Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Phool Singh & Ors. on 11 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA : SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI-08) TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI RC No. : 37(A)/93 CC No.: 22/11 PS : CBIACB/ND U/s : 120-B IPC r/w Sec 409, 468, 471& 477-A IPC & Sec 13(1) (C) r/w 13(2) & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC, Act, 1988 CBI Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. 1)Phool Singh S/o Late Sh. Sriram R/o P-94, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. 2)Jai Pal Singh (deceased) 3)Bindadin S/o Sh. Pyare Lal R/o Post Gram Saini, Distt. Rai Barelly, U.P. 4)Deep Narain Sharma S/o Sh. Balmik Dewvidi R/o 4302, Jogiwada, Nai Sarak, Delhi. .............Accused Date of Institution: 26.09.1996 State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page1/42 Arguments heard: 30.07.2011 Judgement passed on: 11.08.2011 JUDGEMENT
1. The facts relate to the year 1990-92 i.e. about 2 decades prior to the decision of this case. With passage of time accused Phool Singh is presently aged about 74 years and accused Bindadin is aged about 65 years, while accused Jaipal Singh has expired. The case was registered by CBI on source information.
Briefly the prosecution case is that accused Phool Singh (Assistant/Store Incharge), Jaspal Singh (Khalassi / since deceased) and Bindadin (Photostat Machine Operator) while working in CSIR complex, New Delhi during the period January 1990 to June 1992 entered into a criminal conspiracy with accused Deep Narain of M/s Sharma Traders, 4302, Nai Sarak, Delhi-06 with the object to misappropriate the store items of the office by altering the figures in original issue slips after the material was issued.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page2/422. It is alleged that accused Phool Singh while working as Store Assistant in the office of CSIR complex as Incharge, Stores during the period January 1990 to June 1992 was assigned the task of issue of stationary items on the basis of issue slips presented to him in duplicate vis a vis the availability of material. He used to retain the original issue slips and return the duplicate alongwith stationary items after obtaining necessary receipt. However thereafter he made false entries in store ledger to cover the misappropriated items and the interpolation occurred only in the original issue slips which were retained in the store.
It is further the case of prosecution that aforesaid misappropriation of articles came to notice when accused Deep Narain Sharma was apprehended by the security staff of NPL (National Physical Laboratory) on 01.06.1992 at gate no. 3 of NPL while taking out the stationary items on his scooter no. DL-2S- B-8334. Sh. Sharma claimed that he was handed over 10 reams of photostat paper found in his possession by Phool Singh.
It is further the case of prosecution that during investigation it was revealed that accused Jaspal Singh (Khalassi) changed the lower portion of original issue slip no. 2937 dated 07.04.1992 at the instance of Bindadin on the basis of which he received 8 reams of photocopy paper from accused Phool Singh and obtained Rs. 300 for the purpose.
It is further the case of prosecution that accused State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page3/42 Bindadin (Photostat Machine Operator) received 550 reams of photocopy paper during the period 1990 to 1992 whereas reading of photostat machine showed that only 80 reams had been used and there was no account of 470 reams of photocopy paper. The prosecution has also relied upon the opinion by GEQD to the extent that the addition/alteration in the original issue slips of the store demand note had been made by accused Phool Singh. The accused as such are alleged to have committed offences under Section 120(B) r/w 409/468/471/477-A IPC. Accused Phool Singh (Store Assistant), Jaipal Singh (Khalassi) and Bindadin (Photocopy Machine Operator) (Helper) are also stated to have committed offences u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.
3. Accused Jaipal Singh (Khalassi) expired and as such accused Phool Singh, Bindadin and Deep Narain have been facing the trial. The accused were accordingly charged for entering into conspiracy u/s 120(B) r/w Sections 409/468/471/477- A IPC and Section 13(1)(C) r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. Accused Phool Singh was additionally charged u/s 468/477 IPC. Further accused Bindadin was charged u/s 468 IPC. Both the accused Bindadin and Phool Singh (Public servants) were also charged u/s 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(C) r/w Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page4/424. In support of its case prosecution examined 32 witnesses namely PW-1 Sh. Tarik Qutubuddin, PW-2 Sh. Sunil Khanna, PW-3 Sh. N.J. Singh, PW-4 Sh. P.B. Mohapatra, PW-5 Ms. M.S. Gopi, PW-6 Sh. Jai Prakash, PW-7 Sh. Mahesh Chandra, PW-8 Sh. S.C. Majumdar, PW-9 Sh. P.N. Bhattacharya, PW-10 Sh. Ratan Lal Kaul, PW-11 Sh. D. Kumar, PW-12 Sh. Kishan Lal, PW-13 Sh., Dharam Raj , PW-14 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW-15 Bharat Bhushan, PW-16 Sh. D.C. Dhall, PW-17 Sh. Anil Kumar Goel, PW-18 Sh. R.K.T. Sharma, PW-19 Sh. T.B. Joshua, PW-20 Smt. Sushila Khilnani, PW-21 Smt. Renu Prasad, Insp. CBI (IO), PW-22 Sh. Sukhbir Singh, PW-23 Sh. Naresh Pal, PW-24 Sh. Panna Lal, PW-25 Sh. Subhash Chander Dhawan, PW-26 Sh. Anil Khanna, PW-27 Sh. D.K. Gupta, PW-28 Sh. Mahender Singh (Govt. Examiner of questioned documents), PW-29 Sh. Hari Lal, PW-30 Sh. S.K. Roy, PW-31 Ms. Asha Badola, PW-32 Insp. Pushkal Sharma.
