PW-20/5 for the period 17.07.2000 to 20.07.2000, wherein name of ebzedar Phoolwati W/o Dariow Singh appears who was engaged for the period 17.07.2000 to 20.07.2000 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Ranjit and an amount of Rs. 382/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Page 28 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Ex. PW-49/13 (page 39 of muster roll for the period 26.08.2000 to 25.09.2000, wherein name of ebzedar Suman W/o Bir Singh engaged for the period 15.09.2000 to 16.09.2000 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Dhanpati & on 19.09.2000 against the safai karamchari Asha Ram and an amount of Rs. 286/-
was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/14 (page 44 of muster roll for the period 26.07.2000 to 25.08.2000, wherein name of ebzedar Phoolwati W/o Dariow Singh appears who was engaged for the period 07.08.2000 to 10.08.2000 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Dhanpati and an amount of Rs. 286/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/15 (page 02 of muster roll for the period 26.09.2000 to 25.10.2000, wherein name of ebzedar Jasbir S/o Kanchan Singh appears who was engaged for the period 09.10.2000 to 12.10.2000 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Dhanpati and an amount of Rs. 286/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
Ex. PW-49/16 (page 11 of muster roll for the period Page 29 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 26.12.2000 to 25.01.2001, wherein name of ebzedar Suman W/o Bir Singh appears who was engaged for the period 08.01.01 to 09.01.01 against vacant post of Safai Karamchari Suresh and an amount of Rs. 190/- was paid to her as mentioned in the muster roll.);
PW-50/ He was posted as LDC and Surender looked after ward nos.
Singh 68,69,70,73,74,76 and 79 of Shahdara South Zone and defined the procedure of preparation of salary bills of safai karamcharis, and maintenance of leave application record and service book record. He further identified his specimen right and left hand finger impression. He further identified signatures of different safai karamcharis of MCD. He deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-49.
PW-51/ She had worked as Ebzedar in Smt. MCD Ward No. 68, Trilok Puri Phoolwati during the period 2000-2001 and reiterated that muster rolls Ex. PW-20/8, Ex. PW-20/4, Ex.
PW-20/2 for the period 26.09.2000 to 25.10.2000, 26.03.2001 to 25.04.2001 and 26.02.2000 to 25.05.2000, at Sr. nos. 17, 12 & 28 on pages 3, 2 & 49 there are entries in her name in respect of having received Rs. 395/-, Rs. 381 & Rs. 191/- after putting her thumb impressions at points B, A & A respectively. She further Page 30 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 identified her thumb and finger impression vide Ex. PW-36/21. PW-52/ She had worked as Ebzedar in Smt. MCD Ward No. 68, Trilok Puri Suman during the period 2000-2001.
She deposed that she received payment for working of two days. She further deposed that her thumb impressions were taken by the CBI officials and identified her thumb and finger impressions on Ex.PW36/10.
PW-53/ He deposed that he retired as Ex. PW-53/1 (statement of
Sh. Superintendent from MCD. He witness)
Rattan and Mr. G.K. Khanna, ASI
Singh Vigilance in MCD were
assigned the work of
calculation of total
embezzlement caused to MCD
in Ward no. 68 on account of
fraudulent engagement of
ebzedars in lieu of forged leave applications and it was found that a sum of Rs. 62,322/- was embezzled or fraudulently drawn. He further deposed that Ex. PW-19/1 is a document dated 26.08.2003 with regard to detailed investigation for registration of criminal case against the erring officials of Circle - 68 of CSE Department, Shahdara South Zone.
PW-54/ He was working as Sanitary Sh. Babu Inspector at Shahdara South Khan Zone and identified signature/handwriting of the officials working in Ward no. 68, Dallu Pura (Trilok Puri) and Shahdara South Zone, Delhi.
He further identified signatures of signatory officials on the leave applications of regular Page 31 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Safai Karamcharis. He further identified his thumb impression and finger print starting from S- 1141 to S-1143 (Ex. PW-
36/12).
