Delhi District Court
State vs . Yoginder Singh Sengar, on 27 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, DELHI
CC No. : 56/07
Computer Identification No. : 02401R1013812007
State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar,
S/o Sh. Surinder Singh,
R/o H. No. N63,
Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi.
F.I.R. No. : 59/03
Under Section : 13 (i)(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 read with
Sections 420/468/471 IPC.
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 09.10.2007
Judgment reserved on : 22.03.2012
Judgment pronounced on : 27.04.2012
J U D G M E N T
The case of the prosecution is that during investigation of case FIR No. 32/03 registered at PSAnti Corruption Branch under Section 13(i)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 1/14 Section 420/468/471 IPC against one B. R. Arya, Executive Engineer, CSE, Manjeet Singh, Assistant Engineer, CSE and Akhtar Adil, Junior Engineer, CSE all of MCD, South Zone, Delhi, Muster Rolls of CSE, South District Zone, MCD pertaining to desilting of Nala in the year 200304 were also seized. On scrutiny of the Muster Roll which was maintained by Yoginder Singh Sengar, JE, Conservancy, Sanitation and Engineering (CSE), South District Zone, it was found that 1186 labourers were employed by him and during sample verification, it was found that following persons shown as Beldars working for desilting of Nala in the Muster Roll maintained by Yoginder Singh Sengar, JE had never worked as Beldar in MCD for aforesaid work during the relevant period.
(i) Shri Neeraj Yadav S/o Shri Gopi Kishan Yadav R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
(ii) Shri Gopi Kishan S/o Shri Chuttan @ Bal Chand R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
(iii) Shri Changuri Paswan S/o Shri Guni Pawan R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
(iv) Shri Raub Khan S/o Shri Anwar Ali Khan R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
(v) Shri Salek Chand Gujjar @ Gujjar S/o Shri Jag Ram R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
2. Investigation revealed that a sum of Rs.10,27,638/ had FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 2/14 been disbursed to 589 labourers out of 1186 labourers/Beldars mentioned in 53 Muster Rolls whereas an amount of Rs.10,36,871/ for 597 labourers was pending disbursement. Investigation further revealed that 53 Muster Rolls were reportedly prepared and signed by Yoginder Singh Sengar, JE, CSE for desilting work in the area of MCD, South Zone during the period from March, 2002 to June, 2002 and as per the provision of CPWD Manual on Muster Roll as applicable to MCD, Delhi, the JE/Incharge of the works is required to mark the attendance of workers in the Muster Roll daily at the time of Roll Call and carrying out checking once during day time. The Assistant Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer/Executive Engineer is required to conduct surprise check frequently to ensure that the workers as indicated in the Daily Labour Reports and Muster Rolls are actually employed and are in consonance with expenditure incurred on that account. Investigation further revealed that some persons had neither worked as Beldar with MCD nor received any payment from MCD.
3. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Ld. Addl. PP, accused Yoginder Singh Sengar was charged for committing an offence under Section 13(i)(c) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 3/14 1988 that during the month of March, 2002 to June, 2002, while being posted as Junior Engineer in MCD, South Zone and being a public servant was entrusted with the work of getting desilting of Nalas of CSE South Zone, MCD, he employed 1186 Labourers on the strength of 53 Muster Rolls and committed criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the wages amount to Rs.2,468/ shown against the names of Neeraj Yadav and Changuri Paswan out of fake labourers, i.e. Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan, Changuri Paswan, Raub Khan as detailed in Muster Roll No.129. He was further charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC for committed forgery for the purpose of cheating by showing fakes names of labourers Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan, Changuri Paswan, Raub Khan in Muster Roll No. 129. He was further charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC for fraudulently and dishonestly used said Muster Roll No. 129 as genuine knowing and having reasons to believe the same as forged one. He was further charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC for cheating and inducing the MCD to deliver an amount of Rs.2,468/ to him on the pretext of wages to be paid to above said fake persons and obtaining Rs.2,468/ for fake persons FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 4/14 Changuri Prasad and Neeraj Yadav.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution examined fifteen witnesses.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that being JE he was supposed to check the numbers of the labourers so engaged and not to verify the names and address of the labourers who were engaged for the desilting of nala. He further stated that the payment was made to the labourers by the Vigilance Department.
6. The prosecution was represented by Sh. B. S. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP and accused was represented by his Counsel Sh. S. A. Hashmi, Advocate.
PUBLIC SERVANT
7. PW4 A. K. Gupta, XEN Engineering Department, MCD proved the biodata of accused Yoginder Singh Sengar on the basis of his service record as Ex.PW4/A.