5. PW-1 Tarik Qutubuddin, PW-3 Sh. N.J. Singh and PW-10 Sh. Ratan Lal Kaul were the members of Theft Finding Committee and proved the report of the committee Ex.PW1/A alongwith covering letter Ex.PW1/B. The annexures contained in the report (i.e. statement of Phool Singh, Tika Ram, Anand Kumar, Pyare Ram, Jaspal Singh and Bindadin) were exhibited as Ex.PW1/A-1 to Ex.PW1/A-6.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page5/426. PW-2 Sh. Sunil Khanna and PW-18 R.K.T. Sharma were the members of the team constituted for the physical verification of stores. The team comprised of Sh. R.K.T. Sharma (Senior Store Verification Officer), R.L. Kaul (Senior Accounts and Finance Officer), I.M.L. Ahuja (Public Relation Officer), Ramesh Chand (Dy. Store Verification Officer) and Sh. Sunil Khanna PW-2 Sh. Sunil Khanna further stated that on the basis of requisition slips of red colour (i.e. the copy meant for purpose of store) and white copy (copy of requisition slip meant for indentor), number of deficiencies were found and report (Ex.PW2/A) was prepared.
Similarly PW18 Sh. R.K.T. Sharma proved the report Ex.PW2/A.
7. PW-4 Sh. P.B. Mohapatra stated that on 04.07.96 he was working as Chief Vigilance Officer, CSIR. He further stated that Director General, CSIR, was competent to remove the accused persons from service and papers received from CBI were put before the Director General, CSIR who accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused persons. He further stated that sanction was granted on 07.07.96 by Director General, CSIR and formal sanction order Ex.PW4/A was issued by him.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page6/428. PW19 Sh. T.B. Joshua proved the seizure memo Ex.PW19/A vide which the documents were handed over to CBI on 26.05.93, the stock and issue register for stationary with effect from February 1990 (Ex.PW19/B) the stock register for stationary for CSIR complex with effect from 1991 (Ex.PW19/C) and store demand notes of EMR-II (Ex.PW19/D).
9. PW21 Insp. Renu Prasad, PW-31 Asha Badola and PW-32 Insp. Pushkal Sharma are the investigating officers who had conducted the investigation at one or the other point of time.
PW21 Inspector Renu Prasad stated that she was assigned investigation of this case in August 1994 from the previous IO Sh. Pushkal Sharma, Inspector and had further handed over the investigation to Smt. Asha Badola on her transfer to CBI, Dehradun. She further stated that she had seized certain documents from Sh. N.N. Sarin, DS (Complex), CSIR vide seizure memo Ex. PW21/A . She further proved the attested copy of immediate stock verification report ordered by Head, HRDG as Ex. PW21/B, one register in name of Om Prakash Ex. PW21/D, one register ESD/CSIR complex Ex.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page7/42PW21/E and attested copy of OM No. 27/10/92 (Ex. PW21/F), attested copy of OM dated 16.06.92 (Ex. PW21/G), attested copy of report dated 02.06.92 Ex. PW21/H, attested copy of report of HRDG dated 09.06.92 Ex. PW21/J. She further proved the specimen writing of accused Phool Singh taken as Ex.
PW21/S1 to S19, the specimen writing of Piara Ram (Ex.
PW21/B1 to B3), the GEQD opinion Ex. PW21/C, report of Sh.
Sukhbir Singh, Security Assistant CSIR with covering letter dated 09.06.92 (Ex. PW21/K).
PW31 Ms. Asha Badola stated that investigation of the case was handed over to her by the previous IO Renu Prasad and had submitted the chargesheet on 10.09.96.
PW32 Insp. Pushkal Sharma also stated that he was entrusted with investigation of this case and proved copy of FIR Ex.PW32/A. He further stated that he had partly investigated the case and handed over the charge of investigation to Insp. Renu Prasad. He further proved the search cum seizure memo dated 21.5.93 (Ex.PW32/B and Ex.PW32/C).
10. PW22 is the Security Assistant who was posted to supervise the guards on 01.6.92 and deposed regarding the State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page8/42 stopping of accused Deep Narain at the exit gate alongwith 10 reams of photostat paper.
PW22 Sh. Sukhbir Singh stated that on 01.06.92 he was posted as Security Assistant in National Physical Laboratory and his duty was to supervise the security guards. On 01.06.1992 about 4.40 PM a telephone call was received from CSIR Complex informing him to check the articles of scooterist who was to go out of the campus. He was present at the gate along with security guards and on checking, the scooterist was found in possession of 10 rims of photocopy papers. The scooterist Deep Narayan was having no gate pass and informed that rims of photocopy papers were handed over to him by accused Phool Singh. The scooterist Deep Narayan gave his version in writing Ex. PW22/A and the report was submitted to NPL office Ex. PW22/B. The rims of photocopy recovered from Deep Narayan were seized as per memo Ex. PW22/C. The report of the security personnel present at the spot was proved as Ex. PW22/D to G. State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page9/42
11. PW23 Sh. Naresh Pal stated that during 1992 he was Dy. Controller of Examination in CSIR complex, Pusa. At the aforesaid time, Sh. M.L. Sharma was Assistant Controller of Examinations and Sh. V.K. Srivastava was Section Officer (General). He further stated that he could not identify the signatures of anyone on Ex.PW13/AH36. As such, the Ld. PP for CBI sought to drop the witness as the documents to be proved by the witness were already exhibited.
12. PW-28 Sh. Mohinder Singh, Govt. Examiner of questioned documents proved his opinion on examination of the documents (Ex.PW21/C).
He further stated that opinion also bears signatures of Sh. Santokh Singh, then GEQD who had also independently examined documents and came to the same conclusion. The detailed reasons in support of the opinion were stated to be given in Ex.PW28/6.
13. PW-29 Sh. Hari Lal stated that specimen signatures of Pyare Ram had been taken in his presence and he put his signatures as an independent witness.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page10/4214. PW-5 M.S. Gopi, PW-6 Jaiprakash, PW-7 Mahesh Chander, PW-8 S.C. Majumdar, PW-9 P. Bhattacharya, PW-11 D. Kumar, PW-12 Bishan Lal, PW-13 Dharam Raj, PW-14 Anil Kumar, PW-15 Bharat Bhushan, PW-16 D.C. Dhall, PW-17 Anil Kumar, PW-20 Sushila Khilnani, PW-26 Anil Khanna, PW-24 Panna Lal, PW-30 S.K. Roy were examined to prove the various store demand slips issued by the various departments for issuance of stationary items which were issued from the Stores.