PW-55/ He worked as SI in ward no. 68 Ex. PW-55/1 (document Sh. from July 2002 to 08.04.2003. seized from the house Pritam He further deposed that he was search of Parveen Messay Singh the incharge of block no. 1 to prepared in the handwriting 18, in ward no. 68 and Om of Om Prakash); Prakash (SG) was incharge of Ex. PW-55/2 (Muster roll block no. 18. In case of leave of no. 26587); SG Sh. Dharampal, Indraj and Rajinder and he was Ex. PW-55/3 (Muster roll responsible for marking the no. 26597); attendance of these blocks. He Ex. PW-55/4 (Muster roll further identified handwriting of no. 26636); Om Prakash on muster rolls.
Ex. PW-55/5 (Muster roll no. 26622);
Ex. PW-55/6 (Muster roll no. 26615);
Ex. PW-55/7 (Muster roll no. 21618);
PW-56/ She was the expert from the Dr. Bibha CFSL. She identified her finger Rani Ray print examination report alongwith its annexures and the letter addressed to SP CBI vide which she forwarded her report dated 26.11.2007.
PW-57/ He seized the documents Ex. PW-57/1 (enclosure Sh. pertaining to 1999 onwards, 3/N, forwarded with Mukesh attendance register from complaint); Kumar 01.10.94 to 14.02.03. He Ex. PW-57/2 (FIR bearing further seized muster roll and no. RC-DAI-2005-A-0047);
list of substitute/regular
sweepers of Shahdara South Ex. PW-57/3 (Service book
Zone, MCD from Sh. Rajiv of Sh. Bir Singh S/o Ram
Sharma, Accountant posted Saran);
there. He recorded statement Ex. PW-57/4 (forwarding
of Jaipal Singh, petitioner in the letter dated 22.12.06 to writ petition n o. 58/03 before Page 32 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 High Court of Delhi and other Director CFSL seeking witnesses and accused expert opinion on persons. He further collected questioned documents and leave applications of Jaipal and specimen handwriting and other regular Safai thumb impression);
Karamcharis and sent them Ex. PW-57/5 (forwarding CFSL for expert opinion. was letter dated 30.03.07 to one of the search witnesses. Director CFSL seeking expert opinion on questioned documents and specimen handwriting and thumb impression);
Ex. PW-57/6 (file containing specimen finger print impressions of Sh.
Dharampal, Om Prakash, Ram Kishan, Nathu Singh, Surender Singh, Inder Raj, Babu Khan, Vinay Kumar, Minni Massey, Renu Massey, Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Praveen Massey, Kamlesh, Mam Chand, Suresh @ Lale, Raj Kumar, Asha Ram, Suresh, Brij Pal, Rajender, Jai Pal, Ranjeet, Mahavir, Joginder Kumar, Suman, Jasveer, Kamlesh, Usha, Rakesh, Ashok, Jitender, Rambir, Phoolwati Jasrati, Sunita, Krishna, Geeta, Rakesh Kumar, Munim, Harish, Sunil, Pritam, Avinash, Mukesh, Rani, Jamuna, Kavita, Mukesh, Maya and Chote Lal);
PW-58/ He was the IO of the case and Ex. PW-58/1 (letter dated Sh. S.Q. conducted investigation. He 18.10.2007, vide which Ali forwarded questioned additional specimen finger documents and specimen print impressions were sent signature to CFSL for expert to CFSL); opinion. He recorded Page 33 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 statements of Babu Khan, Ram Ex. PW-58/2 (letter dated Kishan Suman Kumar and 01.11.2007, vide which Surender Singh. questioned documents containing thumb impression were sent to CFSL);
Ex.PW-58/3 (chargesheet);
7. PLEA OF ALL ACCUSED PERSON UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. ● PLEA OF ACCUSED SH. OM PRAKASH (A1) :-
A1 took plea that he was falsely implicated in the present case. ● PLEA OF ACCUSED SH. JEET RAM (A2) :-
A2 took plea that he was falsely implicated in the present case. Before his joining, there was tussle between two group of union and they were lodging complaint against each other and false allegations were leveled in the writ before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the year 1998. He did not commit any wrong during his posting in Ward no. 68 w.e.f August 2002 to November 2002. ● PLEA OF ACCUSED SH. SURESH @ LALE (A3) :- A3 took plea that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing has come against him during evidence and he has been made scapegoat by CBI.
