Delhi District Court
C.B.I. vs Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra on 16 August, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT), CBI2
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 18/2010
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi
U/s. 511 r/w Sec. 420, 468, 471 IPC & Sec. 15 & 13 (2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act
C.B.I. Versus Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra
S/o Late Shri Ram Saran Mishra
Assistant Director, Commission of
Scientific & Technical Terminology,
Department of Higher Education,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi110066
Present Address:
742, PocketB, DDA LIG Flats
Sector14, Dwarka, New
Delhi110075
Permanent Address:
1350, Taufiq Hata, Civil Lines,
Sultanpur,
District Faizabad228008, U.P.
Date of FIR : 16.09.2009
Date of filing of chargesheet : 24.06.2010
Arguments heard on : 23.07.2012
Date of Judgment : 16.08.2012
Appearance:
For prosecution : Shri A.K. Gaba, Sr. PP
For accused : Shri S.N. Qureshi, Adv.
J U D G M E N T
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 1
FACTS 1 Brief facts of the prosecution case are: 1.1 Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (hereinafter referred as "CSTT") is a subordinate office under the Department of Higher Education with Head Office at West BlockVII, Sector1, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. CSTT organizes training Seminars/Training Programmes/Workshops etc. in different parts of the country to propagate technical terminology in the country. 1.2 Accused Dr. Ram Krishna Mishra (Dr. R.K. Mishra) was working as Senior Scientific Officer/Assistant Director in CSTT and was holding GroupA post of Assistant Director.
nd rd 1.3 CSTT decided to organize a Seminar on 22 and 23 January 2008 in the
Department of Hindi Karnataka State Open University (KSOU), Manas Gangotri, Mysore, Karnataka (hereinafter referred as "Mysore Seminar"). 1.4 Accused Dr. R. K. Mishra was given the responsibility to organize Mysore Seminar as OfficerIncharge. 94 persons (including resource persons) were to participate in the said seminar.
1.5 Accused claimed an amount of Rs.34,962/ as contingency honorarium RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 2 payment pertaining to Mysore Seminar immediately after returning to his headquarter which was sanctioned to him on 25.03.2008. He also submitted original bills of contingency expenditure made during Mysore Seminar and attendance sheets of participants of Mysore Seminar alongwith bills. The said contingency bill was dealt by Smt. Anuradha, Dealing Clerk on 25.03.2008 and the same was forwarded to DDO by Smt. Asha Rani Kalra, Assistant. The said bills were forwarded by DDO to the Chairman and the sanction was approved by the Chairman on 25.03.2008 for Rs.34,962/ which was received by accused through cheque no.A607692 dated 28.03.2008.
1.6 On 19.06.2008, accused submitted bills/claim for Rs.1,36,106/ claiming of making payment of TA/DA bills of 27 participants of Mysore Seminar. 1.7 Following persons denied their participation and receipt of TA/DA in the Mysore Seminar and stated that they were present at their respective work nd rd places or other places on 22 and 23 January 2008 i.e. the dates of Mysore Seminar: 1 PW7 Dr. Shoaib Khan 2 PW9 Shri Manish Kumar 3 PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari 4 PW11 Dr. K.N. Uttam 5 PW12 Dr. M.P. Yadav 6 PW13 Dr. R.P. Singh 7 PW15 Mrs. Anita Mishra RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 3 8 PW16 Ms. Ajita Bhattacharya 9 PW19 Mrs. Renu Singh 10 PW20 Dr. Ram Bali Yadav 11 PW21 Shri Sanjay Kumar Shukla 12 PW23 Shri Vinod Mishra 13 PW27 Ms. Priti Sagar 14 PW28 Dr. Hassan Kamal 1.8 As per prosecution, accused Dr. R.K. Mishra, who was public servant, fraudulently and dishonestly attempted to claim Rs.87,291/ by submitting false and forged TA/DA bills in the name of aforesaid 14 participants who had not participated in the Mysore Seminar and thereby he committed an offence u/s 511 r/w Sec.420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and Sec.15 r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof.
2 The specimen handwritings of above mentioned 14 participants and accused Dr. R.K. Mishra were taken and sent to AGEQD, Chandigarh for opinion of the handwriting expert alongwith questioned handwritings. Handwriting expert in his report confirmed the handwritings of accused and PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari on questioned documents.
3 Sanction for prosecution u/s 19 (1)(A) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was requested by CBI and was accorded by the competent authority. RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 4 4 After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed on 24.06.2010 during summer vacation which was taken up for consideration by Ld. Predecessor on 01.07.2010. After taking cognizance, accused was summoned. Copies were supplied to the accused as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. 5 Arguments on charge were heard by Ld. Predecessor and detailed order on charge was passed on 04.12.2010. In accordance with the order, charges were framed against accused Dr. R.K. Mishra on 04.12.2010 for the offences u/s 468, 471, and 420/511 IPC as well as Sec. 15 r/w Sec. 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. EVIDENCE 6 Prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses to prove the material facts/allegations of its case.