(a) PW-5 M.S. Gopi stated that she was posted as Scientist-C in PGDHD Survey, CSIR. She further proved the demand note dated 06.01.92 signed by her as Ex.PW5/A. She further stated that item no.1 in the demand note was in her hand while item no.2 i.e. file cover mark as Q-572 was not in her hand.
Similarly Q-473 and Q-474 were stated to be not in her handwriting.
(b) PW-6 Sh. Jaiprakash stated that in the year 1991 he was posted as Scientist, E-2 in training cell of CSIR. He further proved the three demand notes signed by him as Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/C.
(c) PW-7 Sh. Mahesh Chandra stated that in the year 1992 he was posted as XEN in CSIR in ESD. He further proved the indent (demand note) Ex.PW7/A signed by him. He stated State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page11/42 that vide this demand note he demanded two floppies and received two against it. However he did not know who had added prefix 1 in digit 2 and made it 12.
(d) PW-8 Sh. S.C. Majumdar stated that he remained posted as Head and Joint Adviser in INRIS, CSIR from March 1990 till January 1997. He further proved the store demand note issue slips Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/F issued by him and bearing his signatures. He further stated that the said six slips were raised by Sh. P.S. Bindra and Brijesh, Stenographer and Clerk respectively and identified their signatures on the slip. He also identified the signatures of accused Phool Singh on the slips at point C.
(e) PW-9 Sh. P. Bhattacharya stated that in 1991 he was posted as Scientist in CSIR. He further proved the store demand notes Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E bearing his signatures.
(f) PW-11 Sh. D. Kumar stated that he was posted as Library Officer in CSIR Complex, Pusa. He further identified the demand note no. 4160 dated 18.05.92 (Ex.PW11/A) whereby items mentioned at Sr. no. 1 to 4 were requisitioned.
He further stated that item mentioned at Sr. no. 5 i.e. 30 file covers were not written by him and same were received.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page12/42He further identified the signatures of Pyare Ram (Section Officer, Stores) on the same. He further proved the store demand note no. 5507 dated 18.11.91 (Ex.PW11/B) and stated that items were received by Panna Lal, Gestener Operator.
He further stated when the requisition was sent, Sr. no. 8 at Q-705 and the details mentioned at Sr. no. 2 in Q-703 and Q-704 were not mentioned. He also stated that the extra duster mentioned at Q-704 and staple pins mentioned at Sr. no. 8 (2 in number) were not received by him.
He further proved the store demand note no. 5501 dated 10.06.91 Ex.PW11/C. He further stated that there was overwriting at Q-701 and Q-702 at Sr. no.2. He further clarified that overwriting at Q-701 was in his hand but the overwriting at Q-702 was not in his hand.
(g) PW-12 Sh. Bishan Lal stated that he was posted in issue and receipt section of CSIR in 1991.
He further proved the store demand note no. 467 dated 22.01.91 (Ex.PW12/A). He further stated that item mentioned at Sr. no. 8 (Q-65) is not in his handwriting.
He further proved the store demand note no. 469 dated 19.02.91 (Ex.PW12/B) and stated that he had not mentioned the word "big" in bracket against item at Sr. no. 6 and overwritings against item no.2 and 3 did not bear his initials.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page13/42Similarly he proved store demand no. 470 dated 19.2.91 (Ex.PW12/C), store demand no. 471 dated 19.1.91 (Ex.PW12/D), store demand note no. 477 dated 8.5.91 (Ex.PW12/E), store demand note no. 478 dated 8.5.91 (Ex.PW12/F), store demand note no. 489 dated 20.8.91 (Ex.PW12/G), store demand note no. 491 dated 9.10.91 (Ex.PW12/H), store demand note no. 492 dated 9.10.91 (Ex.PW12/J), store demand note dated 8.11.91 (Ex.PW12/K). store demand note no. 495 dated 8.11.91 (Ex.PW12/L) and pointed out the items which had not been requisitioned or were not in his handwriting.
He further stated that he did not know who had made these additions in the said store demand note and also identified the signatures of Pyare Ram on all the exhibits except PW12/E and PW12/F.
(h) PW-13 Sh. Dharamraj stated that he was working as Section Officer (Admin.) in CSIR Complex from March 1991 to August 1991 and further explained the procedure of receiving the indents and issue of articles. He stated that during the said period, Phool Singh was working as Assistant and posted as Store Keeper. He further stated that the demand note / requisition is duly signed by the Indenter and countersigned by Sectional/Divisional Head of the Indenter. Further the same is State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page14/42 prepared in duplicate and one copy is retained by the Store Keeper while the other copy is returned to the Indenter / Receiver. However if any quantity of goods demanded is not available, the quantity is reduced in both the copies by the person issuing the stores and he puts his signatures thereon and also obtains the signature of the Indenter or Receiver of Store on both the copies. If any article is not available, then the person issuing the articles in the stores would mention NA on both the copies.
He further identified the store demand notes bearing the signature of accused Phool Singh on ( Q386/1 on 3390, Q 391 on 3391, Q393 on 3394, point A on 3330, point A on 3336, point A on 3341, point A on 3337, Q 353 on 3342, point A on 3344, Q354 on 3343, Q358 on 3345, Q371 on 3354, Q374 on 3359, Q 376 on 3361, Q381 on 3369, Q 427 on 3454, Q 403 on 3421, Q 408 on 3431, Q 412 on 3432, Q 415 on 3439, Q 417 on 3442, Q 420 on 3444, Q 421 on 3447, Q 422 on 3448, q 423 on 3449, Q 384 on 4319, Q 430 on 3954, Q 432 on 3822, Q 435 on 3828. The same are Ex.PW13/A1 to A29.
He further identified the store demand note no. 1861, 1866, 1897 (Ex.PW13/B-1 to Ex.PW13/B-3). He also identified the demand note no. 5305, 5306, 5310 to 5312, 5314, 5315, 1335, 5338, 5339, 534 as Exs. PW13/C-1 to Ex.PW13/C-11.
He further identified the store demand note no. 5230, 5204, 5205, 5208, 5210, 5218, 5221 to 5225, 5228, 5231, 5201 as State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page15/42 Ex.PW13/D1 to Ex.PW13/D14 and signatures of accused Phool Singh on the same.