● PLEA OF ACCUSED SH. MAM CHAND (A4) :- A4 took plea that he was working as Ebzedar/fourth class employee at the relevant time and he only obeyed and complied the order of directions of his seniors as most of forth class employees were either illiterate or very less educated. He further stated that he being less educated was able to write application for leave of some other employees, who sought vacation or other few material at the instance of his next boss/senior officer. He further stated that he did not intentionally or deliberately write, sign or put his finger prints on any document. If something has come on record, that might have been Page 34 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 done at the instance of his next boss and officer. He further stated that he never got any monitory benefits by doing so. He further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. ARGUMENTS MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED PERSONS AS WELL AS CBI :-
8. No arguments either oral or written were made or filed on behalf of accused Om Prakash. However, at the final stage of the case, accused Om Prakash expired on 24.03.2018 and accordingly, case stood abated against him vide order dated 05.04.2018. ARGUMENT MADE BY SR. PP FOR CBI
9. Ld. Sr. PP for CBI argued that salary of regular safai karamcharis (10) was deducted on the pretext of engaging Ebzedars (substitute safai kramcharis). Ld. PP for CBI further argued that leave applications of regular safai karamcharis were forged, which is amply explicit from the following points :-
(a)concerned regular safai karamcharis deposed before the court and denied their signature and thumb impression on the leave applications;
(b)CFSL report also proved that leave applications were not signed by the regular safai karamcharis;
(c) CFSL also reported that 9 applications were having thumb impressions of Suresh @ Lale;
(d)CFSL further reported that 9 leave applications were having thumb impressions of Mam Chand;
(e)On 17 leave applications thumb impression could not be identified.
10.Ld. Sr. PP for CBI further argued that accused Om Prakash was the public servant and was posted as Sanitary Guide; accused Jeet Ram was also public servant, who was posted as Sanitary Guide and accused Suresh @ Lale and Mam Chand were posted as Ebzedar. Ebzedars could have been engaged by accused Om Prakash (A1) and accused Page 35 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 Jeet Ram (A2). Accused Om Prakash and accused Jeet Ram had to certify absence of regular safai karamchari and they were responsible for engagement as well as presence of Ebzedars and to identify them at the time of payments. Accused Om Prakash used to verify identity of most of the Ebzedars in Muster Rolls for payment. Accused Jeet Ram used to engage Ebzedars and thus, his signature appears in Muster Rolls in respect of engagement of Ebzedars in place of regular safai kraramcharis. Ld. Sr. PP further argued that Ex. PW-20/17 shows period of fraud from 26.10.2002 to 25.11.2002. Accused Jeet Ram admitted in his testimony for having worked during this period. Ebzedars, who were shown to be engaged during this period deposed that either they did not work during this period or did not get complete amount as shown in Muster Roll.
ARGUMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED JEET RAM (A2)
11.Ld. counsel for accused Jeet Ram argued that PW 7 deposed about the fraud in 1999. He further argued that complaint, which is basis of FIR, referred to fraud since 1995. Thus, there had been inconsistency in the stand of prosecution. He further argued that PW2 was not appointing authority of accused Jeet Ram, hence, sanction given against him is invalid, as at the relevant period, he was working in MCD and PW2 was from Delhi Jal Board.
ARGUMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED SURESH @ LALE
12.Ld. counsel for accused Suresh @ Lale argued that there are no allegations of receiving any amount by this accused. He further argued that there is no evidence of forging any document against this accused, except for report Ex. PW-37/1. However, this report cannot be read in evidence, as no permission was taken from the court to take any specimen handwriting. He further argued that except for oral testimony of regular safai karamcharis, no other evidence was produced on record to show that they actually came for work. He further argued that no gain Page 36 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 was caused to the accused Suresh @ Lale, nor any loss to MCD was imputed upon him.
ARGUMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED MAM CHAND (A4)
13.Ld. counsel for accused Mam Chand argued that FSL report cannot be read against accused persons as specimen of accused persons were not taken with permission of the court. He further argued that conspiracy means agreement between accused persons, but no such agreement was proved. He further argued that no gain was shown or alleged against the accused. Ebzedars are persons of IVth class employee and some of them are literate but many are not. Mens rea to commit any offence is necessary, which was missing in this case. He further argued that it was a routine practice that if any regular safai karamchari was absent, someone was asked to write and sign application on his behalf. It was so done on the asking of boss and thus, it cannot be said to have been done with a criminal intention and some PWs have stated about such practice. Ld. counsel submitted that the allegations that Ebzedars Mam Chand and Suresh had signed and put thumb impressions on leave applications of regular safai karamcharis, are bereft of mens rea. ARGUMENTS IN REBUTTAL
14.Ld. PP for CBI in rebuttal argued that accused Suresh @ Lale and accused Mam Chand were not public servant, hence section 13 (1) (d) is not applicable to them. He further argued that specimen handwriting and finger prints of the accused persons were taken in the presence of independent witnesses i.e. PW-22, PW-32, PW-34, PW-35 & PW-42 and they vouched about the same. Therefore, CFSL report can be read against accused persons.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS :-
15.Before I start the analysis of evidence and respective arguments, it is appropriate to refer to the exact charges framed against the accused Page 37 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 persons so that the evidence and arguments be appreciated within the parameters of charges framed against the accused persons.
16.It was alleged against accused Om Prakash (A1), Suresh (A3) and Mam Chand (A4) that they hatched criminal conspiracy to cheat MCD and in furtherance of that criminal conspiracy, they created forged documents and used said documents as genuine, for showing ebzedar in place of original applicants in the official record, in order to get payment and thus, they committed offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and 13 (2) of PC Act.
17.It was again alleged against accused Om Prakash (A1), Suresh (A3) and Mam Chand (A4) that they committed cheating with MCD by getting the payment on behalf of ebzedars and by creating various forged document for the purpose of cheating, which were used as genuine, though, knowing or believing the same to be forged, in order to get the payment on behalf of 10 petitioners by showing them on leave and thereby they committed offence under Section 420/468/471 IPC.
18.It was further alleged against accused Om Prakash (A1), Suresh (A3) and Mam Chand (A4) that they all by corrupt or by illegal means abused their positions as public servant and committed cheating with MCD. They created various forged documents for the purpose of cheating and used the same as genuine and thus, obtained pecuniary advantage thereby committing offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act.
19.Separate charges were framed against accused Jeet Ram (A2). Same allegations were made in the charges and he was charged for offences under Section 120B IPC read with Section 420/468/471 IPC and read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act as well as for substantive offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 IPC. It is worth to mention here that accused Jeet Ram (A2) was not charged for offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. On the other hand, it is also Page 38 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 worth to note here that though accused Suresh (A3) and Mam Chand (A4) were also charged under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, but admittedly they were not public servants. It is alleged in the chargesheet itself that they were private persons, who were part of the conspiracy. Therefore, role of accused Suresh (A3) and Mam Chand (A4) is to be analysed only in respect of offence under Section 120B and under Section 420/468/471 IPC. SANCTION :-
20.Accused Om Prakash (A1) and Jeet Ram (A2) were public servants, therefore, as per chargesheet sanction was obtained to prosecute them from the competent authority.