6.1 PW1 Shri Amit Khare, Joint SecretarycumChief Vigilance Officer, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, New Delhi deposed that he sent letter dated 09.09.09 Ex.PW1/A to Director, CBI for conducting an investigation alongwith report Ex.PW1/A1 of Prof. K. Bijay Kumar.
PW1 Shri Amit Khare also deposed that in June 2010 his department RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 5 received a request for sanction for prosecution against accused Dr. R.K. Mishra alongwith the report of CBI alongwith complete booklet of the record of case. After considering the entire material and applying his mind, he granted sanction for prosecution dated 14.06.2010 which was proved as Ex.PW1/B. He stated that as per the business rules of Govt. of India and manual of office procedure, on behalf of Govt. of India, Joint Secretary was competent to take disciplinary action against accused (Assistant Director, CSTT) who was an officer of GroupA. 6.2 PW2 Smt. Asha Rani, Assistant, Pay & Accounts Officer, CSTT, New Delhi proved note dated 08.01.2008 Ex.PW2/A which was put up by accused regarding approval for conducting workshop at Mysore and contingency payment of Rs. 37,600/. She also proved note Ex.PW2/D which was put up by accused claiming an amount of Rs.1,36,136/ as TA/DA (for the participants and honorarium for the speakers) for Mysore Seminar.
6.3 PW5 Shri Ram Bahadur, Dy. Director, CSTT stated that certain documents traced from the rack/office drawer of the accused were seized by IO from him and he proved seizure memo dated 12.11.2009 as Ex.PW5/A. PW5 also proved signature of accused at point A on approved tour programme dated 13.03.2008 Ex.PW5/B. He stated that Ex.PW5/C is the another copy of the same tour programme which were approved by the then Chairman, CSTT. PW5 identified the signature of accused and Chairman, CSTT on Ex.PW2/A and further proved RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 6 note for contingency expenditure estimate submitted by accused as Ex.PW5/D. 6.4 PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar, Chairman, CSTT deposed about the note Ex.PW5/D for sanction of contingency advance of Rs.37,600/ and proved note Ex.PW6/B which was put up by accused for proposal of two other participants. PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar also stated that note dated 11.02.2012 was put up by accused for clearance of bills of Rs.1,36,106/ pertaining to Seminar which was marked to Controlling Officer by him which is proved as Ex.PW6/C. As per PW6, order dated 06.11.2006 Ex.PW6/H was issued by him regarding observing norms in respect of organization of seminar/programmes which was applicable in June 2008 during Mysore Seminar.
6.5 PW8 Shri Harish Chand, JAO, CSTT deposed that letter dated 03.11.09 Ex.PW8/B was written by the Chairman, CSTT to Shri M.C. Sahni, SP, CBI. PW8 deposed about the note pertaining to objection raised by Pay & Accounts Officer for keeping the bills by accused for a long time which was proved by him as Ex.PW8/C. He stated that vide production cum receipt memo Ex.PW8/D, sanction letter, xerox copy of contingency bill and photocopy of claim of Rs. 1,36,106/ were handed over to IO by him.
6.6 PW4 Shri Baldev Raj Dua, Manager(Operation), SBI proved statement of accounts Ex.PW4/D (colly.) for the period 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 in respect of RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 7 salary account of accused. He further deposed that two cheques, one for Rs. 34,962/ and other for Rs.27,920/ Ex.PW4/E were deposited in the accounts of accused and were credited on 15.04.2008.
6.7 PW7 Dr. Shoaib Khan, PW9 Shri Manish Kumar, PW11 Dr. K.N. Uttam, PW12 Dr. M.P. Yadav, PW13 Dr. R.P. Singh, PW15 Mrs. Anita Mishra, PW16 Ms. Ajita Bhattacharya, PW19 Mrs. Renu Singh, PW20 Dr. Ram Bali Yadav, PW21 Shri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, PW23 Shri Vinod Mishra, PW27 Ms. Priti Sagar and PW28 Dr. Hassan Kamal denied their participation in the Mysore Seminar, receipt of TA/DA bills and their handwritings and signatures on the attendance sheets and TA/DA bills.
PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari deposed that he neither attended Mysore Seminar nor claimed TA/DA bills. He further stated that he filled up TA/DA bills form at the instance of accused at his residence in Delhi. 6.8 TA/DA bills of above mentioned participants have been proved on record as Ex.PW12/C (D19) of Dr. M.P. Yadav, Ex.PW13/B (D20) of Dr. R.P. Singh, Ex.PW28/A (D21)) of Dr. Hasan Kamal, Ex.PW7/A (D22) of Dr. Shoaib Khan, Ex.PW11/B (D23) of Dr. K.N. Uttam, Ex.PW16/A (D24) of Dr. Ajita Bhattacharya, Ex.PW19/C (D25) of Mrs. Renu Singh, Ex.PW23/A (D26) & Ex.PW29/C (D26) of Shri Vinod Mishra, Ex.PW20/B (D27) of Dr. Ram Bali Yadav, Ex.PW9/A (D28) of Shri Manish Kumar, Ex.PW10/A (D29) of Shri Rajdev Tiwari, Ex.PW21/D RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 8 (D30) of Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ex.PW27/A (D31) of Dr. Priti Sagar and Ex.PW15/A (D32) of Mrs. Anita Mishra.
6.9 PW7 Dr. Shoaib Khan proved his specimen handwritings S22 to S29 Ex.PW7/2. PW3 Dr. Arun Kumar proved seizure memo Ex.PW3/A by which documents were seized by IO. Ex.PW3/B is the attendance sheet of college nd rd pertaining to attendance of Dr. Shoaib Khan at Meerut College on 22 and 23 January 2008 and Ex.PW3/C1 to Ex.PW3/C3 are the attendance sheets of nd rd students who attended the classes of Dr. Shoaib Khan on 22 and 23 January 2008.
6.10 PW9 Shri Manish Kumar denied the receipt of Rs.5,676/ claimed in TA bill Ex.PW9/A for attending Mysore Seminar. He also denied his signature on attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A. He deposed that someone has forged his signatures on TA bill Ex.PW9/A and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A. He proved his specimen handwritings Ex.PW9/B. PW18 Ms. Deepa Barlow, Coordinator of Step by Step Institute proved the attendance sheet Ex.PW18/A pertaining to PW9 Shri Manish Kumar on 22.01.2008. She also proved letter dated 06.01.2010 as Ex.PW18/B issued by Shri H.S. Dhingra, owner of Step by Step Institute by which certified copy of record of attendance pertaining to Shri Manish Kumar was provided to IO.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 9 6.11 PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari deposed that he neither attended Mysore Seminar nor claimed TA/DA bills Ex.PW10/A. He further stated that he filled up TA/DA bills form at the instance of accused at his residence in Delhi. He proved his specimen signatures and handwritings as Ex.PW10/B (AD11) and his statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Ld. ACMM Ms. Kiran Bansal as Ex.PW10/C. 6.12 PW11 Dr. K.N. Uttam proved attendance sheet Ex.PW11/A (S21) of B.Sc.
st nd Class students in Allahabad University on 21 and 22 January 2008. He denied his signatures at points A & B on TA bill Ex.PW11/B (AD23). He identified the signature of Prof. J.N. Mishra, Registrar Allahabad University on the letter dated 04.12.2009 Ex.PW11/C (D23) vide which he sent information to the IO pertaining to his attendance as well as the attendance of Ms. Renu. He proved two letters dated 04.12.2009 written by him to the Registrar, Allahabad University informing that he himself as well as Ms. Renu Singh had not attended the Mysore Seminar nd rd on 22 and 23 January 2008. PW11 proved his specimen handwritings and signatures Ex.PW11/E. PW22 Shri Govind Prasad deposed that Ex.PW22/A (S21) is a letter written by the Registrar of Allahabad University to IO on 05.02.210. By this letter, original Class Room Attendance Sheet/Daily Attendance Sheet pertaining to Dr. K. N. Uttam and original Attendance Register of Research Scholars pertaining to Ms. Renu Singh for the period January 2008 were sent.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 10
nd rd 6.13 PW12 Dr. M.P. Yadav deposed that on 22 23 January he was present in his institute i.e. Subharti Institute of Technology, Meerut. He proved attendance register Ex.PW12/A of Subharti Institute of Technology, Meerut of the relevant period. He identified the signature of Shri Rajiv Dwivedi, Principal of the Institute on letter Ex.PW12/B vide which Shri Rajiv Dwivedi sent attendance register Ex.PW12/A to the IO. He denied his signatures on TA bill Ex.PW12/C (AD19) and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar and deposed that someone else has forged his signatures on TA bill Ex.PW12/C and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7). PW12 Dr. M.P. Yadav proved his specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW12/D (colly.) (AD7).
6.14 PW13 Dr. R.P. Singh deposed that Ex.PW13/A (D20) is the attendance register of Subharti Institute of Technology & Engg., Meerut where he marked his nd rd attendance at point C on 22 and 23 January 2008. He denied his signatures at point A on TA bill Ex.PW13/B (AD20) and at point D on attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar and deposed that someone else has forged his signatures in his name on Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW6/A. PW13 Dr. R.P. Singh proved his signatures and handwritings Ex.PW13/C (AD6). 6.15 PW15 Mrs. Anita Mishra denied her signatures on TA bill Ex.PW15/A (AD32) and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar. She deposed RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 11 that someone else has forged her signatures at point A & B on Ex.PW15/A and at th st nd point E on Ex.PW6/A. She stated that on 20 , 21 and 22 January 2008, she was present in her school i.e. Chinmaya Higher Secondary School Rosoolabad, Teliarganj, Allahabad and proved her attendance in the school as Ex.PW15/C (D19). She proved her signatures and handwritings Ex.PW15/B (colly.) (AD13). She identified the signatures of Smt. Rekha Verma, Vice Principal of the school on seizure memo Ex.PW15/D (D19).
th st nd rd 6.16 PW16 Ms. Ajita Bhattacharya deposed that on 20 , 21 , 22 and 23
January, 2008, she was present in her college i.e. LLN Degree College, Sirsa, Allahabad and denied her signatures at point A & B on TA bill Ex.16/A (AD34) and at point F, G1 and G2 on attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (AD7) of Mysore Seminar. She proved the attendance register of her college Ex.PW16/B (colly.) (D17) and identified her signatures at points A,B,C & D on the attendance register. She also proved her specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW16/C (colly.).
6.17 PW19 Mrs. Renu Singh proved her signatures on the attendance register
st nd
Ex.PW19/A (colly.) and Ex.PW19/B (D21) of Allahabad University on 21 , 22 rd and 23 January 2008. She denied her signatures on TA bills Ex.PW19/C (AD25) and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar and deposed st nd rd that on 21 , 22 and 23 January, 2008, she was present in her college and RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 12 someone has forged her signatures on these documents. She proved her specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW19/B (colly.) (D7). 6.18 PW20 Dr. Ram Bali Yadav deposed that he did not attend any nd rd workshop/seminar at Mysore on 22 and 23 January, 2008, and was present in Handia PG College, Allahabad. He proved attendance register of the college st nd Ex.PW20/A (D18) in which his attendance is marked for 21 and 22 January 2012 under his signatures at relevant entry Ex.PW17/B. He denied his signatures on TA bill Ex.PW20/B (AD27) and on attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar. He proved his specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW20/C (AD8).
PW17 Dr. Sabhapati Mishra, Principal, Handia PG College, Handia, Allahabad proved production cum receipt memo Ex.PW17/A (D18) vide which attendance register of the college was seized by IO. He also proved the attendance register Ex.PW17/B (D18) showing the attendance of Dr. Ram Bali st nd Yadav in Handia PG College on 21 and 22 January 2008.
6.19 PW21 Sanjay Kumar Shukla proved attendance register of his college Ex.PW21/A (D15). He deposed that at page 5 of the register Ex.PW21/A, he nd rd marked his attendance on 22 and 23 January, 2008 and proved relevant entry Ex.PW21/B (D15). He proved the seizure memo Ex.PW21/C (D15) seized by IO pertaining to his attendance. He proved his specimen signatures and RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 13 handwritings Ex.PW21/E (colly.) (AD9). He denied his signatures on TA bill Ex.PW21/D (AD30) and attendance sheet of Mysore Seminar Ex.PW6/A (D7). 6.20 PW23 Vinod Mishra proved his specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW23/D (colly.) (AD14). He deposed that he did not attend the Mysore nd rd Seminar on 22 and 23 January 2008. He further deposed that he neither claimed any TA nor signed any attendance sheet for attending Mysore Seminar nd rd on 22 and 23 January 2008 and someone has fabricated his signatures on TA bills Ex.PW23/A and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A of Mysore Seminar. 6.21 PW24 Smt. Chanderlekha BG was Chairperson of Department of Hindi, KSOU, Mansa Gangotri, Mysore. She deposed that in January 2008, accused Dr. R.K. Mishra telephonically talked to her and requested to organize a seminar at Mysore and she was telephonically instructed to act as coordinator of the seminar. She further stated that she worked as coordinator/organizer of the Mysore Seminar. After reaching at Mysore, accused Dr. R.K. Mishra took over the responsibility of the organization of the seminar and she coordinated with him for local/works for the organization. She stated that invitations were sent to the local as well as outsider participants about 10 days prior to the dates of the seminar.
PW24 further deposed that final list of the participants was prepared after discussion with accused and some of the names were incorporated at her instance and other were suggested by accused Dr. R.K. Mishra. She stated that RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 14 she sent final list of the participants Ex.PW6/A (D7)to CSTT and the same list was used as attendance sheet of the participants during the Mysore Seminar. The attendance sheet was given to a clerk of her department who kept the same on the table outside the seminar hall for the signatures of the participants before entering into the seminar hall. She proved the invitation card of the seminar Ex.PW24/A (D11). She also stated that certain documents were requested by the officer of CBI which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/B. In her crossexamination, she stated that TA bills of the participants were brought by accused Dr. R.K. Mishra and his team. She deposed that an amount of about Rs.25,000/ was paid by her to Dr. R.K. Mishra on account of expenses incurred on traveling allowances etc. of the participants of the Mysore Seminar. In crossexamination, PW24 further deposed that she received a telephonic call and was informed that the person talking to her from the other side was the Chairman of CSTT, New Delhi. Said person asked her that how much amount she had paid to accused Dr. R.K. Mishra for organization of the seminar and she told that she had paid Rs.25,000/. The person instructed her on the phone that she has to send a letter to him mentioning that she had paid Rs.80,000/ to the accused for the Mysore Seminar and she accordingly wrote a predated letter to the CSTT mentioning the payment of Rs.80,000/ to accused Dr. R.K. Mishra. During cross examination, it was also stated by PW24 that no peon was available in her department and only one clerk was assisting her during the organization of the seminar. She also deposed that she remained in the seminar only for about one RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 15 hour each day as she was busy in preparing the question paper for the examination.
For clarification, certain questions were put to PW24 by the court and she stated that accused Dr. R.K. Mishra and his team dealt with the arrangement of making payment and preparation of TA bills and she might have signed some bills or papers only at the instance of accused Dr. R.K. Mishra or his team members. She clarified that she wrote for an amount of Rs.80,000/ in her letter as she was instructed telephonically, otherwise she would have mentioned only Rs.25,000/ 6.22 PW27 Ms. Priti Sagar deposed that Ex.PW27/A (AD31) is the TA bill in her name but she neither signed any such TA bill nor attended seminar at Mysore nd rd on 22 and 23 January 2008. She denied her signatures on the attendance sheet Ex.6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar and stated that someone has forged her signatures on Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW6/A. She deposed that she had suffered an accident and was on complete bed rest during January and February, 2008. She proved the seizure memo Ex.PW27/B (D25) vide which she handed over the attested photocopy of her medical record to IO. She deposed that accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was defaming and insulting her and she had lodged a complaint Ex.PW27/D in PS Wardha against accused Dr. R.K. Mishra. She proved her specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW27/E (AD10) (colly.) RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 16 6.23 PW28 Dr. Hassan Kamal deposed that neither he received any invitation nd rd nor had any knowledge nor attended seminar on 22 and 23 January, 2008 at Mysore. He further deposed that someone had forged his signatures on TA bills Ex.PW28/A (AD21) and attendance sheet Ex.PW6/A (D7) of Mysore Seminar.
nd rd He proved his attendance on 22 and 23 January 2008 in the attendance register of his college Ex.PW14/C (D16). He also proved his specimen signatures and handwritings Ex.PW28/B. PW14 Shri Sanjay Kumar proved the seizure memo Ex.PW14/A (D16) vide which attendance register pertaining to the attendance of Dr. Hassan Kamal was seized by IO.
6.24 PW29 Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, AGEQD, Chandigarh, appeared in the witness box as an expert/handwriting expert. He proved list of questioned and standard documents Ex.PW29/A (AD33) and Ex.PW29/B (AD34) respectively. He stated that after examination of questioned, specimen and admitted handwritings, report Ex.PW29/H was prepared.
Perusal of TA bills D19 to D32 reveals that these TA bills bears three columns which are "For the office use" wherein "The amount of TA/DA in words and figures", "Signature of the person making payment" and "Signature of the OfficerIncharge certifying the participation and payment" had been mentioned in handwritings. The questioned handwritings in the above mentioned three RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 17 columns and signatures have been found in the handwritings of the person who gave the specimen handwritings S134 to S158 and admitted handwritings A1, A1/1 to A1/11, A2 to A25, A25/1 and A26 to A150 which means that these questioned handwritings on the TA bills is in the handwritings of the accused.
The questioned handwritings Q122 to Q126 are the handwritings on TA bills of Shri Rajdev Tiwari Ex.PW10/A (D29) wherein the name & residential address, the details of expenses on TA and other particulars are the questioned handwritings. As per report of handwriting expert Ex.PW29/H, the questioned handwritings Ex.Q122 to Q126 and Q130 to Q132 are in the handwritings of one and the same person whose handwritings are the specimen handwriting S99 to S109 meaning thereby these questioned handwritings are in the handwriting of PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari who gave the specimen handwritings S99 to S109.
In respect of other questioned handwritings, no opinion could be given by the expert on the basis of the material in hand.
6.25 PW30 Shri A.K. Saini, Inspector, CBI, ACUIV, New Delhi was the Investigating Officer (IO). He stated that written complaint Ex.PW1/A (D2) of Shri Amit Khare, Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer of Ministry of Human Resource and Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi was received and the case was registered. He also stated that after registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to him by SP Shri M.C. Sahni and the copy of the FIR was sent to him which he proved alongwith the signatures of SP Shri M.C. Sahni as RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 18 Ex.PW30/A (D1). IO also stated that specimen signatures and handwritings of accused S134 to S158 were sent to AGEQD, Chandigarh for the opinion of the expert. He stated that statement of PW Shri Rajdev Tiwari Ex.PW10/C was recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Ms. Kiran Bansal, Ld. ACMM, New Delhi and he proved his endorsement and proceedings as Ex.PW30/C. He stated that letters/ files Ex.PW29/E, PW29/F, Ex.PW29/G were received from the office of Chairman, CSTT with a covering letter which were seized by him. He further stated that file Ex.PW30/D (D9) is pertaining to the claim of Rs.1,36,106/ (submitted by accused towards TA/DA and other expenses) which were seized from PW Shri Harish Chand. IO stated that after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
7 In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. entire incriminating was put up to accused R.K. Mishra. Accused admitted that he was working in CSTT in the capacity of a nd rd public servant; a seminar was conducted at Mysore on 22 and 23 January 2008; PW2 Ms. Asha Rani was working as Assistant in CSTT; he was OfficerIn charge for organization of Mysore Seminar and he submitted TA/DA bills. He also admitted that PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar was working as Chairman of CSTT; contingency advance of Rs.37,600/ was sanctioned vide note Ex.PW5/B; Smt. Chanderlekha was appointed as local coordinator for Mysore Seminar; an amount of Rs.34,962/ was paid to him by the accounts department of CSTT and his specimen signatures and handwritings were taken by IO during investigation. RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 19
Accused denied the incriminating evidence including the competence of sanctioning authority. He stated that he was not willing to take the responsibility of organization of Mysore Seminar, however, at the last moment he was given the responsibility to organize the Mysore Seminar. He stated that Chairman, CSTT had assured him that he would remain present in the seminar. He further stated that despite assurance of full cooperation by Chairman, CSTT, neither Chairman nor any other officials of CSTT reached in Mysore Seminar. Most of the time, local coordinator remained absent and the entire responsibility of organizing the seminar was put on him owing to which he could not personally look after each and every aspect of the seminar including the administrative and ministerial functions. He further stated that most of the candidates were not known to him and he could not detect any foul play by the participants. He further stated he always remained busy in the main organization of the seminar and the work of registration of participants, their stay, attendance, TA/DA bills etc. could not be looked after by him personally, though he took the best precautions for smooth functioning of the seminar. He further stated that he neither forged any document either himself or through anyone else nor claimed any extra amount/bill on the TA/DA paid to the participants. He further stated that if there had been any deficiency in organization of the seminar, it was on account of non availability of proper manpower and lesser coordination from the local coordinator. He further submitted that a false case has been made against him. RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 20 8 No witness was examined in defence by the accused.
9 I have heard the Ld. Sr. PP for CBI and Shri S.N. Qureshi, Adv. for accused at length and gone through the testimony of witnesses and documents proved on record. I have considered the respective submissions of Ld. Sr. PP and Ld. defence counsel.
Sanction for Prosecution 10 It was submitted by ld. defence counsel that PW1 Shri Amit Khare was the complainant as well as the sanctioning authority. In accordance with law, complainant could not be the sanctioning authority. It was also stated that PW1 Shri Amit Khare was neither competent to grant sanction for prosecution nor he applied his mind before granting the sanction for prosecution. 11 The contentions of ld. defence counsel were controverted by ld. Sr. PP. 12 PW1 Shri Amit Khare stated that from 08.09.2009, he was posted and functioning as Joint Secretary as well as Chief Vigilance Officer in the department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India, New Delhi. As per his testimony, he received an inquiry report Ex.PW1/A1 from Professor K. Bijay Kumar, Chairman, CSTT and after going through the same he sent the same to the Director, CBI for conducting inquiry which became the basis of FIR. RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 21 In June 2010, a request from CBI for sanction for prosecution against accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was received alongwith the report of CBI and complete booklet of record. He stated that after going through the documents contained in the booklet and considering the entire material, in his opinion, there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against the accused and therefore, he granted sanction for prosecution dated 14.06.2010 Ex.PW1/B. He further stated that as per business rules of Govt. of India and manual of office procedure, on behalf of Govt. of India, Joint Secretary was competent to take disciplinary action against accused (a Group A officer) and therefore, he was competent to grant sanction for prosecution.
During crossexamination of PW1, nothing material could be achieved on the question of competence of the sanctioning authority or the application of mind.
From the testimony of PW1, it is clearly established that he referred the inquiry report of Chairman, CSTT i.e. complaint to CBI in his official capacity being the Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer and he had nothing personal in the matter. He accorded the sanction for prosecution being the competent authority. In my view, there is nothing on record to accept that there was any conflicting interest of PW1 in his capacity as complainant and sanctioning authority. In my opinion, no prejudice has been caused due to dual capacity of PW1 being the complainant and sanctioning authority. In my opinion, the sanction for prosecution was duly granted by PW1 who was competent to accord the RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 22 sanction for prosecution and the same was granted after considering the record and application of mind.