He further identified the store demand note no. 843 and 846 (Ex.PW13/D-1 and Ex.PW13/E-2) bearing signature of Phool Singh. The store demand note no. 6005, 6006, 6008, 6013 to 6018, 6025 were identified as Ex.PW13/F-1 to Ex.PW13/F-10.
He further proved the demand note no. 1268, 1283, 1271, 1274 and 1277 bearing initials of Phool Singh as Ex.PW13/G-1 to Ex.PW13/G-6. (Ex.PW13G-1 to G-5 were re- exhibited as Ex.PW13/R-1 to R-5). The store demand no. 3366, 3349 to 3351, 3348, 3381 were proved as Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/F bearing signatures of Phool Singh.
Store demand no. 3016, 3018, 3019, 3023, 3027, 3030 to 3035, 3040, 3043 bearing initials of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/G-1 to G-6, Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW13/G-7 to G-9 respectively.
Store demand no. 4724, 4727, 4730 to 4732, 4740, 4745, 4753, 4720, 4713, 4715 bearing initial of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/H-1 to Ex.PW13/H-6, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW13/H-7 to H-13.
Store demand no. 976, 977, 974, 975, 978, 979, 982, 984, 3045, 6046, 3932, 3924, 991 bearing initials of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/I-1 to Ex.PW13/I-12 and Ex.PW9/E respectively.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page16/42Store demand note no. 65, 67, 73, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84 bearing signatures of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/J-1 to J-9.
Store demand note no. 1929, 1922, 1926 bearing signature of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/K-1 to Ex.PW13/K-3.
Store demand note no. 2146, 2152, 2159, 2162, 2164, 2167, 2173, 2176 bearing signature of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/L-1 to Ex.PW13/L-8.
Store demand note no. 5501 and 5507 bearing signature of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/B. Store demand note no. 376, 363, 366 to 368, 372, 13, 14, 18, unnumbered dated 18.06.91, 21, 28, 16 bearing signature of Phool Singh were proved as Ex.PW13/M-1 to Ex.PW13/M-13.
Demand note no. 2224 to 2227, 2231, 2234, 2239, 2241, 2243 were exhibited as Ex.PW13/N-1 to Ex.PW13/N-9. Store demand note no. 1319, 1321, 1324 bearing signature of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/O1 to Ex.PW13/O3.
Store demand note no. 1085 to 1091, 1093 to 1097 and 1193 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/P-1 to Ex.PW13/P-13.
Store demand note no. 2376, 2377, 2379, 2380, 2382. 2384. 2386, 2387, 2476, 2477, 2480, 2485, 2488, 2490, 2495, State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page17/42 2516, 2520, 2644, 2649 to 2652, 2657, 2659, 2661 to 2665, 2813, 2814 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/Q-1 to Ex.PW13/Q-31.
Store demand note no. 4320, 4322, 4325, 4329, 4330, 4337, 4340, 4349 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/S-1, Ex.PW14/A-1, Ex.PW14/A-2, Ex.PW14/A-3, Ex.PW14/A-4, Ex.PW14/A-5, Ex.PW14/A-6 and Ex.PW13/S-2 respectively.
Store demand note no. 4343, 4351, 4356, 4358, 4359, 4021, 4022, 4027, 4032 and 4106 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/S-3 to Ex.PW13/S-12.
Store demand note no. 4126, 4150, 4160, 4166, 4167, 4252 and 4253 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/S-13, Ex.PW13/S-14, Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW13/S-15 to Ex.PW13/S-18 respectively.
Store demand note no. 5906, 5907, 5908 and 5911 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW15/A-1 to Ex.PW15/A-4.
Store demand note no. 195, 197, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193 and 194 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/T-1 to Ex.PW13/T-9.
Store demand note no. 5721, 5722 and 4474 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/U-1 to Ex.PW13/U-3.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page18/42Store demand note no. 1504, 5715, 4470 and 4471 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. Store demand note no. 2930, 2192, 2923, 2927, 2932, 2937, 2939, 2940 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/V-1 and Ex.PW13/V-2 to Ex.PW13/V-8 respectively.
Store demand note no. 5815, 5803, 5804, 5817, 5822, 5824, 5827, 5828 and 5829 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/W-1 to Ex.PW13/W-9.
Store demand note no. 4932, 4927, 4930, 4943, 4958 and 4963 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/X-1 and Ex.PW13/X-2 to Ex.PW13/X-6 respectively.
Store demand note no. 4602, 5627, 5168, 5630, 5631, 5637, 5638, 5646 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/Y-1, Ex.PW13/Y-2 and Ex.PW13/Y-3 to Ex.PW13/Y-8 respectively.
Store demand note no. 5037, 5033, 5028, 5023, 5021, 5003 and 5008 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/Z-1 to Z-5 and Ex.PW13/Z-6 and Z-7.
Store demand note no. 6903, 6908 and 6915 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AA-1 to AA-3.
Store demand note no. 4654, 4634, 4631, 4632 State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page19/42 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AB-1 to AB-4.
Store demand note no. 5424, 5432 and 5435 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AC-1 to AC-3.
Store demand note no. 987, 685, 690, 682, 648 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AD-1 and Ex.PW13/AD-2 to AD-5.
Store demand note no. 7406, 7412, 7413 and 7414 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AE-1 and Ex.PW13/AE-4.
Store demand note no. 7102, 7104, 7105, 7112, 7117, 7124, 7125 and 7126 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AF-1 to AF-8.
Store demand note no. 713, 714, 715 and 717 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AG-1 to AG-4.
Store demand note no. 477, 478, 489, 491, 492, 493, 495, 467, 469, 470 and 471 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G, Ex.PW12/H, Ex.PW12/J, Ex.PW12/K, Ex.PW12/L, Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW12/B, Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D respectively.
Store demand note no. 6309 and 6515 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AG-1 and State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page20/42 Ex.PW13/AG-2.