21.In respect of accused Jeet Ram (A2), CBI produced PW2 to prove the sanction order. PW2/Sh. X.K. Mehto deposed that he was member of administration in Delhi Jal Board and he accorded sanction for prosecution of accused Jeet Ram (A2), who was working in diverted capacity in MCD, though he was working in Delhi Jal Board. However, there are two remarkable situations related to sanction against Jeet Ram (A2). First of all, no charges were framed against accused Jeet Ram for offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. In that situation, the sanction could be meaningful in respect of IPC offences as per requirement of Section 197 Cr.P.C, but the unfortunate situation is that on 17.11.2011 when PW2 was examined before the court, accused Jeet Ram was not present in the proceedings. The ordersheet dated 17.11.2011 shows that PW2 was examined in absence of Jeet Ram as well as in absence of his counsel. Though, it was recorded in the ordersheet that Jeet Ram was to be produced from Bharatpur Jail and a show cause notice was also issued to Jail Superintendent, Bharatpur to explain the reasons for not producing accused Jeet Ram. The examination of PW2, in absence of accused Jeet Ram or his counsel was not inconsonance with legal mandate to hold trial in presence of Page 39 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 accused or his authorized representative. Accused Jeet Ram was, thereafter, produced from J/C on 04.01.2012. Thereafter, after huge gap i.e. on 04.08.2015 Jeet Ram filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall PW2 along with some more witnesses. Somehow, even this application remained pending without formal order and it was finally pointed out during final argument on 16.02.2018. The application was allowed for obvious reason that accused Jeet Ram could not have cross-
examined PW2 on the date when he was examined before the court. However, it was reported that PW2 had expired and hence, the net result remained that PW2 was not cross-examined by accused Jeet Ram.
22.On behalf of accused Jeet Ram argument was made that PW2 was not the competent authority to accord sanction qua Jeet Ram, because Jeet Ram was employee of MCD till 2009 and his appointing authority was Commissioner of MCD. Thus, the sanction against accused Jeet Ram has been challenged by Jeet Ram and the grounds of such challenge are such, which made cross-examination of PW2 more important. Only PW2 could have given any explanation as to how he was competent authority qua accused Jeet Ram and the other grounds related to satisfaction of PW2 also could have been tested during his cross- examination. Since examination of PW2 was conducted in absence of Jeet Ram or his authorised counsel and Jeet Ram could not have opportunity to cross-examine this witness, I am of the view that testimony of PW2 cannot be read against accused Jeet Ram. In that eventuality the sanction order Ex.PW2/1 also cannot be used against accused Jeet Ram and thus, the net result remains that prosecution of accused Jeet Ram stands vitiated for absence of proof of sanction against him. For such reasons, this court cannot record finding of guilty, even if otherwise established, against accused Jeet Ram. CFSL REPORT:-
23.Ld. counsels for accused Suresh and accused Mam Chand took legal Page 40 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 objections against report given by CFSL, New Delhi, submitting that specimen handwriting and fingerprints of accused were not taken with permission of the concerned court and therefore, such report cannot be read in evidence against the accused persons. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ld. counsel for accused Suresh @ Lale referred to judgment passed by High Court of Delhi in the case of Rakesh Kumar & Others v. State, reported in 2004 (72) DRJ 311, wherein it was held that :-
"Moreover, the alleged specimen signatures/handwriting /thumb /finger print impression of appellant Chandra Shekhar and Sri Chand were obtained during investigation by the I.O without prior permission from the court. Facts in the case of Sukhvinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, were that specimen handwriting of the appellant were taken under the direction of the Executive Magistrate during the investigation when no inquiry or trial was pending in his court. Accused person did not raise any objection thereto yet Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that such specimen writing of the accused persons could not be made use of during the trial and the report of the handwriting expert is thus rendered of no consequence at all and could not be used against the accused to connect him with crime. In the present case the specimen signatures/writing/thumb impressions were obtained during the investigation without any permission from the Court. Therefore, the case in hand stands on a weaker footing than that of Sukhvinder Singh (Supra). Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhvinder Singh (supra) it follows that the specimen writing/thumb impression/finger print impression of the appellant Sri Chand Chandra Shekhar could not be made use of during the trial. The report of the hand writing expert/Finger Print Bureau is thus rendered of no consequence at all and cannot be used to connect the appellants with crime".