8. The sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of accused Yoginder Singh Sengar was accorded by PW1 Naresh Kumar, Addl. Commissioner FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 5/14 (Engineering), MCD and the same has been proved by him as Ex.PW1/A.
9. Thus, there is no dispute that accused Yoginder Singh Sengar is a public servant and that a proper and valid sanction for prosecution of accused Yoginder Singh Sengar has been accorded by the competent sanctioning authority.
CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT / CHEATING / FORGERY
10. PW3 Inspector Rajinder Singh Mankoo deposed that during the investigation of case FIR No. 32/03, he scrutinized the Muster Rolls of Conservancy, Sanitation and Engineering (CSE), South District Zone, MCD pertaining to desilting of nalas during the year 20032004. He further deposed that:
"The scrutiny of these muster rolls revealed that 1186 Baildars/Labourers were employed for desilting work by JE Y. S. Sengar on the strength of 53 muster rolls. On sample verification of these muster rolls, it was found that five persons who were reportedly worked as Baildars and were made payments and those five workers confirmed that they did not worked as Baildar and muster rolls did not bear their signatures. These 53 Muster Rolls pertains to an amount of about Rs.20 Lacs and payments were made to about 600 Baildars for about Rs.10 Lacs and remaining 600 FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 6/14 workers did not received the payment as per record."
11. The prosecution examined Shri B. R. Arya, XEN Quality Control, MCD City Zone, Delhi as PW6 who deposed that the work of desilting of nala was started in the year 200203 and the concerned JE is required to engage labourers from the open market and prepare Muster Roll. He further deposed that:
"As per PWD Manual VolumeII, it was the duty of the JE to mark the attendance of labouerers in the Muster Rolls and he had to check personally once a day. AE and XEN had to check the labourers surprisingly whether the labours were working as per Muster Rolls."
12. Prosecution also examined Shri Zafar Sultan, AE, DEMS Ambedkar Stadium, MCD, Delhi as PW7 who deposed that he worked as AE (CSE) in MCD from July, 2001 to May, 2002 in South Zone. He further deposed that:
"Casual labourers were deployed by CSE Department for the period from 2002 to 2003 for desilting of Nala and accused Yoginder Singh Sengar was working as JE had engaged labourers from the open market. It was the duty of JE to mark the attendance of labourer on the site and to physically check their presence. I had checked labourers suddenly and periodically and labourers were found present. The payment of wages was FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 7/14 made to the labourers suddenly in the presence of vigilance team of MCD and in the presence of Shri Jagdish rajesh Kumar, Kirpal Singh and Manish Kumar. The payment was made after perusing the documents produced by the labourers and after due verification. During that period, the payment was made to some of the labourers and the balance amount was deposited with Municipal treasury. No further payment was made to the labourers as the concerned muster rolls were seized by the Anti Corruption Branch."
13. Prosecution also examined Shri Manjit Singh, AE, DEMS Town Hall, Delhi as PW9 who deposed that he was posted as AE in CSE, South Zone, MCD Delhi and desilting work of nala was done under the supervision and control of Shri Zafar Sultan, AE. He further deposed that it was the duty of JE to employee the labourers and he was required to enter the names of those labourers in the Muster Roll. He further deposed that JE used to engage labourers from the open market.
14. In this background, Ld. Prosecutor argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt as there is no dispute that accused Yoginder Singh Sengar was holding office as public servant and dishonestly and disproportionately used the property under his control as public servant and therefore liable to be FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 8/14 punished under Section 13(i)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by committing forgery and showing fake names of labourers Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan, Changuri Paswan & Raub Khan in Muster Roll No. 129 and fraudulently and dishonestly used the said Muster Roll No. 129 as genuine and having reasons to believe the same as forged one and also induced the MCD to deliver the wages amount of Rs.2,468/ for the fake labourers Neeraj Yadav and Changuri Paswan.
15. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that no case of criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating is made out against the accused as the Muster Rolls were prepared by him on the basis of genuine existing persons. Had this not been true the real persons Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan, Changuri Paswan, Raub Khan and Salek Chand Gujja @ Gurjar would not have been traced. Even otherwise, as and when, the senior official carried out checks, no worker was missing nor the number of labourers was found to be short. It is further argued that the accused was not required to verify and collect the documents of identity of the persons who were engaged from the open market to carry out the work of desilting and this contention is supported by the circular No. PSC/ADI/20025/5157 Ex.PW6/DB as per which directions were FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 9/14 issued to a Junior Engineer to henceforth prepare the Muster Roll, engage workers from the open market and verify the antecedents of the worker before enrolling them in the Muster Roll.
16. Returning to the facts of the present case, it has emerged on record:
1) That a Junior Engineer is solely responsible for preparing and maintaining the Muster Roll.
2) That the Muster Roll was prepared by the accused who was working as a Junior Engineer at the relevant time.
3) That the Beldars/employees were required to mark their attendance in the Muster Roll on a daily basis.
4) That the Beldars/employees have marked their attendance on the Muster Roll Ex.PW11/A & Ex.PW13/A.
5) That the name of one Gurjjar Singh figures at Sl. No.8 in the Muster Roll Ex.PX11A R/o RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi.
6) PW11 Salek Chand deposed that no person by the name Gurjjar Singh ever resided at RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi and further deposed that his full name is Salek Chand Gurjjar and 'Gurjjar' is his surname and no person by the name of Gurjjar Singh ever resided at the above address. FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 10/14
7) PW11 Salek Chand Gurjjar also denied that he had signed at Sl.
No. 8 on the Muster Roll Ex.PW11/A.
8) That the names of Beju Mandal, Raub Khan, Gopi Kishan Yadav and Neeraj Yadav figure in the Muster Roll Ex.PW13/A at Sl. Nos. 13, 17, 18 and 19 respectively.
9) That Gopi Kishan (PW12), Neeraj Yadav (PW13) and Raub Khan (PW14) produced as prosecution witnesses deposed that they were never employed as Beldar/employee in MCD.
10) That Gopi Kishan (PW12), Neeraj Yadav (PW13) and Raub Khan (PW14) further added in their deposition that they never accepted any payment from MCD.
11) That Neeraj Yadav (PW13) denied his signatures on Muster Roll Ex.PW13/A against Sl. No. 19.
12) That RZ50, Gali No. 4, Durga Park, Dwarka, Delhi has been mentioned as the address of five beldars in the Muster Roll.
13) That the muster Rolls Ex.PW11/A & Ex.PW13/A contain false entries of the persons whose names figure therein but they have denied being employees of MCD and drawing payment as Beldars/employees.
14) That the Muster Roll Ex.PW11/A & Ex.PW13/A were used as genuine even though it contained forged signatures as Salek FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 11/14 Chand (PW11) and Neeraj Yadav (PW13) denied having signed the Muster Rolls.
17. As a result of the above discussion, it is therefore clear that the Muster Rolls Ex.PW11/A & Ex.PW13/A contained forged entries and these entries were used as genuine and Rs. 2,468/ were fraudulently and dishonestly withdrawn against the names of fake labourers being Neeraj Yadav and Changuri Paswan by the accused who misappropriated Rs.2,468/ and cheated the MCD. The periodical checks made by Senior Officers have no relevance as the sole responsibility of the accused of preparing the Muster Rolls, obtaining daily attendance and payment to genuine employees and beldars rested on the shoulders of the accused and all the acts having been performed by the accused, none else but the accused is accountable. The accused has failed to discharge this burden.
18. CONCLUSION As a result of the above, it is therefore concluded that it is proved from the record that the accused while being posted as Junior Engineer in MCD, South Zone from March, 2002 to June, 2002 and being a public servant was entrusted with the work of desilting of Nala of CSE South Zone, MCD and during that period employed 1186 labourers on the strength of 53 Muster Rolls and committed FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 12/14 criminal misconduct by dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the wages amounting to Rs.2,468/ shown against the names of Neeraj Yadav and Changuri Paswan, out of the fake labourers i.e. Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan, Changuri Paswan & Raub Khan in Muster Roll No. 129 Ex.PW13/A and committed an offence under Section 13(i)(c) and punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
It is further proved that bogus entries were made in the Muster Rolls by the accused who was responsible for maintaining the Muster Rolls and this was done by entering fake names of Neeraj Yadav, Gopi Kishan Yadav and Raub Khan as labourers in Muster Roll No. 129 which is Ex.PW13/A and therefore the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC.
The accused fraudulently and dishonestly used the Muster Roll No. 129 Ex.PW13/A as genuine knowing and reasons to believe the same to be forged and committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
Accused on the basis of bogus names and entries on the Muster Roll cheated and thereby induced the MCD to deliver an amount of Rs.2,468/ on the pretext of wages to be paid to fake FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 13/14 persons and obtained Rs.2,468/ against fake names and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
19. RESULT As a result of the above discussion, accused Yogender Singh Sengar is liable to be convicted for committing an offence , under Section 13 (i) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 punishable under section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420/468/471 IPC. Ordered accordingly. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Open Court on 27.04.2012 SPL. JUDGE, ACB, DELHI
FIR No. 59/03 State Vs. Yoginder Singh Sengar 14/14