Store demand note no. 6101, 6207, 6210, 6212, 6222, 6225, 6228, 6235, 6242, 6247, 6249, 6259, 6260, 6263, 6265, 6268, 6302, 6303, 6304, 6307, 6308, 6311, 6317, 6319, 6320, 6325, 6316, 6403, 6410, 6419, 6421, 6422, 6439, 6440, 6502, 6505, 6516, 6519, 6522, 6523, 6524, 6527, 6529, 6621, 6622, 6629 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AG-3 to AG-47.
Store demand note no. 1718 and 1723 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AJ-1 and Ex.PW13/AJ-2 respectively.
Store demand note no. 5501 and 5507 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/B respectively.
Store demand note no. 3115 and 3124 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AK-1 and AK-2 respectively.
Store demand note no. 7327 and 7337 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AL-1 and AL-2 respectively.
Store demand note no. 2029 and 2030 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AM-1 and Ex.PW13/AM-2 respectively.
Store demand note no. 7206 and 7214 bearing the State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page21/42 signatures of Phool Singh were exhibited as Ex.PW13/AN-1 and Ex.PW13/AN-2 respectively.
He further stated that he remained Section Officer incharge of the store for about 4-5 months and the store keeper maintains stock register in respect of stationery items which are received in store and isued to the indentor from the store. The said register comes to him only for attestation of the entries made by the store keeper.
He further stated that the carbon copy of the store demand note would normally contains the carbon signatures of the stores assistant and section officer concerned. The carbon copies of the store demand notes are available in the form of book which is called "Store demand note books". These books are issued to different sections/divisions of CSIR complex. The store demand note books are Ex.PW13/BB-1 to PW13/BB-41.
(i) PW14 Sh. Anil Kumar stated that he was working from 19911994 as Junior Stenographer at CSIR complex. During said period Sh. Piara Ram was the Section Officer and thereafter Sh. Dharam Raj was the Section Officer. Any requirement regarding the stationery was requisitioned from Store Demand Note by the indenter after obtaining the signatures of Section Officer. Sh. Phool Singh was the Store Assistant. He State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page22/42 further identified the store demand note number 4322, 4325, 4329, 4330, 4337 & 4340 as Ex. PW14/A1 to A6 bearing signatures of Phool Singh at point B. He further identified the carbon copy of store demand notes in booklet 4301 to 4400 as Ex. PW14/B and store demand notes number 4322 to 4325, 4329, 4330, 4337, 4340 in his handwriting is Ex. PW14/B1 to B6.
He further stated after comparing the original with carbon copy that there was difference in the quantity of Gem clip at Sr. No. 13 was inflated to 3 packets instead of 2, in Ex. PW14/A2 number of dak pad were inflated to 4 though 3 were received in Ex.
PW14/B3, shorthand pencils were received but the same was inflated to 3, at Sr. No. 8 the issue of typing paper rim is mentioned but the same was not received, in Ex. PW14/A4 quantity of slip pad was inflated to 5 at Sr. No. 9 instead of 4, in Ex. PW14/A5 quantity of riffle was mentioned as 12 instead of 2 at Sr. No. 4, in Ex. PW14/A6, the three items were shown issued but no material was received. He further stated that the inflated quantities were not received from the Store Asstt Phool Singh as mentioned in Ex. PW14/A1 to A6.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page23/42(j) PW15 Bharat Bhushan stated that during the year 1991 he was working as UDC in EMR, SSP Unit of CSIR Complex, Pusa. He further identified and proved the Store Demand Note Ex. PW13/DQ1 to Q8. He also pointed out the quantities inflated in the various demand notes. He further identified and proved the store demand note number 5906 to 5908 and 59011 bearing the signatures of Phool Singh as Ex.
PW15/A1 to to A4 and the carbon copy books of four demand notes Ex. PW15/B. Carbon copy of the demand notes at Sr. No. 5906 to 5908 and 5911 were further proved as Ex. PW15/B1 to B4 . He further pointed out after comparing the demand notes with the original copies that there may be number of additions and alterations in the original copy and the inflated items were not received in the section as per Ex. PW15/A1 to A4.
(K) PW16 Sh. D.C. Dhall stated that he had worked as ScientistC in CSIR till 1994. He further identified his signatures on on store demand note Ex. PW13/U3 State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page24/42
(l) PW17 Sh. Anil Kumar Goel stated that he was working as Sr. Technical Assistant, EMR Division, CSIR, New Delhi in 1991. He identified signatures of Smt. Sushila Khilnani, Head of Division/Section on store demand notes Ex. PW13/J1 to J5 and Ex. PW13/AN2 having worked under Smt. Sushila Khilnani. He further stated that store demand note Ex. PW13/J1 and J2 were bearing his signatures as receiver.
(m) PW20 Smt. Sushila Khilnani stated that during 199192 she was posted as Scientist GradeC in the department and was Incharge of EMRI division. She further identified the store demand note No. 55 (Ex. PW20A1), No.65 (Ex.
PW20/A2), No. 67 (Ex. PW20/A3), No. 73 (Ex.PW20/A4), No. 76 (Ex.PW20/A5) which have been retained in the book Ex.
PW20/A and pointed out the discrepancy in original and the carbon copy.
(n) PW24 Sh. Panna Lal stated that he signed document State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page25/42 Ex.PW20/A5 and Ex.PW13/AH1 and Ex.PW13/X3. However he could not identify the signatures on Ex.PW20/A3 as it was not clearly written.
(o) PW25 Sh. Subhash Chander Dhawan stated that in 1991 he was Scientist in CSIR and as Head of Department, it was his duty to sign store demand note for procuring of stationary items as required in the unit.
He further stated that store demand note no. 2376 dt.
04.01.91 (Ex.PW13/Q1), 2377 dt. 18.1.91 (Ex.PW13/Q2), 2379 dt.
12.2.91 (Ex.PW13/Q3), 2380 dt. 8.3.91 (Ex.PW13/Q4), 2382 dt.
10.04.91 (Ex.PW13/Q5), 2384 dt. 22.4.91 (Ex.PW13/Q6), 2386 dt.19.6.91 (Ex.PW13/Q7), 2387 dt. 19.6.91 (Ex.PW13/Q8), 5906 dt. 20.11.91 (Ex.PW15/A1), 5907 dt. 20.11.91 (Ex.PW15/A2), 5908 dt. 8.1.92 (Ex.PW15/A3) and 5911 dt. 5.2.92 (Ex.PW15/A4) bear his signatures. Further Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A4 also bear his signatures. Similarly, he identified his handwriting with reference to aforesaid documents at different points.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page26/42(p) PW-26 Sh. Anil Khanna stated that during 1991-92 he was posted as Stenographer in CSIR and sometimes used to prepare issue slips pertaining to stationary items. He further stated that store demand note no. 4470 dt. 2.1.91 Ex.PW6/B had been filled in his handwriting but handwriting at point Q-505 and 508 were not in his handwriting.
Similarly he stated that description and demand in store demand no. 4471 dated 02.01.91 Ex.PW6/C was in his handwriting but interpolation at Q-511 had not made by him.
Further Sr. no.1 of description and demand in store demand note no. 5715 dated 12.11.91 (Ex.PW6/A) had been made in his handwriting but interpolation at point Q-726 and handwriting at point Q-727 were not in his hand.
He also stated that carbon copy of store demand note no. 5715 dt. 12.11.91 (Ex.PW26/A) was in his handwriting but he did not know who had made '5' as '15' at point X.
(q) PW-27 Dr. D.K. Gupta stated that he retired as Superintending Engineer from CSIR in 2002. During 1991-92 he was working as Assistant Engineer and was competent to indent stationary items for ESD Division from stores.
Further, store demand note no. 2912 dt. 23.1.91 (Ex.PW13/V-2) was in his handwriting. He further identified the store demand notes no. 1268 dt. 2.1.91 (Ex.PW13/G-1), no. 1283 State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page27/42 dt. 11.4.91 (Ex.PW13/G-2), no. 1271 dt. 17.1.91 (Ex.PW13/G-3), no. 1274 dt. 8.3.91 (Ex.PW13/G-4) and no. 1277 dt. 8.3.91 (Ex.PW13/G-5) alongwith handwriting and signatures.
He further stated that in Ex.PW13/G-3 at Sr. no. 6, four rims had been made 14 at point Q-154 at Sr. no. 28 and 35 on Ex.PW13/G-5 where 2 no.s had been made to 12 at Q-158 and 2 nos. had been made 3 at point Q-156, at Sr. no. 33, this no. had been made as 26.
Similarly he identified store demand note Ex.PW13/AH-2,Ex.PW13/AH-3,Ex.PW13/AH-4,Ex.PW13/AH-5,Ex .PW13/AH-6,Ex.PW13/AH-7,Ex.PW13/AH-8,Ex.PW13/AH-9,Ex.P W13/AH-10,Ex.PW13/AH-11, Ex.PW13/AH-13, Ex.PW13/AH-14, Ex.PW13/AH-15, Ex.PW13/AH-16 and Ex.PW13/AH-17 to be in his handwriting.
He further stated that item mentioned at Sr. no. 4 on Ex.PW13/AH-14 at point Q-808 and 809 were not in his handwriting. Further the items mentioned at Q-812, Q-813, Q-814 and Q-815 on Ex.PW13/AH-5 had been changed by someone from 15 to 150, 25 to 250, 2 to 12 and 4 to 14.
Similarly, demanded items at Q-818 on Ex.PW13/AH-6 had been changed by someone from 50 to 150. Also Q-824 on Ex.PW13/AH-7 had been changed from 4 to 6 and at Sr. no. 33 at Q-821 the demanded item as 3 was not written by him.
Similar anomalies were pointed out at Q-825, Q-826, State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page28/42 Q-827, Q-829, Q-835, Q-836, Q-842, Q-844, Q-845.
(r) PW-30 Sh. S.K. Roy stated that in the year 1994, he was working as Assistant in EMR-1, CSIR complex, Pusa and it was his responsibility to sign on the stationary demand items as required in the Section of SRF/RA and JRF bi-annually with the approval of Under Secretary/Dy. Secretary, EMR.
15. In their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the three accused denied the case of prosecution. They further claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. Accused further sought opportunity to lead evidence in defence. However no evidence was led in defence despite seeking an opportunity and as such the DE was closed.
16. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that CBI miserably failed to establish conspiracy between the accused or that articles misappropriated were to the tune of 4.17 lakhs. It was further contended that not even a singe piece of item was recovered or proved to be in possession of accused who were petty Govt. officials. It was further contended that allegations were required to be proved by examining relevant witnesses during trial and mere report of the fact finding committee was insufficient to nail the accused. Further the report of physical verification of stores State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page29/42 assessing the cost impact of misappropriated articles was stated to be un-substantiated as several annexures were not prepared by comparing the indents from the indenting department, as the same were not traceable. It was also contended that testimony of witnesses proving the demand notes was not reliable since most of them were not shown the indentor's copy for comparison with the original. It was also submitted that the procedure adopted for delivery was practically different, since the articles issued by the indenting department were obtained through peon or other officials posted in the department and the officials who had obtained the delivery had not been examined to establish if the articles had not been issued as referred in the original slips. It was submitted that issued items may not have been furnished in the indenting department by the person obtaining the delivery. The omission of entry on indentor's copy is stated to be due to pressure of work or at times non-availability of indentor's copy. The issue of articles is further claimed to be under signatures of senior officer Pyare Ram who was neither cited as a witness nor impleaded as accused though allegations of conspiracy were levelled against him in the FIR.
17. On the other hand Ld. PP for CBI relied upon testimony of witnesses and store demand notes seized during investigation.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page30/4218. I have heard Ld. PP for CBI, counsel for accused and perused the record.
The prosecution has relied upon recovery of 10 reams of paper from Deep Narain on 01.06.92 at gate no.3 NPL to link the accused to conspiracy for misappropriating the stationery items. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the report of the fact finding committee ( Ex. PW1/A) constituted to look into the issue (D-5).
The said committee consisted of T. Qutubuddin (PW-1), Sh. N.J. Singh (PW-3), and Sh. R.L. Gaur (PW-10). The committee reached the conclusion that xerox paper recovered form Deep Narain Sharma on 01.06.92 at NPL Gate no.3 was taken from CSIR Complex.
19. It is pertinent to note that the present case was registered on source information and it was alleged that a reliable information had been received that Phool Singh and Pyara Ram while working as public servants in the capacity of Assistant and Section Officer, respectively in the stationary stores of CSIR entered into criminal conspiracy with each other to cheat the office. The quantities of the stationary items inflated for misappropriation was alleged to the tune of Rs. 4,17,000/-.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page31/42It may be observed that the investigating agency has not been able to trace or indicate the fate of articles alleged to be misappropriated to the tune of Rs 4,17000/. Accused Deep Narain is allegedly linked to the conspiracy only on the basis of the alleged recovery of 10 reams of paper on 01.06.92 while leaving the CSIR complex. There is no other recovery at his instance or any other evidence to show in case the accused had any knowledge that the said reams were misappropriated items. Only on the basis of the solitary instance of alleged possession of 10 reams of paper on 01.06.92 it cannot be conclusively inferred that that Deep Narain was in conspiracy with co-accused. Possession of no other article has been linked to accused. It could not be shown by the investigating agency as to how the alleged misappropriated stationery items to extent of Rs 4,17,000/- were dealt by the accused as there is neither recovery of said items, nor any indication as to how the same were disposed by accused. Nothing incriminating is even stated to have been found during house search of the accused. Even the reams which were found in possession of Deep Narain have not been produced in the court. Neither the number on the reams of paper which were earlier supplied in the office and which were found in possession of the accused, have been seized and produced for perusal of the court. It may be observed that the fact finding inquiry was merely a preliminary inquiry instituted by the State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page32/42 department to inquire into the alleged possession of reams by Deep Narain. It was not a regular departmental inquiry wherein accused public servants had been provided with any assistance of defence assistants. Even accused Deep Narain was not examined by said fact finding committee. The statement of the security officials who had allegedly stopped Deep Narain was also not recorded by fact finding committee. As such the findings of the fact finding committee were merely relevant for purpose of further investigating / inquiring into the issue. However the allegations against the accused apart from the fact finding inquiry are required to be independently established and proved against the accused in accordance with law before the Court. It is also relevant to note that Deep Narain had been earlier a supplier to CSIR and as such his visit to the complex is explainable. The reams in his possession did not bear the office stamp of CSIR to presume that the said reams were the same which had been supplied to the office. His mere naming an official to the security personnel may not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty but the same requires to be substantiated by some evidence of misappropriation by the accused (public servants). The failure of prosecution to prove the conspiracy between the accused beyond reasonable doubt strikes to the root of prosecution case and as such the benefit of doubt is to be extended to accused.
State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page33/4220. Further no specific evidence has been pointed to me to show that accused Jaspal Singh (Khalasi/deceased) had taken the photostat papers from accused Phool Singh and the same were handed over to co-accused Bindadin. Mere reliance by prosecution to fact finding inquiry may not be sufficient to pin the accused Bindadin. The same was not a regular departmental inquiry and the accused were not even represented by any defence assistants. The prosecution are required to substantiate the allegations against accused by examining the relevant witnesses and leading some cogent evidence. The relevant witnesses from the concerned sections have not been examined to show in case the quantity of photo stat papers issued from the stores was in excess than it was allegedly utilised.
21. The prosecution has next relied upon the physical verification report (Ex.PW2/A) prepared by the team consisting of Sh. Sunil Khanna (PW-2), Sh. R.K.T. Sharma, Sh. R.L. Gaur, I.M.L. Ahuja and Ramesh Chand. The report was stated to have been prepared after the comparison of the red slips (the copy meant for the purpose of stores) with the requisition slips with the white copy of requisition slip meant for the indentor and number of deficiencies as detailed in the report were found.
A brief reference to the same may be relevant. As per the report EX PW 2/A the discrepancies were classified into 7 State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page34/42 categories and the impact of misappropriation in respect of all the 7 categories was worked out. The 7 categories which were classified in the report and annexed as Annexure 1 to Annexure 7 are as follows.
" Annexure 1. Where the figures in the red slip retained by the storekeeper after issue of the items and in his stock ledger have been enhanced/tampered while the figure in the white slip i.e. copy of the indentor are unaltered.
Annexure 2. Where additional items have been incorporated in the red slip and also in the stock ledger while such additions do not appear in the white slip.
Annexure 3. Where the figures in both i.e. the red slip and the white slip and also in the stock ledger have been tampered/enhanced.
Annexure 4. Where the issue column in the red slip was tampered, and material issued to the indentor in the last week of May, 1992 but the entry was not made in the stock ledger may be due to paucity of time.
Annexure 5. Where the white slip booklet was not made available by the Division / Indentor for comparison of actual issue of various items with respect to red slip retained in the store. Chances of additions/inflations in such cases may not be ruled out.
Annexure 6. Cases where the issue column in the State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page35/42 white slip has been left blank and therefore the validity of the actual receipt of the items by the indentor could not be verified.
Annexure 7. Cases where the carbon copy of Indent Book has been removed (torn away) with the result the comparison of actual demand and issue could not be ascertained
- hence impact.
22. A bare perusal of the report Ex.PW2/A indicates that so far as annexure 5 to the report is concerned, the observations have been recorded without any comparison of the original red slips with the white slip booklet retained by the division/indentor. It is merely observed that the chances of additions / inflation in such cases may not be ruled out. The report as such itself reveals that the reference to inflated articles in the annexure 5 is not made on basis of any reliable evidence.
Similarly, annexure 6 refers the cases where the issue column in the white slip has been left blank and therefore the validity of the actual receipt of the items by the indentor could not be verified. Such cases as such also have to be excluded from the ambit of any misappropriation by the accused as the department itself could not verify the same on any reliable evidence.
Similarly annexure 7 refers to the cases where the carbon copy of the indent book has been removed (torn away) State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page36/42 with the result that the comparison of actual demand and issue could not be ascertained.
Similarly annexure 4 of the said report refers to the fact that issue column in red slip was tampered and material issued to the indentor in the last week of May, 1992 but the entry was not made in the stock ledger, may be due to paucity of time. The observations above made by the Committee Members do not reflect in case any comparison was made with the white slips in possession of indentor to confirm if the tampering was made and the articles were not delivered. The mere non entering in the stock ledger may not be sufficient to construe misappropriation.
As such, the report which has taken note of misappropriated articles after physical verification of stores appears to be considerably scaled down if the articles mentioned in annexures 4, 5, 6, 7 to the report are excluded. The investigating agency wrongly included the same to bring out the cost impact of the misappropriated articles to the tune of Rs.4.17 lacs.
So far as articles referred in annexure 1, 2 and 3 of the report are concerned, the same have been listed on the basis of the inspection of the red slips retained by the Storekeeper and the white slip of the indentor and the stock register. However none of the members who prepared the said report Ex.PW2/A stated in case any efforts was made to find out from the indentor State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page37/42 department in case all the said items found to be interpolated had not been supplied to the indenting department. There is no reference in case the concerned officials had been examined for confirming the discrepancies. The report appears to have been merely prepared on self comparison by the members. The same was also clarified by PW-2 Sh. Sunil Khanna who was part of the team constituted for verification, in his cross-examination. He specifically stated that the team had themselves compared the red and white slips and could not identify the author on the said slips as they pertain to different sections. The report as such does not appear to be conclusive to infer the misappropriation of articles as alleged by the accused though some discrepancies on physical verification were noticed.
23. In the aforesaid context, it may now be appropriate to deal with statement of witnesses examined by prosecution to prove the store demand notes. However before adverting to the same, it may be noticed that the FIR refers to a conspiracy between Phool Singh, Incharge Stores and Pyara Ram, Section Officer, Incharge. Sh. Pyara Ram is also alleged to have attested the entries on the store demand notes and the stock and issue register but for the reasons best known he has neither been cited as a witness, nor was charge sheeted as an accused. He could have been the most relevant witness to prove the State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page38/42 misappropriation of stationery items by Phool Singh, since the accused was directly under his supervision and he himself had countersigned the various entries. The non-citing of Pyara Ram as a witness and witholding the best evidence throws an element of doubt. The misappropriation, if any, was required to be further substantiated by some reflection as to what was the fate of the misappropriated articles. However the investigating agency has failed to look into the aforesaid aspect and neither the aforesaid articles have been recovered, nor the fate of the same has been clarified. In the facts and circumstances, mere discrepancies in the indentor's slip and the original slip maintained in the stores may not be sufficient to prove the conspiracy and misappropriation by accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimony of PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash, PW8 Sh. S.C. Majumdar, PW9 Sh. P.N. Bhattacharya, PW13 Sh. Dharam Raj, PW16 Sh. D.C. Dhall, PW17 Anil Kr. Goel, PW24 Sh. Panna Lal and PW-30 Sh. S.K. Roy is relied by the prosecution to show that the interpolations had been made by accused Phool Singh.
It is pertinent to note that the store demand notes in original have been proved by the said witnesses but they did not depose with reference to the carbon copies which consisted of white slips for purpose of proving the misappropriation or under supply of articles by the accused Phool Singh. The testimony of said witnesses does not lead to the inference that the articles had State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page39/42 been misappropriated by accused Phool Singh. A mere interpolation in his handwriting may not be sufficient to reach the conclusion that the articles had been misappropriated by him unless the witnesses specifically stated that the items had not been received by the indenting department after comparison with the white slip.
In the aforesaid context the counsel for accused has also pointed that in the department the articles indented were obtained through subordinate officials and at times it may be possible that the corresponding entry may not have been made under pressure of work in the corresponding copies but at no point of time any such discrepancy was pointed out by the senior officials under whose supervision the accused had been working. In the aforesaid context, it may also be pointed out that PW13 Dharampal proved number of store demand notes on record as he remained Section Officer, Incharge for about 4-5 months (March 1991 to August 1991) as clarified in his examination. He categorically stated that in his tenure of 4-5 months as officer of the store, no such irregularity for omission was noticed. He also clarified that it was the duty of Officer Incharge of the store to point out the irregularity of the Storekeeper and for purchases in the store as per procedure. He denied any knowledge about the additions /alterations in the figures of quantity demanded and specifically stated that duplicate copies of store demands had not State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page40/42 been shown to him by the CBI for comparison including the registers maintained in the various sections. The testimony of this witness reveals that it may not be possible to reach the conclusion of misappropriation by the accused merely on the basis of interpolation specifically so in the light of the fact that neither recoveries of the items have been made, nor it is reflected as to how the said items were dealt by the accused.
24. This leaves the court only with a few isolated store demand notes wherein the interpolations / variation in the articles received by the indenting department have been stated by PW5 Sh. M.S. Gopi Ranglani, PW7 Sh. Mahesh Chandra, PW11 Sh. D Kumar, PW12 Sh. Kishan Lal, PW14 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW15 Sh. Bharat Bhushan, PW25 Sh. Subhash Chander Dhawan, PW20 Smt. Sushila Khilnani, PW26 Sh. Anil Khanna and PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash. The testimony of these witnesses needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the conspiracy between the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It has already been observed that the cost impact of misappropriation alleged to the tune of 4.17 lacs is exaggerated as the physical verification report Ex.PW2/A did not base the findings with respect to articles mentioned in annexures 4, 5, 6 and 7 on any cogent evidence. The prosecution has not pointed out any other document on the basis of which the cost impact of State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page41/42 4.17 lacs was calculated by the investigating agency. It has also been observed that it may be difficult to pin the accused solely for the discrepancies in the supply merely on the basis of the interpolations since he was working under the direct supervision of Sh. Pyara Ram and the prosecution for the reasons best known did not cite him even as a witness. Sh. Pyara Ram has neither been impleaded as an accused though he was alleged to be in conspiracy in the initial source information. In the facts and circumstances, the evidence led on record does not prove the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
I am therefore of the view that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused. Accused are accordingly acquitted. Bail bond of the accused are discharged. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the (Anoop Kumar. Mendiratta) open Court on Special Judge(PC Act) 11.08.2011 (CBI)-8, Central District, THC, Delhi. State Vs. Phool Singh & Ors. CC no. 22/11 RC no.37(A)/93 Page42/42