24.In aforesaid case, Delhi High Court referred to another judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, reported in (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 152. Therefore, I deem it fit to refer to relevant observations made by Supreme Court also in respect of aforesaid situation, which are as follows :-
Page 41 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 "A subsequent writing of an accused taken under the direction of the court is in substance a specimen writing obtained for comparison of the disputed writing with it. Though, Section 73 does not specifically say as to who could make such a comparison but reading Section 73 as a whole, it is obvious that it is the Court which has to make the comparison and it may form the opinion itself by comparing the disputed and the admitted writings or seek the assistance of an expert, to put before the Court all the material, together with reasons, which induce the expert to come to a conclusion that the disputed and the admitted writings are of one and the same author so that the court may form its own opinion by its own assessment of the report of the expert based on the data furnished by the expert. The function of an handwriting expertise to opine after a scientific comparison of the disputed writing with the admitted (specimen) writing with regard to the points of similarity and dissimilarity in the two set of writings. The second paragraph of Section 73 (supra) enables the court to direct any person present before it to give his specimen writing "for the purpose of enabling the court to compare" such writings with writings alleged to have been written by such person. The obvious implication of the words "for the purpose of enabling the court to compare" is that there is some proceeding pending before the court in which or as a consequence of which it is necessary for the court to compare such writings. The direction is therefore required to be given for the purpose of "enabling the court to compare" and not for the purpose of enabling an investigating or a prosecuting agency to obtain and produce as evidence in the case the specimen writings for their ultimate comparison with the disputed writings. Where the case is still under investigation and no proceeding are pending in any court in which it might be necessary to compare the two writings, the person (accused) cannot be compelled to give his specimen writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit any court to give a direction to an accused to give his specimen writing for comparison in a proceeding which may subsequently be instituted in some other competent court. Section 73 of the Evidence Act cannot be made use of for collecting specimen writings during the investigation and recourse to it can be had only when the enquiry or the trial court before which proceedings are pending requires the writing for the purpose of 'enabling Page 42 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 it to compare' the same. A court holding an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure is indeed entitled under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct an accused person appearing before it to give his specimen handwriting to enable the court by which he may be subsequently tried to compare it with the disputed writings. Therefore, in our opinion the court which can issue a direction to the person to give his specimen writing can either by the court holding the enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the court trying the accused person with a view to enable it to compare the specimen writings with the writings alleged to have been written by such a person. A court which is not holding an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure or conducting the trial is not permitted, on the plain language of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, to issue any direction of the nature contained in the second paragraph of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The words "any person present in the court" in Section 73 has a reference only to such person who are parties to a cause pending before the court and in a given case may even include the witnesses in the said cause but where there is no cause pending before the court for its determination, the question of obtaining for the purposes of comparison of the handwriting of a person may not arise at all and therefore, the provisions of Section 73 of the Evidence Act would have no application.
The specimen writings in the instant case of appellant Snkhdev Paul were taken under the directions of Sh. S.P. Garg, Tehsildar executive Magistrate, PW 13. No enquiry or trial was admittedly pending in the court of the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate. The enquiry and trial in this case were pending under TADA before the Designated Court only. The direction given by the Tehsildar Executive Magistrate Sh. S.P. Garg to the appellant Sukhdev Paul to give his specimen writing was clearly unwarranted and not contemplated or envisaged by Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has not disclosed as to at what stage of investigation or enquiry or trial was Sukhdev Paul appellant produced before the Executive Magistrate PW13 to take the specimen writing of the appellant and why the specimen writings were obtained under directions of PW13 and not of the Designated Court. It is a mystry as to how the specimen writings required to be used at the trial against the appellant were directed to be taken by PW13, who was not enquiring or trying the case.Page 43 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016
25.Apart from aforesaid ground of omission to seek permission of the Magistrate, there is another angle of credibility also, which affects the process of taking specimen handwriting/ signature by IO. In this respect, I would refer to observations made by Supreme Court in following cases :-
● In Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, 2014 V AD (S.C.) 10, it was held that :-
"Assuming Prakash's fingerprint was in fact obtained by D'Souza, it was clearly not given voluntarily, but perhaps unwittingly and in what seems to be a deceitful manner. To avoid any suspicion regarding the genuineness of the fingerprint so taken or resort to any subterfuge, the appropriate course of action for the Investigating Officer was to approach the Magistrate for necessary orders in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920."