Organization of Mysore Seminar 13 Testimony of PW2 Smt. Asha Rani, PW5 Shri Ram Bahadur, PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar and PW24 Smt. Chanderlekha and the documents proved by them nd clearly has established that Mysore Seminar was organized by CSTT on 22 and rd 23 January 2008 and accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was appointed as OfficerIn charge for organization of the said seminar. It has also been proved by PW2 Ms. Asha Rani, PW5 Shri Ram Bahadur and PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar that invitations were sent to the local and outsider participants. On the note put up by the department of CSTT, on the request of accused, contingency funds was sanctioned and advance was given to the accused. These three witnesses also deposed that after completion of Mysore Seminar, Dr. R.K. Mishra submitted TA/DA bills allegedly paid to the participants and the resource persons and the TA/DA bills pertaining to the 14 participants were found forged as these 14 participants claimed that they had not participated in the Mysore Seminar. In my opinion, it has been proved beyond any doubt that accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was OfficerIncharge in organization of Mysore Seminar and he submitted TA/DA bills of participants and resource persons for the payment. These facts have not been disputed by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. One of the plea of the accused was that list of participants was prepared by the Chairman, CSTT and RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 23 invitations were sent by him who were sent by PW Shri Harish Chand. In any case, this plea does not make any difference in the facts of the case. Forgery of TA/DA bills 14 Accused has been charged mainly on the allegations that 14 participants had not participated in the Mysore Seminar. Though, no TA/DA was paid to these 14 participants. TA/DA bills and attendance sheets in respect of the said 14 participants were forged with a view to cheat CSTT with an amount of Rs. 87,201/. He has been further charged that he submitted forged TA/DA bills to the CSTT for claiming payment of Rs.87,201/ with fraudulent and dishonest intention for the purpose of cheating and used the forged documents knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents. Accused has also been charged that he attempted to cheat CSTT to the tune of Rs.87,201/ . 14.1 Testimony of PW7 Dr. Shoaib Khan, PW9 Shri Manish Kumar, PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari, PW11 Dr. K.N. Uttam, PW12 Dr. M.P. Yadav, PW13 Dr. R.P. Singh, PW15 Mrs. Anita Mishra, PW16 Ms. Ajita Bhattacharya, PW19 Mrs. Renu Singh, PW20 Dr. Ram Bali Yadav, PW21 Shri Sanjay Kumar Shukla, PW23 Shri Vinod Mishra, PW27 Ms. Priti Sagar and PW28 Dr. Hassan Kamal is consistent that these these 14 participants neither participated in the Mysore Seminar nor received any TA/DA for attending the Mysore Seminar. Substantially, this part of testimony of above mentioned 14 participants could not be discredited during RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 24 crossexamination and is corroborated from the documents and report of PW29 Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, AGEQD, Chandigarh. Even in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused stated that he was not personally known to above mentioned participants. In my view, there is no reason to believe the testimony of above mentioned 14 persons. Therefore, it has been proved beyond any doubt that above mentioned 14 persons neither participated in the Mysore Seminar nor received any TA/DA and their TA/DA bills and attendance sheets have been forged.
14.2 As discussed above, from the testimony of PW2 Smt. Asha Rani, PW5 Shri Ram Bahadur and PW6 Shri K. Bijay Kumar, it has been clearly proved that accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was OfficerIncharge for organization of the Mysore Seminar and after completion of seminar, he submitted TA/DA bills including the TA/DA bills of above mentioned participants who had denied their participation and receipt of TA/DA bills. Without any hesitation, it may be concluded that TA/DA bills of above mentioned 14 participants to the tune of Rs.87,201/ were submitted by accused Dr. R.K. Mishra for payment, though no TA/DA was paid to such participants. Accused tried to make feeble attempt to explain that said 14 participants were not personally known to him; there was no assistance to him in the organization of seminar from CSTT; he did not have sufficient manpower; TA/DA was not personally paid to the said participants by him and this part of organization was being looked after by the staff of local coordinator Smt. RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 25 Chanderlekha.
14.3 After careful consideration, in my opinion, the plea of accused is neither convincing nor natural nor supported by the testimony of the witnesses or the material on record. Accused being a senior public servant was appointed as OfficerIncharge for the organization of the seminar. TA/DA of the participants was to be spent from the accounts of CSTT. In natural course, accused was under duty to avoid misuse of funds. I am not able to accept the plea that due to non availability of sufficient manpower and support from CSTT, he was not able to look after the work of TA/DA bills personally. Being the OfficerIncharge of the seminar, it was the duty of accused to ensure that TA/DA is paid to the genuine participants. Record does not indicate that any effort had ever been made by accused to take any documentary proof from the participants in respect of their identity. Normally, in respect of such payments of TA/DA bills in seminars, photocopy of identity cards are taken on record to ascertain the identity of the participants and claims of TA/DA bills. The plea of the accused is not supported from the testimony of the witnesses. PW10 Shri Rajdev Tiwari clearly stated that accused was known to him. Though he did not participate in Mysore Seminar, he signed TA/DA bills at his residence in Delhi at the request of accused. This part of testimony of PW Shri Rajdev Tiwari could not be discredited during the cross examination. Another witness PW Ms. Priti Sagar also stated that accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was defaming and insulting her, therefore, she has lodged a RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 26 complaint in the Wardha police station in the year 2010. According to PW27 Ms. Priti Sagar, accused Dr. R.K. Mishra was already known to her. From the testimony of PW10 and PW27, it has been established by prosecution that plea of accused that participants were unknown to him is false. Even if, the participants were not previously known to the accused, it was the duty of the accused to ensure verification of their identity before paying TA/DA to such participants. Circumstances of the case also do not support the accused. It was a two days seminar. Around 94 participants participated in the seminar. Only about 27 participants came from different cities and others were local participants. In ordinary course, the organizer of the seminar would have come to know about identity of most of the participants (in two days seminar) as there is enough opportunity of interaction in such seminars.
Expert Report 15 The report of the handwriting expert PW29 Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, AGEQD, Chandigarh clearly established that TA/DA bills of above mentioned 14 participants bear handwritings and signatures of accused Dr. R.K. Mishra.
As discussed above, TA/DA bill has 3 columns for office use which are as follows: 1 The amount of TA/DA in words and figures.
2 The signature of person making payment.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 27 3 The signature of OfficerIncharge certifying the participation and payment.
15.1 The report of handwriting expert clearly proves that there are handwritings and signatures of accused in the above mentioned three columns of TA/DA bills of above mentioned 14 participants. The handwritings of accused in above mentioned three columns of TA/DA bills makes it clear that accused in his own handwriting filled up the amount of TA/DA in words and figures. He certified the participation and payment of TA/DA and he signed as the person making payment of TA/DA. In these circumstances, plea of accused that he was not aware about the identity of participants or forgery in TA/DA bills does not appear to be natural and convincing.
16 In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, it has been proved by prosecution beyond any doubt that accused forged the TA/DA bills of 14 participants by falsely filling the above mentioned three columns of TA/DA bills, though these participants neither participated in the seminar nor received TA/DA. It has also been proved that accused submitted TA/DA bills to the CSTT for payment knowingly or having reason to believe that above mentioned 14 participants had not participated in the Mysore Seminar and no TA/DA has been paid to them.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 28 17 From the testimony of witnesses, documents proved on record and the circumstances of the case, following ingredients of the charge has been proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt:
(a) Charge u/s 420 r/w Sec.511 IPC As discussed above, it has been proved that accused forged TA/DA bills of 14 participants and claimed TA/DA bills of these 14 participants by deceiving or inducing the officials of CSTT by misrepresentation and therefore, he attempted to commit the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing the delivery of property u/s 420 r/w Sec.511 IPC.
(b) Charge u/s 468 IPC It has been proved that accused forged or got forged the TA/DA bills and attendance sheets of 14 participants and committed the said forgery with the intention that such forged documents will be used for the purpose of cheating punishable u/s 468 IPC.
(c) Charge u/s 471 IPC It has been proved that accused fraudulently and dishonestly submitted the forged TA/DA bills and attendance sheet as genuine knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be the forged documents and therefore, charge u/s 471 IPC has been proved against the accused.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 29
(d) Charge u/s 15 r/w sec. 13(2) r/w sec. 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 It is established that within the meaning of PC Act, 1988 accused clearly comes within the definition of "Public Servant". He was appointed as OfficerIn charge in his capacity as public servant. In view of the above discussion, it has been proved against accused that by forging the TA/DA bills for the purpose of cheating, by using the forged bills knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents and by making an attempt to cheat CSTT, he adopted "corrupt" as well as "illegal" means. It has been proved beyond doubt that said illegal means has been adopted by the accused for receiving the payment of Rs.87,201/ on account of payment of TA/DA to 14 participants, though no such payment had been made by him to such participants which clearly established that by "corrupt" or "illegal" means, he attempted to obtain valuable things or pecuniary advantage for himself. The essential ingredients of charge for the offence u/s 15 (punishment for attempt) r/w section 13 (2) r/w sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
18 The defence of accused has neither been substantiated from the record nor supported from the testimony of witnesses nor appears to be natural or trustworthy.
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 30 19 In view of the above discussion, as prosecution has proved its case against accused Dr. R.K. Mishra beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, accused Dr. R.K. Mishra is convicted for the charge u/s 468 and 471 IPC, u/s 420 r/w sec. 511 IPC and u/s 15 r/w sec. 13 (2) r/w sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
20 Let he be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the open court Sanjeev Jain
th
on this 16 day of August, 2012 Special Judge (PC Act), CBI02
RC No.5(A)/2009/CBI/ACUIV/New Delhi 31