● In Mohd. Aman Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997) 10 SCC 44, it was held that :-
"Even though the specimen fingerprints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take fingerprints of the accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bona fides or to eliminate the possibility of fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under the order of a Magistrate."
26.In the present case, it is undisputed fact that specimen handwriting and fingerprints of various persons including accused persons were taken by IO without permission of the concerned court. In fact, it is not even case of CBI that for this purpose they ever approached the court, either to take permission or to give intimation of the same. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with the arguments of defence that Page 44 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 report given and proved by PW37/Sh. A.D. Shah cannot be used against accused persons. It is worth to mention here that CBI has relied upon this report to allege that thumb impressions in the name of different safai karamcharis were put by accused Suresh @ Lale and accused Mam Chand. However, same cannot be read and used against these accused persons. Even A3 denied having given any specimen fingerprint impressions. Thus, the report of CFSL i.e. Ex.PW37/1 and Ex.PW37/2 cannot be relied upon to say that accused Suresh @ Lale and accused Mam Chand had put their thumb impressions in the leave applications in the name of other safai karamcharis. ATTENDANCE OF REGULAR SAFAI KARAMCHARIS :-
27.In this case, CBI referred to 10 regular safai karamcharis with allegations that despite them being present on duty, the accused persons out of conspiracy showed them to be on leave on the basis of forged leave applications and accordingly, some ebzedars were shown to be working in place of these regular safai karamcharis. The first question arises out of aforesaid allegations that whether these 10 regular safai karamcharis had actually reported for duty on the days, when they were shown to be on leave. The system prevalent to mark presence at the relevant time was explained by PW1/Sh. Ramesh Chand Garg, PW23/Sh. Pratap Singh, PW47/Sh. Harish Kumar, PW48/Sh. Nathu Singh and PW49/Sh. Ram Kishan. According to testimony of PW1 there used to be attendance register of safai karamcharis under possession of ASI or Sanitary Guide. Even for the purpose of ebzedars karamcharis attendance was taken by ASI or Sanitary Guide on attendance register and thereafter, attendance was transferred on muster roll. It was further deposed by this witness that Sanitary Inspector used to check and investigate the attendance register daily and thereafter, he used to sign on the register without seal. If there was any discrepancy in the daily attendance register, then the same was rectified same day and the Page 45 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 person who used to mark the attendance, also used to rectify the same on the instructions of Sanitary Inspector. The daily attendance of ebzedars was also checked twice a day i.e. in the morning and in the evening by ASI or Sanitary Guide. The vigilance department used to be in custody of attendance register.
28.PW23 further explained two procedures of marking attendance in the register and went on narrate about four calls being given on a day.
29.Thus, the testimony of above mentioned PWs show that for the purpose of an official being present on duty, the relevant piece of evidence was to be the attendance register of the particular day or particular period. However, unfortunately no such attendance register was proved by CBI. None of the witnesses proved attendance of these regular safai karamcharis. Therefore, there remains a gap and the question remains unanswered that whether actually the above-mentioned ten regular safai karamcharis were present on duty on a particular day or during a particular period, when allegedly they were shown to be on leave. In absence of any evidence to show that these safai karamcharis had actually performed duty on the particular day or during particular period, merely on the basis of allegedly forged leave applications being placed on record, it cannot be assumed that these regular safai karamcharis worked during disputed period. This was a crucial fact to be proved by CBI, which was not proved.
30.PW-7/Sh. Jai Pal Singh, PW-8/Sh. Rajender, PW-16 Sh. Rajeev, PW- 17/Sh. Asha Ram, PW-29/Sh. Brij Pal, PW-30/Sh. Suresh, PW-31/Sh. Mahavir, PW-38/Sh. Ram Kumar & PW-39/Sh. Raj Kumar, were those regular safai karamcharis who were shown to be cheated on account of alleged criminal conspiracy. These witnesses were shown certain leave applications in their name for different period and they denied that such applications bore their handwriting or signature or thumb impression. However, as already pointed out these leave applications could not Page 46 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 prove that these officials had actually worked during relevant period. In fact, PW-7 admitted that many safai karamcharis in his ward were not literate and those illiterate safai karamcharis were taking help of other persons for preparing their leave applications. He also admitted that as and when any safai karamchari used to fell sick, he used to submit leave application through someone else. He further admitted that employees of the rank of ebzedars and helpers were used, to write their leave applications on the instructions of superior officers for the illiterate employees.
31.PW-8 also admitted that there was a practice in the department that in case of some emergency if any employee was not coming to duty, then he used to request his colleague to move leave application on his behalf and it had so happened with him also. PW-8 further deposed that proper application was moved after such employee came back on duty, with correct thumb impression being given by concerned employee. Thus, such testimony of these regular safai karamcharis support the argument of defence that there was a routine practice in the department for ebzedars or other class IV employees, to write and sign application on behalf of others on the instructions of bosses. These officials simply followed command of their bosses, without having any mens rea to commit any offence.
32.There could be two situations. One situation could be that the leave applications were written and signed by different person, acting out of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the department. Other situation could be that the leave applications were written and signed by other persons, in routine manner on the instructions of superior officers, without having any intention to defraud anyone. For the offence of forgery or cheating or criminal conspiracy, element of necessary mens rea is required to be present. If any act resulting into forgery was done out of innocence or with different intention than an intention to defraud anyone, then such act Page 47 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 cannot be said to be a criminal act of forgery or criminal conspiracy. It is settled law that if there are two possible views to be taken, then the court has to take the view favoring the accused persons. In the present case, from the evidence of prosecution itself a possibility has been established on the record to show that the leave applications could be written and signed by different officials out of innocent intention and merely on the basis of instructions given by superior officers. In these circumstances, such accused persons i.e. Suresh @ Lale and Mam Chand are entitled for this benefit as well.
33.Further more, there is no evidence on the record to suggest that accused Jeet Ram, Suresh or Mam Chand had received any share out of alleged defrauded amount. It is, though, recognized by the courts that there cannot be direct evidence of criminal conspiracy, however, this does not mean that without producing any evidence and merely on the basis of some hypothesis, the court shall presume existence of a criminal conspiracy. Prosecution is still under duty to produce indirect and circumstantial evidence, so as to point out existence of a criminal conspiracy. Being recipient of the share in illegal booty out of the alleged fraud, would have been an important circumstantial evidence to show complicity of accused Jeet Ram, Suresh or Mam Chand in this criminal conspiracy. However, since no such evidence was produced and CBI did not prove any other circumstantial evidence to show existence of a criminal conspiracy among these accused persons, it has to be concluded that CBI has failed to prove existence of alleged criminal conspiracy.
34.In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, the conclusions are as follows:-
(a)CBI could not prove that the regular safai karamcharis actually attended duty during the period, when allegedly they were shown to be on leave on the basis of false leave applications. Hence, the Page 48 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CBI/6/2016 complete chain of allegations made by CBI are not proved.
(b)CBI could not prove that the leave applications were actually signed by accused Suresh and Mam Chand or such applications in the name of regular safai karamcharis bore thumb impression of Suresh and Mam Chand, because the report given by CFSL cannot be read in evidence and there is no other evidence to establish these facts.
(c) CBI could not prove sanction to prosecute accused Jeet Ram.
(d)CBI could not prove existence of a criminal conspiracy among accused persons nor could it establish mens rea to forge leave applications.
DECISION :-
35.In view of my above-mentioned conclusions, accused Jeet Ram, Suresh and Mam Chand are acquitted of all the charges leveled against them in Digitally signed this case. by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court PRAMACHALA No.3, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2018.04.10 16:14:08 +0530 Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 10.04.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East (This order contains 49 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page 49 of 49 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi