Delhi District Court
Cc No.126/2019 State vs . Rajeshwari Chauhan Etc. on 23 December, 2021
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (ACB)01, RADC, NEW DELHI
CC No.126/2019
CNR No.DLCT110005642019
State
VERSUS
1. Rajeshwari Chauhan
W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Chauhan
R/o B21. Delhi Administration Flats
Timarpur, Delhi. ........................................ (Convicted)
2. Mahesh Kumar Sharma @ M.K. Sharma
S/o Late Har Swaroop Sharma
R/o D2, Sewa Kutir Staff Flats
Kingsway Camp, Delhi. ................................ (Convicted)
3. Rajinder Kumar Sharma @ R.K. Sharma
S/o Sh. Uma Shankar Sharma
R/o 196, RPS Colony
Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi. ................................. (Convicted)
4. Deepika Chauhan
W/o Sh. Satender Chauhan
R/o 159, Dhaka Village
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(Permanent Address : Village Mamura
Sector66, Noida, U.P.)........................................ (Convicted)
5. Inder Singh Pimoli @ I.S. Pimoli
S/o Late C.S. Pimoli
R/o 4/74, Indira Puram
Ghaziabad, U.P. ........................................ (Convicted)
6. Vishnu Sagar Awasthi @ V.S. Awasthi
S/o Late B.N. Awasthi
Page 1 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
R/o H. No. 123C, Pocket2
Sector2, Dwarka,
New Delhi. (Proceedings abated vide order dated 30.04.2014)
FIR No. : 03/2009
U/S : 13(i)(d) &13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 r/w 419/420/467/468/471/120B/511/201
IPC
PS : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of institution : 03.06.2011
Judgment reserved on : 02.12.2021
Judgment delivered on : 23.12.2021
JUDGMENT
S. No. Heading Page no.
1. Brief Facts 317
2. Evidence 1898
(I) Panch Witnesses 1823
(II) Witnesses related to Sanction 2323
(III) Handwriting Expert 2325
(IV) Witnesses from the Department of Social 2573
Welfare, Bal Sadan/HHCLP
(V) Govt. Agencies/Suppliers 7387
(VI) Public Witnesses 8792
(VII) Witnesses from Bank/ Post Office / VAT etc. 9295
(VIII) Police Witnesses/IOs etc. 9598
3. Statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. 98107
4. Defence Evidence 107110
Page 2 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
5. Citations relied upon 110112
6. Sanction 112128
7. District Officer (North) on 30.06.2005 128140
8. Codal Formalities 140155
9. Purchases in respect of Bal Sadan (Ex.PW1/B) 155167
10. Purchases in respect of HHCLP (Ex.PW1/C) 167179
11. Swastik Corporation as Dealer of NAFED & 179186
DCCWS.
12. Conspiracy, Forgery & Role of Each Accused. 186226
(i) Role of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan 203213
(ii) Role of accused M.K Sharma 213215
(iii) Role of accused R.K. Sharma 216221
(iv) Role of accused Deepika Chauhan 221221
(v) Role of accused I.S. Pimoli 222226
13. Conclusion 226229
BRIEF FACTS :
1. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by Pratidhi, an NGO and in the said complaint the complainant Raj Mangal Prasad, Vice President stated that Pratidhi is an NGO working for the welfare of children in need of care and protection and during the course of their work, they came across several cases of misappropriation of funds by the corrupt officers of Social Page 3 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi through forgery and cheating resulting in siphoning off funds meant for children/inmates of institution run by the government. It is further stated that one such case of misappropriation came to their notice when they received a copy of inquiry report from Joint Director, Admn. Sh. B.R. Singh and during the financial year 200506, the officers at Bal Sadan, Timarpur forged the "comparative statement" for making fictitious purchases. It is further stated that Sh. M.K. Sharma and Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan misused their official position by impersonating themselves as District Officer and Superintendent for Ms. Neera Mullick and Sh. V.S. Awasthi respectively. It is further stated that rates of different items were fixed and purchases were made with the help of nonexisting firms i.e. M/s Gurukul Shilp Store and M/s Neel Kanth Corporation It is further stated that inquiry report revealed the connivance of officers in making fictitious purchases from bogus forms only on papers by misappropriation for actual officers and that the purchases were not actually made but only billing was done as records including purchase files, stock registers were taken away by Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan as per the statement of the Store Keeper and Cashier. It is further stated that billing of some of the items for two firms M/s Gurukul Shilp Store and M/s Neel Kanth Corporation were already done in advance than the date of preparation of comparative statement dated 30.06.2005, strengthening the fact that lakhs were siphoned off without the delivery of the goods for the personal benefit of M.K. Sharma, Rajeshwari Chauhan and R.K. Sharma. On this complaint, the present FIR was lodged and investigation was conducted.
2. It is stated in the chargesheet that Bal Sadan was run by Department of Welfare and for the clothing/bedding articles allegedly purchased in the year 200506, a comparative statement was found prepared on 30.06.2005 having signatures of Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan as DDO/HO, Bal Sadan, Timarpur and Sh. M.K. Page 4 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Sharma, District Officer (North) and Sh. R.K. Sharma as Junior Account Officer. As per the inquiry, Sh. M.K. Sharma was not the District Officer (North) and Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan was not the DDO/HO on 30.06.2005. it was also found that no NITs were issued to the agencies mentioned in the comparative statement and two firms namely M/s Gurukul Shilp Store and M/s Neel Kanth Corporation were nonexisting firms. No procedure was followed or latter sent to agencies and record related to purchase and codal formalities were kept by Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan, the then Superintendent, Bal Sadan. It is further stated that the inquiry revealed that Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan, Sh. M.K. Sharma and Sh. R.K. Sharma had connived with each other and had made wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the government ex chequer. It is further stated that during the investigation, it was revealed that Ms. Neera Mullick took charge of District Officer (North) from Ms. Lata Gupta on 18.05.2005 and handed over the charge to Ms. Asha Gandhi on 14.07.2005. She further confirmed that her signatures on the documents of codal formalities were fake. The relevant records of the purchases i.e. the stock registers (clothing and bedding), the quotation file, A/A (Administrative Approval) and E/S (Expenditure Sanction) file and record from the offices of NAFED, DCCWS revealed that the alleged purchases were already made on 29.06.2005 and thereafter, an undated proposal of A/A & E/S was found moved with the pretext/anticipation of getting it approved on the already approved rates of previous year. The said proposal was not recommended by Ms. Neera Mullick, the then District Officer (North) on 14.07.2005, thereafter the bogus documents of codal formalities were made by accused persons to cover up the irregular purchases at the later stage. Some incriminating documents were seized from the search of the house of the accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan in another FIR no.19/08, PS ACB in which case also she is an accused. Specimen and admitted handwriting of the Page 5 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. accused persons as well as of witnesses were taken and sent to FSL for expert opinion. The investigation further revealed that :
(i) Both Bal Sadan and Home for Healthy Children of Leprosy Persons (HHCLP) were situated in the same premises where Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan was working as Superintendent/DDO/HO from the year 2002 till 14.07.2005. She was under transfer vide order dated 07.04.2005 and order dated 17.06.2005 but before handing over of charge of DDO/HO, Bal Sadan/HHCLP she wanted to make purchases of clothing articles for the financial year 200506 and thus, she continued to work on the same post till the receipt and distribution of the alleged articles from the supplying agency i.e. Delhi Consumers CoOp Wholesale Store Ltd. (DCCWS) and National Agricultural CoOperative Marketing Fed. of India Ltd. (NAFED) through M/s Swasthik Corporation, a supplier firm owned by Ms. Deepika Chauhan, daughter of Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan. M/s Swastik Corporation was registered with NAFED for making direct supplies of goods to the Homes under back to back business system.
(ii) It was also revealed that the purchases were made on 29.06.2005 as per the supply orders and stock ledger of the Homes and no demand proposal was sent for administrative approval prior to 29.06.2005. Store Keeper Ms. J.K. Barua also stated about her fake signature in the A/A & E/S file pertaining to Bal Sadan and HHCLP. Scrutiny in the quotation file revealed that the same was prepared by accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan herself on behalf of Store Keeper (without signature). Witness J.K. Barua and Ms. Saramma, also stated that the articles were received at the residence of Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan and then the same were brought to Bal Page 6 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Sadan and HHCLP for distribution.
(iii) To cover up the irregular purchases, the accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan moved proposal for administrative approval and expenditure sanction in two separate files for Rs.1,95,076/ for Bal Sadan and Rs.1,71,095/ for HHCLP and sent it to Ms. Neera Mullick, the then District Officer (North). However, Ms. Neera Mullick did not recommend the said proposals vide her note dated 14.07.2005 and the said proposal files were returned back to the office of Bal Sadan/HHCLP. Thereafter, despite her transfer from Bal Sadan on 14.07.2005, Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan kept the said files with herself without making compliance as directed by the then DO (North). Thereafter, Ms. Neera Mullick was transferred on 15.07.2005. Perusal of A/E & E/S files revealed that accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan conspired with the accused M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma to get the proposals recommended on the earlier rates by showing the urgency with fake claim of having called quotation in a separate file. On the basis of recommendations made by Ms. Asha Gandhi, the then next District Officer (North), administrative approval on the file pertaining to HHCLP could only be granted on 29.07.2005 by the competent authority with the condition of observing of codal formalities for making the purchases. The administrative approval was not granted on the proposal of Bal Sadan as the same was not returned back to the office of District Officer (North) with the required compliance on the queries. It is stated that the same was kept by accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan in her own custody with the ulterior motive as is evident from FSL report regarding marking of the file to DC/FA by erasing its original marking for District Officer (North). Statements of Ms. Neera Page 7 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Mullick and Ms. Asha Gandhi also revealed that they both were not aware about the purchases when the file was dealt with by them on 14.07.2005 and 20.07.2005.
(iv) A bogus purchase committee was formed by the accused/officials to cover up the irregular purchases. It was also revealed that there was no official correspondence with the then District Officer (North) for formation of such purchase committee on 15.06.2005 nor it was so communicated to any official for opening of the quotation on 25.06.2005. Investigation also revealed that accused Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan despite her transfer from Bal Sadan retained both the files including of HHCLP on which administrative approval dated 29.07.2005 was granted. Then she herself by impersonating as Superintendent, Bal Sadan on her own prepared and sent bogus tender inquiry letter to various agencies on the pretext of purchasing of bedding and clothing articles for opening of quotation on 01.08.2005. She also prepared bogus notesheet in this regard showing the date 15.06.2005. The said note sheet dated 15.06.2005 consists false information regarding inviting, receiving and opening of tenders besides the false noting regarding formation of bogus purchase committee having predated signature for 30.06.2005 made by accused no. 1 to 3 and forged signature of DO (North). The codal formality documents with forged signatures of District Officer (North) were signed by the accused persons i.e. Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan, Sh. M.K. Sharma and Sh. R.K. Sharma. The FSL report also confirmed the fake signatures of the then District Officer (North) and confirmed the signature of the above three accused persons on the documents.
(v) It is further stated in the chargesheet that during investigation the records/documents related to codal formalities were revealed to be Page 8 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. bogus as :
(a) There is no prior approval for calling the quotations and notice inviting tender (NIT) was not approved from the competent authority.
(b) The tender inquiry letter was found with bogus dispatch entry.
(c) The postal stamp dispatch entry was also not found matching with the dispatch of bogus tender inviting notice for 15.06.2005.
(d) Branch Managers of NAFED, DCCWS, Kendriya Bhandar, NCCF Nehru Place, DSIDC Okhla, Punjab Phulkhari Emporium & MSSIDC, Connaught Place etc. stated that they did not receive any such tender inviting notice dated 15.06.2005 nor they sent any quotation during June 2005.
(e) An undated letter using the same diary number (BS/clothing & bedding/200506/35) on the pretext of opening quotations for 01.08.05 at 02:00 pm at Bal Sadan under the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was seized from NCCF.
(f) Rates of DCCWS & NAFED, the rates from other two non existing firms and one Khadi Gram Udyog were also manipulated for the said purpose and compartive statement dated 30.06.2005 for showing LI rates (lowest rates) was prepared and signed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma acting as members of bogus purchase committee.
(g) The two firms namely M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store J11/39, J.J. Colony Wazirpur and M/s Neel Kanth Corporation 1803B, Sanjay Basti Timarpur, Delhi were found nonexisting.
(h) As per NIT (Page 1/C), rates of 36 items were called for but comparative statements available in the file at 19/C & 20/C reveals that rates of 37 items have been mentioned, rates for PT shoes were neither called nor quoted by any agency, but suddenly it appears in Page 9 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the comparative statement which establishes manipulation.
(i) The quotation envelopes were without sealed cover and same are without addresses, date and reference number etc. Further the spelling mistakes, typing font, serial number of certain items is same as in NIT establishing manipulation. LI rates of some of the items in comparative statement of other three agencies except DCCWS and NAFED were ignored which shows that the comparative statement was only for eye wash.
(j) M/s Neel Kanth was never asked to send the quote but they sent the quotes. The rates quoted by M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store and M/s Neel Kanth are undated. The quotations of M/s Khadi Gramudyog and M/s Neel Kanth contains the rates of PT Shoes despite the fact that this item was not mentioned in NITs dated 15.06.05.
(k) Pant uniform and shirt uniform were purchased despite the fact that neither later were invited nor quoted by supplying agencies. Also if the codal formalities had already been completed on 30.06.05 then there was no need to mention for the use of approved rates of preceding year 200405 in the proposal when it was sent to DO(North) on 02.07.05. When the proposal was turn down by Smt. Neera Mullick, the then DO (North) on 14.07.05, the Superintendent who had already made these irregular purchases for Bal Sadan & HHCLP contemplated for creating these bogus documents of codal formalities.
(l) approval of LI rates by the competent authority are required before placing supply orders but in this matter no approval was found in this regard which indicates the manipulation.
3. It is further stated in the chargesheet that the signature of Smt. Neera Mullick, the then DO(North) as revealed are forged and Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma did Page 10 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. not affix his rubber stamps on the above said documents hiding his identity deliberately so that while recommending and sanctioning the proposal, the concerned authorities could assume his signatures as that of DO (North), chairman of purchase committee. It is further stated that Rajeshwari Chauhan got the approved articles through Sh. Praveen Kumar of the supply firm. However, Sh. Praveen Kumar was not traceable and could not be joined in the investigation. Also, the signatures of the concerned Store Keeper and other persons could not be found with the delivery challan as the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan used to get the bedding and the clothing etc. from her home after obtaining bills of the concerned agencies. The signatures of concerned storekeeper was not found on the delivery challans.
4. As per the stock register, items were procured for Bal Sadan, HHCLP on 29.06.2005 and as per the issue register, these articles were distributed to the inmates of Bal Sadan and HHCLP on 13.07.2005 and 11.07.2005 respectively. It is further stated that from the rates received from Kendriya Bhandar and NCCF, it was found that the purchase made from NAFED and DCCWS were on high rates. The approved prevailing rates and wages of stitching were also obtained from Superintendent, TCPC (M), Department of Social Welfare and chart of 16 items was prepared which revealed a loss of Rs.1,87,357/ (Rs.95,473/ for Bal Sadan and Rs.91,884/ for HHCLP). On 06.09.2005, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan took the A/A and E/S files herself to the office of DC (F&A) (by hand) though she was not the concerned DDO/HO. It is further stated that on the basis of bogus documents of codal formalities, the accused persons succeeded in getting the expenditure sanctioned and an amount of Rs.3,42,619/ was credited in the account of M/s Swastik Corporation. It is also stated that the forged and fabricated record was not produced before the inquiry officer of the Department of Welfare nor before the Special Audit Team which conducted the audit during MarchApril 2008.
Page 11 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
5. It is further stated that the proprietor of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation Sh.
Brijesh Kumar is the nephew of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and while opening the account in the name of the firm at PNB, Mall Road, he has furnished a copy of ration card in the name of Rajeshwari Chauhan in which his name is mentioned at serial no. 5 as a family member. Also, Sh. Brijesh Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation had introduced Ms. Deepika Chauhan, daughter of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan when she had opened account of M/s Swastik Corporation, Mall Road.
6. It is further alleged that accused Sh. M.K. Sharma not only signed the comparative statement and documents of codal formalities but also wrote the notes in the manipulated purchase files of Bal Sadan and HHCLP to get the funds released of the said illegal purchases as the FSL report has confirmed his handwriting on the notes. Specimen signatures of Smt. Lata Gupta, DO (Central) was also obtained and sent to FSL but she was not found involved in the case.
7. It is further stated that from the investigation conducted, it has been revealed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan made the public procurement of clothing and bedding articles without prior approval and without following the purchase rules during 200506 while being posted as DDO/HO, Bal Sadan/HHCLP with an ulterior motive of wrongful gain. It is further stated that when the purported proposal was not recommended by her senior officer, she conspired with other accused persons and formed a bogus purchase committee to cover up the purchase so made by her. It is further stated that despite her transfer, she impersonated as Superintendent/DDO/HO, Bal Sadan by manipulating and fabricating the records. It is further stated that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan alongwith coaccused prepared forged documents of codal formalities and used the same in order to obtain necessary sanction of funds. It is further stated that accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma being party to conspiracy, also misused his Page 12 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. official position by signing the codal formality documents without any authority, with intention to cause wrongful gain to others in order to cause wrongful documents of codal formality with other coaccused persons in order to cause wrongful loss to government exchequer. It is also stated that M/s Swastik Corporation was registered with NAFED and DCCWS for making direct supplies of goods to the homes under Back to Back business system.
8. First supplementary chargeshet was filed on 10.04.2012 against accused R.K. Sharma wherein it has been stated that there was no record of sending or receiving intimation for being the members of bogus purchase committee for the accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma and R.K. Sharma in the records of DSW. There was intentionally no specific mention of place of posting of another G.O. with regard to posting of Mahesh Kumar Sharma in the manipulated note sheet prepared in this regard. Further they both could not be bonafide members of purchase committee in respect of Bal Sadan/ HHCLP as envisaged in the circular no. F.7(2)/A/CS/200304/DSW/20455566 dated 26.08.2003 issued by Department of Social Welfare. Because neither Mahesh Kumar Sharma was as G.O. of adjoining institute nor R.K. Sharma was linked with the office of D.O. (North) for the purpose. It is further stated that place of alleged opening of quotation (Bal Sadan, Timar Pur) having various nearby Homes run by the Superintendent in North District itself is too far from Delhi Gate and there was no reasons to call a G.O. from DSW/HQ, Central District, Darya Ganj, Delhi where accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma was posted on that purported date i.e. 30.06.2005.
9. Accused R.K. Sharma not only signed the bogus documents of codal formalities including comparative statement but also facilitated in getting the A/A and E/S files recommended from the office of DC(FA). Accused R.K. Sharma being the officer of Controller of Finance and Accounts office of Social Welfare Department was required to follow the rules. It is further stated Page 13 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. that had he not been the party of conspiracy, the sanction of funds in A/A and E/S files of concerned purchases could not have been recommended from the office of Finance and Account, DSW. It is further alleged that the accused persons while making the purchases flouted/violated the rules/norms issued by Department of Social Welfare vide Circular No. F.2/A/C S/2003 04/DSW/20455566 dated 26.08.2003 (issued by the then Jt. Director/DSW) which also refer letter of Finance Department No. F.22/10/84AC/782931 dated 27.03.96 circulated vide no.F.56 (Misc)RTE/9798/2099040 dated 10.08.98 and letter no. 1(4)/DCF&A/accounts/DSW/200203/1781891 dated 27.01.03 issued by the then Dy. Controller (F&A), regarding purchase procedure. It is further stated that as per work distribution, accused R.K. Sharma, the then Jr. AOII was not linked with the office of DO(North) and related homes for the purpose of purchases though he was deputed with other districts.
10. Second supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, V.S. Awasthi, I.S. Pimoli and Deepika Chauhan on 14.12.2012. It is alleged that connivance was found when on 06.09.05, accused I.S. Pimoli, the then DC(F&A) directly dealt both the files without receiving through proper channel i.e. DO(North) even without caring for the removal of marking to DO (North) which was clearly visible on the files. It is further stated that the files were received by hand through accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and thereafter accused I.S. Pimoli immediately recommended both the proposals for sanction of competent authority on the same day i.e. 06.09.05 without proper scrutiny and the competent authority also accorded the sanction on these proposal files on the same day. It is further stated that coaccused V.S. Awasthi, the then DDO/HO, Bal Sadan/HHCLP got the bills presented in the PAOXI under the cover of sanction dated 06.09.05 for those irregular purchases without any approval. It is further stated that clothing and bedding items purchased were consumed during the financial year 200506 being Page 14 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. consumable items but funds for these irregular purchases were obtained by using manipulated and bogus record by accused persons. It is further stated that during investigation, original record of contingency bills (Bill no. 58, 59, 60 & 61 dated 06.09.05) were seized from the office of PAOXI and it was revealed that sanction dated 06.09.05 was used for withdrawing the amount from Government Exchequer for these irregular purchases and not for any other purchases of clothing bedding items during the financial year 200506. It is further stated that report of PAOXI also revealed that no other payments were made for the purchases of clothing bedding items.
11. It is further stated that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan succeeded in getting the expenditure sanctioned and subsequently releasing the funds in favour of her daughter's firm through the supply agencies. An amount of Rs.50,585/ vide cheque No. 576032 in favour of NAFED, Rs.1,18,872/ vide cheque No. 576031 in favour of DCCWS for the purchases of HHCLP and similarly Rs.56,844/ vide cheque No. 576029 in favour of NAFED and Rs.1,34,628/ vide cheque no. 576030 in favour of DCCWS for the purchases of Bal Sadan were released. Thus, a total amount of Rs.1,07,429/ in favour of NAFED and Rs.2,53,500/ in favour of DCCWS (total Rs.3,60,929/) was paid from Government Exchequer for purchases of clothing bedding articles during the financial year 200506. The said amount was received by both the supply agencies and after deducting their 5% official commission the remaining amount was released in favour of M/s Swastik Corporation by these supply agencies. Thus, an amount of Rs.5,634/ and Rs.12,676/ was received by NAFED & DCCWS respectively being supply agencies as their official service charges under back to back business for these purchases. It is further stated that M/s Swastik Corporation got an amount of Rs: 2,40,824/ vide cheque no. 575510 dated 19.09.05 from DCCWS and an amount of Rs. 1,01,795/ vide cheque no. 720145 dated 27.09.05 from NAFED (total Rs. 3,42,619/) in its Page 15 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. bank A/c No. 21/31662 in PNB, Mall Road, New Delhi against the supplies made to Bal Sadan and HHCLP for the clothing bedding articles during 2005
06. It is further stated that the Bank Record in this regard has also been obtained and seized which revealed that the above bank account which is reportedly inactive (lastly operated on 01.07.08) with the balance of Rs.96,848,44/ has also been freezed during investigation vide letter dated 03.11.10.
12. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed against accused persons namely Rajeshwari Chauhan and Mahesh Kumar Sharma on 03.06.2011 and cognizance of the offences under section 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 read with section 419/420/467/468/471/120B/511 of IPC read with section 201 IPC was taken against them vide order dated 05.08.2011. Cognizance for above said offences was taken on 10.05.2012 in respect of accused R.K. Sharma.
13. Thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed against accused persons namely V.S. Awasthi, I.S. Pimoli and Deepika Chauhan and cognizance of the same offences against these accused persons was taken, vide order dated 21.01.2013.
14. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.07.2013, charge for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act read with Section 120B IPC and 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and for 120B IPC was framed against accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma. Charge for the offence under section 120B IPC was framed against accused Deepika Chauhan. Charge for the offences under section 420 IPC read with 120B IPC and section 13(i)(d) PC Act read with section 120B IPC and for substantive offence under Section 120B IPC was framed against accused V.S. Awasthi. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
Page 16 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
15. Accused I.S. Pimoli was discharged from all the charges, vide order dated 26.07.2013. State thereafter, preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the discharge of accused I.S. Pimoli wherein the Hon'ble High Court had directed to reconsider the aspect of framing of charge against accused I.S. Pimoli on the basis of the material relied upon by the prosecution. Consequently, vide order on charge dated 22.09.2016, prima facie offences under section 120B IPC, Section 13(i)(d)(ii) and 13(2) PC Act read with Section 120B IPC and 420/468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was made out against accused I.S. Pimoli and accordingly charge for the same was framed against him on 23.09.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
16. Accused V.S. Awasthi expired during the trial of the case and the proceedings against him abated vide order dated 30.04.2014.
17. The witnesses in the present case can be broadly divided into six categories i.e. (I) Panch witnesses in whose presence documents were seized or sample handwriting obtained.
(II) Witnesses related to sanction.
(III) Handwriting Expert.
(IV) Witnesses from the Department of Social Welfare/Bal Sadan/HHCLP. (V) Government Agencies/Suppliers.
(VI) Public witnesses.
(VII) Witnesses from Bank / Post Office / VAT etc. (VIII) Police Witnesses/IOs etc.
18. 69 witnesses were already examined in the present case. (Jai Parkash was examined as PW70 on 14.10.2016 and 09.01.2017 and was renumbered as PW1 on 04.02.2017 as the trial was conducted denovo in view of charge framed against accused I.S. Pimoli.) Page 17 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. EVIDENCE :
(I) PANCH WITNESSES :
19. PW3 Sh. V.K. Arora deposed that on 17.02.2009, he joined the investigation of the present case as panch witness at ACB and in his presence IO had seized certain documents brought by Vinod Sharma from Social Welfare Department, vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.
20. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma, R.K. Sharma, Deepika Chauhan and I.S. Pimoli he deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents seized by the IO. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at ACB at the time of seizure of documents or that he was only asked to sign the seizure memo subsequently.
21. PW4 Sh. Chander Pawa, Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control deposed that he joined the investigation of the present case on 19.02.2009 and in his presence specimen signatures Ex.PW4/A and specimen handwriting Ex.PW4/B of Smt. J.K. Barua, Staff NursecumStore Keeper, Bal Sadan, Timarpur were obtained. He further deposed that on the same day, specimen signatures Ex.PW4/C and specimen handwriting Ex.PW4/D of Ms. Saramma were obtained.
22. PW4 was not crossexamined on behalf of any of the accused persons.
23. PW5 Sh. Narender Kumar, J.E., Irrigation and Flood Department deposed that on 04.02.2009, he was deputed as panch witness in the present case and in his presence inquiry was made from accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Mahesh Sharma. He further deposed that W/SI Kaushal Pandey was also present. He further deposed that accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Rajeshwari Chauhan voluntarily gave their specimen signature/handwriting Ex.PW5/A and Page 18 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed that in his presence Smt. Lata Gupta also gave her specimen signature/handwriting voluntarily Ex.PW5/C.
24. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma, R.K. Sharma and Deepika Chauhan, PW5 deposed that when he reached ACB office, IO was making inquiries from accused persons in presence of inspector and W/SI. He denied the suggestion that he was not a panch witness in this case or that he had not joined the investigation as panch witness on 04.02.2009. He further deposed that he does not remember as to how many documents he had signed in the office of ACB on 04.02.2009. He further deposed that besides him, W/SI also signed on the documents in his presence on 04.02.2009. He further deposed that he had never worked under accused M.K.Sharma or Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge of this case.
25. PW5 was not crossexamined on behalf of accused I.S. Pimoli.
26. PW6 Sh. Rukhsar Ahmed Khan deposed that on 10.06.2009 while he was posted as Welfare Officer, NWII, Vishram Chowk, Sector4, Rohini, joined the investigation in the present case and officials of ACB seized copy of letter dated 04.04.2008 Ex.PW6/A, copy of letter dated 12.08.2008 Ex.PW6/B, copy of letter dated 09.05.2008 Ex.PW6/C, all bearing signature of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma. Copy of file cover bearing no. F07(DE)/DONW II/DSW/2008 MarkPW6/D was also seized. All these documents were seized through seizure memo Ex.PW6/E.
27. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Deepika Chauhan and Mahesh Sharma, PW6 deposed that he had not received any notice from ACB to handover the documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW6/E. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact date and time when the officials had visited his office. He further deposed that he worked under accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma in the year 200809 but exact Page 19 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. period he does not remember. He further deposed that the signature appearing on the document Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B were signed by accused in his presence.
28. Crossexamination conducted on behalf of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Deepika Chauhan and Mahesh Sharma was also adopted by accused R.K. Sharma and I.S. Pimoli.
29. PW10 Sh. Richh Pal Singh is the panch witness who had joined the investigation on 12.02.2009 and stated that IO had interrogated accused R.K. Sharma and in his presence his specimen signature and initials on 10 sheets Ex.PW10/A were taken.
30. PW12 Sh. Tripurari Sharan, Extension Assistant (Agriculture) is also a panch witness who had joined the investigation on 31.10.2009 and in whose presence accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma had given his specimen signature on 13 pages Ex.PW12/A1 to Ex.PW12/A13.
31. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that specimen handwriting was not taken at ACB or was not taken in his presence.
32. PW14 Sh. Jee Ram, JE, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, is another panch witness in whose presence documents Ex.PW14/B pertaining to quotations etc. of Bal Sadan were produced and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that documents were produced by Sh. K.K. Sharma, Manager, NAFED.
33. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that he had signed on blank papers at the instance of the IO and stated that 7 pages were seized.
34. PW17 Sh. Pardeep Kumar is another panch witness who had joined investigation on 28.11.2009 on which date accused V.S. Awasthi had given his specimen signature on 14 pages Ex.PW17/A and the specimen signatures and Page 20 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. handwriting Ex.PW17/B by Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further stated that on the same day, IO had shown the file Ex.PW1/B pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding pertaining to Bal Sadan by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Rajeshwari Chauhan admitted her handwriting on some of the notings.
35. During crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that none of the accused persons was present at PS ACB on that day. He was also crosgranted with his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW14/DA (Ex.PW17/DA), which was not signed by the witness. The marking Ex.PW17/DA has not done inadvertently on the document by the then concerned judge, however, the document has been identified as the same was also marked as Ex.PW14/DA on 21.02.2014.
36. PW24 Sh. Rishi Pal, Junior Engineer, Department of Irrigation and Flood Control was a panch witness in whose presence Delivery Challan Book, Attendance Register and some other documents were produced by two persons on 22.06.2009 before the IO which were seized vide Ex.PW24/A. During his testimony, PW24 identified the Attendance Register D14 Ex.PW24/P1, Delivery Challan Book Ex.PW24/P2 which were seized in his presence. He further deposed that the records were produced by Sh. Naresh Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager, DCCWS, Karampura, Delhi and the attested copy of list of 93 registered suppliers is Ex.PW24/P3 in which name of Swastik Corporation is mentioned at serial no. 77. He further deposed that Sh. Naresh Kumar also produced the original agreement for registration executed between DCCWS and M/s Swastik Corporation, 159, Dhakka Village, GTB Nagar, Delhi through its proprietor Mrs. Deepika Chauhan (running into four pages) alongwith other documents supplied by the supplier i.e. M/s Swastik Corporation which were seized by the IO vide Ex.PW24/P4 (colly). He further deposed that photocopy of notesheet Ex.PW24/P5 (colly) describes the sale procedure of DCCWS through countersale and through registered traders with Page 21 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. a copy of write up on purchase and byelaws of DCCWS were also taken into police possession, vide seizure memo Ex.PW24/A.
37. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that he does not know the contents of Delivery Challan Book. He further stated that he did not read the contents of agreement between DCCWS and M/s Swastik Corporation and he did not sign or put any identification mark on the agreement which was seized in his presence. He denied the suggestion that no documents were actually seized by the IO.
38. PW27 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control is another panch witness in whose presence nine persons had joined the investigation of the present case and they had signed on documents prepared by IO, vide Ex.PW27/A.
39. PW30 Sh. Raj Kumar, Junior Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department is a panch witness in whose presence on 03.02.2009, Sh. Akhilesh Gautam, Caretaker/Store Keeper, Bal Sadan, Timarpur had produced documents which were seized by the police, vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. He further deposed that Smt. Saroj Rawat, District Officer (North) had also handed over documents, vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/B. He further deposed that accused Mahesh Sharma and Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan were interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma Ex.PW30/C and Ex.PW30/D respectively. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan is Ex.PWPW30/E and Ex.PW30/F respectively.
40. PW89 Sh. Kushal Pal is a panch witness in whose presence on 05.07.2012, accused I.S. Pimoli was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW89/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW89/B. He further deposed that on the same day in his presence accused V.S. Awasthi was also arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW89/C and his personal search was also Page 22 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW89/D. (II) WITNESSES RELATED TO SANCTION :
41. PW15 Sh. V.K.S. Chauhan is the Additional Secretary, Vigilance who had forwarded sanction for prosecution of accused R.K. Sharma vide covering letter dated 20.06.2011 Ex.PW15/A. The file put up before the sanctioning authority Sh. P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secretary is Ex.PW15/C. He further deposed that the sanction in respect of accused M.K. Sharma was forwarded vide Ex.PW15/D. He further stated that he had issued sanction order vide Ex.PW15/E on behalf of Hon'ble L.G. against accused M.K. Sharma.
42. PW98 Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Chief Secretary, Government of Delhi proved the sanction issued against accused R.K. Sharma under section 19 of PC Act vide Ex.PW98/A, in response to letter dated 03.11.2010 seeking sanction.
(III). HANDWRITING EXPERT :
43. PW96 Sh. Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director, FSL, Rohini deposed that on 05.06.2009, the questioned documents Mark Q1 to Q35, Q42A, Q46A as well as standard writings and signatures specimen marked S1 to S29 and admitted handwriting and signatures marked A1 to A41 in 75 sheets and one volume were received in their laboratory. He further deposed that again on 12.04.2010, the questioned documents marked Q136 to Q192, Q139(A), Q151(A), Q162/1, Q167A, Q168A, Q168B, Q170A, Q171A, Q172A, Q173A, Q173B, Q179/1 awe all as standard writings and specimen signatures marked S12 to S19, S30 to S54, S69 to S79, S79A, S79B, S55 to S68, S92 to S99, S80 to S93, S100 to S114 and admitted handwriting and signatures marked A35/1 to A45/1, A45, A50 to A53, A65 to A71, A54 to A57, A72 to A77, A58 to A64, A78, A79, A80, A81, A82 to A98, A99 to A112 and A113 to A196 in Page 23 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. 152 sheets and six volumes were received in the laboratory. He further deposed that he had examined all the documents thoroughly vide his detailed report no. FSL2009/D2268 dated 25.08.2009 Ex.PW96/A and another report no. FSL2010/D1512 dated 17.08.2010 Ex.PW96/B.
44. During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused persons, PW96 deposed that he had prepared the report on the basis of enlarged images of questioned signatures and standard signatures. He further deposed that four sheets of specimen writings/signatures of Mahesh Kumar Sharma, eight sheets of specimen writing/signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan, two sheets of specimen writing/signatures of Lata Gupta were supplied by the IO to the laboratory. He admitted that Q2 is initial/short signature whereas S6 and S7 contain comparatively larger signature of the person. He further deposed that as the pattern of questioned signature marked Q2 and the pattern of specimen signatures mark S6 and S7 are different in size/design etc, as such the opinion was framed as both the set of signatures were neither technically comparable nor appear to be written by one of the same person. He further admitted that no opinion was given on questioned writings (figures) on the questioned document marked Q72 to Q86, on comparison with the specimens due to the fact that these questions do not supply sufficient scientific data for comparison. He further admitted that the dates/figures of Ms. Lata Gupta was provided in one specimen sheet marked S6. He denied that the figure mentioned as Q72 were not compared with the specimen marked S6 by him. He admitted that he had not given any separate opinion with respect to the document Q72 but it has mentioned on his report on point no. 5 dated 25.08.2009 that it has not been possible to express any opinion on rest of the questioned items on the basis of material in hand. He denied that he had not given a fair opinion with regard to the questioned document Q72 with the specimen S6 to conceal the identity of Ms. Lata Gupta. He further deposed that he had mentioned the general and individual writing characteristics of the person in his report and the same are Page 24 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. encircled with red ink in his report Ex.PW96/B. (IV). WITNESSES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE / BAL SADAN / HHCLP :
45. PW1 Jai Parkash, Finance Officer, PWD has deposed that in the year 2010, he was posted as Assistant Account Officer (AAO) and he joined the investigation alongwith Sh. Kuljeet Singh, Sr. Account Officer on 27.04.2010 and 28.04.2010 with Insp. Kailash Chandra of ACB. He further stated that a special audit was conducted with regard to procurement of dietary/nondietary items during the financial year 20042006 in respect of Bal Sadan, Timarpur and he was a member of audit team of Special Audit. The special audit report is Ex.PW1/A (earlier Ex.PW56/A). He further stated that the most of the purchase files containing prior administrative approval of the competent authority and other documents such as inviting, receiving, opening of quotations, comparative statements alongwith the approval of competent authority were not produced before them for scrutiny. The stock register for the procurement of dietary/nondietary items pertaining to financial year 2004 05 were also not produced so the authenticity of the stock entries could not be verified. He further stated that while conveying the expenditure sanction, the Bal Sadan never endorsed/forwarded its copy to the Directorate of Audit which was required to be done as per GFR29 (General Financial Rules). He further deposed about the procedure of purchase in Social Welfare Department as mentioned in GFR, therefore, his testimony being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
"(i) A Requisition based upon the demand of the goods along with stock position to be prepared and placed on the record by store keeper.
(ii) Thereafter the proposal to be put up before DDO/HO for necessary action.
(iii) Thereafter, the proposal to be sent to District Social Welfare Officer i.e. Page 25 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. DO by the DDO/HO after satisfying him/herself.
(iv) Thereafter, the DO shall examine the proposal and if he/she is satisfied then the same will be sent to Competent Authority through Accounts Branch and if not satisfied the same shall be sent back to DDO/HO for clarification.
(v) Thereafter the facts of the proposal shall be examined by Accounts Branch which will also certify regarding availability of funds. Thereafter the DC (F&A) shall recommend the proposal and same will be sent to Competent Authority.
(vi) Thereafter the Competent Authority after satisfying himself shall grant permission A/A for observing codal formalities/calling of the rates as per requirement.
(vii) Thereafter the proposal shall be sent back to DDO/HO through the channel it was received by the Competent Authority.
(viii) Thereafter the DDO/HO shall prepare the NIT (keeping in view the contents of GFR 160) for fulfillment of codal formalities and also shall issue a Notice to the members of the Purchase Committee duly constituted by the Head of the Department shall be given indicating the proposed date and time for attending the proceedings of purchase committee. The date and time should be same as indicated in the NIT.
(ix) Thereafter on due date of opening of NIT, the DDO/HO shall submit the quotations/rates envelops so received before the purchase committee and the same shall be jointly opened by the members of the purchase committee indicating their signature/designation/seal date and time. The purchase committee shall prepare comparative statement indicating the L1 of each item and shall also ensure that the specifications of the items quoted by the tenders are as per NIT.
(x) Thereafter the proposal including the comparative statement showing L1 item shall be again sent to Competent Authority for approval of L1 rates Page 26 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. through the office of District Officer.
(xi) Thereafter the file is received back by the DDO/HO after approval of the Competent Authority. The DDO/HO then only shall place the supply order to L1 agency for procuring the goods.
(xii) Thereafter the goods are received in the Home where necessary entries are made in the stock register and finally distributed among the inmates. The Store keeper and DDP/HO shall also certify on the body/back of the that goods have been received in goods condition as per specification of each item in the NIT.
(xiii) Thereafter the proposal shall again be sent to Competent Authority through District Officer and Accounts branch for accordance of Expenditure Sanction of the proposed expenditure as per bill received from the supply agencies. Here it is duty of DDO/HO to ensure that the rates of each item are L1 and quantity in the bill is as per supply order.
(xiv) Thereafter the Expenditure Sanction proposal shall be examined and processed by the office of DC(F&A) at DSW/HQ. Again the Accounts Branch either may recommend the proposal and send it to Competent Authority or return it back to the DDO/HO with some queries if detected.
(xv) Thereafter as per the recommendation of Finance Accounts Branch the sanction shall be accorded by the Competent Authority. (xvi) Thereafter the proposal shall be sent back to DDO/HO through the channel it was received by the Competent Authority. (xvii) Thereafter the DDO/HO after satisfying himself regarding the documents, shall also issue conveyed sanction (referring the U.O. No. and date etc. of the sanction accorded by Competent Authority) of the actual expenditure including taxes thereon and shall prepare the contingency bills and present the same in the PAO with necessary certification. (xviii) Thereafter the contingency bills will be examined by PAO who will issue the cheque in favour of the supply agency.Page 27 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (xix) Thereafter the cheques are collected from PAO by the DDO/HO or his staff.
(xx) Thereafter the cheques are received by the supply agencies for final payment against the supplies."
46. PW1 further deposed that on seeing the file Ex.PW1/B that page no. 1 is the proposal regarding purchase of dietary, general items, clothings and beddings etc. for day to day use of the inmates of the Bal Sadan, Timarpur. He further deposed that this proposal is undated and was not placed before the immediate Superior officer i.e. District Officer. He further deposed that as per the rules and regulations the proposal was to be compulsorily dated and it must be placed before the immediate Superior Officer i.e. DO (North). He further deposed that the diary number is also not given on the proposal and therefore, he can say that the proposal was never processed. He further deposed that as per the 2nd page of Ex.PW1/B, the proposal for certain items mentioned therein was moved on 02.07.2005 by the HOD/DO of Bal Sadan, Timarpur. He further deposed that the proposal was for administrative approval and expenditure sanction originally for Rs.2,20,065/ but the file was returned by DO (North) on 14.07.2005 with the remarks that comparative statement attached was not valid as the same was valid upto 31.03.2005. He further deposed that initially proposal dated 02.07.2005 was signed by two persons and when the file was returned by District Officer, it was signed by one officer only wherein he had again asked for administrative approval and expenditure sanction for Rs.2,20,065/. He further deposed that it was mentioned in the note that tenders were opened on 30.06.2005 and due to nonavailability of store keeper, new tenders were not taken and that the purchase be made on the basis of old rates i.e. preceding year and the file was marked to DO (North) and it was returned by DO (North) with a noting that all the columns were Page 28 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. not filled and it was also noted by District Officer that DDO must mention the items which were required on emergent basis and that some of the items mentioned were shown as not fit for use and sought clarification. He further deposed that DDO/Superintendent, Bal Sadan replied that as per Stock Register, the stock was nil and items were urgently required and emergency was shown for purchase of items and thereafter, it was not marked to District Officer but it was directly marked to DCFA (Deputy Controller Finance and Accounts). As per rules and regulations, objections should have been removed as pointed out by District Officer (North) and thereafter it should have been placed before District Officer (North) which had not been done in this case. He further deposed that DCFA moved the noting for expost facto sanction for an amount of Rs.1,95,076/ and that this amount was never proposed as per original proposal. He further deposed that DCFA marked the file to Joint Director (Admn.) on 06.09.2005 as competent authority and administrative approval and expost facto expenditure sanction for Rs.1,95,076/ was accorded and file was down marked on the same day and thereafter, the payment was sought. He further deposed that as per rules and regulations at the time of moving proposal for expost facto sanction of expenditure and administrative approval, DDO is under obligation to specify complete purchase detail like bill numbers, dates, amount of each item and after being satisfied with all these formalities, the expost facto sanction of the expenditure and administrative approval should have been sought and file should have been moved through DO which was not done in this case.
47. PW1 further deposed that as far as anomalies pertaining to HHCLP is concerned, the first page of file Ex.PW1/C relates to the proposal for purchase of dietary, general items, clothings and bedding etc. for day to day use of the Page 29 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. inmates of the HHCLP, Timarpur and the proposed amount was Rs.1,95,670/ which was also undated and signed by two persons as DDO (HO) and it was also not put up/placed before DO (North) who was the immediate Superior Authority as per regulations. He further deposed that as per second page of Ex.PW1/C, the undated proposal for certain items mentioned therein was moved by the HOD/DDO of HHCLP, Timarpur and this proposal was for administrative approval and expenditure sanction originally for Rs.1,94,670/. He further deposed that the file was returned by DO (North) on 14.07.2005 with the remarks that comparative statement attached was not valid as the same was valid upto 31.03.2005. Initial undated proposal was signed by two persons and when the proposal was returned by District Officer, it was signed by one officer only wherein he had again asked for administrative approval and expenditure sanction for Rs.1,94,670/ and it was mentioned that the purchase be made on the basis of old rates i.e. of preceding year. He further deposed that the file was marked to DO (North) and DO (North) marked the same to DC (F&A) with a noting for administrative approval only and file may be submitted for expenditure sanction from the competent authority after completing codal formalities. He further deposed that objection should have been removed as pointed out by DO (North) and thereafter, it should have been placed before DO (North) which had not been done in this case. Though, DC (F&A) moved the noting for administrative approval only and thereafter, the file was marked to competent authority i.e. Joint Director (Admn) on 25.07.2005 which was accorded on 29.07.2005 and was down marked to DC (F&A) and he marked it to DO (North)Superintendent, Bal Sadan. He further deposed that the file was not placed before DO(North) but it was placed before the Superintendent. He further deposed that without observing the Page 30 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. codal formalities for purchase of the items, DDO/HHCLP made the purchases and submitted the proposal for expenditure sanction of Rs.1,94,670/ and instead of placing the file to DO (North) it was marked to DC (F&A). He further deposed that DDO is under obligation to specify complete purchase detail like bill numbers, dates, amount of each item and after being satisfied with all these formalities, expenditure sanction should have been sought and file should have been moved through DO (North) which was not done in this case. He further deposed that these formalities were compulsorily to be observed by DC(F&A) but he failed to do so and directly marked the file for sanction to competent authority i.e. Joint Director (Admn) who gave sanction of Rs.1,71,095/ and marked the same to DO (North)/DDO/HO but was never placed before DO (North) but was placed directly before DDO/HO.
48. PW1 after seeing the file Ex.PW1/D relating to quotations for the year 2005 deposed that as per rules and regulations, the position of stock, quality and quantity of the required items in the homes needs to be reflected in the quotation file and this formality was not completed in this case. He further deposed that even notice inviting tender, constitution of purchase committee were not found referred in the noting in Ex.PW1/D and subsequently NIT was issued to 7 agencies and tender was to be opened on 25.06.2005, the date fixed for opening the same but it was opened on 30.06.2005. He further deposed that although, NIT was not issued to Gurukul and Neel Kanth but they had submitted their quotations. The purchase committee identified the lowest One Rate (L1 Rate) and the comparative statement Ex.PW1/E (previously exhibited as Ex.PW19/F) was signed on 30.06.2005. He further deposed that the tender was opened on 30.06.2005 whereas the purchase order was found to be placed on 29.06.2005 for both homes i.e. Bal Sadan as well as Page 31 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. HHCLP. (It is observed that Ex.PW1/E is not marked on the comparative statement on 04.02.2017 in the court file. However, the same is exhibited as Ex.PW19/F on 21.03.2014, Ex.PW28/F on 26.08.2017 and Ex.PW32/DX6 on 25.01.2018).
49. PW1 further deposed that administrative approval regarding purchase order pertaining to two houses i.e. Bal Sadan and HHCLP was obtained on 29.07.2005 subject to condition that expenditure sanction would be obtained after completion of codal formalities but in this case, the purchase order was found placed on the supplier on 29.06.2005 i.e. before getting administrative approval. He further deposed that regarding purchase made by Bal Sadan, administrative approval and expenditure sanctions were conveyed by the competent authority on 06.09.2005 and thus, purchases were made before obtaining the administrative approval. PW1 after seeing the first page i.e. 1/N of Ex.PW1/B deposed that para 2 and para 4 are contradictory in as much as, as per para2 the purchase shall be made from the government agency after completing all codal formalities whereas as per para4, purchases have already been made. He further deposed that this proposal is undated and it was not placed before DO (North). PW1 after seeing the page2/N of Ex.PW1/B stated that 16 items were to be procured without specifying size, quality and proposition. He further deposed that the proposal was originally for Rs.1,87,215/ and the figure of Rs.1,87,215/ was altered with pen as Rs.2,20,065/. He further deposed that as per page 3/N, DO(North) has raised objection about the proposal but instead of removing the objection, it was again moved showing emergent requirement of clothes. Similarly, in Ex.PW1/C i.e. file pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding articles for the use of inmates of HHCLP, the proposal is undated and it was not placed before DO (North) and 16 items were to be procured without specifying size, quality and proposition. He further deposed that the proposal was originally Page 32 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. for Rs.1,71,270/ and the figure of Rs.1,71,270/ was altered with pen as Rs.1,94,670/. He further deposed that as per page 3/N, DO(North) has raised objection and recommended the proposal for administrative approval only subject to fulfillment of codal formalities. He further deposed that as per noting in 4/N and 5/N of Ex.PW1/C, the purchase had been made on comparative rates from DCCWS and Nafed and original purchase bill were placed opposite in the file but no such bills were found. He further deposed that the details of purchases like date of purchase, quantity wise item, amount, agency from which purchases were made etc. should have been mentioned in the note which is not so in this case. He further deposed that prior to moving the file for administrative approval and expost facto expenditure sanction, purchase order was already placed on 29.06.2005 i.e. before finalization of comparative statement on 30.06.2005. He further deposed that as per file Ex.PW1/D, the file was moved without signature of Store Keeper and was never placed before District Officer (North) for recommendation regarding formation of purchase committee and the quotations submitted by various agencies do not bear the diary number and date of the home which should have been mentioned. He further deposed that the item PT shoes were not called for by the home but some of the quotations show this item and minutes of purchase committee meeting held on 30.06.2005 was not found recorded and placed on file.
50. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Mahesh Kumar Sharma, R.K. Sharma and Deepika Sharma, PW1 deposed that at the time of audit he does not remember whom he had directed to produce files but perhaps it was accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further deposed that he had asked her orally as well as in writing to produce files after showing her authorization to conduct audit. He further deposed that he had informed his senior regarding accused Rajeshwari Chauhan not providing files Page 33 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. for special audit. He further deposed that only these three files were shown by the IO, however, they had seen other documents at both the homes during Special Audit. He further deposed that once the expost facto sanction is accorded regarding the purchases made in emergent condition, purchases were treated as regularized and payment is made accordingly to the supplier. He admitted that payment is made to the government supplier through government agency and original bills are placed before the Pay and Account Officer for precheck at his level. He also admitted that at the time of issuing cheque against the payment, bill is verified thoroughly at the level of Pay and Account Office and thereafter, payment was made to the government agency and it was the government agency which disburse payment further to their respective suppliers. He admitted that codal formalities were to be completed after grant of administrative approval and it appears that the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 has not been utilized for making purchases against subsequent sanction. He also admitted that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was neither deployed in Bal Sadan or HHCLP in the year 2008. He volunteered that Special Audit they were insisting for production of certain record like purchase files etc. but was told by the staff of both the homes that the files were with accused Rajeshwari Chauhan.
51. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused I.S. Pimoli, PW1 stated that he alongwith his team members had conducted Special Audit of Bal Sadan only once for the year 20042005 and 20052006. He volunteered that regarding the other home he alongwith his senior Kuljeet Singh was called by ACB to scrutinize the record which was not produced during the Special Audit of both homes. He further stated that at the office of ACB, he had scrutinized only those record which was seized by ACB and were not produced at the time of Special Audit. He further stated that codal formalities were required for purchase procedure and as per codal formalities, tender was required to be Page 34 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. called for purchases made on frequent basis. He further stated that codal formalities were required to be fulfilled if one or more purchases are made in a particular year. He admitted that codal formalities and administrative approval can go simultaneously. To a question put to PW1 that whether an administrative sanction can be granted based on the administrative approval on the basis of codal formalities which are already under process prior to the administrative approval, he replied that it can be done but only in cases of emergent purchases. He admitted that as per the circular Ex.PW1/D1, DC (F&A) is responsible to examine the purchase proposal. He further stated that in the case of expost facto expenditure sanction, if the JD (Admn) has accorded the sanction, the proposal and purchases stands regularized. He also admitted that in case of expenditure sanction, once it is granted by JD (Admn), the proposal and the purchases stands approved and regularized. PW1 also admitted that as per order Ex.PW1/D2, Joint Director i.e. competent authority is having full powers as regard purchase of dietary, clothing and other items of day to day use for institution inmates under the department of Social Welfare subject to approved norms and scale. PW1 also admitted that if expenditure sanction and administrative approval is granted by the Joint Director then violation, if any, of office memorandum Ex.PW1/D3 is deemed to be rectified.
52. PW2 Sh. O.P. Bhatti, Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar proved the biodata of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Rajeshwari Chauhan which were forwarded by him to ACB through letter Ex.PW2/A when he was posted as Senior Superintendent (Vigilance) in the Department of Women and Child Development. The biodata of Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Rajeshwari Chauhan are Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively.
53. PW8 Sh. R.K. Mishra, Special Commissioner, VAT proved the circular bearing no. F7(2)/A/CS/20032004/DSW20455566 dt. 26.08.2003 Ex.PW1/D1 which was issued by him on 26.08.2003 while working as Joint Page 35 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Director, Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi.
54. PW11 Sh. Niroti Lal, Retired Superintendent (Admn. Branch) proved the bio data of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Mahesh Kumar as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B respectively and office order Ex.PW11/C.
55. The court was unable to locate the documents Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C exhibited on 05.05.2017 in the file. Ld. Addl. PP for the State on 15.12.2021 submitted that Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C are the documents actually exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C exhibited on 24.01.2014 and it seems that at the time of recording of evidence on 05.05.2017, the exhibits were inadvertently left to be marked on the documents. However, nonmarking of the exhibits on 05.05.2017 would not make any difference as the biodata of accused R.K. Sharma and Rajeshwari Chauhan are exhibited as Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C respectively on 22.03.2017 and the letter of Sh. O.P. Bhatt, Senior Superintendent supplying the biodata is Ex.PW2/A vide which these biodata were sent to the IO.
56. PW16 Sh. B.R. Singh, Secretary deposed that while he was posted as Joint Director, Department of Social Welfare and at the request of complainant under RTI Act, he had supplied the preliminary inquiry report submitted by Smt. Saroj Rawat, DO (North) vide letter dated 03.12.2008 Ex.PW16/A. The report of Smt. Saroj Rawat is Ex.PW16/B. He further stated that in response to another RTI, annexure Ex.PW16/D to the inquiry report was supplied to the complainant on 30.01.2009 vide Ex.PW16/C. He further stated that he had told the IO that various circulars regarding procedure for purchase of articles in Social Welfare Department were being valid. Various circulars were exhibited as Ex.PW16/E to Ex.PW16/H. He also proved the transfer order dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/I and transfer order dated 17.06.2005 as Ex.PW16/J.
57. PW18 Sh. Jage Ram, UDC deposed that during the period 20022013, while he was working as LDC, he was assigned the work of Diary and Dispatch and Page 36 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. IO of the present case had collected the file movement register Ex.PW17/C and register Ex.P2, vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. He also proved the entry in Register Ex.P2 i.e. dispatch register at serial no. 1650 dated 06.09.2005 which is in his handwriting Ex.PW18/B, qua the movement of file of Bal Sadan regarding purchase of clothing and bedding for the use. He further deposed that as per Ex.P2, the file of which the entry was made vide Ex.PW18/B, did not bear the file number and diary number and only word 'BAL SADAN' is written. He further deposed that as per the entry, the file was sent to Joint Director (Admn) and bears signature of Rajeshwari Chauhan at point X who had brought the file and to whom file was handed over after making entry. He further deposed that Ex.P1, He further deposed that the file Ex.P1 is the same file qua which the entry Ex.PW18/B was made. The entry no. 1636 Ex.PW18/C in register Ex.P2 is in the handwriting of PW18 which was made regarding 'Purchase Clothing & Bedding for use of Inmates'. He further deposed that the file was brought by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and was returned to her vide her signature at point B, she had signed at the corresponding portion in the entry no. 1636. He further deposed that the file Ex.PW1/C is the same file the movement of which is reflected in entry Ex.PW18/C and the IO had prepared signature/handwriting identification memo Ex.PW18/D. He further deposed that on 24.11.2009, he had joined the investigation and had identified signatures/initials of Rajeshwari Chauhan on the above documents in presence of panch witness Sanjeev Sehgal, vide signature/handwriting identification memo Ex.PW18/E.
58. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW18 deposed that he had stated about the handwriting and signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan on the basis of the record, however, he cannot say if the signatures at point X on Ex.PW18/B at serial no. 1636 and 1650 are that of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan as he was not acquainted with her signature as he had never worked under Rajeshwari Chauhan. He admitted that the aforementioned Page 37 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. files were received by him and it was he who had sent to the office of DCFA and that the aforementioned files had reached him and thereafter, the same were sent by him to the office of JD (Admn.).
59. PW21 Ms. Geeta Sagar, Secretary Education deposed that on 10.08.1998, with a view to streamline the purchase procedure and bringing uniformity in the institution run by Social Welfare Department, a Committee was constituted to suggest the ways and means to achieve above objectives who gave recommendations which were accepted and on 10.08.1998, a circular Ex.PW16/F was issued under her signature.
60. PW22 Sh. Jitendra Kumar, UDC, Department of Social Welfare proved two officer orders dated 17.06.2005 and 07.04.2005 issued under the signature of Sh. Sanjay Gihar which are Ex.PW22/A and Ex.PW22/B (colly).
61. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that one office order was issued under the signatures of same officer on 28.06.2005 which he identified and the same is Ex.PW54/DA.
62. PW23 Sh. R.K. Blaggan, Retired Controller of Accounts (Audit) deposed that on 27.02.2003 while he was working as Deputry Controller (F&A), certain steps were taken to be followed by all the institutions of Social Welfare Department and in this regard an order Ex.PW13/G was issued under his signature.
63. PW26 Sh. P.P. Dhal, Retired Joint Director, Department of Women and Child Welfare proved the circulars Ex.PW16/E, Ex.PW16/F, Ex.PW13/G and Ex.PW16/H which were authenticated by him after comparing with the originals and were signed by him. He also deposed that he has put his official stamp on each page and all these circulars/orders were operative in the year 20052006 which were related to purchase made for homes/institutions run under Department of Social Welfare and the orders/circulars were mandatorily to be observed at the time of purchase.
Page 38 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
64. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that only in emergency, purchase can be done and if such purchases are granted expost facto sanction by competent authority, such purchases are deemed to be regularized. He further deposed that subject to Audit, purchases made on the basis of expost facto are final, if approved by competent authority.
65. PW29 Ms. Suman Abrol, Retired VAT officer deposed that in the year 2010, while she was posted as Superintendent/DDO/HOO of Bal Sadan, GNCT of Delhi, she had sent reply Ex.PW29/A to the notice given to her by IO. She further deposed that she had provided the attendance register relating to Class IV employee, HHCLP of year 200506 Ex.PW29/B to the IO. She further deposed that as per record, officials mentioned in portion B to B in Ex.PW29/A were working at Bal Sadan during that period and both the homes i.e. Bal Sadan and HHCLP were under same DDO/HHO and are located and functioned in the same premises and hence no separate quotations were asked for both the homes. She further deposed that she cannot say if any gate register was being maintained in the year 200506 thereof or if any gate keeper/guard was posted during that period, however, no gate register was traced despite efforts for the year 200506.
66. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, she deposed that names of the officials mentioned in Ex.PW29/A (at portion B to B are not mentioned in Ex.PW29/B. She volunteered that the names mentioned in Ex.PW29/A are of the persons working in the year 2010 whereas the attendance register i.e. Ex.PW29/B pertains to the year 2006. She further deposed that she has no personal knowledge about the officials who had marked attendance in Ex.PW29/B and she had signed Ex.PW29/A after reading the contents.
67. PW32 Smt. Neera Mullick deposed that in May 2005, she took physical charge as District Officer (North), Social Welfare Department and assumed Page 39 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the charge as DDO on 18.05.2005 from her predecessor Ms. Lata Gupta, vide noting Ex.PW32/A in regard of taking charge of DDO on cash book. She further deposed that on 14.07.2005, file pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding for the use of inmates of Bal Sadan Ex.PW1/B was marked to her by Head of Office and she had given her noting to recast the proposal as per purchase direction of the Department which will be effective after 15.07.2005 and also stated that Superintendent needs to be cautious while making proposal being financial matter. She further deposed that the noting on Ex.PW1/B at page 21/3N at encircled portion X is in her handwriting and after making noting the file was marked to accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Superintendent/DDO/HO of Bal Sadan who had moved the proposal. PW32 had identified signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan at point B on note sheet 2/N since PW32 had worked with her and PW32 was acquainted with her signature. She further deposed that on the same day, another file pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding for the use of inmates of HHCLP Ex.PW1/C was marked to her by Head of Office and she had given her noting that Superintendent will go through the proposal thoroughly and not add out dated comparative statement which was valid till 31.03.2005 and opened and signed on 30.06.2004. She further deposed that she had also advised to recast as per the new purchase advisory of the department. She further deposed that the noting on Ex.PW1/C at page 2N/3N at encircled portion X is in her handwriting bearing her signature at point A and after making noting, the file was marked to Superintendent/DDO/HO of HHCLP, Rajeshwari Chauhan, who had sent the proposal. PW32 had also identified the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan at point P2 on note sheet 2/N. She further deposed that in the year 2009, when she joined the investigation regarding her forged signatures on documents pertaining to purchasing various goods for Bal Sadan, Timarpur for the period 20052006, she was shown the Page 40 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. comparative statement of rates of various goods whereupon somebody had signed as District Social Welfare Officer (North), the post which she was holding at that time. She further deposed that her purported signatures over the stamp had not been made by her at point A and B.
68. PW32 further deposed that on 30.06.2005, she was DDO and had seen page 131 of cash book which she had signed at point A on 30.06.2005 and on the same day, she had surrendered one cheque bearing no. 765590 dated 31.03.2005 for Rs.10,000/ in favour of one Smt. Kashmiri Devi addressed to Pay and Accounts Officer XIV, vide office copy of letter placed on cash book Ex.PW32/C. She further deposed that she had also seen note sheet page 3N Ex.PW1/D and it does not bear her signature at point A against the designation of District Officer (Zila Adhikari). She further deposed that this file was never presented to her at any point of time during her tenure as DO (North) from 2005 to 2006. She further deposed that she had not constituted any Purchase Committee during the said period. She also identified her signature on attendance register of the staff Ex.PW32/D, of the period MayJune 2005. She further deposed that the purchase file Ex.PW1/B bears note in her handwriting at page no. 2N and 3N dated 14.07.2005 declining the proposal submitted by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, the then Superintendent, Bal Sadan whose signatures exist at points B and C and also bears the signatures of accused V.S. Awasthi at point D and E. She further deposed that she had also given her specimen initials, specimen signatures both in English and Hindi and Specimen Handwriting Ex.PW32/E to the IO.
69. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW32 deposed that she had sent her joining report to the concerned official and her specimen signatures were also sent to P&AO. She further deposed that she had Page 41 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. specifically mentioned in her joining report that she had taken physical charge but not the financial charge. She further deposed that she came to know that the price quoted for the financial year 20042005 in the notesheet Ex.PW1/B had already expired as accompanying quotation Ex.PW33/B was pertaining to earlier financial years. She further deposed that she cannot tell if any purchase was made on the basis of Ex.PW33/B. She denied the suggestion that she was not posted as DO(North) on 30.06.2005 when the file Ex.PW1/B was placed before her. She admitted that transfer order bears the current designation of the officer under transfer. She further deposed that she was additionally posted as SORTE with the charge of planning officer and DO, New Delhi. She further deposed that she joined in the first week of May 2005 as DO (North) and subsequently as D.D., Handicapped Welfare. She further deposed that revised orders were issued by Department in the month of May. She denied the suggestion that she did not join in the month of May 2005 but subsequent to 28.06.2005 on the basis of transfer order. She deposed that she had not seen any order 28.06.2005 and she had never joined as Planning Officer again. She further deposed that the document MarkPW38/B had never been served to her and as per this document, Pushpa Pathak is shown as DO (North) on 28.06.2005 whereas Mrs. Lata Gupta was the DO in May 2005 from whom she had taken charge in cash book. She further deposed that she had visited the Bal Sadan once as DO(North) but she does not remember its date and time. Original transfer order dated 27.04.2005 bearing no. F.10(10/2000/DSW/Estt./11422510 is Ex.PW32/DX1, in pursuance of this order, she had joined as DO (North) and her joining letter is Ex.PW32/D1. She further deposed that she has seen the order dated 28.06.2005 Ex.PW32/DX2 as per which she was not transferred rather it has been shown that she was planning to proceed on leave which was sanctioned by the competent authority vide order dated 07.06.2005 Ex.PW32/DX3. She further deposed that she had Page 42 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. availed the leave sanctioned and she had requested to revise her sanctioned leave from 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 instead of earlier leave 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005, vide Ex.PW32/DX4 which was sanctioned as per letter dated 08.07.2005, vide Ex.PW32/DX5. She further deposed that letter Ex.PW32/DX2 was never communicated to her. She further deposed that Ex.PW1/B was placed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan before her i.e. notesheet dated 02.07.2005. She denied that it was in fact V.S. Awasthi who had produced the file Ex.PW1/B with the help of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She admitted that neither Ex.PW1/C nor Ex.PW1/B was put before her subsequent to 14.07.2005. She further admitted that it is not mentioned in her noting either in Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/B that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had put up this file before her. She further deposed that as per practice prevalent in government normally designation is mentioned not the same. She further deposed that she was posted as DO (North) as per order dated 27.04.2005 in place of Ms. Lata Gupta, the then DO (North). It is admitted that accused Mahesh Sharma was gazetted officer on 30.06.2005 and he was allotted as government accommodation at Kingsway Camp, Social Welfare Department. She further deposed that she does not remember the exact date of transfer order vide which she took over charge as DO (North) but it was issued in the month of April 2005. She further deposed that she had informed the Director, Social Welfare Department that she had taken the charge as DO(North), vide letter Ex.PW32/DX1. She further deposed that she had taken physical charge and charge as DDO was taken over only after completion of Financial Documents, therefore, it is later to physical joining. She further deposed that there was no practice of sending separate taking over report as DDO and she had not mentioned in the cash book that physical charge had already been taken over and charge as DDO was being taken over on 18.05.2005. She further deposed that order Ex.PW32/DX2 Page 43 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. was never served upon her. She denied that she was not holding the charge as DO(North) on 30.06.2005. She denied that on 30.06.2005, Smt. Lata Gupta was holding the charge as DO(North). She further denied that she had no authority to put initials at point B and C on Ex.PW19/F as she was not holding charge as DO (North) on 30.06.2005, when the said comparative statement was prepared. She further deposed that she does not know if any purchasing was made on the basis of comparative statement dated 30.06.2005. She further deposed that her office of DO (North) was situated at Gulabi Bagh and she had visited Bal Sadan, Timarpur during her tenure as DO (North). She further deposed that if expost facto sanction is given by the concerned head of the department for purchased made, the same are deemed to have been regularized. She further deposed that it is not to her knowledge that any order was placed on 29.06.2005 or that goods were supplied on 08.07.2005 or that the same were distributed to the inmates of Bal Sadan on 11.07.2005 or 13.07.2005. She further deposed that the proposal put up before her did not mention these facts. She denied that she is deposing falsely or that Smt. Lata Gupta was holding the charge of DO (North) when the orders were placed. She further denied that she was not aware of the purchase or supply of goods as she was not physically present at Bal Sadan at the relevant time. She further deposed that she was not given any intimation by the DDO of Bal Sadan regarding purchase or supply of any goods during the period 29.06.2005 to 08.07.2005. She further deposed that at the time of her visit and inspection at Bal Sadan, Timarpur, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was working as Superintendent and DDO. She admitted that in June 2005 accused Mahesh Sharma was a gazetted officer and capable of being member of Purchase Committee and capable of signing the comparative statement under this own stamp. She admitted that comparative statement of the rates was prepared after the quotations have been received. She admitted Page 44 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. that attendance register Ex.PW28/A does not bear her name. She further deposed that she was gazetted officer and only signed the same to authenticate the same.
70. PW33 Smt. Saroj Rawat deposed that while she was posted as District Social Welfare Officer (North) from 2005 to 2009, she conducted a preliminary inquiry which was initiated on a RTI query by Sh. Raj Mangal, representative of Pratidhi. She further deposed that there were three issues in the inquiry which were pertaining to quotation dated 30.06.2005 for purchase of general articles for Bal Sadan, Timarpur. She further deposed that she was to identify the persons who had signed the quotation on behalf of Bal Sadan and Social Welfare Department and to identify their designations/status as well at that time. She further deposed that she was also to inquire into the status of two agencies namely M/s Neel Kant and M/s Gurukul Gramin Cooperative whose rates had been quoted in the said quotation. The comparative statement of rate quoted by various agencies is Ex.PW28/F in the file Ex.PW1/D. She further deposed that on the basis of preliminary inquiry conducted by her, she identified signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan at point R on the comparative statement Ex.PW28/F and at point R on note sheet Ex.PW33/A and she had also identified the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma at points F in Ex.PW28/F and Ex.PW33/A. She further deposed that she had also found during her inquiry as one of the issues involved that on 30.06.2005, accused V.S. Awasthi had joined as Superintendent, Bal Sadan on 14.06.2005 but accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had appended her signatures against the stamp/seal of Superintendent. She further deposed that Ms. Neera Malik was found to be the District Officer (North) on 30.06.2005 and accused R.K. Sharma was the Accounts Officer. She further deposed that accused Mahesh Sharma was not the District Officer (North) though he had appended his signatures against the stamp/seal of District Officer (North). She Page 45 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. further deposed that the third issue which was inquired into by her was regarding the status of M/s Neel Kanth & M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Cooperative and both these agencies were found to be nonexisting. She further deposed that Wazirpur address of M/s Neel Kanth & M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Cooperative was visited by her and it was found that an Aanganwari Center of Social Welfare Department was running at the address and not M/s Neel Kanth and M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Cooperative. She further deposed that she also visited the Timarpur address of M/s Neel Kanth and M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Cooperative and no such agency was found running at the given address. Preliminary inquiry report dated 20.04.2007 is Ex.PW16/B. She further deposed that she had also inquired into the observance of codal formalities for purchase of items. She further deposed that she examined the then Superintendent, Cashier and Store Keeper during the inquiry and they all told that no file or quotation or letter inviting quotations for purchase of the items for Bal Sadan qua comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 was available as no such record had been handed over to them by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that the procedure followed for purchase of articles for Homes was that a committee was to be constituted under the Chairmanship of the District Social Welfare Officer of the particular district, Superintendent of the Home, for which purchases were to be made would be the Member Secretary and accounts officer from Headquarters and one gazetted officer from the adjoining Home/Superintendent of adjoining Home, were supposed to be two other members of the committee. She further deposed that before inviting quotations, administrative approval was to be sought from the District Officer, on the file initiated by Superintendent and on getting administrative approval, letters were supposed to be written to various agencies with preference to Government owned/cooperative firms inviting Page 46 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. quotations. She further deposed that for urgent purchases, the items could be procured from Kendriya Bhandar upto a limited amount. She further deposed that during inquiry, she had not found on record any prior administrative approval for the purchases with respect to comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 Ex.PW28/F. She further deposed that no prior compliance of codal formalities were found on record pertaining to the comparative statement Ex.PW28/F. She further deposed that in the year 2007 while she was posted as District Officer (North), an inquiry was conducted by her, vide inquiry report dated 20.04.2007 Ex.PW33/X1.
71. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW33 denied that the scope of preliminary inquiry was only with respect to missing record of Bal Sadan. She further deposed that she had mentioned the three issues, pointed out by her in the examination in chief in her report Ex.PW16/B. She admitted that for some time during the period 20032004, she remained posted as District Officer (North) and she did not make any purchases for M/s Neel Kanth during her tenure. She admitted that in the absence of Account Officer, his link officer attends the meeting and accused R.K. Sharma attended the meeting for purchases of 20032004, as junior accounts officer. She denied that on 30.06.2005, Smt. Lata Gupta was working as DO(North) or that Ms. Neera Mullick was on leave or that she had gone abroad. She denied that she had not personally visited firms namely M/s Neel Kanth and M/s Gurukul or that she had furnished the report without visiting these firms.
72. PW34 Smt. Lata Gupta deposed that she took voluntary retirement in the year 2013 from the post of District Officer (South), Social Welfare Department. She further deposed that she had relinquished charge as DO(North) on 18.05.2005 in favour of Ms. Neera Mullick and during investigation of the present case, she was posted at Central District, Delhi Gate. She further Page 47 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. deposed that she was called at PS ACB by the IO and was shown files pertaining to purchases of Clothing and Bedding articles for the year 2005 2006 for Bal Sadan, Timarpur. She further deposed that she had seen file Ex.PW33/A on page no. 3/N purported to be his signature, does not bear her genuine signature at point A against the designation District Officer. She further deposed that page no. 19 and 20 of file Ex.PW28/F does not bear her genuine signatures at points A and B. She further deposed that she had seen letter dated 04.02.2009 Ex.PW34/A addressed to Inspector, PS ACB which is in her handwriting and bears her signature at point A and B. She has also identified her signature at page no. 122 at point A of cash register of District Officer (N) Ex.PW32/A relating to handing over the charge to Ms. Neera Mullick on 18.05.2005. She further deposed that she had seen subsequent pages of the register from page no. 123 to 132 these pages do not bear her signature and last entry at page no. 132 is dated 30.06.2005. She has also identified her signature on pages B1 to B4 of office file Ex.PW34/B containing her joining report and leave applications. She further deposed that she had given her specimen signatures to the IO on two sheets Ex.PW5/C. She further deposed that Rajeshwari Chauhan was Superintendent, Bal Sadan during her posting as DO(North). She further deposed that she can identify the handwriting on Ex.PW33/A to be of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan.
73. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, she deposed that she had joined on 07.10.2003 as DO (North). She further deposed that as per cash book, she continued at the said post during the period 07.10.2003 to 18.05.2005. She denied that she did not take over charge as DO (South West) in compliance of order Ex.PW16/I or that she continued working as DO (North) upto 30.06.2005. She further denied that all codal formalities with respect to quotation for purchase of clothing and bedding for Bal Sadan 2005 2006 were carried out by her. She further denied that she put initials at some Page 48 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. places and full signatures at some other places. She further stated that she signed either as Lata of as Lata Gupta and not as LG. She denied her signatures on page 73 on cash book Ex.PW32/A is LG. She further stated that these are complete words Lata encircled with 'G'. She denied that she used to put initials LG in her official transaction. She further denied that purchases made without prior permission without following the codal formalities are deemed to have been regulated, if expost facto sanction is granted by the Head of the Department i.e. Director or Joint Director. She further denied that on 30.06.2005, she was holding the charge of DO (North) or that she had not handed over the charge in compliance of order dated 07.04.2005. She further denied that she had participated in the Quotation Opening Process for purchase of Clothing and Bedding item for 20052006, on 30.06.2005. She further denied that she had presided over the meeting of Purchase Committee on 30.06.2005. She had handed over the charge to Neera Mullick on 18.05.2005 and intimation qua handing over the charge was given to senior officers telephonically.
74. PW36 Sh. Ajit Singh deposed that in November 2008, he was posted as Superintendent/DDO/Head of Office, Bal Sadan and HHCLP, Timarpur. On 03.02.2009 and on 17.02.2009 Sh. Akhilesh Gaturam, CaretakercumStore Keeper, Bal Sadan, Timarpur produced 14 registers/files which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A. During the course of his testimony, he had identified the following documents which were seized in his presence by the IO :
(i) the stock register Ex.PW36/A for clothing and bedding for 200506 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(ii) one file Ex.PW1/D for clothing and bedding quotation for the year 200506 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(iii) one file Ex.PW1/B for clothing and bedding articles for the year 200506 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;Page 49 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
(iv) one indent book Ex.PW36/B for clothing and bedding for 20052006 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(v) attendance register Ex.PW36/C for inmates of Bal Sadan w.e.f. April 2005 to March 2006 ;
(vi) one peon book Ex.PW36/D for Bal Sadan/HHCLP, Timarpur w.e.f. 02.09.2003 to 13.09.2006 ;
(vii) one dispatch register Ex.PW36/E of Bal Sadan, Timarpur for the period 07.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 containing pages 1125 but used pages 1102 ;
(viii) one original contingency bill bearing no. CB60 dated 06.09.2005 Ex.PW36/F containing 10 leaves in total ;
(ix) another original contingency bill bearing no. CB61 dated 06.09.2005 Ex.PW36/G containing 7 leaves in total ;
(x) the stock register Ex.PW36/H for clothing and bedding for 200506 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(xi) the cash register Ex.PW36/I for clothing and bedding for 200508 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
75. He further deposed that some of the relevant documents could not be located in the office on 03.02.2009 and the same were located after some days with the help of Sh. Akhilesh Gautam and these documents/files located subsequently were also seized by the IO on 17.02.2009, vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A.
76. PW37 Sh. S.K. Shrivastav deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted as Superintendent in the Observation HomeII for boys which was situated at Majnu Ka Tila at that time and remained posted there from December 2004 to July 2005 and thereafter, he got transferred to Children Home, Narela, Delhi. He further deposed that in the month of April 2005, he was also assigned additional charge of Superintendent, Bal Sadan, Timarpur and he had visited at Bal Sadan to join the duty but could not meet any person there. He further deposed that some time later, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan came to the office Page 50 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. and at that time Rajeshwari Chauhan was working as Superintendent, Bal Sadan, Timarpur who told PW37 that Rajeshwari Chauhan was not in a position to hand over charge as record of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was not complete. He further deposed that since her posting at Observation HomeII for boys was very sensitive in nature, he could not have afforded to visit Bal Sadan again for taking over charge and also for performing his duties, he reported the matter to his superiors and his order for transfer to Bal Sadan, Timarpur was withdrawn and accused V.S. Awasthi was ordered to be posted at Bal Sadan, Timarpur. He was given additional charge of Bal Sadan, Timarpur, vide order dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/I but the transfer to Bal Sadan, Timarpur was cancelled and instead V.S. Awasthi was posted, vide order dated 17.06.2005 Ex.PW16/J. He further deposed that he was not associated as a member of the Purchase Committee for purchase of article for Bal Sadan, Timarpur during the aforesaid period.
77. PW37 was crossexamined by ld. Addl. PP for the State and during the cross examination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP, PW37 admitted that in pursuance of transfer order already Ex.PW16/I, he had gone to Bal Sadan, Timarpur to join but accused Rajeshwari Chauhan did not allow her to join on one pretext or the other. He further admitted that as per circular of her department dated 26.08.2003, one member of the purchase committee must be a gazetted officer of adjoining home and this committee was to be headed by District Officer (North) as Chairperson. He further deposed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan did not call him to join as Superintendent, Bal Sadan. He also identified the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and R.K. Sharma on Ex.PW16/D.
78. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he denied that there were two distinct groups of officers in Social Welfare Department, one headed by him and the other headed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. He admitted that he had got an FIR registered at PS Parliament Street against Page 51 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, one Narain Singh and P.N. Jha for assault. He further admitted that an FIR for offence punishable under Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST Act, was got registered against him, Saroj Rawat, B.P. Dhall, Anil Kumar, Nisha Aggarwal and S.C. Tyagi, Vigilance officer by Narain Singh. He further deposed that he had no grudge against the accused and the incident had occurred because the accused and other persons were found involved in huge bungling of funds at Tahirpur Leprosy Complex and Different Integrated Child Protection Schemes. He admitted that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was a witness in the case under SC/ST Act. He further deposed that he does not know if accused had reported to Director, Social Welfare Department that he would not hand over charge to him as there was a history of differences between accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and PW37. He denied that on account of this report by the accused, J.D., Administration had instructed him not to take over the charge from accused. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely being inimical towards the accused Rajshwari Chauhan. He denied that he had not seen accused R.K. Sharma signing.
79. PW38 Smt. Pushpa Pathak deposed that on 22.10.2009 while she was posted as District Social Welfare Officer (New Delhi), Department of Social Welfare and was hold the additional charge of District Social Welfare Officer (North), she handed over three notesheets in the handwriting of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma (being admitted handwriting) Ex.PW38/A to Ex.PW38/C to the IO with regard to granting aid relating to an NGO namely Navjyoti, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW38/D. During the crossexamination, she stated that Circular MarkPW38/A and PW38/B were never received by her and she never joined as DO(North) in the year 2005.
80. PW39 Smt. Santosh Bhardwaj deposed that in the year 2005, she was working as UDC at Bal Sadan, Timarpur and she had retired as Page 52 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Superintendent, Directorate of Education, GNCT, Delhi in 2013. She further deposed that from 2001 till November 2005, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was working as SuperintendentcumDDO at Bal Sadan, Timarpur. She further deposed that during her tenure, a transfer for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had been received in the office but she was not relieved as her successor had not joined. She further deposed that during investigation, IO showed her page no. 49 of register Ex.PW36/E and asked about the handwriting of person who had made entries from serial no. 33 to 38 and about the overwriting in the entry at serial no. 35. She further deposed that the entries at page no. 49 in black ink are in the handwriting of Sh. Hari Dassan, the then UDC. She further deposed that entries at serial no. 33 to 38 at page no. 49 in register Ex.PW36/E in blue ink are in the handwriting of Umesh Pandey. She volunteered that entries at serial no. 3 to 6 at point A on Ex.PW36/E are in her handwriting.
81. PW40 Sh. Akhilesh Gautam, LDC, Flood and Control Department, Government of NCT, Delhi deposed that he was posted as Caretaker in Bal Sadan/HHCLP, Timarpur, Delhi from January 2006 to August 2011 and in the year 20082009, he had handed over to the IO certain record vide seizure memo Ex.PW30/A which includes the following :
(i) Cash register of Bal Sadan w.e.f. 02.03.2005 to 02.12.2008 Ex.PW36/I ;
(ii) Cash register of Bal Sadan w.e.f. 19.07.2002 to 22.02.2005 Ex.PW36/A ;
(iii) One file Ex.PW1/B for clothing and bedding articles for 20052006 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(iv) One quotation file Ex.PW1/D for clothing and bedding for 20052006 of Bal Sadan, Timarpur ;
(v) One indent book Ex.PW36/B for the year 20052006 clothing and bedding, Bal Sadan ;
(vi) One peon book w.e.f. 02.09.2003 to 13.03.2006 Ex.PW36/D ;
(vii) One indent book, sports item for the year 20052006 Ex.PW40/E ;
(viii) One attendance register of inmates Ex.PW36/C from April 2005 to Page 53 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. March 2006 ;
(ix) One stock register of clothing and bedding, Bal Sadan 20052006 Ex.PW36/H ;
82. PW40 also identified during his testimony the seizure memo Ex.PW40/A of the record seized by the IO, as per which he had handed over the attendance register of ClassIV Employees of HHCLP for the year 20052006 Ex.PW29/B. He further deposed that he had also handed over letter Ex.PW29/A written by Smt. Suman Abrol, the then DDO/HOO, Bal Sadan to Inspector, PS ACB. He further deposed that he had again joined investigation and some documents were handed over to the IO which were seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex.PW40/B, the aforesaid documents were accompanied with a covering letter Ex.PW40/C from DDO, Bal Sadan and the attested photocopies of the documents attached with the letter are Ex.PW40/D. During crossexamination, he deposed that the record seized vide Ex.PW30/A was seized at Bal Sadan.
83. PW41 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed that while he was posted as UDC at Bal Sadan, Timarpur from March 2006 to 2010 and he had joined the investigation of the present case and made certain records available to the IO which was seized by the IO on 17.02.2009, vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. During the course of his testimony he had identified the following :
(i) one dispatch register of Bal Sadan, Timarpur Ex.PW36/E for the period 07.04.2003 to 31.03.2008 containing pages 1125 but used pages 1102 ;
(ii) One original contingency bill bearing no. CB60 dated 06.09.2005 Ex.PW36/F containing 10 leafs in total.
(iii) another original contingency bill bearing no. CB61 dated 06.09.2005 Ex.PW36/G containing 7 leaves in total ;
84. He further deposed that IO had also seized certain other record on 07.12.2009 and he had again supplied certain record to the IO vide seizure memo Page 54 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Ex.PW41/A. During his testimony, he also identified following :
(i) one A/A & E/S file Ex.PW1/C for clothing and bedding articles 20052006 for HHCLP containing note sheets 1/N to 18/N and correspondence page 1/N to N/14 is produced ;
(ii) one issue register Ex.PW41/B of Clothing and Bedding Articles 20052006 of Bal Sadan containing note sheets 1 to 79 w.e.f. 08.04.2005 to 31.01.2006 ;
(iii) one stock register Ex.PW41/C of Clothing and Bedding Articles 2005 2006 of HHCLP containing page 1 to 100 ;
(iv) one issue register Ex.PW41/D of Clothing and Bedding Articles 2005 2006 of HHCLP containing pages 1 to 79 .w.e.f. 08.04.2005 to 31.01.2006 ;
(v) one file Ex.PW41/E containing contingency bill no. 58 dated 06.09.2005 and bill no. 59 dated 06.09.2005 in respect of clothing and bedding articles received in HHCLP on 29.06.2005 ;
(vi) one stock register Ex.PW41/F of clothing and bedding 20032004 of HHCLP containing pages 1 to 100 ;
(vii) one personal file Ex.PW41/G of inmate namely Mobin of HHCLP containing note sheet pages N/1 to N/6 and correspondence pages N/1 to N/19 ;
(viii) one personal file Ex.PW41/H of inmate namely Binda Kumar Dass of HHCLP containing note sheet pages N/1 to N/4 and correspondence pages N/1 to N/24.
(ix) one indent book Ex.PW41/I of clothing bedding, HHCLP, 20052006 containing pages 1 to 100, page 1 to 23 have been used for 20042005 and pages 2447 used for 20052006.
85. During crossexamination, he deposed that he had supplied the entire record with the consent of Superintendent, Bal Sadan and HHCLP.
86. PW42 Sh. Shri Chand deposed that while he was posted as Senior Accounts Officer in Directorate of Social Welfare he had joined the investigation and Page 55 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. gave pointwise answers Ex.PW42/B to the questionnaire Ex.PW42/A provided by IO. He further deposed that he had annexed photocopies of his attendance register duly attested by him on each of the three pages. PW42 was shown, during his testimony in the court, file Ex.PW1/D and comparative rate statement dated 30.6.2005 Ex.PW28/F but he could not identify the signatures of any officers on the exhibits since he was not posted in Department of Social Welfare in 2005. He further deposed that the contents of Ex.PW42/B were prepared by him on the basis of official record. Photocopy of the sheets of the attendance register annexed by him to his reply Ex.PW42/B are Ex.PW42/C collectively which were in support of the reply to query no. 2 of Ex.PW42/B. He further deposed that as per Ex.PW42/C, no officer of the rank of JAO(I) was named in the attendance register for 30.06.2005 or marked present. He further deposed that he had also forwarded audit reports Ex.PW42/F in respect of Bal Sadan and HHCLP, Timarpur to Vigilance Branch through his letter dated 01.06.2009 Ex.PW42/D.
87. During the crossexamination, he stated that he himself had tried to locate the attendance register of AccountsII Branch for 20052006, but the same was not traceable and therefore, he had stated this fact in his reply Ex.PW42/D.
88. PW43 Smt. Asha Gandhi deposed that she was working as DO(West) in the year 2005 and was having additional charge of DO (North) for a period of 1½ month, Bal Sadan, Timar Pur. Smt. Neera Mullick had handed over the charge of DO (North) to her. She further deposed that the file Ex.PW1/B with proposal Ex.PW43/A at Page 3N was put up before her on 20.07.2005 by Superintendent seeking permission to purchase some articles for Bal Sadan, Timarpur. She further deposed that after going through the file, she made note which continued on the next page which is also paginated as 3N and her note bears her signature at point S and the same is in her handwriting, vide which she sought clarification from Superintendent, Bal Sadan, Timarpur as regards Page 56 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the stock position also as regards the period for which goods were required. The noting in her handwriting is Ex.PW43/B. She further deposed that after making her noting, she had marked this file to Superintendent, Bal Sadan for clarification. She further deposed that after she had sought clarification, vide her note Ex.PW43/B dated 20.07.2005, the file was not put up before her again. She further deposed that as per practice and rule, Superintendent would mark the file to DO (North). She further deposed that the date of physical taking over and handing over charge may vary slightly as charge of financial document (as DDO) is taken over after all documents are completed. She further deposed that she took over charge as DDO on 15.07.2005 and relinquished the same on 05.09.2005 to Smt. Saroj Rawat, vide Ex.PW26/C.
89. PW43 was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during her crossexamination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that she had objected the proposed purchase on the ground that last purchase had been made for some articles only on 24.03.2005 which had been reported not fit for use, vide Ex.PW33/B. She further deposed that after going through the file, she can state that the proposal initiated by Superintendent, Bal Sadan in file Ex.PW1/B was granted expost facto sanction, vide note of DC (F&A) dated 06.09.2005. She further deposed that as per the file no proposal was ever submitted for grant of expost facto sanction. She further deposed that she has also seen file pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding articles for inmates of HHCLP Ex.PW1/C which contains her notes dated 20.07.2005 Ex.PW43/C, vide which she had recommended the proposal for grant of administrative sanction without raising any objection but with the remark that codal formalities be complied with. She further deposed that after going through the file, she can state that the recommended proposal for purchase was approved by JD (Admn.) through the note of DC (F&A) on 29.07.2005 and the signatory of the note on behalf of DC Page 57 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (F&A) is Ex.PW1/B. She further deposed that none of the file i.e. Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C were moved for expost facto sanction of the expenditure. She further deposed that expost facto sanction of the expenditure is only granted in a case where purchase is already made and not in case where purchase is to be done. She further deposed that in both the files Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C, the proposal was prepared for purchase of certain items for the homes and were for administrative approval only and not for expost facto sanction.
90. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW43 admitted that she had remained DO (North) from 15.07.2005 to 05.09.2005 and expost facto sanction in file Ex.PW1/B was approved by JD (Admn). She further admitted that DC (F&A) vide his note dated 06.09.2005 in file Ex.PW1/B, had recommended administrative approval and expost facto sanction for Rs.1,95,076/ and in his note he had also noted that the bills duly verified were placed on file. She further deposed that the bills were verified by the DDO and the store keeper and the purchase is regularized by expost facto sanction. She denied the suggestion that there used to be two separate files, one being relating to the grant of administrative approval (A/A) and expenditure sanction (E/S) containing notes of Store Keeper, Superintendent (HOO/DDO) and DO (north) which used to be forwarded to DC (F&A) and JD(Admn.) with the verified bills and another file containing codal formalities/tender files. She further deposed that both these used to be in one file. She further deposed that she never remained in the purchase committee of either of the institutions be that Nirmal Chaya, HHCLP or Bal Sadan. She further deposed that after taking administrative approval from the competent authority, tender for purchases is supposed to be done by the DDO/HO as far as she knows and opening of the tender and rate comparison is the duty of the purchase Page 58 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. committee declared by the competent authority. She further deposed that after finalization of the rates of the items required, proposal was supposed to be sent to the competent authority for according the expenditure sanction. She admitted that DDO/HO was the member of the purchase committee. She further deposed that in case of deficiency in the items related to inmates/residents of homes and there being urgent requirement of the same on the opening of schools, it is treated as emergent situation. She further admitted that in case of emergency situation, the purchases could be made on the basis of the already completed codal formalities done by the same home but subject to the administrative approval and expenditure sanction from the competent authority. She further admitted that the files which were put up before her for AA/ES were not accompanied with file relating to codal formalities. She further deposed that if expost facto sanction has been granted, it can be considered that the procedure followed for purchase has been regularized.
91. PW44 Smt. J.K. Barua deposed that during February 2003 to 2006, she was posted as Staff Nurse in Bal Sadan, Timarpur and was working as Store Keeper. She further deposed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was working as SuperintendentcumDDO in Bal Sadan who had left Bal Sadan on 14.07.2005. She further deposed that accused V.S. Awasthi had joined Bal Sadan in June 2005 but accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had not handed over charge to accused V.S. Awasthi. She further deposed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Superintendent, Bal Sadan used to look after both homes namely Bal Sadan and HHCLP as both these homes were being run in the same building. She further deposed that stock register of Bal Sadan was maintained by PW44 being store keeper. During her testimony, PW44 had seen the stock register of Bal Sadan Ex.PW36/H and had stated that the same is substantially in her handwriting. She had also seen pages no. 1 to 6, 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 of Ex.PW36/H and deposed that the entries encircled in red ink and marked as A1 Page 59 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. to A16 are in her handwriting. She further deposed that these entries were not made on the dates mentioned against them in date of receipt column of register Ex.PW36/H and antedates entries were made in July 2005 at the instance of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that the articles mentioned in the stock register Ex.PW26/H on page no. 1 to 6, 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 was received in the month of July 2005. She further deposed that she had received these articles from accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and caretaker Sh. R.K. Sahu who is shown to have been issued these articles had not signed the relevant pages as he had not received the indent. She further deposed that the articles were received just 24 days before accused Rajeshwari Chauhan relinquished charge and were distributed immediately on receipt. During her testimony in the court, she had identified the issue register of HHCLP Ex.PW41/D showing distribution of some of those articles on 13.07.2005 as well as issue register of Bal Sadan Ex.PW41/B showing distribution of some of those articles on 13.07.2005. She further deposed that as per the bill, these articles were purchased through DCCWS and NAFED but were brought to the home by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. During her testimony in the court, she had identified the quotation file Ex.PW1/D regarding purchase of clothing and bedding articles for Bal Sadan for the year 20052006 indicating that the file was marked to Store Keeper but she had neither dealt with this file nor it bears her signature anywhere. She further deposed that the file was being maintained and retained by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and she was not aware about calling of quotations and preparation of comparative rate statements as shown in Ex.PW1/D. PW44 after seeing the purchase file Ex.PW1/B regarding purchase of clothing and bedding articles for Bal Sadan for the year 20052006 deposed that its first note sheet numbered as 12/N Page 60 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. mentions file having marked to her but it was not dealt by her at any stage and initials at point J purported to be signatures of storekeeper are not her signatures/initials. She further deposed that she was not aware about calling of quotations and preparation of comparative rate statements as showing in file Ex.PW1/B. PW44 after seeing purchase file Ex.PW1/C, during her testimony in the court, regarding purchase of clothing and bedding articles for HHCLP for the year 200506 deposed that its first note sheet numbered as 1/N mentions file having been marked to her but it was not dealt by her at any stage and initials at point J purported to be signatures of storekeeper are not her signatures. She further deposed that she was not aware about calling of quotations and preparation of comparative rate statements as shown in file Ex.PW1/C. She further deposed that on 19.02.2009, IO had collected her specimen signatures on 4 sheets Ex.PW4/A and specimen handwriting on 10 sheets Ex.PW4/B. During her testimony in the court, she had identified her admitted signatures and initials Ex.PW41/F. She further deposed that on 14.12.2009, she had given her specimen handwriting to the IO on 5 sheets Ex.PW44/A.
92. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW44 admitted that Ex.PW44/DA is in her handwriting and bearing her signatures at point P, which is an order placed upon DCCWS, Karampura regarding supply of certain articles. She deposed that she had prepared this order on the instructions of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that she was not in custody of any file relating to stock and same used to remain with Superintendent and she was not aware as to who was supposed to maintain the files in Bal Sadan. She admitted that she had never maintained any file of stock during her tenure in Bal Sadan. She further admitted that the encircled portion X of Ex.PW40/DA Ex.PW44/DB and portion X of Ex.PW44/DC are in her handwriting. She further deposed that Page 61 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. she had prepared it subsequently giving date 29.06.2005 on the asking of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan who was her superintendent. She denied that she has deposed falsely that she had given the date 29.06.2005 on the asking of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that she had made the list of deficient items on the asking of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that stock register pertaining to the year 2005 06 was in her possession but the files were in the custody of accused Rajeshwari.
93. PW46 Sh. R.K. Sahu deposed that in the year 200506, he was posted as caretaker in Bal Sadan, Timarpur and accused accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was SuperintendentcumDDO at that time. He further deposed that Smt. J.K. Barua and Smt. Saramma were working as Store Keeper at that time. He further deposed that during the course of investigation of the present case, IO had shown him the record and he had explained his observations which had been reduced into writing and prepared signature/handwriting identification memo Ex.PW27/A. He further deposed that in the register Ex.PW36/H i.e. stock register of Bal Sadan for clothing and bedding for the year 200506, items mentioned from page no. 1 to 6, 8 to 11 and 13 to 18 have been entered as issued to him but none of the said entries bear his signature, acknowledging the receipt of relevant purchased items. He further deposed that if he used to receive purchased items, he used to put his signatures, acknowledging the receipt thereof. He further deposed that all these items were not issued to him. He further deposed that he was assigned the work of distributing stock items among the inmates of Bal Sadan alongwith some other caretakers namely Ashok Kumar, Umesh Pandey and Mukesh Kumar and he could not identify the signatures of the store keeper on pages of Ex.PW24/B to acknowledge the receipt of articles. He further deposed that there was no role of caretaker in purchase of the clothing and bedding articles and therefore, he Page 62 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. had no knowledge about the source of purchase of articles during 20052006.
94. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW46 admitted that on 30.06.2005, he was working as Caretaker and Smt. Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005. During the course of his testimony in the court, he had seen file Ex.PW1/D which bearing the signature of Smt. Lata Gupta on the comparative statement and other documents i.e. the quotations. He admitted that he had refused to sign the indent register regarding distribution of items, as the articles were not distributed by him. He further deposed that he had not ever received goods which had been purchased during his tenure at Bal Sadan because no goods were received during his duty hours.
95. PW46 was recalled for reexamination and had been asked as to on what basis he had stated in his crossexamination that Smt. Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005, to which he replied that Smt. Lata Gupta used to visit their office as and when she was having any work in the office and PW46 did not see any document with respect to posting of Smt. Lata Gupta as DO (North) on 30.06.2005. PW46 was further asked as to on what basis he in his cross examination recorded on 05.04.2018 he had stated that he can identify the signature of Smt. Lata Gupta on Ex.PW1/D (old Ex.PW24/E), to which he replied that he cannot identify the signature of Smt. Lata Gupta on Ex.PW24/E. He further stated that he does not remember how he had stated in his statement recorded on 05.04.2018 that he can identify the signature of Smt. Lata Gupta. He further deposed that he never saw her writing and signing any document, therefore, he cannot identify her signature.
96. PW47 Sh. Umesh Chand Pandey deposed that he remained posted as Caretaker (Class IV) at Bal Sadan/HHCLP, Timarpur form 1999 to 2006. During the course of his testimony, he had identified the entries made in his handwriting on page no. 49 at serial no. 33 to 38 in register Ex.PW36/E. He further deposed that the entry at serial no. 33 relates to bill being sent to Pay Page 63 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. and Accounts Office and such bills/ sanctions were sent in triplicate and three separate entries were made for each bill, thus entries at serial no. 33 to 35 pertains to the same bill. He further deposed that entry at serial no. 35 bears overwriting which was not done by him. He further deposed that during the period when entries at serial no. 33 to 38 were made, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was the Superintendent, Bal Sadan/HHCLP, Timarpur, Delhi. During the course of his testimony in the court, he has identified the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan at point R in noting at page no. 2/N and 3/N in file Ex.PW1/D and also at point R on document Ex.PW28/F in the file Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that on 10.06.2009, when he joined the investigation in ACB, all these facts had been elaborated in observation memo Ex.PW27/A.
97. PW49 Sh. Devender Kumar, Section Officer, DSSS Board deposed that on 07.07.2009 while he was posted as Head Clerk at DSW/HQ, Administrative Branch, GNCT, Delhi, he provided the document dated 30.06.2005 signed by accused Mahesh Sharma alongwith the letter signed by Senior Superintendent (Admn.), vide Ex.PW49/A and Ex.PW49/B respectively. He further deposed that accused Mahesh Sharma was posted as Superintendent/Planning Officer, DSW on 30.06.2005.
98. PW50 Smt. Saramma deposed that she had remained posted at Bal Sadan, Timarpur, Delhi from 2002 to 30.06.2006 and on 01.07.2005, she had joined Sanskar Ashram for Girls situated at Dilshad Garden. She further deposed that at the time of her transfer from Bal Sadan, Timarpur, accused V.S. Awasthi had been transferred to Bal Sadan as Superintendent vice accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, however, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had not relinquished charge though she stood transferred to Blind School, Kingsway Camp. She further deposed that V.S. Awasthi had reported at Bal Sadan but had not formally joined as the predecessor Rajeshwari Chauhan was still holding Page 64 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. charge. She further deposed that storekeeper for Bal Sadan, Timarpur and HHCLP, Timarpur was the same person. She further deposed that though she was posted as staff nurse, however, she was also discharging the duties of storekeeper as there was shortage of staff. She further deposed that Smt. J.K. Barua, staff nurse was also discharging the duties of storekeeper. She further deposed that duties of receiving and distributing clothing and bedding items was performed by Smt. J.K. Barua and duty of receiving and distributing general items was performed by PW50.
99. PW50 after seeing the delivery challan dated 08.07.2005 pertaining to the clothing and bedding items for Bal Sadan, Timarpur, during her testimony in the court, deposed that the acknowledgement of receiving the goods and signatures of storekeeper on the challan Ex.PW50/A are not her signatures and handwriting. PW50 had also seen the delivery challan dated 08.07.2005 pertaining to the clothing and bedding items for HHCLP, Timarpur and deposed that the acknowledgment of receiving the goods and signatures of storekeeper on the challan Ex.PW50/B are not her signatures and handwriting. She further deposed that though her name was mentioned against both the aforesaid signatures but she had not received the goods against these two challans and she had not signed the same. She further deposed that her specimen initials and specimen signatures, specimen handwriting were taken on six sheets Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively.
100. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW50 admitted that on 08.07.2005, she had already relinquished charge from Timarpur and therefore, could not have received the goods and made endorsement on Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B.
101. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW50 deposed that she had prepared an order for clothing and bedding items for Bal Sadan on 29.06.2005 addressed to Manager, DCCWS, vide Ex.PW44/DB and Page 65 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. her signatures at point A have been scored off. After seeing the order dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW50/DB placed on Manager, NAFED for supply of clothing and bedding, she deposed that the same is in her handwriting but bears the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further deposed that till 30.06.2005, when she was posted at Timarpur, Smt. Lata Gupta was the DO (North) and on 30.06.2005, when quotations were open, Smt. Lata Gupta was present in Bal Sadan alongwith accused Mahesh Sharma and R.K. Sharma. After seeing the file Ex.PW1/D and comparative statement Ex.PW28/F, she deposed that the signatures at point A and B are of Smt. Lata Gupta and signatures at point Q3 to Q16 on quotations and envelopes from various suppliers are also that of Smt. Lata Gupta.
102. PW50 was reexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW50 denied the suggestion that no such tender proceedings was ever conducted by Smt. Lata Gupta alongwith accused R.K. Sharma and Mahesh Sharma on 30.06.2005 at Bal Sadan or that she had deliberately introduced this fact in her crossexamination to save the accused.
103. PW53 Krishan Kumar, Superintendent, Department of Social Welfare, FAS, Delhi Gate deposed that he had issued and signed letter Ex.PW53/A addressed to Insp. Kailsh Chand alongwith copy of approved rate list for stitching charges running into three sheets Ex.PW53/B.
104. PW58 Sh. K. Haridassan deposed that he was posted as UDC at Bal Sadan, Timarpur from 1993 to September 2005 and his duty was to maintain service and personal files and also to perform work of cashier and at that time accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was Superintendent/DDO of Bal Sadan & HHCLP. He further deposed that after her transfer, accused V.S. Awashi had joined as SuperintendentcumDDO of both the houses. He further deposed that Smt. J.K. Barua and Smt. Saramma were working as staff nursecumstore Page 66 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. keeper. He further deposed that in February 2009, he had joined the investigation and IO had shown him some record pertaining to Bal Sadan and HHCLP i.e. quotation file Ex.PW1/D. He further deposed that on 30.06.2005 i.e. the date of comparative statement Ex.PW28/F in file Ex.PW1/D, the codal formalities shown in Ex.PW1/D had never taken place to his knowledge. He further deposed that the file Ex.PW1/D did not come to his notice on 30.06.2005 or during his tenure at Bal Sadan.
105. PW58 during the course of his testimony in the court has identified the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan at point R on note sheet Ex.PW33/A in the file Ex.PW1/D, at point R on the comparative statement Ex.PW28/F, at point C on sheet no. 2/N on file Ex.PW1/B. He has also identified signatures of accused M.K. Sharma at points C and D on Ex.PW28/F. He has also identified signatures of accused V.S. Awasthi at point C on sheet no. 2/N on file Ex.PW1/B by the side of signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further deposed that there is no entry during the relevant period at page no. 49 regarding dispatch of letters inviting tenders or quotations for purchase of clothing and bedding items.
106. PW59 Sh. Anil Kumar, Superintendent, Juvenile Justice Board (II), Delhi Gate deposed that on 03.02.2009 while he was posted as Welfare Officer at Department of Social Welfare, Delhi Government, the IO had seized the original cash book of North District Ex.PW26/C, attendance register pertaining to June 2005 Ex.PW28/A, vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/A.
107. PW60 Sh. R.N. Singhal deposed that while he was posted as Superintendent, Administration in Department of Social Welfare, in the month of June 2009 he had forwarded official record pertaining to admitted handwriting and signatures of R.K.Sharma, Rajeshwari Chauhan, Mahesh Kumar Sharma, Neena Mullick, Lata Gupta and V.S. Awasthi through letter dated 03.06.2009 Ex.PW60/A to the IO. He further deposed that the aforesaid Page 67 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. record is contained in the file Ex.PW34/B. He further deposed that he had forwarded to the IO copies of order Ex.PW16/J and MarkPW60/C to Mark PW60/G, vide letter dated 18.06.2009 Ex.PW60/B. He further deposed that he had also clarified about the posting of different officers/officials, vide his letter Ex.PW60/B.
108. PW62 Sh. Kamal Joshi deposed that in January 2016, he was posted as UDC, Social Welfare, GNCT, Delhi. He deposed that he had deposed in the present case in the court on 25.01.2016. During the course of his testimony on 10.08.2018, he had identified the original letter no. F4(13)ASWVig./2009 PT File 322 dated 09.07.2009 and original letter no. F4(13)ASWVig./2009/PT File 326 dated 13.07.2009 Ex.PW62/A and Ex.PW62/B. He further deposed that he had produced the original of note sheet dated 09.07.2009 alongwith duly attested copy by Dy. Director, Vigilance, letter dated 01.06.2009 issued by Sh. Shrichand, the then Senior Accounts officer attested by Dy. Director (Vigilance). He further deposed that he had also produced the notesheet dated 09.07.2009 alongwith duly attested copy attested by Dy. Director (Vigilance) and another letter under the signatures of Sh. Ajit Singh, the then DDO/HOO, Bal Sadan alongwith duly attested copy attested by Dy. Director (Vigilance) alongwith original of these documents in the court on 25.02.2016, vide Ex.PW62/C to Ex.PW62/E. He has been shown the copy of entry no. 311/312 regarding the letter written by Ms. Neera Mullick, DO (North) to Smt. Lata Gupta both dated 30.06.2015 Ex.PW55/B and the original of the these entries made in the dispatch register during the period from 17.12.2004 to 11.08.2006 had already been produced by him before the court on 25.01.2016, copy of the same are Ex.PW62/F.
109. PW63 Sh. Vijay Kumar Suman, Superintendent, Finance Department, GNCT, Delhi has produced original file containing the circular Ex.PW63/A dated 27.03.1996 issued by Sh. S.N. Sahay, the then Joint Secretary (Finance), Page 68 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. GNCT, Delhi.
110. PW66 Sh. Madhavanand, Deputy Director deposed that in the year 2011, while he was posted as Pay and Accounts Officer in the Office of Pay and accounts Office VI, Treasury Complex, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, he had provided biodata of accused Rajender Kumar Sharma alongwith the office order qua his transfer, posting, suspension order and revocation of suspension order running into 6 pages including the forwarding letter, vide Ex.PW66/A.
111. PW76 Sh. Nitya Nand deposed that on 19.10.2012 while he was posted as Deputy Director, Administration, Department of Social Welfare, in response to the letter dated 11.10.2012 Ex.PW76/A received from ACB, he had supplied the documents with regard to the posting of Sh. A.S. Awasthi as DDO/HOO, Bal Sadan, HHCLP, Timarpur for the year 200506 including posting order Ex.PW76/F and relieving order dated 29.11.2005 Ex.PW76/G of Sh. I.S. Pimoli, DC (F&A) during 200506, joining report of Sh. Sanjay Gihar, Joint Director, Administration Ex.PW76/H, order of delegation of power and order of distribution of work as well as a filled proforma with respect to Sh. A.S. Awasthi Ex.PW76/B, through a forwarding letter Ex.PW76/A. He further deposed that the biodata of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B respectively which is referred in the letter dated 16.11.2010 original of which is Ex.PW76/C was already supplied to the investigating agency. Copy of forwarding letter is Ex.PW76/D. Posting order of Sh. V.S. Awasthi is Ex.PW22/A and copy of the same is Ex.PW76/E. Other orders with regard to the financial powers of the officers are Ex.PW76/I collectively. He further deposed that the original letter no. 68 dated 25.05.2000 is not traceable in the office record, however, photocopy of the same is MarkPW76/J.
112. PW77 Sh. Madan Kumar Garg deposed that on 11.12.2012, he was posted as Head Clerk, Administration Branch, Department of Social Welfare, Page 69 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. GNCT of Delhi and on that day IO had shown him the letter dated 19.10.2012 and after going through the same, he had stated that this letter was prepared by him on the basis of the record and further confirmed that the information and the annexed documents were true and correct, vide Ex.PW76/A which was forwarded under the signature of PW77. He had also confirmed the letter no.68 dated 25.05.200 MarkPW76/J.
113. PW78 Sh. Ashish Shokeen deposed that in the year 2010, while he was posted as Superintendent, DDO/HO, Bal Sadan, Timarpur, he had given in writing to the IO that the stock register of both the homes pertaining to clothing and bedding items 200405 are not on record. He further deposed that as per the copy of the statement of Sh. J.K. Barua, the said register was with Rajeshwari Chauhan, vide his detailed reply Ex.PW40/C alongwith the document Ex.PW13/G.
114. PW80 Sh. P.S. Rao deposed that on 19.10.2012, he was posted as Pay and Accounts Officer in PAOII, Old Secretariat, GNCT of Delhi and he had verified from the record regarding the bill no. CB58, CB59 of HHCLP Ex.PW80/A and Ex.PW80/B respectively, CB60 and CB61 of Bal Sadan Ex.PW36/F and Ex.PW36/G respectively and had given detailed report Ex.PW80/C that apart from the bill mentioned in the report, no other bill of the same amount against the above referred sanction were presented by the then DDO in the PO Section during the year 200506.
115. PW87 Sh. Rajender Singh deposed that on 29.06.2012 while he was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer, PAO11, Old Secretariat, Delhi, he had produced the original record of contingency bill no.58 and 59 dated 06.09.2005 and contingency bill no. 60 and 61 dated 06.09.2005 of HHCLP and Bal Sadan, Timarpur which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW87/A.
116. He further deposed that he had also produced the contingency bill no.
CB58 of amount of Rs.50,585/ alongwith acknowledgement of cheque, copy Page 70 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. of noting of expenditure sanction, original invoice, contingency certificate, sanction certificate submitted by the DDO Ex.PW87/B, the contingency bill no. CB59 of Rs.1,18,872 alongwith acknowledgement of cheque, copy of noting of expenditure sanction, original three invoices, contingency certificate Ex.PW87/C, the contingency bill no. CB60 of Rs.56,844/ alongwith acknowledgement of cheque, copy of noting of expenditure sanction, original invoice, contingency certificate, sanction certificate submitted by the DDO Ex.PW87/D and the contingency bill no. CB61 of Rs.1,34,628/ alongwith acknowledgement of cheque, copy of noting of expenditure sanction, original three invoices, contingency certificate, sanction certificate submitted by the DDO Ex.PW87/E. He further deposed that all the contingency bills were endorsed by the then DDO Sh. V.S. Awasthi with the observation that the codal formality have been completed and certain other objection was also raised by the PAO branch with regard to the certificate of sanction and the same was also complied with by the DDO of the concerned department. He further deposed that the original noting Ex.PW43/C in the administrative approval has been given on 29.07.2005 under the note of DC (F&A) dated 25.07.2005 whereas the bill no. BB0179 is dated 12.07.2005, bill no. 48145 is dated 11.07.2005, bill no. 48144 is dated 11.07.2005 and bill no. 48143 is dated 11.07.2005 meaning thereby that they were earlier to the date when administrative sanction was sought which is wrong. He further deposed that the note seeking expenditure sanction of Rs.1,94,670/ of HHCLP is also having contradictory figures and even thereafter, the DC (F&A) has ignored the discrepancies and without seeking any clarification he had recommended the expenditure sanction.
117. PW87 after going through the administrative approval of Bal Sadan Ex.PW43/B, during his testimony, deposed that there is no mention of any bill number, amount of the clothing and further there is nothing mentioned that the Page 71 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. clothing has already been purchased rather it is mentioned that the clothing has to be procured and further there is no mention of any expost facto but even after these things were ignored by DC (F&A) and he had given the expost facto administrative approval as well as the expenditure approval as indicated in his note dated 06.09.2005 and on the photocopy of noting sheet which are MarkPW87/H and MarkPW87/I which is wrong.
118. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW87 deposed that his job was to look after the pension and accounts matter and not of passing the bill. He further deposed that he has never undertaken the work of passing the bills in PAO. He denied that he is not aware about the procedure and practice of codal formalities as well as the manner of administrative approval or that he is deposing falsely in this regard.
119. PW88 Sh. G.S. Pandey deposed that on 19.10.2012 while he was posted as Deputy Secretary, Finance and Accounts Department, GNCT, Delhi, the posting order of Sh. I.S. Pimoli, DCA from Pr. A.O. to DSW dated 31.05.2004 as well as his retirement order dated 14.08.2006 Ex.PW88/A and Ex.PW88/B were sent to the ACB through forwarding letter Ex.PW88/C.
120. PW90 Sh. L.D. Joshi, Joint Secretary (Finance) has proved the letter no. F.22/10/84AC/784931 dated 27.03.1996, vide Ex.PW90/A. He has also proved the notification no. 1/3/99AC dated 08.04.1999, vide Ex.PW90/B.
121. PW93 Sh. A.S. Khati, Retired Senior Accounts Officer, Directorate of Audit deposed that in the year 200809, an audit party was constituted headed by him to conduct the special audit of procurement of dietary and nondietary items made by Home namely HHCLP. He further deposed that after examining the record, he had conducted a special audit for the year 200405 and 200506 and given detailed report Ex.PW93/A.
122. PW93 was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his crossexamination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP, PW93 was shown the Page 72 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. document containing the A/A and E/S files of Bal Sadan and HHCLP for purchase of clothing bedding article 200506 but he failed to identify the signature of accused I.S. Pimoli on the said file.
123. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW93 deposed that the audit report was typed by JAO under his instructions in his presence and thereafter, he perused the same and put his signature.
124. PW94 Sh. Surender Kumar, Deputy Controller of Accounts during his testimony has brought the original special audit report pertaining to period 200405 and 200506 with regard to procurement of dietary and nondietary items of HHCLP, Timarpur of the Social Welfare Department. The copy of the report is Ex.PW93/A. He had also brought the original special audit report pertaining to period 200406 with regard to procurement of dietary and non dietary items of Bal Sadan, Timarpur of the Social Welfare Department, the copy of the same is Ex.PW1/A. (V). GOVERNMENT AGENCIES / SUPPLIERS :
125. PW9 Sh. A.K. Chhabra deposed that while posted as Sales Manager, Phulkari, Punjab, he had joined the investigation. He further deposed that after checking the record he found that no inquiry letter from Superintendent, Bal Sadan was received in June 2005 by Sales Manager, Phulkari, Punjab inviting quotation for clothing and bedding and his report in this respect is Ex.PW9/A. He further stated that Phulkari had not given any quotation to Superintendent, Bal Sadan in June and July 2005.
126. PW13 Sh. Swarn Singh, Manager (Marketing), DSIIDC proved the letter dated 17.06.2009 Ex.PW13/A vide which they had communicated to the IO that their office had not received any tender/quotation/inquiry from the Superintendent, Bal Sadan and that they had not quoted any rate to the said department for the period 15.06.2005 to 30.06.2005. He has furnished the Page 73 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. information on the basis of diary dispatch register for the said period.
127. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that letter Ex.PW13/A was prepared at the instance of IO without looking into the records or that the contents of the letter are wrong. He further denied that tender/quotation/inquiry from Superintendent, Bal Sadan was received by DSIIDC during the period 15.06.2005 to 30.06.2005. He also stated that two diary dispatch registers were available in the office when he had prepared report.
128. PW20 Sh. S.D. Manake, Retired Resident Manager, Maharashtra Small Scale Industry Development Corporation Ltd., deposed that in the year 2009, he had furnished a reply to ACB in pursuant to the notice received by him from ACB on 18.06.2009 after verifying from the record as per which they had not received any inquiry from Bal Sadan, Timarpur, Delhi relating to tender inquiry floated by them on 25.06.2005 and since no tender inquiry was received at their office, no follow up action was taken by them with regard to inquiry dated 25.06.2005. The letter of PW20 is Ex.PW20/A.
129. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that he has not mentioned in his report about the perusal of dispatch register. He volunteered that all records were checked/perused that includes dispatch register. He denied that he had not checked any record while furnishing Ex.PW20/A or that same was furnished at the instance of IO.
130. PW28 Sh. S.K. Sharma, Regional Manager, NCCF deposed that on 17.06.2009, IO from ACB had come to his office and made inquiries about quotation/tender inquiry for June 2005 having received from Bal Sadan or Social Welfare Department and PW28 after looking into the record, replied to the queries made by the IO. He further deposed that as far as he remembers, the tender inquiry in question had been received at NCCF, after the due date and time indicated in the inquiry. He further deposed that he had sent written Page 74 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. communication vide letter dated 17.06.2009 Ex.PW28/A which was accompanied by annexureI and annexureII Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C respectively. He further deposed that he had also handed over to the IO an undated tender inquiry letter purportedly signed by Superintendent, Bal Sadan on its letter head which had been received in their office on 01.08.2005 at 04:25 pm. The tender inquiry letter alongwith the enclosed list of articles is Ex.PW28/D and endorsement on receipt of tender inquiry letter at 04:25 pm on 01.08.2005 on Ex.PW28/D which were seized vide memo Ex.PW28/E. He further deposed that since the tender inquiry letter Ex.PW28/D was received after the time and date indicated in the said letter for quotations to be opened, NCCF had not responded to the tender inquiry letter. He further deposed that in his communication dated 17.06.2009 Ex.PW28/A, he had also intimated to the IO that letter no. BS/F/5/DSW/2005/5 dated 15.06.2005 at the office of Superintendent, Bal Sadan, Timarpur had not been received by NCCF. He further deposed that IO also showed him comparative statement of Clothing Bedding articles, mentioning prices of 37 items Ex.PW28/F and sought his opinion as regards the prices quoted therein and he opined that the rates were on the higher side and that is why he had annexed with his letter rate lists then prevailing which are Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C.
131. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that inquiries by post are received in Diary/Dispatch Section and the inquiries in person are at times received by the concerned section. He further deposed that tender inquiry letter Ex.PW28/D was most likely received by hand as it does not bear any diary number and also because it bears the signatures of Jagminder Lal who was UDC in Textile Division and he had put up the letter before his superior i.e. Ms. Surekha Bhalla. The letters received in NCCF by post or by hand are kept in record, that is why they could hand Page 75 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. over Ex.PW28/D to the IO.
132. PW45 Sh. Deepak Prasad, Salesman, DCCWS, Karampura proved the bills Ex.PW45/A and Ex.PW45/B relating to Bal Sadan and HHCLP. He further deposed that these bills were prepared by Computer Section of DCCWS and were signed by him as Store Incharge.
133. PW48 Sh. Naresh Kumar deposed that he was working as Manager, DCCWS, Karampura since 1986 and he had handed over to the IO the record of DDCWS (Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Store) which was seized vide Ex.PW48/A. The record included purchase order Ex.PW44/DA, Ex.PWE40/DB, three challans dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW48/B. He further deposed that the challan book was already earmarked for M/s Swastik Corporation. He further deposed that he had also handed over to the IO three invoices dated 30.06.2005 issued by M/s Swastik Corporation Ex.PW48/C and alongwith these invoices the bills prepared by DCCWS were also handed over to the IO Ex.PW45/A.
134. He further deposed that these bills were based upon the invoices submitted by M/s Swastik Corporation. Three diary register for diarising the letters received in DCCWS pertaining to the different period i.e. from April 2004 to March 2005, April 2005 to March 2006 and April 2006 to March 2007 are Ex.PW48/D, Ex.PW48/E and Ex.PW48/F respectively. He further deposed that any letter received from any organization addressed to DCCWS is entered in these registers. He further deposed that the register Ex.PW48/E pertaining to letter received during April 2005 and March 2006 contains entries for the month of June 2005 and March 2006 contains entries for the month of June 2005 from page no. 6 to 9 and there is no entry indicating receipt of quotations from Bal Sadan in the month of June 2005. He further deposed that the register Ex.PW48/E contains an entry at page no. 16 at serial no. 396 indicating receipt of rate quotations from Bal Sadan, Timarpur from uniform Page 76 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. articles on 01.08.2005 and entry no. 33 at page no. 311 in register Ex.PW38/E indicates issuance of challan book in favour of M/s Swastik Corporation. Similarly, page no. 312 mentions issuance of challan book from challan no. 3451 to 3500 in favour of M/s Swastik Corporation.
135. PW48 deposed that DCCWS is a nodal agency for convenience of government department for procuring consumable items and suppliers are registered with DCCWS who are only authorized to supply goods to various government department. He further deposed that the government department interested in making purchases invites quotation from the DCCWS regarding the rate of items sought to be purchased. He further deposed that on the parallel the buying department would invite quotations from registered suppliers also and after the quotations are submitted by DCCWS and other registered suppliers, order would be placed by the buying department on the lowest bidder. He further deposed that if a registered supplier is the lowest bidder, order would be placed directly upon the said supplier but bill is raised by the DCCWS and payment is also routed through DCCWS.
136. PW48 further deposed that the quotation inquiry letters dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW44/DA, Ex.PW40/DB, purportedly from Bal Sadan addressed to DCCWS do not find diarised in register Ex.PW47/E meaning thereby that no such quotation inquiry letter was received by DCCWS in that financial year. He further deposed that challan Ex.PW48/B pertains to the same items as mentioned in the supply order Ex.PW44/DA and Ex.PW40/DB but the signatures appended on these challans are not of any staff members from DCCWS as per observation of PW48. He further deposed that the invoices Ex.PW48/C issued by M/s Swastik Corporation and consequent bills raised by DCCWS Ex.PW45/A pertains to the same items as mentioned in Ex.PW44/DA and Ex.PW40/DB.
137. PW48 further deposed that on 22.06.2009, vide seizure memo Page 77 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Ex.PW24/A, IO had seized documents Ex.PW24/P3 i.e. list of sundry creditors for the period April 2005 to March 2006 of DCCWS. He further deposed that the IO had also seized agreement entered into between DCCWS and M/s Swastik Corporation at the time of registration vide Ex.PW24/P4, delivery challan book from serial no. 3491 to 3499 Ex.PW24/P2 and attendance register Ex.PW24/P1. He further deposed that the challan book Ex.PW24/P2 was assigned to M/s Swastik Corporation. The challan dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW48/G is also from the same challan book Ex.PW24/P2. He further deposed that the quotation inquiry letters dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW48/H pertains to HHCLP addressed to DCCWS do not find diarised in register Ex.PW48/E meaning thereby that no such quotation inquiry letter was received by DCCWS in that financial year. He further deposed that the challan Ex.PW48/G pertains to the same items as mentioned in the quotation Ex.PW48/H.
138. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, PW48 admitted that DCCWS entered into a contract with the registered suppliers and accepted security money from them at the time of registering them. He further deposed that the name of registered suppliers is published and circulated to government department and as per practice, in the year 200506 challan book and quotation book were handed over to the registered suppliers. He further deposed that as and when an order was placed upon a registered supplier, a copy of order was served upon DCCWS. He further deposed that in the present case, registered supplier i.e. M/s Swastik Corporation submitted Ex.PW48/B and Ex.PW48/C in DCCWS whereafter retail invoice Ex.PW45/A was raised by DCCWS.
139. PW52 Chiranjeev Kumar Joshi, Assistant Computer Operator, DCCWS, Karampura had joined the investigation of the present case in 2010/2011 and had handed over certain documents to the IO vide seizure Page 78 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. memo Ex.PW52/A including letter Ex.PW52/B which was submitted by M/s Swastik Corporation regarding payment of pending bill, note sheets Ex.PW52/C and Ex.PW52/D regarding release of payment to M/s Swastik Corporation. He deposed that as per note sheet Ex.PW52/C, payment of Rs.1,33,619/ was released in favour of M/s Swastik Corporation vide cheque no. 573290 on 11.07.2005 and Rs.2,40,824/ were released vide cheque no. 575510 on 19.09.2005 as per note sheet Ex.PW52/D. PW52 had also handed over to the IO copy of bank statement Ex.PW52/E of their office reflecting encashment of cheque no. 575510. He further deposed that bills no. 48142 and 48147 Ex.PW45/A (colly) in the name of Bal Sadan, Timarpur were generated by him on 11.07.2005 on behalf of their office. He further deposed that bills no. 48143 and 48145 Ex.PW45/A (colly) in the name of Home for Healthy Children of Leprosy Patients (HHCLP), Khyber Pass were generated by him on 11.07.2005 on behalf of their office.
140. PW54 Sh. Jogender Singh Dahiya, Assistant ManagerII, NAFED deposed that in the year 2005 while he was posted as Accounts Assistant, NAFED/Consumer Marketing Division (CMD), Lawrence Road, the bill bearing no. 18 Ex.PW54/A and 19 Ex.PW54/B issued by M/s Swastik Corporation dated 09.07.2005 for HHCLP and Bal Sadan respectively were dealt with by him in NAFED. He further deposed that both the bills bear his endorsement on reverse side of the bills and corresponding delivery challans of both the bills are Ex.PW40/A and Ex.PW40/B. He further deposed that the delivery challan Ex.PW40/A and bill Ex.PW49/B alongwith carbon copy of sale bill Ex.PW54/C were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/D. (The marking of Exhibit on the document Ex.PW54/C seems to have been inadvertently not done by the then Ld. Judge. However, the said document was also exhibited as Ex.PW49/C on 29.09.2015 and Ex.PW57/A on 05.07.2018). He further deposed that similarly the delivery challan Ex.PW40/B Page 79 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. and bill Ex.PW49/A alongwith the carbon copy of the sale bill Ex.PW54/E were sent to the IO by Sh. K.K. Sharma through letter Ex.WP54/F. He further deposed that payments against both these bills were released as per procedure and vide letter dated 15.09.2005 issued by proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, two cheques issued against these two bills by the concerned department were deposited in Marketting Section of NAFED which were checked and verified and were forwarded for release of payment through bank. He further deposed that he had processed the deposit of cheques and endorsement to this effect on the reverse side of letter dated 15.09.2005 Ex.PW54/G was made by PW54. He further deposed that both these cheques were in favour of NAFED against which NAFED had issued a consolidated cheque for total amount of Rs.1,01,795/ vide receipt to this effect dated 27.02.2005 Ex.PW54/H. He further deposed that both the receipts as well as letter Ex.PW49/G were seized by the IO through seizure memo Ex.PW54/I.
141. PW55 Sh. Ram Surat Yadav deposed that he had joined the investigation of the present case while he was working as Field Officer in National Cooperative Consumer Federation (NCCF) and was shown quotations for certain clothing and bedding items purportedly received from Delhi Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Store Ltd. (DCCWS). He further deposed that he had compared the rates of those items with the prevalent rate as quoted by NCCF and there was vast difference in the prices quoted by DCCWS vide quotations Ex.PW55/B. He further deposed that he had also seen prices of similar items quoted by NCCF vide letter Ex.PW28/A and annexures Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C. He further deposed that it is clear from both these price lists that the prices quoted by Ex.PW55/B were much higher than those quoted by NCCF for example Banian from size 30 to 40 was quoted by DCCWS at Rs.46/ whereas the price quoted for the same by NCCF was at Rs.21.95/, similarly price of underwear from size 26 to 40 as quoted by DCCWS was at Rs.60/ whereas the price quoted for the same by NCCF was at Page 80 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Rs.27.95/, price of Kurta from size 34 to 40 as quoted by DCCWS was Rs.195/ whereas the price quoted for the same by NCCF was at Rs.96.90, price of bedsheet from size 60x100 as quoted by DCCWS was at Rs.282/ whereas the price quoted for the same by NCCF was at Rs.98.90/, price of shirt (uniform) as quoted by DCCWS was at Rs.70/ whereas the price quoted for the same by NCCF was at Rs.34.90/.
142. PW56 Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj deposed that she was working as Sales Executive in DCCWS, Karampura since November 1999 and used to maintain dispatch receipt register. She further deposed after seeing dispatch letter receipt for the period April 2005 to March 2006 Ex.PW48/E that there is no entry relating to tender inquiry received from Bal Sadan, Timarpur in the month of June 2005 nor any entry relating to corresponding quotations sent by DCCWS in the month of March 2005. She further deposed that at page no. 16 of the register, there is an entry Ex.PW48/E at serial no. 396 indicating that quotation letter for uniform articles was received from Bal Sadan, Timarpur on 29.07.2005 and quotations were sent on 01.08.2005. She further deposed that she has seen delivery challans dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW48/B issued by DCCWS and there is no corresponding entry in respect of these delivery challans regarding receipt of tender inquiries and issuance of quotations.
143. PW57 Sh. K.K. Sharma deposed that in the year 2009, he had joined the investigation of the present case and had supplied certain documents pertaining to items purchased by Bal Sadan and HHCLP in the year 2005 to the IO who had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/D. He further deposed that these documents included original supply order for bedding items in respect of Bal Sadan, Timarpura dated 29.06.2005, delivery challan Ex.PW50/A, bill Ex.PW54/B, carbon copy of the bill issued by NAFED Ex.PW57/A and copies of ledger Ex.PW57/B. He further deposed that he had Page 81 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. supplied the same to the IO original supply order Ex.PW40/DB in respect of HHCLP, delivery challan already Ex.PW40/B, bill Ex.PW57/C and carbon copy of bill issued by NAFED Ex.PW54/E, vide letter Ex.PW54/F.
144. PW61 Sh. Milap Chand deposed that in June 2009 he was posted as Purchase and Sales Executive, Kendriya Bhandar, R.K. Puram. He further deposed that on 17.06.2009, officials from PS ACB visited his office and asked him, vide letter dated 28.05.2009 Ex.PW61/A, whether the Kendriya Bhandar had received any inquiry letter for June 2005 from Superintendent, Bal Sadan inviting quotations for clothing and bedding. He further deposed that he was shown the original entry letter dated 15.06.2005 Ex.PW56/A1 by the IO. He further deposed that he had checked his record and found that no such inquiry letter from Superintendent, Bal Sadan had been received by Bal Sadan and had also reported that Kendriya Bhandar had not given any quotations to Superintendent, Bal Sadan in June and July 2005, vide his report on behalf of Kendriya Bhandar dated 20.06.2009 Ex.PW61/B with which price list Ex.PW61/C of clothing and bedding articles prevalent in June 2005 was also annexed.
145. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that it took him couple days to check the records to ensure the queries of the IO.
146. PW65 Sh. Deen Dayal Tiwari deposed that on 03.02.2009, while he was posted as Secretary, Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan in his presence one dispatch register containing 21 pages and having entries no. 101 dated 30.04.2003 (first entry) and entry no. 78 of dated 28.03.2007 (last entry), one day book register w.e.f may 2005 to March 2007 from page no. 1 to 22 and one supply book pertaining to year 20062007 bearing no. 11 to 50 which does not contain copies of the invoices bearing no. 1 to 10, were taken into police possession by Insp. Hira Lal, vide seizure memo Ex.PW65/A. He further Page 82 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. deposed that there is no entry of receipt of any quotation from Bal Sadan in June 2005 but in Dispatch Register at page no. 12, one entry regarding Superintendent, Bal Sadan, quotation by hand is mentioned without any date, vide registers Ex.PW65/B to Ex.PW65/D. He further deposed that he has seen the quotation Ex.PW65/E running into two pages addressed to Superintendent, Bal Sadan, Timarpur, New Delhi. He further deposed that as the matter was old, he does not recall as to how this quotation was sent without endorsement in requisite register. He further deposed that as per record, no tender was received and no supply was made from their store on the basis of this quotation. He further deposed that if any supply is made from their store, the bill is issued from the bill book but there is no bill with respect to the items mentioned in the quotation Ex.PW65/E. He further deposed that he does not recall if the quotation Ex.PW65/E had been misused or that if he had stated so to the IO in his statement.
147. PW70 Sh. Anil Kumar Tiwari deposed that while he was serving as a Sales Representative in M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd, on 24.06.2009 he joined the investigation and was shown certain delivery challan, purchase bill with regard to the purchase by the Bal Sadan and HHCLP for the financial year 200506 and PW70 had examined the document and the detailed examination revealed by him was mentioned by the IO in identification memo Ex.PW70/A. He further deposed that as per record, the supply order Ex.PW70/B of Bal Sadan was received on 29.06.2005 as per which the delivery challan no. 1699 and 1698 Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B respectively were issued and both the delivery challan were prepared in the handwriting of PW70. He further deposed that the delivery challan was issued to M/s Swastik Corporation, the supplier firm on the request of a letter received from the firm under the signature of the proprietor dated 08.07.2006 Ex.PW70/C. He further deposed that after Page 83 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. receiving the delivery report on the delivery challans from the supplier firm, a bill was raised by the firm to M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. He further deposed that as per agreement, it was the supplier firm who itself used to receive the supply order, got the delivery effected and then raised the bill and also used to collect the payment and our company used to charge some commission and then the payment was made to the supplier firm. He further deposed that on the basis of the DC, the bill no. 18 and 19 dated 09.07.2005 were raised by M/s Swastik Corporation India Ltd., vide Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW54/B. He further deposed that the bill no. 180 and 179 both dated 12.07.2005 were raised to Bal Sadan and HHCLP which are Ex.PW57/A and Ex.PW54/E respectively. He further deposed that in the month of June 2005, no NIT or quotation rate was ever received in M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. from the Bal Sadan and HHCLP and in the month of August, one NIT/quotation was received in M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd., vide Ex.PW70/D.
148. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. used to deal with the government firms as well as with the private firm. He further deposed that their company issued notification regarding mentioning the names of the firm who deals with M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. He further deposed that whenever a firm used to place the supply order, M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. used to raise the bill to the concerned department as per quotation provided by the supplier firm/party. He further deposed that after receiving the bill from the firm, they also issued a bill in favour of the department and after receiving the bill from them, the Page 84 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. government department used to check the goods supplied and then they issued the cheque in the name of M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. and thereafter, they used to deduct our commission from the amount received through the cheque and they issued the cheque to the supplier firm.
149. PW72 Sh. Rakesh Jha deposed that in the year 20042005, he was working as Data Entry Operator and he alongwith Sh. Anil Tiwari was assigned the duty of back to back sales division of NAFED. He further deposed that on 30.06.2005, no NIT/quotation was received in the NAFED from Bal Sadan and HHCLP for supply of the clothing and bedding items. He further deposed that the rate list Ex.PW70/E was supplied to Bal Sadan in lieu of a quotation received on 01.08.2005. He further deposed that alongwith the document Ex.PW70/D (clarified that document is Ex.PW70/D and not Ex.PW70/A on 13.12.2018) one envelope with covering letter bearing particular of the quotation was also sent with the list but the said envelope is not on record and it appears that the envelope has been changed with some other envelope to manipulate the tenders document. He further deposed that on behalf of Swastik Corporation, the suppliers firm of this case, one Parveen Kumar used to come in their office on behalf of the firm and he has been authorized to meet out all the formalities which is required for the supply of the goods. He has also identified the letter dated 01.08.2005 Ex.PW70/D issued under the signature of Sh. H.S. Tomar which was sent to Bal Sadan with regard to the NIT/quotation received in the month of August 2005. He further deposed that as per record, no supply of clothing and bedding had been made with regard to the quotation received on 01.08.2005. He further deposed that in back to back business, it was the supplier who was solely responsible for obtaining the supply order from the government Page 85 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. offices to arrange the goods and also put up bills and delivery challan etc. and he was to collect the payment and after receiving the payment from the government department, they used to deduct their commission of 5% and then rest of the amount was paid to the supplier firm through cheque. During his testimony he had also seen the document Ex.PW70/B dated 29.06.2005, delivery challan dated 08.07.2005 Ex.PW50/A, purchase bill of Swastik Corporation Ex.PW54/B and sale bill Ex.PW57/A, the payment voucher Ex.PW57/A and deposed that all these documents were also examined by Sh. Tiwari, Sh. K.K. Sharma and himself during investigation when they were called by the officer of ACB and detailed memo Ex.PW70/A was prepared in this regard. He has also identified the copy of the agreement alongwith terms and conditions between the NAFED and M/s Swastik Corporation on record Ex.PW72/A bearing the signature of the proprietor of the company and the concerned branch manager. The copy of the registration application with the NAFED is Ex.PW72/B.
150. During the course of his testimony, Ld. Addl. PP clarified that the document which was referred in the examination of the witness as Ex.PW70/A was in fact Ex.PW70/D i.e. the letter dated 01.08.2005 addressed to the Superintendent, Bal Sadan and issued under the signature of PW72.
151. PW73 Sh. S.N. Singh deposed that in the year 2012, while he was posted as Branch Manager, CMD Lawrence Road, he alongwith Sh. S.N. Solanki and Sh. Manohar Lal had visited the ACB office and handed over one detailed letter/reply Ex.PW73/A with regard to the query raised by the ACB in connection of the aforesaid case. He further deposed that the letter Ex.PW73/A was given under forwarding letter Ex.PW73/B. He further deposed that he had handed over the attested copy of the document with regard to the purchase by Swastik corporation for the year 200405, vide Ex.PW73/C.
152. PW74 Sh. Manohar Lal deposed that in the year 2012 while he was Page 86 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. working as Manager (Vigilance), NAFED on 23.10.2012, in response to the query raised by ACB regarding the back to back supply, the detailed procedure for the year 200506 was given by their department in the question answer form, vide Ex.PW73/A which was also signed by Sh. S.N. Singh and S.N. Solanki. He further deposed that the query of answer was given to the ACB under a forwarding letter Ex.PW 73/B.
153. PW75 Sh. A.N. Khurana deposed that he joined the investigation of the present case in August 2010 and the agreement dated 16.08.2002 Ex.PW72/A between NAFED and proprietor M/s Swastik Corporation was signed by him on behalf of NAFED which was also signed by Deepika Chauhan. He further deposed that there was a committee constituted for the verification of the document, the agreement was also put up before PW75 by the said committee. He further deposed that the members of the committee were Sh. B.K. Bhatia, Sh. K.K. Sharma and Sh. S.K. Narang.
154. PW95 Sh. Sanjay Malhotra, Assistant Accounts officer deposed that he was authorized by ED/General Manager, Delhi Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Ltd. To appear in this case on behalf of Sh. V.K. Rampal (since deceased). PW95 had brought the office file containing letter written by Sh. V.K. Rampal, Accounts officer to Sh. Kailash Chandra, ACB dated 15.09.2010 Ex.PW95/A. He had also brought the original notesheet dated 31.08.2001 Ex.PW95/B annexed with letter Ex.PW95/A. He further deposed that the original bylaws of the DCCWS is Ex.PW95/C. He had also brought the original of annexures III, IV and V regarding receiving of document of M/s Swastik Corporation Ex.PW95/D. PW95 had also brought all the four original orders of annexures VI Ex.PW95/E. All documents are duly verified by Sh. V.K. Rampal. The documents annexures VII and VIII are Ex.PW52/B and Ex.PW52/C. He also identified the signatures of Sh. B.S. Mann, Manager Vigilance on the letter written by him to the IO Ex.PW95/F. Page 87 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (VI) PUBLIC WITNESSES :
155. PW25 Sh. Murlidhar @ Panditji deposed that Smt. Santosh @ Geeta is his wife who is a domestic help by profession and he does not know if his wife had worked as domestic help for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further deposed that Jhuggi no. 1803B belonged to one Napalese lady who had left her jhuggi after which one Napalese person used to reside in that jhuggi and that person also left the jhuggi sometime in February 2009 and thereafter, he alongwith his wife started residing in that jhuggi. He further deposed that to his knowledge, no firm or shop was running from Jhuggi no. B1803, Sanjay Basti.
156. PW25 was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and he was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW25 denied that when Nepali tenant left the jhuggi of accused, one person namely Brijesh Chauhan/nephew of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and servants of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan used to reside in the said jhuggi. He further deposed that he was not aware that jhuggi i.e. B1803, Sanjay Basti was searched by officials of ACB in presence of his wife.
157. PW31 Smt. Santosh @ Geeta deposed that she is illiterate and can only sign in Hindi. She further deposed that about 57 years ago, 45 persons came to her jhuggi no. 1809 and started making inquiries from her and also took search of her jhuggi and thereafter, they obtained her signatures in Hindi on two papers, one was blank and the other had some written material on it which she could not read being illiterate. She further deposed that she has been living at aforesaid jhuggi for last about 20 years. She had identified her signatures on Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B.
158. PW31 was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and was Page 88 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. During the crossexamination on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted that till last four years, she has been working as cook/domestic help. She further deposed that jhuggi no. B1803 was situated in her locality and was little ahead of her jhuggi and she used to look after that jhuggi also. She further deposed that she had resided in that jhuggi for some time. She denied the suggestion that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan is known to her or that she is aware that she was an officer in Delhi Administration that she had worked as domestic help from time to time in her house. She denied that in lieu of her work at the house of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, she had provided her jhuggi no. B1803. She further denied that during the search, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan came at the jhuggi at about 10:00 am or that she had handed over the copies to the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan or that thereafter, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had handed over some files to the officials of ACB.
159. PW35 Sh. Raj Mangal Prasad, the complainant deposed that while he was working as Vice President (Programme) in NGO namely Pratidhi which was running from Room no. 25, Shakarpur Police Station Complex, Pusta Road, Ramesh Park, Delhi, he had made a complaint dated 29.01.2009 Ex.PW35/A addressed to Additional C.P., Anti Corruption Branch. He further deposed that he had enclosed annexure received from Department of Social Welfare, under RTI Ex.PW16/B with the complaint. He further deposed that he had given details of allegations against the accused persons which may be read as part of his evidence. He further deposed that the complaint was regarding irregularities in purchase of clothing and bedding etc. for children's home i.e. Bal Sadan, Timarpur which had come to the notice of NGO through RTI. He further deposed that on 31.01.2009, he had submitted additional information to the ACB which he had gathered under RTI Act through his letter Ex.PW35/B and copy of his RTI application is Ex.PW35/C. He further deposed that the annexures Ex.PW16/D were supplied to him by the Page 89 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Department of Social Welfare vide his letter Ex.PW16/C. Covering letter addressed to him by PIO/Joint Director (Admn.) is Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that he had also provided certain circulars Ex.PW16/E to Ex.PW16/H during the course of investigation to the IO. He further deposed that the accused persons had not followed the instructions/mandate of circulars of the government and had siphoned money by misusing their official position.
160. PW64 Smt. Babita deposed that she was an Aanganwari Worker posted at Aanganwari Centre, JII/55, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur from 2009 to 2011 which was earlier running in J/II/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi from 2001 2008. She further deposed that on being inquired by the IO of the present case, she had stated that no firm in the name of M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store existed at JII/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. She further deposed that in the property situated at JII/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi, two occupants namely Smt. Savitri and Smt. Mehbooban were residing in addition to Aanganwari Centre which was running on first floor of that building. She further deposed that the landlord namely Shiv Shankar was also residing in that property. She further deposed that no firm under the name of M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store at JII/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi existed between 20012008.
161. PW67 Sh. Shiv Shankar deposed that his wife Smt. Santosh was the owner of property no. J11/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur measuring about 25 square yards purchased by him in the year 1997 and he had sold it in the year 2014. He further deposed that he had constructed 2½ floors on the plot in question and occupied the ground floor of the property as long as it was in his possession. He further deposed that during the year 2001 to 2008, one room on the front side was rented out to Aanganwari. He further deposed that on the rear portion of first floor, one Smt. Savitri @ Santara Widow of late Munshi Ram resided as a tenant with her children and on the second floor, Smt. Page 90 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Mehbooban alongwith her children lived as tenant. He further deposed that there was no tenant under the name and style of M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store ever in the property bearing no. JII/39, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur.
162. PW68 Sh. Pradeep Sharma deposed that in the year 2010, he was living in the jhuggi at Sanjay Basti, Timarpur on rent however, he does not remember the number of the same. He further deposed that the jhuggi was let out to him on monthly rent of Rs.2,000/ through one Pandit Murli Dhar by the owner and it belonged to one Rajeshwari Chauhan. He further deposed that he had met the owner only on one or two occasions therefore, he was unable to identify the owner since period of more than 8 years has passed. On be asked by Ld. Addl. PP for the State regarding number of jhuggi, the witness has admitted that the number of jhuggi was 1803B.
163. PW69 Sh. Sunil Kumar deposed that he knew the accused Deepika Chauhan as well as her mother Rajeshwari Chauhan and the firm M/s Swastik Corporation was belonging to accused Deepika Chauhan which was operational in the year 20042005. He further deposed that the firm used to supply the articles/goods to Social Welfare Department and PW69 was assigned to look after the affairs of the firm. He further deposed that the firm was having its office at Dhaka Village, Delhi and was registered with the NAFED and DCCWS as supplier/dealer to the government offices. He further deposed that the mother of the accused Deepika Chauhan namely Rajeshwari Chauhan was living in the government quarter at Timarpur and she was working as incharge in the HHCLP and Bal Sadan, Timarpur and they also used to receive the order from the said office. He further deposed that one Praveen used to prepare the bills, delivery challan etc. He however, failed to identify the signature of Rakesh and Praveen on the bills and showed his ignorance about the signatures/handwriting identification memo Ex.PW69/A.
164. PW71 Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed that he was brought up in the Bal Page 91 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Sadan being the child of leprosy effected person and he had studied upto 8 th class in Bal Sadan, Timarpur. He further deposed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was the Superintendent of Bal Sadan and there was a firm in the name and style as M/s Swastik Corporation and Deepika Chaudhary, daughter of Rajeshwari Chauhan was the proprietor of the firm and PW71 was also employed in the said firm in the year 200405. He further deposed that he was provided the accommodation at B1803, Sanjay Basti, Timarpur (jhuggi). He further deposed that one Praveen and one Sunil Kumar were also working with him in the said firm. The witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Prosecutor but the witness showed his ignorance regarding the signatures of Sh. Praveen on the various bills and also identification memo Ex.PW69/A. (VII) WITNESSES FROM BANKS / POST OFFICE / VAT ETC. :
165. PW19 Sh. Ram Sajivan Sharma deposed that on 22.06.2006, he had joined as SubPost Master, Post Office Patrachar Vidyalya, Timarpur, Delhi, IO from ACB came in June 2009 and showed a UPC certificate Ex.PW17/A1 bearing the stamp/seal of Post Office, Patrachar Vidyalya. He further deposed that after examining the stamp/seal impression, purportedly of Post office, Patrachar Vidyalaya, he informed the IO that the UPC certificate was fake because the date printed in the impression of stamp/seal did not match with the date of 15.06.2005 mentioned on the UPC.
166. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW19 deposed that in the year 2005, three UPC letters could be dispatched on a postal stamp of Rs.2/. He denied the suggestion that the seal impression bearing date 27.17.2005 was got fabricated by the IO from him.
167. PW51 Sh. Sandeep Bagril, Retired Relationship Officer, Punjab National Bank deposed that in the second half of 2010, he joined the investigation of the present case and had handed over account opening form of Page 92 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. M/s Swastik Corporation and M/s Neel Kanth Corporation to the IO Insp. Kailsh Chand who had seized the same. He further deposed that bank Account Statements from 24.08.2005 to 21.09.2005, 22.09.2005 to 27.10.2005 and 09.06.2008 to 04.07.2008 are Ex.PW51/A1(colly) were seized by the IO, vide seizure memo Ex.PW51/A. Photocopy of account opening form of M/s Swastik Corporation alongwith its enclosures is Ex.PW51/B and letter verifying these documents to be correct by AGM, PNB, Mall Road is Ex.PW51/C. He further deposed that as per the account opening form, the proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation was Ms. Deepika Chauhan who had been introduced by proprietor of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation. He further deposed that he had again joined the investigation and had also handed over to IO statement of account of M/s Neel Kanth corporation maintained with PNB, Mall Road for the period 01.01.2008 to 29.10.2010 vide Ex.PW51/D, as well as copies of Account Opening Form alongwith enclosures of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation vide Ex.PW51/E which were seized by the IO, vide seizure memo Ex.PW51/F. He further deposed that as per the Account Opening Form, the proprietor of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation was Ms. Brijesh Kumar who had been introduced by Ms. Deepika Chauhan.
168. PW79 Sh. Tinku Kumar deposed that on 26.06.2012 while he was posted as VAT Inspector, he had produced the cancellation of registration certificate Ex.PW79/B of the firm M/s Swastik Corporation registered at 159, Kingsway Camp, Dhaka Village Delhi having TIN No.07740252847, show cause notice dated 09.07.2008, copy of documents attached with the file i.e. driving license, ration card and RC of vehicle and photocopy of rent receipt. He further deposed that the show cause notice Ex.PW79/A, photocopy of driving license Ex.PW79/C, photocopy of ration card Ex.PW79/D, copy of RC Ex.PW79/E, rent receipt Ex.PW79/F were attested by him and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW79/G. He further deposed that the registration Page 93 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. certificate of the firm brought by Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, GSTO in the court alongwith the affidavit and returns for the period of 200506 and the copy of the RC under local as well as Central Act are Ex.PW79/H, The copy of return are Ex.PW79/I collectively. The copy of affidavit is Ex.PW79/J. He further deposed that these documents were seized under the signature of Sh. V.P. Singh, vide seizure memo Ex.PW79/K.
169. PW81 Sh. V.P. Singh deposed that on 10.08.2010, while he was posted as Inspector, VAT in the Ward no. 72 of VAT Department, Trade and Taxes Department, ITO, he had produced the document prepared by VATO Sh. Anil Bhatnagar with regard to VAT registration record of M/s Swastik Corporation. He further deposed that as per record, the firm was registered in the name of Deepika Chauhan in the year 2002 and for the financial year 200506, only three returns were found available and the firm was not found functioning at the given address on 10.08.2010. His detailed report in this regard is Ex.PW79/K. The record of the firm including the affidavit and other document are Ex.PW79/J, Ex.PW79/H, Ex.PW79/I and the handwritten letter of Sh. Anil Bhatnagar is Ex.PW81/A.
170. PW84 Sh. Mahender Kumar deposed that he was running a fair price shop at shop no. 16, Dhaka village, Delhi and in 2012, he had provided the detail of the ration card issued in the name of Rajeshwari Chauhan and the photocopy of the ration card register with regard to the disbursement of ration was provided to the IO. He further deposed that as per the register, ration card no. 217699 has been registered in the name of Rajeshwari Chauhan. Photocopy of the register is MarkPW84/A. He further deposed that the name of Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan is figured in the register at serial no. 5 and original register could not be produced in the court as the same had been weeded out. He further deposed that the IO also prepared a memo in this regard Ex.PW84/B. Page 94 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
171. PW85 Sh. Arun Kumar, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank proved the photocopy of the account opening form alongwith the supporting documents of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation, vide Ex.PW51/E and he had also given certificate regarding the aforesaid account Ex.PW85/A. He has also proved the certified copy of the account opening form and other related documents of M/s Swastik Corporation Ex.PW51/B as well as certificate issued in this regard Ex.PW51/C and statement of account Ex.PW51/A1.
(VIII) POLICE WITNESSES / IOs ETC. :
172. PW7 Insp. Binod Kumar was the duty officer on 02.02.2009 and he recorded FIR No.03/09 Ex.PW7/A on the basis of rukka handed over by Insp. Kailash Chandra. PW7 made endorsement on the original rukka which is Ex.PW7/B. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Insp. Kailash Chandra.
173. PW82 Sh. Heera Lal, Retired ACP deposed that on 03.02.2009, he was posted as Inspector in ACB and had assisted the main IO Insp. Kailash Chander in the investigation and he alongwith HC Parshottam reached at Khadi Gram Udyog Bhawan, Saraswati Complex, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar where they met Sh. Din Dayal Tiwari, Secretary who had produced the documents relating to the tender inquiry and supply of goods to Bal Sadan, Timarpur for the month of June 2005. He further deposed that Sh. Din Dayal Tiwari could not produce any entry with regard to the said supply and no diary register and no record of the tender inquiry from Bal Sadan during the period of June 2005 was found. He further deposed that they found that dispatch register which was available shows an undated entry at serial no. 15 on the page no. 15 for showing supply of quotation to Bal Sadan between 25.04.2005 at serial no. 4 to 29.04.2005 at serial no. 21 which was not relevant. He further deposed that the dispatch register day book and supply register was seized vide Page 95 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. seizure memo Ex.PW65/A and the relevant register are Ex.PW65/B and Ex.PW65/D. He further deposed that during the inquiry, it was revealed that neither any tender inquiry were received during the month of June 2005 nor any supply order was received for the said period.
174. PW83 Insp. Parveen Kumar deposed that the case file of FIR No.19/08 had been assigned to him for further investigation and he had produced the same in the court. The original search memo of the house search of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan dated 26.06.2008 are lying in the file and the photocopy of the same is Ex.PW83/A. The original seizure memo cum observation memo dated 30.06.2008 with regard to Deepika Chauhan of M/s Swastik Corporation also lying in the file and the photocopy of the same is Ex.PW83/B.
175. PW86 Insp. Usha Sharma deposed that on 03.02.2009 while she was posted as Inspector in the ACB, in pursuance of search warrant under section 165 Cr.P.C., she alongwith Insp. Bhim Singh and two constables, one panch witness Sant Lal had visited the premises no. B1803, Sanjay Basti, Timarpur, Delhi where they conducted the search of jhuggi in the occupation of Santosh @ Geeta. She further deposed that they had also inquired from the neighbourhood and they came to know that no business activity was carried out from the jhuggi. She further deposed that they had visited the residence of Rajeshwari Chauhan who produced certain documents with regard to M/s Neel Kanth Corporation which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW31/B.
176. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused persons, she deposed that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was arrested in her presence at about 08:00 pm.
177. PW91 Retired ACP Roop Lal deposed that on 03.02.2009 while he was posted as Inspector in ACB, he alongwith Insp. N.K. Sharma and other team members including one panch witness Rajesh Kumar had proceeded to the office and residence of accused Mahesh Sharma. He further deposed that Page 96 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. during the search at District Office, North West2, Sector4, Rohini and the office of Chief Probation Officer, Seva Kutir, Kingsway Camp, nothing incriminating was recovered with regard to the present case, vide memo Ex.PW91/A and Ex.PW91/B respectively. He further deposed that similarly the house of accused situated at D2, Sewa Kutir, Staff Flat, Kingsway Camp was also searched and inventory memo was prepared, vide house search memo Ex.PW91/C.
178. PW92 ACP Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 03.02.2009 while he was posted as Inspector in ACB, he alongwith HC Upender Rao and Ct. Krishan Kumar reached in the office of DCCWS, Karampura, Moti Nagar where Sh. Naresh Kumar, Manager, DCCWS was asked to produce the document relating to tender inquiry and dispatch of quotation during the month of June 2005, however, no such record could be produced by Naresh Kumar. He further deposed that thereafter, Naresh Kumar had produced three supply order dated 29.06.2005 alongwith other record relating to supply by DCCWS through M/s Swastik Corporation for clothing and bedding articles of 200506, Bal Sadan, Timarpur which were seized by ACP Rajesh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.PW48/A. The purchase order by Bal Sadan dated 29.06.2005 Ex.PW92/DA. Challan form of DCCWS dated 29.06.2005 is Ex.PW48/B. Tax invoices of Swastik Corporation is Ex.PW48/C. Retail invoice of DCCWS dated 11.07.2005 is Ex.PW45/A. Letter receipt register from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006 and another letter receipt register from 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 are Ex.PW48/F, Ex.PW48/E and Ex.PW48/D. He further deposed that during inquiry, he came to know that neither tender inquiry was received nor any rate was dispatched during the month of June 2005, only on the basis of three supply order dated 29.06.2005 issued by Rajeshwari Chauhan, DDO/HO, Bal Sadan the supply was made.
179. PW97 ACP Kailash Chandra was the IO of the present case who Page 97 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He further deposed about the registration of FIR, about conducting preliminary inquiry before registration of FIR and of recording statements of the witnesses after the registration of FIR. He also deposed about the various searches which were made by him as well as about various documents seized by him during the course of investigation. He also deposed about obtaining specimen signatures of the accused persons as well as of Ms. Lata Gupta, Ms. Neeru Mullick, Ms. J.K. Barua and various other persons connected with the present case. He further deposed about the arrest of the accused persons and about non existence of the firms M/s Neel Kanth Corporation Ltd. and M/s Swastik Corporation Ltd. at the addresses on which these firms were allegedly registered. He had also sent specimen signatures and handwritings to FSL for opinion of the handwriting experts. He also deposed about filing of the supplementary challan in the court.
180. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they denied as false and incorrect. Thereafter, Ld. Addl. PP for the State moved an application for calling PW Sh. P.K. Tripathi regarding prosecution sanction of accused R.K. Sharma and another application was moved by Ld. Addl. PP for the State for recalling PW Sh. R.K. Sahu. Thereafter, further statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
STATEMENTS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CR.P.C. :
181. Accused Rajeshwari Chauhan during her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she was posted as DDO/HO in Bal Sadan/HHCLP and she was transferred vide order dated 07.04.2005 from Bal Sadan to Government Senior Secondary School for Blind Boys (GSSSBB)/ICDS Jahangirpuri. She Page 98 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. further stated that she joined GSSSBB on 07.04.2005 but she refused to join ICDS Jahangirpuri and had written a letter on 01.06.2005 to the Director for change of her posting in ICDS Jahangirpuri on special ground. She further stated that Sh. Shailesh Srivastav had also written a letter for not taking the charge from Rajeshwari Chauhan and thereafter, Sh. Shailesh Srivastav remained in OHB, Majnu Ka Tila. She further stated that in place of Sh. Shailesh Shrivastav, Sh. V.S. Awasthi was transferred as Superintendent in Bal Sadan and HHCLP, Timarpur vide order dated 17.06.2005 and Sh. V.S. Awasthi had taken over the charge of DDO/HOO of Bal Sadan/HHCLP from Rajeshwari Chauhan on 14.07.2005. She further stated that on 17.06.2005, Rajeshwari Chauhan was again posted from DDO/HOO Govt. Senior Secondary School for Blind Boys, Kingsway Camp to SSHW, Widow Home, (HMB(D), Jail Road. She further stated that she joined the Short Stay Home / Widow Home/HMB(D) Home on 07.07.2005. She had applied for casual leave w.e.f. 12.04.2005 to 14.04.2005 on 07.04.2005 which was allowed by Smt. Lata Gupta because she was continuing to look after the work of DO (North). She further stated that Sh. V.S. Awasthi had not taken over the charge from Rajeshwari Chauhan that is why she had to place the purchase order for clothing bedding, uniform, stationery etc. for inmates on urgent basis as the school of inmates were to be opened on 01.07.2005. She further stated that as per the norms contained in the "Manual for Functionaries of Institutions and Services" (published by the Directorate of Social Welfare, Delhi Administration), the entire year 200506 materials are to be given to inmates in the time bound manner and for this reason, she had given the orders on urgent basis to the government agencies on the basis of previous year 200405 comparative statement.
182. During her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., Rajeshwari Chauhan further stated that it is the prerogative of the government agencies to pick up any listed vendors / any authorized panel vendors to supply the goods to the Page 99 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. home in compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement with the government agencies on approved rate. She further stated that then the authorized dealer of the government agencies supplied the material to the Home and Rajeshwari Chauhan was not aware of the fact that her daughter's firm M/s Swastik Corporation was deputed by the government agency to supply the articles/goods. She further stated that after supplying the materials/goods by the authorized supplier of the government agency, they raise the bill before the government agency and then the government agency will send the bills to Home for the material. She further stated that the Home will thoroughly check the supplied goods and thereafter, the institutions/Home will issue the cheque in favour of the government agencies and after receiving the cheque, the government agency will deduct their commissions and thereafter, they will reimburse balance amount to the registered supplier. She further stated that she had no concern with the entire process and coincidently, in the present case, the government agency supplier M/s Swastik Corporation is the firm of her married daughter who was living separately in her matrimonial home and therefore, there is no question of conspiracy or meeting for supplying the material to the Home. She further stated that she had no concern or control to direct the government agency to depute Swastik Corporation to supply the material to the Home through the firm of her daughter.
183. During her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., Rajeshwari Chauhan further stated the present complaint was filed by Raj Mangal at the instance of the other group against whom Rajeshwari Chauhan had filed the FIR and crossFIR was registered against Smt. Saroj Rawat, P.P. Dhal, Nisha Aggarwal, Shailesh Sristav, Anil Kumar and other staff of SW department. She further stated that Sh. Narayan Singh had also filed cross FIR under the SC/ST Act against them in which Rajeshwari Chauhan is one of the witness and the matter was submitted upto Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, both Page 100 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. rival group of officers compromised for settlement and ultimately the criminal matter was compromised before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Ajay Pandey, Ld. ACMM, New Delhi on 29.09.2009. She further stated that Smt. Lata Gupta was the Exofficio Chairperson of the Purchase Committee and she had also put her initial on all the documents which were placed before her during the Purchase Committee proceeding but later on, she had deliberately denied her initials on the documents.
184. During her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Rajeshwari Chauhan further stated that the articles were supplied by DCCWS and NAFED and M/s Swastik Corporation was the registered supplier of government agency like as DCCWS/NAFED. She further stated that she had not given any order directly or indirectly to M/s Swastik Corporation whatever the order for supply of the material to the Bal Sadan/HHCLP during her tenure. She admitted that Deepika Chauhan who owns the firm M/s Swastik Corporation which was the authorized dealer or supplier of government agency like as DCCWS/NAFED, is her daughter. She further stated that comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 was not used for making any purchases. She further stated that she does not know the dates when the transfer order Ex.PW16/I and Ex.PW16/J was implemented with respect to M/s Neera Mullick and Ms. Lata Gupta. She further stated that in emergency, purchases can be done and if such purchases are granted expost facto expenditure sanction by the competent authority, such purchases are deemed to be regularized subject to audit and purchases made on the basis of expost facto sanction approved by competent authority. She further stated that in this case, the same was approved by the competent authority.
185. During her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Rajeshwari Chauhan further stated that Smt. Neera Mullick was posted as DO (North) vide order dated 28.06.2005 in which the place of posting is mentioned as planning to Page 101 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. proceed on leave and transferred to DO (North) but she was on earned leave w.e.f. 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005 and the earned leave was granted to her by Sh. Sanjay Gihar, Joint Director (Admn.), vide order dated 17.06.2005. She further stated that thereafter, Smt. Neera Mullick moved the application to Joint Director (Admn) Department of Social Welfare, GNCT of Delhi on 01.07.2005, vide document Ex.PW34/DX4 in which she had requested for change of her earned leave w.e.f. 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 instead of 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 08.07.2005 by Sh. Sanjay Gihar, Joint Director (Admn.) Ex.PW30/DX5. She further stated that Smt. Neera Mullick was on leave on 30.06.2005 that is why the same was mentioned in the order dated 28.06.2005 "planning to proceed on leave". She denied that Smt. Neera Mullick assumed the charge as DO(North) on 18.05.2005 from Smt. Lata Gupta and also denied that on 14.07.2005, file pertaining to purchase of clothing and bedding used for inmates of Bal Sadan was marked to her by HOO and she was given a noting to recast the proposal as per purchase direction of the department. She further stated that as per the document Ex.PW1/B, it was received by V.S. Awasthi and the noting was written by Rajeshwari Chauhan at the instance of V.S. Awasthi. She further stated that Smt. Pushpa Pathak, Superintendent/CDPO who was posted as DO (North) had not joined as DO (North) and Smt. Lata Gupta was continuing as DO (North) and looked after the work of DO (North). She further stated Smt. Lata Gupta had constituted the purchase committee and she was the chairman of the purchase committee on 30.06.2005 and she put her signature on the comparative statement and the quotation was opened in her chairmanship. She further stated that Smt. Neera Mullick was on earned leave w.e.f. 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005.
186. During her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. Rajeshwari Chauhan further stated that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by Smt. Saroj Rawat without calling the Superintendent of Bal Sadan/Smt.Rajeshwari Chauhan.
Page 102 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. She denied that Smt. Neera Mullick was DO (North) on 30.06.2005 and stated that in fact Smt. Lata Gupta was DO (North) till 30.06.2005 and she looked after the work of DO (North). She further stated that Smt. Lata Gupta had put her different signature/initials on 30.06.2005 as chairman of the purchase committee. She further stated that M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store exiting in premises bearing no. JII/39 in J.J. Colony, Sanjay Market, Wazirpur, Delhi and the said shop was alloted by DDA to Kedarnath and Kedarnath let out to M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store. She admitted taking of her sample handwriting by the IO during investigation but denied the presence of panch witness at that time.
187. Accused Deepika Chauhan during her statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she was the sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation and her mother is Rajeshwari Chauhan. She further stated that she was the sole Proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation and was deputed by the government agency to supply articles/goods and she supplied the goods on behalf of DCCWS/ NAFED and there was no conspiracy between accused Deepika Chauhan and official of Bal Sadan / HHCLP of Social Welfare Department. She further submitted that the registered supplier i.e M/s Swastik Corporation supplied the materials/articles as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for registration on 29.07.2003 as well as 19.09.2005. She denied that owner of M/s Neel Kanth Corporation is her family member. She further stated that this instant case is false case against her and it is the result of enmity between two group of officials posted in SW Department of Delhi Government. She further stated that although she was not associated with group but was involved in the case so that scores could be settled with accused Rajeshwari Chauhan.
188. Accused Rajinder Kumar Sharma during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that in the year 2005, he was posted as Junior Accounts Officer in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and was officiating as JAOII Headquarters, Page 103 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Department of Social Welfare. He further stated that as per circular dated 26.08.2003, he was attached as accounts functionary alongwith others in the local purchase committee of DSW and accordingly, he simply participated in the opening of quotations on 30.06.2005. He further stated that while signing the said quotations he had recorded his written observations as per GFR and purchase procedure prevalent at that time in the Department of Social Welfare GNCT of Delhi circulated vide circular dated 27.01.2003. He further stated that as per the records of the case, these quotations were never used for any purpose by the DSW and these quotations were meant and could only be used for placing the purchase order only on or after 30.06.2005 after obtaining the administrative approval and expenditure sanction of the competent authority. He further stated that even the Deputy Controller and Finance & Accounts never considered quotations dated 30.06.2005 at the time of recommendations of expost facto sanction. He further stated that DC (F&A) and competent authority simply considered the verified bills of NAFED and DCCWS for which purchase order was placed on 29.06.2005 and the aforesaid purchase order dated 29.06.2005 i.e. supply order of clothing and bedding articles for Bal Sadan and HHCLP were placed as per the record of the case file by the concerned HOO/DDO. He further stated that he simply signed quotations and comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 with his recorded observations and M/s Swastik Corporation was one of the supplier of NAFED and DCCWS and both these are government cooperative organizations. He further stated that the contingency bills were submitted in the Pay and Accounts Office by the concerned HOO/DDO and payment was made to DCCWS and NAFED by the concerned Pay and Accounts office on the basis of sanction of competent authority and requisite certificate. He further stated that Smt. Lata Gupta never provided her initials/short signature and therefore, the same could not be sent for GEQD.
189. Accused Rajinder Kumar Sharma during his statement under section Page 104 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. 313 Cr.P.C. further stated that calling and receiving the quotations is an administrative work and is done by the concerned HOO/DDO and his office had no concern with the calling and receiving the quotations. He further stated that sealed quotation box was opened on 30.06.2005 before the member of the Local Purchase Committee. He further admitted that his specimen handwriting was taken though he denied the presence of panch witness at that time.
190. Accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that in the year 2005, he was posted as DDO/HO of government Lady Noyce Senior Secondary School for Deaf at Delhi Gate and also held additional charge as Planning Officer, Department of Social Welfare, Headquarter, Govt. of NCT of Delhi at Delhi Gate. He further stated that he was allocated official accommodation at Sewa Kutir Complex near Timarpur by the Department of Social Welfare. He further stated that the institution namely Bal Sadan and HHCLP is located between his place of posting and official accommodation at Sewa Kutir Complex, Kingsway Camp. He further stated that he was invited/requested by the then DDO/HO of Bal Sadan, Timarpur to participate as a member of adjoining institution/gazetted officer in opening of quotations of general articles and clothing bedding for inmates on 30.06.2005 and accordingly he participated in the opening of quotations on 30.06.2005 in respect of some petty purchases of contingency articles in Bal Sadan in the capacity of a gazetted officer member of the quotation opening committee / purchase committee. He further stated that while signing the said quotations, he acted in bonafide manner. He further stated that these quotations opened on 30.06.2005 were never used for any purpose in the department of social welfare and the same were never submitted before the competent authority at any point of time. He further stated that DC (F&A) and competent authority simply considered the verified bills of NAFED and DCCWS for which purchase order was already placed on 29.06.2005 without his knowledge. He further stated that he was not at all involved in placing any Page 105 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. order of purchase or internal functioning of Bal Sadan or HHCLP in any manner. He further stated that it is on record that on 30.06.2005, some quotations were opened under the supervision and chairmanship of purchase committee Smt. Lata Gupta, the then DO (North) and he had put his signature on the quotations and comparative chart of quotations as a gazetted officer/member of nearby (adjoining) institution as he was fully competent to sign as a member of purchase committee being a gazetted officer /HO of Govt. of Lady Noyce Senior Secondary School for Deaf of the department. He further stated that the quotations which were opened on 30.06.2005 can be used only for making any purchases after 30.06.2005 only as a prerequisite for future purchase i.e. only for making or enabling any purchase at a future date i.e. after 30.06.2005. He further stated that no purchases were ever made on the basis of the comparative chart dated 30.06.2005 and he had never participated or opened any quotations in HHCLP at any point of time during the year 2005. He further deposed that Smt. Lata Gupta never provided her initials/short signature to be sent for GEQD.
191. Accused I.S. Pimoli during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.
stated that it is a false case. He further stated that he was DC (F&A) at the relevant period of time and that PW43 recommended for grant of AA. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant/IO. He further stated that he does not recollect to have processed the files in question relating to Bal Sadan and HHCLP, however, if at all the aforesaid files were brought to him by the D/D clerk of DC(F&A), Personal Branch, the relevant recommendation to JD (Admn)/competent authority/HOD by him might have been on the basis of duly verified bills with certificate issued by the concerned Superintendent/DDO/HO for seeking the sanction of competent authority of both the homes. He further stated that the recommendations are apparently found by the JD (Admn) / competent authority i.e. Sh. Sanjay Gihar, being in order/in accordance with rules/practice Page 106 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. prevailing in the concerned department, since he has granted sanctions, apparently after perusing the entire file forwarded to him from his office through the D/D clerk for grant of sanction by the JD (Admn)/competent authority in files in question and thus, if at all there was any inadvertent lapses in DC (F&A) office while said recommendations, the same stood regularized with grant of sanction by Sh. Sanjay Gihar, JD (Admn)/competent authority/HOD. He further stated that there was no malafide intention on his part.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE :
192. In the present case after completion of the statements of the accused persons, accused namely Rajeshwari Chauhan, Deepika Chauhan, Rajinder Kumar Sharma and Mahesh Kumar Sharma got examined 10 witnesses in their defence.
193. DW1 Sh. K.P.S. Menon, Assistant Account Officer, Finance Department during the course of his testimony in the court had brought the original letter no.4/4/92AC/5082 dated 25.03.2004 as well as letter no. F.1/98/85AC/332 dated 04.05.2000. Copy of these letters are Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B.
194. DW2 Sh. Dharmendra Prasad, District Social Welfare Officer, North WestI & NorthWestII deposed that he had worked under V.S. Awasthi who was working as HO, DDO in Social Welfare Department and due to health issues, he used to get notings written by his colleagues in the official notesheets. He further deposed that he knows accused Dr. Mahesh Sharma who is a gazetted officer in Social Welfare Department since 1998 onwards and was the nearest gazetted officer available at Bal Sadan, Kingsway Camp since 200406. He further deposed that the role of accused Dr. Mahesh Sharma is advisory in nature and his official residence is also near Bal Sadan, Page 107 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Kingsway Camp. He further deposed that any gazetted officer can sign the quotation in advisory capacity.
195. DW3 Sh. P. Ananda Rao was summoned to produce original file/record regarding diary no. 658/DC/FA dated 21.06.2005 and diary no. 79/AO1 dated 23.06.2005, however, the said record could not be traced and his reply in this regard is Ex.DW3/A.
196. DW4 Sh. Jitendra Kumar, Senior Assistant, Admn. Branch, Department of Social Welfare proved the reply forwarded by Ms. Saroj Rawat, Dy. Director Ex.DW4/A with regard to earned leave availed by Ms. Neera Mullick from 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 with permission of 16.07.2005 and 17.07.2005 as prefix vide order no. F9(10)/72DSW/Estt./20963970 dated 08.07.2005. Copy of service book record pertaining to aforesaid leave duly attested by Ms. Saroj Rawat is Ex.DW4/B. DW4 also proved the reply Ex.DW4/C of Sh. P. Ananda Rao, DSWO, North forwarded by Ms. Saroj Rawat, Dy. Director, Admn. in respect of casual leave of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan from 12.04.2005 to 14.04.2005. DW4 further deposed that no such casual leave application was found in respect of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. DW4 further deposed that the order dated 07.06.2005 was not traceable in the department as the same is lying in the court no. 202, ACB, vide letter in this regard Ex.DW4/D.
197. DW5 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Senior Assistant, Department of Social Welfare, HADFB, Nirmal Chaya Complex, Hari Nagar had been authorized to depose in the court by Ms. Rachna Bhardwaj, Superintendent, Asha Jyoti Home vide authority letter Ex.DW5/A. He further deposed that the record pertaining to file no.F.2(10)/HADB/RTI/201112/54 dated 26.08.2011 is pertaining to their office but the said record could not be traced, vide his reply in this regard Ex.DW5/B. DW5 had also brought photocopy of one RTI bearing ID No.148/RTICell/DSW/201112 dated 27.07.2011 transferred to Page 108 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. their office by District Officer (Social Welfare), West, vide MarkDW5/X.
198. DW6 Sh. Charan Singh during the course of his testimony in the court, had brought file pertaining to RTI application dated 22.07.2011 filed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan which was marked to PIO/DO (NorthWest2), Rohini and PIO/DO(West), Hari Nagar, Delhi, vide letter Ex.DW6/A. He further deposed that the reply to the RTI application was sent by concerned PIO directly to the application and they did not further deal with the matter.
199. DW7 Ms. Poonam, Superintendent, SSH and Widow Home, Nirmal Chaya Complex, Hari Nagar, during the course of his testimony in the court, had brought the photocopy of cash book pertaining to charge taken over by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan on 14.07.2005 and handed over to Smt. P.K. Bedi on 31.08.2005 of Short Stay Home, Nirmal Chaya Complex, vide Ex.DW7/A. She had also brought photocopy of cash book pertaining to charge taken over by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan on 14.07.2005 and handed over to Smt. P.K. Bedi of Widow Home, Nirmal Chaya Complex, vide Ex.DW7/B.
200. DW8 Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Senior Assistant, Sewa Kutir, Blind School has proved the entries Ex.DW8/A with regard to cash book in which the handing over and taking over of charge of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has been reflected at page no. 155.
201. DW9 Sh. Mahendra Singh, Junior Assistant, Office of DDO HO, Department of Social Welfare, Sewa Kutir Complex proved the copy of order dated 05.08.2011 attested by DDO, Poor House, vide Ex.DW9/A.
202. DW10 Sh. Sanjay Gihar, Secretary, Govt. of Goa deposed that in the year 2005 while he was posted as Joint Director, Social Welfare Department, GNCT of Delhi, he was also using the delegated financial powers of the Director. He further deposed that he had accorded sanction Ex.PW96/P on the basis of note put up by DC (F&A). He further deposed that the expenditure and administrative sanction was given on the basis of the note Page 109 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. put up by the Finance Section headed by DC(F&A).
CITATIONS RELIED UPON :
203. Arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsels Sh. Sunil Kapoor, Sh. Vikram Singh, Sh. R.P. Shukhla and Sh. Sachidanand Chaturvedi, for the accused persons heard and have also gone through the entire material placed on record including the written arguments filed by the accused persons.
204. Ld. counsel for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan has relied upon :
(i) Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar Vs State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110,
(ii) C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193.
205. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has relied upon following judgments with regard to Prosecution Sanction :
(i) Sh. Anand Murlidhar Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal no.1107/2004, decided on 23.02.2021 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
(ii) State of Maharashtra Vs Devidas, Crl. Appeal no.345/2002 decided on 08.09.2014 by Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
(iii) Manish Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 12684/2012 decided on 19.12.2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan.
(iv) CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Crl. Appeal no. 1838/2013 decided on 22.11.2013 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
206. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has relied upon following judgments with regard to Criminal Conspiracy :
(i) R. Venkatakrishnan Vs CBI, MANU/SC/1411/2009.
(ii) Vijayachandran K.K. Vs The Superintendent of Police & Ors., Crl. A. No.1102/2005 decided on 29.09.2006 by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
207. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has relied upon following Page 110 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. judgments with regard to Administrative Lapse :
(i) C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. A. No. 52205, decided on 12.07.1996 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(ii) Anil Kumar Bose Vs State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 616.
208. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has relied upon following judgments with regard to Circumstantial Evidence :
(i) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra, Crl. A. No. 745/1983 decided on 17.07.1984 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(ii) Nagendra Sah Vs State of Bihar, Crl. A. No.1903/2019, decided on 14.09.2021 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(iii) Deepak Sarna Vs State (NCT of Delhi), Crl. A. no.174/2004 decided on 30.10.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
209. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has also relied upon following judgments :
(i) Yash Pal Mittal Vs State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 2433).
210. Ld. Counsel for accused R.K. Sharma has also relied upon following judgments :
(i) State of Karnataka Vs Ameer Jan, AIR 2008 SC 108.
(ii) Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar, in Crl. A. No. 1695/2009 decided on 04.09.2009.
(iii) State of Gujarat Vs Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi, AIR 1985 SC 1092.
211. Ld. Counsel for accused I.S. Pimoli has also relied upon following judgments :
(i) Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar, in Crl. A. No. 1695/2009 decided on 04.09.2009.
(ii) P.K. Pradhan Vs State of Sikkim (2001) 6 SCC 704.
(iii) D. Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695.
(iv) A. Shivprakash Vs State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0541/2016.Page 111 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
(v) Anil Kumar Bose Vs State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 616.
(vi) Rita Handa Vs CBI, 2008 (105) DRJ 331.
SANCTION :
212. Ld. Counsel for accused R.K. Sharma has argued that the prosecution sanction obtained against accused R.K. Sharma is without any application of mind as the same was granted by using a draft sanction prepared by the ACB and the sanction even attributes offence of not putting his stamp on the comparative statement by R.K. Sharma which is not even the case of the prosecution. He further argued that accused obtained the noting portions of the sanctioning authority via RTI vide Ex.PW98/B wherein it is mentioned that a draft sanction was used to grant the order of sanction against accused R.K. Sharma and in this regard the accused is placing reliance upon State of Karnataka Vs Ameer Jan, AIR 2008 SC 108. It is further argued that PW 98 Sh. P.K. Tripathi who had accorded sanction against accused R.K. Sharma, has clearly admitted before the court that the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005, on which accused R.K. Sharma is one of the signatories and which is a crucial document, was not available in the documents placed before him at the time of according sanction and therefore, this makes it crystal clear that the sanctioning authority has granted sanction without perusing the documents being relied upon by the prosecution and also without any application of mind, merely on the basis of draft sanction given by the prosecution.
213. The Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that the sanction order does not specify which document were perused by the Ld. Disciplinary Authority before granting it, therefore, sanction Ex.PW98/A (also Mark PW15/B) has been accorded mechanically, without application of mind and at the behest of ACB.
214. Ld. counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has argued that the bare perusal Page 112 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. of the prosecution sanction would show that the same has been granted not only on gross misunderstanding of actual facts but also without perusing or scrutinizing the crucial documents which goes to the root of the matter since the same were never made available to the competent authority by the investigating agency i.e. ACB ("ACB"). It is further argued that it is evident from the record/file maintained with respect to grant of prosecution sanction that no scrutiny of material has taken place at any point of time which ought to have been done for determining whether the case of grant of sanction accused M.K. Sharma has been made out or not. It is further argued that in fact to the contrary the draft of prosecution sanction was placed before the competent authority which was signed in utmost mechanical manner and without any application of mind. It is further argued that the most crucial and relevant documents which ought to have been placed before the competent authority to establish the guilt on the part of accused M.K. Sharma would be borne out of the quotation file Ex.PW1/D which ran into 21 pages and contained the comparative statement dated 30.06.2021 and other related documents. However, neither the complete quotation file nor the comparative statement was placed on record before the competent authority for it to examine the same and apply its mind accordingly for the purpose of grant of sanction. It is further argued that list of documents contained in the request letter Ex.PW15/C (colly) shows that at serial no. 4, the so called quotation file forwarded to the competent authority contained of only four pages which were grossly incomplete and deficient as the quotation file consisted of 21 pages. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that as per the list of documents sent by the IO, 174 pages were sent by the IO whereas the complete file must be more than 174 pages, thus, revealing that only copies of seizure memos of documents were sent and copy of the document seized during investigation were not sent. It is further argued that prosecution sanction is granted by calling for the draft sanction from ACB and therefore, the sanction is nonest in law and stood Page 113 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. vitiated.
215. In Ashok Kumar Tshering Bhutia Vs State of Sikkim, 2011 (3) LRC 93 (SC) on the point of sanction, it was held as follows:
"......In the absence of anything to show that any defect or irregularity therein caused a failure of justice, the plea is without substance. A failure of justice is relatable to error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Therefore, a mere error, omission or irregularity in sanction is not considered to be fatal unless it has resulted in a failure of justice or has been occasioned thereby. Section 19 (1) of the PC Act 1988 is a matter of procedure and does not go to the root of the jurisdiction and once the cognizance has been taken by the Court under Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that an invalid police report is the foundation of jurisdiction of the court to take cognizance........"
216. The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant under the POC Act are designed as a check on frivolous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute honest public servant for acts arising out of due discharge of their duties. Section 19(1) of the POC Act are mandatory and forbid courts from taking cognizance of any offence punishable U/S 7,10,11,13 & 15 of the POC Act against public servants except with the previous sanction of the competent authority.
217. As regards application of mind and also regarding complete materials to be placed before sanctioning authority, in 2013 (8) SCC 119 State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh Jain, following principles were culled out : "14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed Page 114 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
It was further held that :
"True it is, grant of sanction is a sacrosanct and sacred act and is intended to provide a safeguard to the public servant against vexatious litigation but simultaneously when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of an accused."
218. Thus, grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating Page 115 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused.
219. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 3400, decided on 03.09.1997 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has been observed that :
"The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority.
Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority.
Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force by acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it Page 116 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution."
220. There is nothing on record to suggest that the sanctioning authority was under any obligation or compulsion to grant sanction or had not applied his independent mind.
221. On the issue regarding grant of sanction on the basis of draft sanction order, in C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka, Crl. Appeal no. 462/2005, 2005 AIR SCW 1684, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bengalore Telecom as PW40, he was competent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that S.P., CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and accorded the sanction as per Ex.P.83. He deposed that he was satisfied that there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction order was also examined by vigilance cell and then it was put before him. He also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the vigilance cell. He also admitted that he was not a law man, therefore, he discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the vigilance cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according sanction. It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecution against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant......"
".....When the sanction itself is very expressive, then in that case, the argument that particular material was not properly placed before the Page 117 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. sanctioning authority for according sanction and sanctioning authority has not applied its mind becomes unsustainable. When sanction order itself is eloquent enough, then in that case only formal evidence has to be produced by the sanctioning authority or by any other evidence that the sanction was accorded by a competent person with due application of mind."
222. In the present case also, through it is revealed that a draft sanction order was sent but the same was sent on the request of sanctioning authority and rather as revealed from record, ACB was reluctant to send the draft sanction order. The relevant portion of the noting of the sanction file Ex.PW15/C are reproduced hereinbelow :
Noting at Page2/N :
".........SUBMISSIONS OF SH. M.K. SHARMA In his representation dated 15.11.10 (copy at p20/c36/c), Sh. M.K. Sharma has submitted that he merely signed comparative statement and quotation and no other documents. The file noting (said to be made by him) have not been signed by him (page 26/c). Superintendent Balasadan has signed it and as such, he/she should be responsible. Shri Sharma was not posted in the Home. He was the Planning Officer who signed quotations (as a gazetted officer) as a member of Quotation Opening Committee.
7. In this regard it is seen that Sh. M.K. Sharma has argued that M.K. Sharma has not produced any documents by which he was made member of said Purchase Committee in the capacity in which he claims to have signed the comparative statement. Secondly, if he acted as a member of quotation opening committee, then he had no role to sign comparative statement which only a duly authorized purchase committee can. Moreover, a purchase committee is not meant to merely sign comparative statement but it has to examine all the purchase records placed before it as per rules and regulations for regarding purchase. His submissions are, Page 118 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. therefore, have no substance and his innocence is not proved in the matter because actions allegedly committed by him were unauthorized in total disregard of rules and a part of criminal conspiracy..........."
Noting at Page3/N :
"...............9. The notes at point 12/N may kindly be perused in continuation of notes at point 89/N of the linked files. Examination of facts in the Vigilance as submitted by the Assistant Director (Vigilance) at point 12/N suggests that there are cogent evidence and facts for seeking grant of prosecution sanction against the officials of the Social Welfare Department.
10. Since the ACB has not submitted a draft sanction order seeking prosecution the ACB at the first instance may be directed to submit a draft prosecution sanction order, without a draft order it would not be possible to know as to which provision of criminal law are proposed to be applied against the officials.
11. Reexamination of the facts may be after draft prosecution order is submitted by ACB would help in taking a final view.
12. Submitted for perusal, approval and further placing the matter before C.S. Sd/13.12.2010
13. Secy/(Vig) Ps. get the draft prosecution sanction order from ACB so that a comprehensive informed view is taken before the matter is placed before the C.S. Sd/Dec 14.
14. Send a letter to ACB please as directed above. Sd Noting at Page4/N & 5/N :
18. It is submitted in continuation of para 15 above that the ACB vide letter dated 12.1.11 P.48/C conveyed that 'there is no provision in the law for supplying draft Prosecution Sanction'. In this regard, it may be mentioned that of course there is no law w.r.t. supply of draft sanction but where is the question of law in this matter. This is an administrative mater so far as drafts are concerned. The competent authority is to apply its own independent mind to whatever is place before him by Page 119 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. his subordinates. Merely by placing a draft for seeking order of the competent authority it does not mean that there was no application of mind by the Authority. It is very normal and routine matter to put drafts for approval for sending letters, for issuing charge memo and prosecution sanction etc. Noting at Page6/N :
22. I agree with the position outlined in the prenote. An advisory may be sent to the ACB, in response to their letter at page 48/C, accordingly. However, in the instant case our advise may be rendered on the basis of material facts and evidence placed on record by the ACB while seeking prosecution sanction of the competent authority.
23. It appears that the investigation is now complete and prosecution in the case is only awaiting sanction. Advise to the competent authority may be immediately rendered, preferably within a week time".
223. The sanction order Ex.PW15/E gives details about the facts of the present case and is expressive. Perusal of the sanction file Ex.PW15/C reveals that some representation dated 15.11.2010 of accused M.K. Sharma was also considered at the time of forming independent view. Also, as revealed from note 3/N, it was opined that there was cogent evidence and facts for seeking grant of prosecution sanction but thereafter, it was observed that as the ACB has not submitted a draft sanction order therefore, it was not possible for them to know as to which provision of law is proposed to be applied against the official. It was further observed that reexamination of facts may be done after a draft prosecution order is submitted. It was further observed that asking of the draft sanction order is an administrative matter and the authority is still to apply its own independent mind to whatever is placed before him. It was also observed that by merely placing a draft for seeking sanction order, it does not mean that there is no application of mind by the competent authority. And thus, merely because draft sanction order was Page 120 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. sought by the sanctioning authority to arrive at a final and comprehensive view and also to know as to which provisions of law are attracted, the sanction does not stand vitiated.
224. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon the judgment of Shri Anand Murlidhar Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court (Supra) in support of his arguments that the sanction was not accorded properly. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the facts of the case relied upon in as much as in Anand Murlidhar's case, the sanctioning authority had admitted in his crossexamination that he did not instruct anyone to prepare draft sanction order and it had also come on record that the draft sanction order was sent by IO alongwith sanction proposal and investigation papers. However, in the present case the draft sanction order was sought from the office of the sanctioning authority after examination of facts. The investigating agency was insisted upon by the office of sanctioning authority to send a draft sanction order as they felt that without a draft order, it was not possible for them to know as to which provision of criminal law are proposed to be applied. Similar is the situation in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs Devidas, Bombay High Court, decided on 08.09.2014 and Manish Mathur Vs State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan High Court, decided on 19.12.2012, wherein the draft was sent by ACB alongwith the request for grant of sanction.
225. Also, as far as accused M.K. Sharma is concerned, his sanctioning authority was Hon'ble L.G.
226. In Gopal Singh Vs CBI, 2005 SCC OnLine Del 623 : ILR (2005) 2 Del 35, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with sanction accorded by LG, GNCTD, made following observations :
"14. After perusing Ex.PW1/A, this court is of the considered view that it cannot be held that the sanction Ex.PW1/A was accorded without application of mind or without perusing the material relied upon by the Page 121 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. prosecution. Sanction is not required to be given in any particular form and if the sanction order speaks for itself and shows that the material was considered, nothing more is required to be established. The Apex Court in C.S. Krishnamurthy Vs State of Karnataka : reported in 2005 AIR SCW page 1684 has clearly held so. In the case in hand, it cannot be held that the sanction was granted without application of mind to the material because Ex.PW1/A incorporates full facts on which the prosecution case was based. It is true that sanction under section 19 of the Act is aimed at providing a safeguard to the public servants sought to be prosecuted against false, frivolous or groundless prosecutions but the technicalities of law cannot be permitted to come to the rescue of offenders when the sanction is properly proved on record and it is not in dispute that it was accorded by a competent authority. The Lt. Governor, who passed the sanction order on the basis of recommendations of his subordinate officers and before whom the material in support of the prosecution was available is presumed to have considered the material and accorded the sanction thereafter only. His approval of the note upon consideration of the material and his recommendation for prosecution clearly fell within the four corners of a valid sanction. No further proof of application of mind was required to be placed on record nor the Lt. Governor was expected to come to witness box to depose about grant of sanction. This court, therefore, is of the considered view that the sanction Ex.PW1/A was validly accorded and it stands properly proved on record."
227. In view of the above judgment, the sanction Ex.PW15/E granted by the Lt. Governor is taken to be validly accorded.
228. Regarding application of mind by the sanctioning authority as far as accused R.K. Sharma is concerned, the crossexamination of PW98 being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
"......Today I remember that I had seen FSL result against accused R.K. Sharma while granting sanction and I do not remember today the other documents, since it is very old Page 122 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. matter.
At this stage, attention of the witness is drawn towards Ex.PW1/D1. As per this circular which I have seen now, the District Officer has to be the Chairman of Purchase Committee. I cannot say as to who else have to be the members as per the circular.
At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards Ex.PW1/B. I do not remember today whether I examined this file Ex.PW1/B when I granted sanction. I cannot admit or deny Ex.PW96/N, which is a part of Ex.PW1/B. I cannot admit or deny that as per Ex.PW96/O, which is part of Ex.PW1/B, the goods were yet to be procured.
I do not remember today orally whether comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 was also made available to me before I granted sanction against accused R.K. Sharma.
At this stage, witness has seen his office file brought by concerned clerk from the office, separately. It is correct that this comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 is not available in the file in which sanction was granted against R.K. Sharma. Vol. However, there is a mention about this statement dated 30.06.2005 in the list of documents received for grant of sanction.
I had gone through the note of Directorate of Vigilance before granting sanction.
I do not know whether the Directorate of Vigilance called for any draft sanction or not. Vol. I did not see any such draft sanction order in my file.
At this stage attention of witness is drawn towards note sheet dated 26.05.2011 page no. 11N to 13N. It is correct that it bears my signatures at point X. This note sheet is now Ex.PW98/B (Original of this note sheet is part of file brought by clerk concerned today for the testimony of this witness and original is seen and returned).
It is wrong to suggest that sanction against accused R.K. Sharma was approved or granted mechanically or it was granted/approved without application of mind. It is wrong to suggest that I simply signed draft sanction order. It is wrong to suggest that no documents were received for grant of sanction or that I did not peruse any such documents or that merely on the asking of investigating agency the sanction was issued. It is wrong to suggest that there was insufficient material to grant sanction against accused R.K. Sharma. XXXXXX by Counsel Sh. Sunil Kapoor, Advocate for accused Page 123 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan.
Nil. Opportunity given.
XXXXXX by accused Inder Singh Pimoli.
Nil. Opportunity given."
229. Ld. counsel for the accused R.K. Sharma has argued that the observation in Para5 of the sanction order Ex.PW98/C (also MarkPW15/B) regarding R.K. Sharma not affixing his rubber stamp is not correct and in fact this allegation was against accused M.K. Sharma and this observation against accused R.K. Sharma by the concerned sanctioning authority establishes that the sanctioning authority has not applied its mind and has accorded sanction mechanically. Relevant observation in Para5 of sanction order Ex.PW98/C is reproduced hereinbelow :
"................It was also found that accused Sh. R.K. Sharma did not affix his rubber stamps on the above said documents hiding his identity deliberately so that while recommending and sanctioning the proposal, the concerned authorities could assume his signatures as that of DO (North), Chairman of purchase committee.............."
230. PW98 has denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind. The sanction order as well as testimony of PW98 has to be read in entirety and one or two words from the said sanction order or from the testimony of PW98 cannot be extracted to establish that the sanction has been granted mechanically. On the basis of the testimony of PW98 and the other relevant material on record, the court is satisfied that the sanction has been granted after complete appreciation of facts and due application of mind.
231. Also, the above testimony reveals that the sanctioning authority did not remember whether he had perused the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 or not, though the same was mentioned as one of the documents sent by the IO. In fact in the sanction order Ex.PW98/A (also MarkPW15/B), the entire Page 124 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. details i.e. facts of case have been discussed and it has also been clearly stated that material placed on record was perused before grant of sanction.
232. As regards perusal of documents by the sanctioning authority and also regarding placing of complete material by the IO before the sanctioning authority in respect of both the accused persons i.e. R.K. Sharma and M.K. Sharma, in CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 15 SCC 222, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : "(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withheld the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evidence that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
Page 125 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
233. Certainly, it is the duty of the prosecution to send entire record of the case to the sanctioning authority and the emphasis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case is also that the record should be sent alongwith material and document that may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which competent authority may refuse the sanction. Though, Ld. Counsels for both the accused M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma vehemently argued that the entire record was not sent but they have failed to show as to which of the documents which the prosecution had not sent, would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused. None of the document which were not sent to the Sanctioning Authority could have formed basis for refusing sanction. Also, how the balance would have tilted in favour of accused persons, if the sanctioning authority would have perused the remaining documents. The accused persons have not been able to point out any document or material which if would have been put before the Sanctioning Authority (but was not sent to Sanctioning Authority by the IO) might have tilted the balance in favour of the accused persons and on the basis of which it can be said that if the said document would have been brought to the notice of the Sanctioning Authority, they would not have granted sanction for prosecution of the accused persons. Both the accused persons have also not been able to show that the discretion vested in the Sanctioning Authority was affected by any extraneous consideration or that the mind of sanctioning authority was under pressure from any corner. In fact, at the time of grant of sanction representation of accused Sh. M.K. Sharma dated 15.11.2010 was also considered.
234. Also, this court is of the view that accused failed to show that failure of justice had occasioned by any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction. Moreover, as regards errors, omission or irregularity in the sanction order including competency of the authority to grant sanction, it has been held in Page 126 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. "State of Bihar Vs. Raj Mangal Pandey, 2014 (II) SCC 388" as under :
"In a situation where under both the enactments any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction which would also include the competence of the authority to grant sanction, does not vitiate the eventual conclusion in the trial including the conviction and sentence, unless of course a failure of justice has occurred."
"The object behind the requirement of grant of sanction to prosecute a public servant need not detain the court save and except to reiterate that the provisions in this regard either under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are designed as a check on frivolous, mischievous and unscrupulous attempts to prosecute an honest public servant for acts arising out of due discharge of duty and also to enable him to efficiently perform the wide range of duties cast on him by virtue of his office. The test, therefore, always is - whether the act complained of has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties by the government or the public servant. If such connection exists and the discharge or exercise of the governmental function is, prima facie, founded on the bona fide judgment of the public servant, the requirement of sanction will be insisted upon so as to act as a filter to keep at bay and motivated, illfounded and frivolous prosecution against the public servant. However, realising that the dividing line between an act in the discharge of official duty and an act that is not, may, at times, get blurred thereby enabling certain unjustified claims to be raised also on behalf of the public servant so as to derive undue advantage of the requirement of sanction, specific provisions have been incorporated in Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as in Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which, inter alia, make it clear that any error, omission or Page 127 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. irregularity in the grant of sanction will not affect any finding, sentence or order passed by a competent court unless in the opinion of the court a failure of justice has been occasioned. This is how the balance is sought to be struck."
235. In view of the above discussion and the case laws, it cannot be said that the orders of sanction for prosecution of both the accused persons are not valid or illegal or stood vitiated.
DISTRICT OFFICER (NORTH) ON 30.06.2005 :
236. It is the common stand of all the accused persons that Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005 when the quotations were allegedly opened by the Purchase Committee. Let us analyze the documentary evidence in this respect as to who was DO (North) on 30.06.2005. The first transfer order is dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/I as per which Smt. Neera Mullick was given the additional charge of District North vice Smt. Lata Gupta who was having the charge of DO (North) and Ms. Lata Gupta was transferred to DO (SouthWest) vice Sh. Mahesh Sharma with the additional charge of RehabilitationWCW. Vide transfer order dated 17.06.2005 Ex.PW16/J, Ms. Pushpa Pathak was given the charge of DO (North) alongwith the additional charge of DCC (Gulabi Bagh). However, vide order dated 28.06.2005 Ex.PW16/DA, the order dated 17.06.2005 was partially modified vide which Ms. Pushpa Pathak was transferred to DO (Central) and Smt. Neera Mullick was transferred to DO(North). In the order dated 28.06.2005, in the column of place of posting of Ms. Neera Mullick it was mentioned that she was planning to proceed on leave. Vide transfer order dated 27.04.2005 Ex.PW32/DX1, Ms. Neera Mullick whose place of posting is of ShoteRGO, Planning Office, DO(North) was given additional charge of Dy. Director (Handicap Welfare) and Ms. Lata Gupta whose place of posting is stated to be DO (North) was Page 128 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. transferred to DO (SouthWest) in addition to her own charge of HO, RehabilitationWCW. It is clear from the above transfer orders that Ms. Neera Mullick was transferred to the post of DO (North) vide order dated 07.04.2005 in place of Ms. Lata Gupta, Thereafter, vide order dated 27.04.2005 Ex.PW32/DX1, Ms. Neera Mullick was given additional charge of Dy. Director (Handicap Welfare) in addition to DO (North). Thereafter, on 17.06.2005 Ms. Pushpa Pathak was transferred as DO (North). However, this order dated 17.06.2005 was modified vide order dated 28.06.2005 Ex.PW16/DA. Ms. Pushpa Pathak has clearly deposed on oath that the order dated 17.06.2005 was never communicated to her and she never joined as DO(North). Moreover, this order dated 17.06.2005 was modified by the order dated 28.06.2005 Ex.PW16/A and Ms. Neera Mullick continued to be DO (North), as per the above said transfer orders.
237. MarkPW34/DE is another letter which is signed by Ms. Neera Mullick on 30.06.2005 as DO (North) which was sent to Ms. Lata Gupta, DDO/HO, REO Services, Shankar Market, New Delhi. This letter was given to the IO vide covering letter Ex.PW62/A which also proves that it was Ms. Neera Mullick who was posted as DO (North) on 30.06.2005. Ms. Lata Gupta in her statement to IO Ex.PW34/A has clearly stated that she had given the charge to Ms. Neera Mullick on 18.05.2005 and that she was not working as DO (North) on 30.06.2005. As per Ex.PW32/DX3, Ms. Neera Mullick, Senior Superintendent posted as DO (North) with the additional charge as DO (Handicap Welfare) was, granted earned leave of 54 days leaves w.e.f. 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005. It was also directed that in her absence DO (West) was to look after the charge of DO (North). As per MarkPW60/E, the link officer of DO (North) is also DO (West).
238. Vide Ex.PW32/DX4, Ms. Neera Mullick on 01.07.2005 had written a letter to Joint Director (Admn.) in continuation to her letter dated 20.06.2005 Page 129 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. that she was to travel to U.K. from 17.07.2005 and would fly on 17.07.2005 to visit her daughter and therefore, she had requested for grant of leave from 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005. In response to this letter, vide Ex.PW32/DX5 dated 08.07.2005, Ms. Neera Mullick was sanctioned earned leave from 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 instead of 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005. Ld. Counsel for accused persons have vehemently argued that as the letter for modification of leave was sent on 01.07.2005 and the leave was modified vide order dated 08.07.2005, therefore, Ms. Neera Mullick was on leave on 30.06.2005. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that even if the leave of an official is sanctioned, it is not mandatory that the official has to proceed on leave. The public servant may still choose not to proceed on leave. The contents of the letter Ex.PW32/DX4 also supports this fact as vide this letter, Ms. Neera Mullick has requested that she be granted leave from 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 as she was to go to U.K. and consequently her leave was modified vide Ex.PW32/DX5 to 18.07.2005 to 16.09.2005 instead of 20.06.2005 to 12.08.2005.
239. Even if it is presumed that Ms. Neera Mullick was on leave on 30.06.2005 then her link officer was DO (West) and Ms. Lata Gupta was not posted as DO (West) on 30.06.2005 as she was transferred to DO (South West) vide order dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/E. Even vide Ex.PW32/DX1 i.e. transfer dated 27.04.2005 Ms. Lata Gupta was transferred to DO (South West) in addition to her own charge of HO, RehabilitationWCW and thus, Ms. Lata Gupta was not even the Link Officer of DO (North) and thus, could not have presided over the Purchase Committee meeting at the time of alleged opening of quotation/tender on 30.06.2005.
240. Also, as per the cashbook Ex.PW32/A, Ms. Neera Mullick had taken over the charge on 18.05.2005 from Ms. Lata Gupta vide detailed hand over and take over charge. Thereafter, from 19.05.2005 signatures of Ms. Neera Page 130 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Mullick are bearing on cashbook. Image of relevant pages of showing taking over of charge by Ms. Neera Mullick on 18.05.2005 is reproduced hereinbelow :
241. In fact admitted signatures of Ms. Neera Mullick i.e. A6 are Page 131 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. regarding entries dated 19.05.2005, 24.05.2005, 25.05.2005 and 26.05.2005 from the cashbook Ex.PW32/A. Admitted signatures A7 of Ms. Neera Mullick are also entries dated 27.05.2005 and 28.05.2005 from the same cashbook. Admitted signatures A8 of Ms. Neera Mullick are also entries dated 03.06.2005, 07.06.2005, 09.06.2005 and 10.06.2005. Ms. Neera Mullick has also signed on 16.06.2005 in this cashbook register Ex.PW32/A.
242. A letter from Ms. Neera Mullick on 30.06.2005 to Pay and Accounts Office MarkX/PW59 signed by Ms. Neera Mulick is also on record and pasted at page 126 of the cash book Ex.PW32/A. Admitted signatures A9 of Ms. Neera Mullick are also from cashbook Ex.PW32/A and are related to entries dated 17.06.2005, 20.06.2005 and 21.06.2005. Admitted signatures A10 are of Ms. Neera Mullick are entries dated 22.06.2005 and 23.06.2005 and admitted signatures A11 are also regarding entries dated 24.06.2005 in the cashbook register Ex.PW32/A. Admitted signature A12 of Ms. Neera Mullick are regarding entries dated 30.06.2005 on cashbook. Image of the relevant page is reproduced hereinbelow :
Page 132 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
243. This clearly established that Ms. Neera Mullick was having the charge as DO (North) on 30.06.2005. Admitted signatures A13 of Ms. Neera Mullick are dated 01.07.2005, 07.07.2005 and 08.07.2005. Admitted signatures A14 are dated 11.07.2005 and admitted signatures A15 are dated 15.07.2005 on the cashbook Ex.PW32/A. It is clearly mentioned that Ms. Asha Gandhi has taken over the charge from Ms. Neera Mullick and Ms. Neera Mullick had handed over the charge to Ms. Asha Gandhi on 15.07.2005. Thereafter, the signatures of Ms. Asha Gandhi are appearing on this cashbook register. The image of relevant page of Ex.PW32/A showing taking over of charge by Ms. Asha Gandhi from Ms. Neera Mullick is produced hereinbelow :
Page 133 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
244. The admitted signatures A16 of Ms. Lata Gupta are of cashbook register at page 68 when she had countersigned on 30.10.2003. A17 are also her admitted signatures on the cashbook register regarding entries dated 31.03.2003. A18 are also her admitted short signatures regarding entries dated 10.11.2003 to 18.11.2003. A19 are the admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta from 17.12.2003 to 26.12.2003. A20 are also admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta. A16 to A24 are also her admitted signatures from cashbook register. Short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta are appearing on cashbook register till 18.05.2005 and thereafter, from 19.05.2005, short signatures of Ms. Neera Mullick are appearing on cashbook register.
Page 134 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
245. On the basis of above documentary evidence, it is clearly established that Ms. Neera Mullick was posted as DO (North) on 30.06.2005 and she had taken over charge of the cashbook register from Ms. Lata Gupta on 18.05.2005.
246. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has argued that only the joining report could have substantiated as to when Ms. Neera Mullick had joined as DO(North) and the entries in the cashbook register, are not conclusive proof of taking over of the charge. However, perusal of page no. 41 of the cashbook register Ex.PW32/A reveals that even accused M.K. Sharma had taken over the charge on cashbook register and internal balance on 28.05.2002 vide endorsement in the cashbook register and admitted signatures A29 of accused M.K. Sharma are taken from the cashbook register Ex.PW32/A when accused had taken over charge as DO(North) on 28.05.2002. Relevant page of cashbook register is reproduced hereinbelow :
Page 135 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
247. His admitted signature A30 is a letter dated 26.06.2002 which is pasted on page no. 43 (old page no. 42A) of the cashbook register. His admitted signatures A31 are also on treasure challan pasted on page no. 44 Page 136 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (43A) of the cashbook register. His admitted signatures A32 are also from a letter dated 05.02.2003 to the Pay and Accounts Office regarding cancellation of some cheque is pasted on page no. 52 (old page 51A of the register). His admitted signature A33 are on page no. 55 of the cashbook register Ex.PW32/A. The admitted signature of accused M.K. Sharma A34 are on page 60 of cashbook register made on 30.04.2003 and the image of the same is reproduced herein below :
Page 137 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
248. On 15.07.2003 when accused M.K. Sharma had handed over the charge to Smt. Saroj Rawat as mentioned on page no. 63 of cashbook register and the charge has been taken over by Ms. Saroj Rawat, following is the image of the same :
Page 138 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
249. In view of the above documentary evidence, the stray statements of PW46 Ms. R.K. Sahu, PW50 Ms. G. Saramma and PW59 Sh. Anil Kumar that Ms. Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005, are to be discarded.
250. Moreover, PW32 Ms. Neera Mullick has clearly stated that in May 2005 she took physical charge as DO (North) on 18.05.2005 from her predecessor Ms. Lata Gupta. Ms. Lata Gupta has clearly stated that she has relinquished as DO (North) in favour of Ms. Neera Mullick on 18.05.2005. PW43 Ms. Asha Gandhi has clearly stated that she took over the charge as DO (North) on 15.07.2005 from Ms. Neera Mullick. PW38 Ms. Pushpa Pathak has clearly stated during the crossexamination that she never received transfer order dated 17.06.2005 nor she joined as DO (North) in the year 2005. Ms. Neera Mullick, Ms. Lata Gupta, Ms. Pushpa Pathak and Ms. Asha Gandhi were the persons related to the said post i.e. DO (North) and testimony of each of them is corroborating the testimony of each other and the same is also corroborated by the documentary evidence on record. The testimony of PW 46, PW50 and PW59 is not based on any documentary evidence. Moreover, they were only staff members posted in the said department and were not holding the post of DO (North) at any point of time. The testimony of the witnesses who were actually holding the post of DO (North) at the relevant time has to be given precedence over the testimony of the staff posted in the said department. Moreover, as already observed cashbook Ex.PW32/A is the clinching evidence on this issue as to who was the DO (North) on 30.06.2005. Even accused M.K. Sharma had taken over the charge on 28.05.2002 and relinquished the charge on 15.07.2003 vide cashbook register Ex.PW32/A, as discussed above.
251. Moreover, the fact that the purchase file of Bal Sadan and HHCLP were dealt with by Ms. Neera Mullick on 14.07.2005 is not disputed by the accused persons and therefore, Ms. Neera Mullick was posted as DO (North) Page 139 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. on 14.07.2005. If she had not taken over the charge as DO (North) till 30.06.2005 then when and in pursuance to which transfer order she took over the charge as DO (North), has not been explained by the accused persons. The prosecution has proved on record beyond reasonable doubt through various documentary evidence that Ms. Neera Mullick had taken over the charge as DO (North) on 18.05.2005 and has remained posted as DO (North) till 15.07.2005. Thereafter, she had handed over the charge to Ms. Asha Gandhi. On the contrary, the accused persons have not been able to prove their defence that Ms. Lata Gupta was posted as DO (North) on 30.06.2005 even to the extent of preponderance of probability. The court has absolutely no doubt that it was Ms. Neera Mullick who was posted as DO (North) on 30.06.2005.
CODAL FORMALITIES :
252. Ld. Counsel for the accused M.K. Sharma has argued that the task of seeking administrative approval and upon grant of the same, inviting quotation from various agencies was solely within the purview of Superintendent i.e. Rajeshwari Chauhan and no role was to be played by the Purchase Committee till this stage. He further argued that PW43 Ms. Asha Gandhi has categorically deposed that after taking administrative approval from the competent authority, tender for purchase is supposed to be done by the DDO/HO and not by the Purchase Committee. It is further argued that the role of Purchase Committee begins at the stage of opening of tender and rate comparison and therefore, it is clearly not in dispute that the role of Purchase Committee only assumed significance upon completion of all the above tasks and therefore, any criminality found in any purchases dated 29.06.2005 being made by Rajeshwari Chauhan without complying with codal formalities and any attempt by Rajeshwari Chauhan to have the purchase proposal approved/sanctioned despite the same being turned down by DO(north), cannot Page 140 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. be attributed to M.K. Sharma in any manner. Similar is the argument on behalf of accused R.K. Sharma.
253. The file related to codal formalities is Ex.PW1/D. As per the note 1/N, 2/N of this file Ex.PW96/C, notice inviting tender was issued to DCCWS, NAFED, Phulkari, NCCF, DSIDC, Kendriya Bhandar, Maharashtra Emporium as well as on notice board. This note is allegedly signed by Superintendent on 15.06.2005. The file is shown to be marked to Store Keeper "SK". PW44 Smt. J.K. Barua has clearly stated in her testimony that though the file is shown to be marked to her but she has never dealt with this file nor this file bears her signatures anywhere. Similarly, note sheet 3/N is signed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan on 25.06.2005 and her signatures on 25.06.2005 are Q54. As per the handwriting expert opinion on Ex.PW96/A, Q54 and Q 51 are the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. Q54 was appended by her allegedly on 25.06.2005 and Q51 was appended by her allegedly on 30.06.2005 when the quotations were allegedly opened. On 25.06.2005 also the file is shown to be marked to Store Keeper "SK" but Smt. J.K. Barua has deposed that on note sheet 3/N though the file is shown to be marked to her but she has never dealt with the file.
254. At the time of opening of quotation as per Ex.PW33/A (part of Ex.PW1/D), Q34 are the signatures of accused Mahesh Sharma and Q71 are the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma. It has been also observed that Q17 which are allegedly the signatures of Zila Adhikari (DO) are not of Ms. Neera Mullick or of Ms. Lata Gupta as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/A as well as their testimonies on oath.
255. The comparative statement of clothing, bedding articles, 2005 valid upto 31.03.2006 of Bal Sadan is Ex.PW32/DX6 as well as Ex.PW28/F. The same is signed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan at Q35. Q18 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma and Q55 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma.Page 141 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Q1 is the alleged signatures of DO (N) but is neither the signatures of Ms. Neera Mullick or of Ms. Lata Gupta as per the report of handwriting expert Ex.PW96/A as well as in view of the testimony of Ms. Neera Mullick and Ms. Lata Gupta. This comparative statement of clothing and bedding is signed by three accused persons Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma and it is also proved that the signatures of DO(N) on this comparative statement is not of Ms. Neera Mullick and also not of Ms. Lata Gupta. On page2 of the comparative statement, Q36 are the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q19 are the signatures of M.K. Sharma, Q56 are the signatures of R.K. Sharma and Q2, the alleged signatures of DO (N), are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick nor of Ms. Lata Gupta.
256. The opinion of the handwriting expert regarding the comparison of questioned signatures Q1 to Q17 (all on file Ex.PW1/D relating to codal formalities) with the sample signatures S1 to S5 and admitted signatures from A1 to A15 are of Ms. Neera Mullick and S6, S7 i.e. sample signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta and A16 to A28 admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta, being relevant is quoted below :
".........On comparison of questioned short signatures marked Q1 to Q17 with standard signatures marked S1 to S5 & A1 to A15 as well as S6, S7 & A16 to A28. It is observed that the Pattern of questioned signatures marked Q1 to Q17 is neither technically comparable nor appeared to be written by the same person who have written the standard signatures marked S1 to S5 & A1 to A15 as well as S6, S7 & A16 to A28..............."
257. In the file Ex.PW1/D, on one envelope Ex.PW65/DA it is proved that the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan are Q37, Q20 are of M.K. Sharma, Q 57 are of R.K. Sharma and Q3 are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick and nor of Page 142 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Ms. Lata Gupta. This envelope was allegedly received in Bal Sadan containing the quotation of Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan. The quotations of Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan are dated 24.06.2005 Ex.PW65/E on which Q21 are signatures of M.K. Sharma, Q38 are the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q 58 are signatures of R.K. Sharma and Q4 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick and nor of Ms. Lata Gupta as per the handwriting expert report. Q39 is again the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan on the 2nd page of the quotation of Khadi Gramodyog Bhawan dated 24.06.2005. Q22 are the signatures of M.K. Sharma and Q59 are the signatures of R.K. Sharma and Q5 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick and nor of Ms. Lata Gupta as per the handwriting expert report and in view of their testimonies on oath in court.
258. PW65 Sh. Deen Dayal Tiwari, Secretary, Khadi Gramdyog Bhawan has deposed that no notice inviting quotation from Bal Sadan was received in June 2005. He further stated on seeing the quotation Ex.PW65/E that as the matter was old he does not recall as to how the quotation was sent without endorsement in the concerned register. He further stated that at page 12 of the dispatch register, there is an entry regarding a quotation from Bal Sadan by hand without any date. Page 12 of the register Ex.PW65/B has been perused by the court which shows an entry in the name of Adhikshak, Bal Sadan, Timarpur, subject is stated to be Quotation and the mode of dispatch is Dasti. No date as to when this quotation had been sent is mentioned.
259. Perusal of the register shows that there are entries corresponding to serial no. 1 to 4 thereafter, there is no entry at serial no. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Then there is entry at serial no. 10. Again entry at 12, 13 and 14 are left blank. Then at serial no. 15, entry related to Bal Sadan is there. Entry at serial no. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are left blank. The blank entries clearly reveals that ante dated entries can be easily made in the register. Moreover, entry in respect of Page 143 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Bal Sadan is undated as deposed by PW65. PW65 also deposed during his testimony that the date 24.06.2005 on Ex.PW65/B might have been written subsequently.
260. Ex.PW72/DA is another envelope bearing the signatures Q40 of Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q24 are the signatures of M.K. Sharma, Q61 are the signatures of R.K. Sharma and Q7 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick and nor of Ms. Lata Gupta as per their testimonies and the handwriting expert report. Ex.PW70/E part of Ex.PW1/D is the quotations of NACMF of India Ltd. On this the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan are Q46, signatures of M.K. Sharma are Q23, signatures of R.K. Sharma are Q60 and Q6 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Neera Mullick and nor of Ms. Lata Gupta as per the handwriting expert report and their oral testimonies. As far as the quotation of M/s NACMF is concerned, PW70 has clearly stated that in June 2005, no NIT/quotation was ever received in NACMF and in the month of August 2005, one NIT/quotation was received. As per document Ex.PW70/D, the quotation for supply of clothing and bedding was sent vide letter dated 01.08.2005. PW70 also stated that document Ex.PW70/E as was undated and therefore, seems to have been misused by someone.
261. Ex.PW56/DA is another quotation sent allegedly on behalf of NCCWS bearing the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan as Q42, signatures of accused M.K. Sharma as Q26 and signatures of accused R.K. Sharma as Q
62. Q9 on this Ex.PW56/DA is neither in the handwriting of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick. PW56 Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj has clearly deposed that there is no entry related to tender enquiry received from Bal Sadan, Timarpur in the month of June 2005. She has further stated that a quotation letter was received from Bal Sadan, Timarpur on 29.07.2005 and the quotations were sent on 01.08.2005. The three witnesses PW65 Page 144 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. from Khadi Gramudyog Bhawan, PW70 from NACMF and PW56 from NCCWS have clearly stated that no tender enquiry was received from Bal Sadan in June 2005.
262. Ex.PW55/B is the quotation from DCCWS, PW55 has stated that there was a vast difference in price quoted by DCCWS vide Ex.PW55/B and price of similar items quoted vide Ex.PW28/A, annexures Ex.PW28/B and Ex.PW28/C.
263. Ex.PW96/E is another envelope on which Q42A is the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q25 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q63 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q8 on this document is neither the signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick as per the handwriting expert report.
264. The document Ex.PW96/F is the quotation by M/s Neel Kanth Corporation on which Q44 is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q28 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q65 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q11 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick. On the 2 nd page of the quotation by M/s Neel Kanth Corporation Ex.PW96/G, on which Q45 is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q29 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q66 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q12 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick.
265. The document Ex.PW96/H is the envelope in which the quotation was sent by M/s Neel Kanth Corporation, on Ex.PW96/H, Q46A is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q30 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q68 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q14 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick.
Page 145 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
266. The quotations of M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store Ex.PW96/I on which Q46 is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q31 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q67 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q13 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick. The document Ex.PW96/J is the 2 nd page of quotations of M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store on which Q47 is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q32 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q69 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q15 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick. The document Ex.PW96/K is the envelope in which quotations was allegedly sent by M/s Gurukul Gramin Shilp Store on which Q48 is the signature of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Q33 is the signatures of accused M.K. Sharma, Q70 is the signatures of accused R.K. Sharma and Q16 the alleged signatures of DO (North) are neither of Ms. Lata Gupta nor of Ms. Neera Mullick.
267. On the letter Ex.PW96/L, Q49 is the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan as Superintendent/HO, Bal Sadan/HHCLP as per the handwriting expert report, for inviting a meeting of Purchase Committee for 25.06.2005 for opening of quotations. This letter is carbon copy on which the letter number, date and signature are not in carbon ink but in pen ink i.e. F.5/BS/DSW/2005 06 dated 15.06.2005.
268. The document Ex.PW56/A1 is the UPC certificate dated 15.06.2005.
The document Ex.PW96/M is the letter of Rajeshwari Chauhan bearing signature of Rajeshwari Chauhan dated 15.06.2005 as Q50 which is a notice inviting tender bearing reference no. BS/F/5/DSW/2005/6 stating that quotations will be opened on 25.06.2005. PW56 i.e. Smt. Madhu Bhardwaj, witness from DCCWS was put this document i.e. UPC certificate Ex.PW56/A 1 during crossexamination by the defence counsel and PW56 clearly stated Page 146 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. that as there was no serial number or seal on Ex.PW56/A1, therefore, it can be inferred that they have not received this letter. She also denied the suggestion that she had not put the serial number on Ex.PW56/A1, though NIT was received by them.
269. Ex.PW28/D is a letter which has been sent to Manager, NCCF India Ltd. inviting quotations to be opened on 01.08.2005 and is signed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan as Q191 (matched as per the handwriting expert report). It is also noticed that this letter Ex.PW28/D is undated. The letter Ex.PW96/M bearing signature of Rajeshwari Chauhan Q50 is part of Ex.PW1/D and the same states that the quotations will be opened on 25.06.2005. Whereas the corresponding letter seized by the IO during investigation from NCCF mentions that the quotations are to be opened on 01.08.2005. Pictures of both the letters are reproduced hereinbelow to show the similarity between the two letters and as to how the date in quotation file Ex.PW1/D for opening of tender is 25.06.2005 whereas in the NIT issued to the NCCF of India Ltd., it is 01.08.2005. Below is the image of Ex.PW28/D seized from NCCF :
Page 147 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
270. Following is the image of office copy of the NIT placed in Ex.PW1/D (i.e. Ex.PW96/M) :
Page 148 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
271. The above two letters clearly revealed as to how the codal formalities vide Ex.PW1/D were manipulated by Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan alongwith Sh. M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma. The witnesses from government suppliers have also stated that the NIT was received in July 2005 and not in June 2005. The document Ex.PW28/D also establishes this fact that the NIT was issued to be opened on 01.08.2005 to the government agencies/suppliers but in the record of Bal Sadan it was shown that NITs have been issued for the quotations to be opened on 25.06.2005. In view of the above documents and Page 149 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. discussions and in view of the testimony of the witnesses from the government suppliers, the court has no hesitation in holding that the codal formalities file Ex.PW1/D has been prepared later on and have been antedated. Also, after joining of Sh. V.S. Awasthi as Superintendent, Bal Sadan and Ms. Rajeshwari Chauhan having no concern with same, there was no occasion for Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan to have issued NIT to be opened on 01.08.2005 (ref. Ex.PW28/D).
272. As far as forged signatures of DO (North) on codal formalities Ex.PW1/D is concerned, the defence of the accused persons is that Ms. Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005 and she had presided over this meeting and it is her signatures on points Q1 to Q17. Both Ms. Neera Mullick and Ms. Lata Gupta have denied their signatures on these documents. Both Ms. Neera Mullick and Ms. Lata Gupta denied to have constituted any purchase committee in the month of June 2005. Ld. Counsel for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has vehemently argued that it was the short signatures put by Ms. Lata Gupta and the sample of the short signatures were never sent by IO for comparison and for seeking handwriting expert opinion. It is argued that on the documents relating to quotations, Ms. Lata Gupta had put her short signatures and had only made her initials. The relevant testimony of Ms. Lata Gupta is reproduced hereinbelow : "...............It is wrong to suggest that I put initials at some places and full signatures at some other places. (Vol. I signed either as Lata of (sic or) as Lata Gupta and not as LG). It is wrong to suggest that my signatures on page 73 on cash book Ex.PW32/A (previously exhibited as Ex.PW26/C) is LG. (Vol. These are complete words Lata encircled with 'G'). It is wrong to suggest that I used to put initials LG in my official transaction."
273. The admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta A16 to A28 are also from cashbook register Ex.PW32/A, Ld. Defence counsel has referred to Page 73 of Page 150 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the cashbook register Ex.PW32/A during the crossexamination of PW34 Ms. Lata Gupta. The relevant picture is reproduced hereinbelow :
274. The admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta A21 in fact is the same page i.e. Page no. 73 of Ex.PW26/C which the defence has put to PW34 Page 151 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Ms. Lata Gupta during her crossexamination and therefore, the short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta were also sent by the IO to the handwriting expert for his opinion.
275. Perusal of short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta on the cash book also supports her testimony that these short signatures are Lata encircled with G. Q 1 to Q17, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be Lata encircled with G. The same are not even short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta. Bare perusal of Q1 to Q17 shows that it is only a Ghuggi (fake signature). Ld. Counsel has put document Mark.PW34/DB to PW34 during her crossexamination and she has admitted her signatures on the same at point A. These signatures are complete signatures Lata Gupta. Ms. Lata Gupta also admitted her signatures on document Mark.PW34/DC and MarkPW34/DD and both these signatures are complete Lata Gupta and not initials. These documents MarkPW34/DC and MarkPW34/DD seem to be related to some codal formalities dated 30.06.2004. A perusal of other admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta also revealed that either she had put her complete signatures as Lata Gupta or Lata encircled with G.
276. The court can also in such circumstances compare the signatures of the concerned persons with there admitted signatures. The relevant observations in the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajinder Bajaj Vs The Indian Tanning Industries and ors. In RFA no. 548/2005 dated 17 Dec, 2007 are reproduced below:
"The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it Page 152 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid that it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the courts own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh were where the court itself compared the writings.
277. The Supreme Court again in Lalit Popli v.
Canara Bank held It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writing can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three Sections of the Evidence Act.
They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under Section 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the Handwriting Expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of Page 153 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. comparison is permissible under Section 73 of Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of Handwriting Expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not.
It is clear that even when experts evidence is not there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter.
Applying the principles laid down in the above noted judicial pronouncements, it would be seen that in the instant case no expert evidence was available and the trial court examined the signatures on the purported appointment letter and compared the same with the admitted signatures of Mr. Juneja in the written statement and the affidavit. The Trial Court was perfectly justified in doing so."
278. In the present case, the expert opinion is available and the handwriting expert has proved his report Ex.PW96/A and Ex.PW96/B but in the light of the argument of the Ld. Defence counsels that the short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta were not sent for comparison with the questioned signatures by the IO, the court has also compared the admitted short signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta with the questioned signatures in Ex.PW1/D i.e. the file related to codal formalities and by no stretch of imagination the said questioned signatures Q1 to Q17 can be said to be of Ms. Lata Gupta. The specimen signature of Ms. Lata Gupta i.e. S6 and S7 on Ex.PW5/C are also her short signatures i.e. Lata encircled with G and the admitted signatures of Ms. Lata Gupta i.e. A16 to A 24 are her short initials existing in the cashbook Ex.PW32/A and were sent by the IO for comparison. In view of the above discussion it is proved that the questioned signatures Q1 to Q17 on the codal formalities file Ex.PW1/D are not of Ms. Lata Gupta. Moreover, Ms. Lata Gupta was not holding the charge of DO (North) in the month of June 2005 and PW32 Ms. Neera Mullick was Page 154 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. holding the charge of DO (North) on 30.06.2005. It is nowhere the defence of the accused persons that signatures Q1 to Q17 were of Ms. Neera Mullick or that Ms. Neera Mullick had constituted any purchase committee in the month of June 2005 or had presided over the purchase committee meeting allegedly held on 30.06.2005.
279. In view of the above facts and discussion, it is clearly proved that the signatures on codal formalities as DO (North) i.e. Q1 to Q17 are forged and not made by the concerned DO (North). Also, though the task of inviting the quotations etc. was to be done by the Superintendent after the administrative approval but the members of the purchase committee were duty bound to see that the proceedings during the opening of quotations were conducted as per rules. This alleged purchase committee meeting was not presided or attended by DO (North) nor the DO (North) had put her signatures at Q1 to Q17 in the presence of other committee members i.e. Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma. The court has further no doubt or hesitation in holding that after the proposals for purchase on the basis of codal formalities of the previous year was turned down by Ms. Neera Mullick on 14.07.2005, this file Ex.PW1/D was created and in the next note after 14.07.2005, in the files Ex.PW1/B (Bal Sadan) and Ex.PW1/C (HHCLP), it was mentioned that the quotations for the year 200506 were invited in a separate file. Accused R.K. Sharma and M.K. Sharma also conspired with Rajeshwari Chauhan in creating this separate file Ex.PW1/D relating to codal formalities and opening of quotations, having forged signatures of DO(North).
PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF BAL SADAN (EX.PW1/B) :
280. Below is the image of the first page i.e. note 1/N of the file as per which an undated proposal has been made for purchase of dietary/gen/clothing and bedding items for day to day use by the inmates of Bal Sadan.Page 155 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
281. This proposal is signed by Rajeshwari Chauhan as Q140 and V.S. Awasthi as Q144. At point J i.e. Q139 are the signatures of store keeper PW44 J.K. Barua has clearly stated that these signatures at point J are not her signatures. She further stated that she was not aware about calling of quotations and preparation of comparative rate statement as shown in file Ex.PW1/B. No suggestion has been given to PW44 J.K. Barua that the signatures at point J belonged to her or that she had wrongly denied the Page 156 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. signatures belonging to her. As per the procedures of purchase as deposed by PW1, the requisition is to be made by store keeper but the concerned store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua, PW44 has denied to have made any requisition or to have dealt with the file Ex.PW1/B at any stage. The signing of the note 1/N by two persons i.e. Rajeshwari Chauhan as well as V.S. Awasthi is also not understandable. However, as per this note V.S. Awasthi had joined as DDO, Bal Sadan but Rajeshwari Chauhan still did not hand over the charge. PW1 Sh. Jai Parkash, Finance Officer has clearly deposed that a requisition based upon the demands of the goods alongwith stock position is to be prepared and placed on the record by store keeper. Thereafter, the proposal is put up before DDO/HO for necessary action. Perusal of note 1/N above reveals that store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua had denied to have put up this proposal. She has also denied her signatures at point J. However, in view of the statement of PW44 Smt. J.K. Barua and in view of the fact that signature of Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan are confirmed to be of her, this proposal is moved by her on her own with the forged signatures of store keeper. It is also noted that Q144 has not been conclusively proved to be signatures of V. S. Awasthi as no opinion has been given by handwriting expert in this respect.
282. Below is the image/photo of note 2/N of file Ex.PW1/C. Page 157 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
283. This proposal was signed by Rajeshwari Chauhan on 02.07.2005 as Q 141 and Q145 by V.S. Awasthi. As per the handwriting expert opinion, no opinion has been expressed as far as Q145 is concerned. However, Q141 has been proved to be the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan. The note mentions that the articles are to be procured and distributed before the opening of the school i.e. 01.07.2005. However, this note has been signed on 02.07.2005.
The note further mentions that the items shall be procured from the government agencies after completing the codal formalities. This note nowhere mentions that the items are to be procured on the basis of the codal formalities of the previous year. The note also nowhere mentions that the items were already procured on 29.07.2005. Vide this note, the file Page 158 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. was sent to DO (North). Also, though the initial note is for seeking for an amount of Rs.1,87,215/ but quantity of 70 pants and 30 leather belts had been added with pen and an additional amount of Rs.32,850/ has been added and the total amount with pen has been shown as Rs.2,20,065/. It is to be noted that as far as signatures of Sh. V.S. Awasthi on the note 1/N and 2/N i.e. Q 144 and Q145 is concerned, no opinion has been expressed by the handwriting expert but the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan on both these notes has been confirmed by the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B.
284. Below is the photo/image of note 3/N of file Ex.PW1/C.
285. Vide note dated 14.07.2005, Ms. Neera Mullick, DO (North) has stated that the file has been sent on 14.07.2005 for purchase of clothing and bedding Page 159 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. articles. She has further stated that the source of purchase and rates have been referred to the quotation of the period which has already expired on 31.03.2005. She further stated that the proposal be recasted as per the purchase directions of department which would be effective after 15.07.2005 and she further observed that the Superintendent needs to be careful while making proposal being financial matters. The file then downmarked to Superintendent/DDO/HO, Bal Sadan. Thereafter, a word "SK" is mentioned meaning Store Keeper but the concerned store keepers Smt. J.K. Barua and Smt. Saramma have denied to have dealt with this file at any point of time. Thereafter, the note was made under the signatures of V.S. Awasthi in which it is mentioned that the quotations in respect of current year have been invited in a separate file. In fact this line that the quotations for current year were invited in a separate file has been squeezed in at the end of the note. It was further stated that as school uniform was required urgently therefore, purchase be made on the basis of previous years quotations. It was further mentioned that the file was submitted for administrative approval and expected expenditure sanction (Anumaanit E/S), and a request was made that administrative approval and expenditure sanction be granted for Rs.2,20,065/ on the basis of the previous year quotations/tender. In this, the last line being relevant is quoted again :
"2005 ki neevidaaye 30.06.05 ko kholi gai thi store keeper ke naa hone se nai neevidaaye nahi lagaai gai hai".
286. The separate file referred to in the above statement is Ex.PW1/D about the alleged purchase committee meeting. The forgery in Ex.PW1/D has already been discussed above and is not reproduced herein again. The court has no hesitation in holding that the when the proposal for purchase of articles on the basis of previous year quotations was declined by Ms. Neera Mullick, the accused persons created a separate file showing opening of tenders on 30.06.2005 having the forged signatures of DO (North) and again moved the Page 160 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. proposal for administrative approval and expenditure sanction stating that the quotations of the current year were invited in a separate file. This note Q136 is in the handwriting of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. Also if the argument of the Ld. Counsel for accused is to be accepted that Rajeshwari Chauhan has no role in getting the administrative approval and expenditure sanction, then the court fails to understand that how this note Ex.PW43/A on Ex.PW1/B is in the handwriting of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. Accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had already handed over her charge. This note is allegedly signed by accused V.S. Awasthi at Q147 but no opinion regarding Q147 has been expressed in the handwriting expert report and it has not been conclusively proved that these signatures Q147 are of deceased Sh. V.S. Awasthi, but the handwriting of note i.e. Q136 is that of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. The file was again marked to DO (North). The note 3/N has been continued on the next page as well whose photo is reproduced hereinbelow :
Page 161 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
287. PW18 Jage Ram has stated that the file of Bal Sadan was brought by Rajeshwari Chauhan and the file was also handed over to her, after making entry vide his entry at point A on note 3/N "1650/DC/F&A/6/9/05". The entry at point A can be seen in the image above. The further note reveals that the file was sent to DO (North). The then DO Page 162 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (North) Ms. Asha Gandhi on 20.07.2005 again sought clarification and returned the file to Superintendent, Bal Sadan wherein she observed that only those articles which are required on emergent basis be mentioned. Also, she stated that some of the articles are not fit for use and sought clarification. Ms. Asha Gandhi during her testimony accepted that she had made this note on 20.07.2005. The further note on the file which is Q137 is in the handwriting of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma and is signed by V.S. Awasthi as Q148. The handwriting expert has not expressed any opinion regarding the signatures Q148 to be of V.S. Awasthi. However, as far as handwriting of note Q137 is concerned, the same is confirmed by the handwriting expert to be of Mahesh Kumar Sharma. Accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma was not posted at Bal Sadan and was only the member of the purchase committee. The purchase committee has already been proved and held to be fictitious in the above discussion under the heading "Codal Formalities". Accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he had no knowledge of any purchases being made on 29.06.2005. When document Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/E were put to accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that the note Ex.PWD6/A to Ex.PW6/D are the notes of Sh. V.S. Awasthi who has signed the same in the capacity of HOO/DDO of Bal Sadan/HHCLP. However, document Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D are admitted handwriting of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/E and have absolutely no connection with Sh. V.S. Awasthi. Accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma in his further statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that the note was duly signed by DDO/HOO of Bal Sadan, Sh. V.S. Awasthi and the same was owned by him. He further stated that it is an established law that whoever authenticates the document by signing the same or put his signature on a typed or handwritten document, is the author of the Page 163 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. document. He has neither specifically denied his writing on the note Q137 of Ex.PW1/B nor admitted the same and has only stated that as the note was signed by V.S. Awasthi, therefore, V.S. Awasthi is the author of the said note. The signatures Q148 on this note allegedly of Sh. V.S. Awasthi has not been proved to be of Sh. V.S. Awasthi as per the handwriting expert report and the probability that even his signatures were forged cannot be ruled out. Sh. V.S. Awasthi has already expired and therefore, no further comments on this issue are required. Moreover, it is also not the case of the prosecution that signatures of Sh. V.S. Awasthi were also forged. However, the note is in the handwriting of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma and thus, it is proved that Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma was also involved in the conspiracy, otherwise there was no occasion for him to have written the said note as he was not even posted at Bal Sadan or HHCLP. This note also comes after the note wherein it has been mentioned that the quotations of the current year were opened on 30.06.2005 and were kept in a separate file. In fact no explanation has come from Mahesh Kumar Sharma as to how this note on file Ex.PW1/C is in his handwriting if he had visited Bal Sadan only once i.e. on 30.06.2005. After this note, the file was marked to DCFA directly at Q138, where a white fluid has been applied and the report Ex.PW96/B states that the red enclosed portion marked Q138 when deciphered could be read as "DSWO(North)". The office of DO (North) was bypassed after the proposal was turned down by Ms. Asha Gandhi on 20.07.2005 and clarifications were sought.
288. It is also to be noticed that vide this note, accused M.K. Sharma tried to justify the urgency and stated that there was an emergent need for young school going children. He further wrote in the note that if there is any further query, the same may be rectified in speak/meeting mode without further delaying the file. The need to purchase the articles was tried to be justified through this note. Moreover, after this note also the file was not moved through DO (North) and in fact nothing happened as per the file in the entire Page 164 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. month of August 2005 and the file was straightway sent to the office of DC (F&A) on 06.09.2005.
289. The picture of the relevant note of DCFA is reproduced hereinbelow :
290. Perusal of the above note shows that vide this note an expost facto sanction was sought for Rs.1,95,076/. In this note it was also observed that the circumstances under which the procurement was made has been explained by the Superintendent at page 3/N. A proposal to accord A/A, expost facto sanction and E/S was thus, moved by the accused I.S. Pimoli. It is to be noted that when the file was never moved for expost facto sanction earlier and till 20.07.2005 when the file was dealt with by Ms. Asha Gandhi, there was nothing on record to suggest that the proposal was for expost facto sanction or that the purchases had already been made. No effort was made by the Page 165 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Superintendent, Bal Sadan to remove the objections raised by DO (North). Moreover, DC (F&A) made a note that expost facto sanction of Rs.1,95,076/ be granted, and though this amount was never proposed as per initial proposal. Moreover, at the time of seeking expost facto sanction, complete details of the purchase bill etc. were not mentioned and the file was also not routed through DO (North).
291. PW18 Sh. Jage Ram has stated that the file of Bal Sadan was brought by Rajeshwari Chauhan and the file was also handed over to her after making the entry. In the note 3/N of this file on 06.09.2005 at point A, Jage Ram has made the entry "1650/DC/F&A/6/9/05". The note 3/N bears dispatch date 23.07.2005 of Bal Sadan and the diary number of DC (F&A) dated 06.09.2005. Perusal of the file Ex.PW1/B also reveals that store keeper recommended for disbursement of payment vide note dated 06.09.2005. The store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua PW44 has denied to have dealt with this file. Perusal of note 4/N reveals that though the file was downmarked by DO (North) but the same was directly sent to DDO/HOO as the same is bearing signatures of V.S. Awasthi as Q149. Q149 is matching with his sample signatures as per handwriting expert report. When the file was downmarked then the file was not sent to DO (North) but was directly to V.S. Awasthi and the disbursement of the payment were recommended on the same day i.e. 06.09.2005. PW44 Sh. J.K. Barua has stated that he has never dealt with this file at any stage. Thus, signatures on 06.09.2005 of the store keeper Q139A are also not her signatures.
292. Perusal of the file shows that there is no mention of any bill number, amount of the clothing etc. Also, there is nothing on record to suggest that clothing and bedding etc. had already been purchased. The file was never moved for any expost facto sanction. These discrepancies were ignored by DF(F&A) and he had moved the file for A/A and E/S vide his note dated 06.09.2005. The testimony of PW87 and PW1 is relevant in this respect and Page 166 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. not quoted again for the sake of brevity.
PURCHASES IN RESPECT OF HHCLP (EX.PW1/C) :
293. Following is the image of note 1/N of the file in respect of purchases at HHCLP :Page 167 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
294. Perusal of the note 1/N reveals that undated proposal was initiated by Rajeshwari Chauhan as DDO/HOO of HHCLP for purchase of dietary/gen./clothing and bedding items for the 30 inmates of HHCLP, Timarpur seeking A/A and E/S of Rs.1,94,670/ for the year 2005 to 2006.
This note is signed by Rajeshwari Chauhan as Q152 which has been confirmed to be her signatures as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. The signature of Sh. V.S. Awasthi appears as Q159 but no opinion regarding Q159 has been expressed by the handwriting expert. The signatures of store keeper are Q151 at point J, PW44Smt. J.K. Barua has specifically denied the signatures to be made by her during her testimony in court. Smt. J.K. Barua was store keeper at the relevant time posted at Bal Sadan and HHCLP. No suggestion has been given to her during her crossexamination that the signatures at point J belonged to her. The signatures at point J of the store keeper are thus, forged. As per the procedure of purchase as deposed by PW1 the requisition based upon the demands of goods alongwith the stock position is to be prepared and placed on record by Store Keeper but the concerned store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua has denied to have made any requisition or to have dealt with the file Ex.PW1/C at any stage. This proposal was also allegedly signed by Sh. V.S. Awasthi at Q 159, however, no opinion as to whether Q159 is the signature of Sh. V.S. Awasthi has been given in the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. Though, the signatures Q152 have confirmed to be of Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan. Again as already observed qua Ex.PW1/B, the signing of the note by two persons is not understandable. However, it is proved that Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan moved this proposal with the forged signature of store keeper.
295. Following is the image/photo of note 2/N :
Page 168 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
296. This note has been signed by Rajeshwari Chauhan as Q153 which has been confirmed to be her signatures as per handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. Signatures of Sh. V.S. Awasthi are Q160 on which no opinion has been expressed by the handwriting expert. A dispatch number mentioned on the side of the note 2/N reveals that the note was made on 02.07.2005. This note is for seeking administrative approval and expenditure sanction for an amount of Rs.1,94,670/. This note also mentions that the items shall be procured from the government agencies after completing the codal formalities.
Page 169 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. This note nowhere mentions that the items are already procured on 29.07.2005 or are to be procured on the basis of the codal formalities of the previous year. Also, though the initial note is for seeking for an amount of Rs.1,71,270/ but quantity of 60 pants had been added with pen and an additional amount of Rs.23,400/ has been added and the total amount with pen has been shown as Rs.1,94,670/. It is to be noted that as far as signatures of Sh. V.S. Awasthi on the note 1/N and 2/N i.e. Q159 and Q160 is concerned, no opinion has been expressed by the handwriting expert but the signatures of Rajeshwari Chauhan on both these notes has been confirmed by the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B.
297. Following is the image/photo of note 3/N :
Page 170 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
Page 171 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
298. The above note 3/N reveals that the proposals submitted by Rajeshwari Chauhan on 02.07.2005 was returned by Ms. Neera Mullick, DO (North) vide her note dated 14.07.2005. She has clearly stated that the superintendent should not add an outdated comparative statement which was valid till 31.03.2005 and opened on 30.06.2004. She further stated that the proposal be recasted as per new purchase advisory of department. The file was then downmarked to Superintendent/DDO/HO (HHCLP). It is noted that words "SK" thereby meaning 'Store Keeper' are mentioned here when the file was downmarked but the file was not sent to any store keeper as the concerned store keepers at the relevant time has denied to have dealt with this file. The further note in Hindi is Q161 which is in the handwriting of Rajeshwari Chauhan which has been confirmed the handwriting of Rajeshwari Chahan as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. After 14.07.2005, Rajeshwari Chauhan was not posted at Bal Sadan or HHCLP. After this note in Hindi the file was again sent to DO (North) on 19.07.2005. Now if Rajeswari Chauhan had no personal interest in these purchase files then how come this note made after 14.07.2005 and before 19.07.2005 is in her handwriting. Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has argued that V.S. Awasthi had called Rajeshwari Chauhan for assistance. However, this explanation seems to be an afterthought to cover up the illegal acts done by Rajeshwari Chauhan. The only explanation/reason can be that Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan was personally interested in these proposals. In fact on this note the signature of V.S. Awasthi are Q155 and no opinion regarding Q155 has been expressed by handwriting expert. But as far as the handwriting Q161 i.e. note in Hindi is concerned, the same has been confirmed to be the handwriting of Rajeshwari Chauhan as per the handwriting expert opinion report Ex.PW96/B. In this note it is also mentioned that the quotations in the current year were invited in a separate file Page 172 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. and the quotations were expected to be received within a week. Needless to mention that the separate file referred to is Ex.PW1/D/codal formalities file and the discussion regarding the same is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. A further request was made that taking into account the urgent need of the articles, A/A and E/S be granted on the basis of the codal formalities of the previous year.
Page 173 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
299. Further note 3/N and 4/N revealed that when the file was put up before Ms. Asha Gandhi, the then DO (North), she vide her note dated 20.07.2005 forwarded the file to DC(F&A) for administrative approval only. She further observed that the file may be resubmitted for expenditure sanction from competent authority after completing the codal formalities. PW43 Ms. Asha Gandhi during her testimony accepted that she had made this note on 20.07.2005. The file was then marked to DC(F&A). DC(F&A) Sh. I.S. Pimoli on 05.07.2005 then made a note on this file. He oberved that DO (North) has recommended the case for sanction of administrative approval only and further stated that JD (admn) may like to accord A/A for the procurement of clothing and bedding items which cannot be postponed beyond 15.07.2005 with the condition that the items may be procured in accordance with the norms etc. On this note administrative approval was accorded by the JD (Admn.) on 29.07.2005, the file was then downmarked to DC(F&A) and it was further downmarked to DO (North)/Superintendent, Bal Sadan.
300. Following is the photo/image of note 5/N :
Page 174 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
301. This note 5/N is Q162/1 which has been proved to be in the handwriting of accused M.K. Sharma as per handwriting expert report Ex.PW98/B. The part of this note is on page 4/N which is Q162 which has also been proved to be in the handwriting of accused Mahesh Kumar Sharma @ M.K. Sharma. The same is signed by accused V.S. Awasthi at Q156. The signature at Q156 has matched with the sample admitted signatures of accused V.S. Awasthi. As already observed, in respect of purchases of Bal Sadan Ex.PW1/B, the same is the situation here. The accused M.K. Sharma was not posted there and had no business to put this note in his handwriting if he was only a member of the purchase committee. The explanation which has come in the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. by accused M.K. Sharma is that the said notes were signed by V.S. Awasthi and the person who has signed the note is considered to be the maker of the note. Ld. Counsel for accused has Page 175 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. also argued on the similar points during the final arguments that if the note is signed by V.S. Awasthi, then V.S. Awasthi is deemed to be the author of the said note and accused cannot be held guilt merely on the basis of writing a note for his colleague. However, this cannot be lost sight that accused M.K. Sharma was not posted at Bal Sadan and HHCLP and if he had gone only on 30.06.2005 as member of the purchase committee, then how come this note after 29.07.2005 is in his handwriting.
302. Accused M.K. Sharma vide this note in his handwriting stated that the items were procured from government agencies of DCCWS and NAFED after completing codal formalities and on lowest competitive rates and an expenditure sanction for Rs.1,94,670/ was sought. It was also stated that the items for the children were procured after having completed all the prescribed codal formalities. In this note it has nowhere been stated that the purchases have been made on the basis of the codal formalities of the previous year. The file was also initially marked to DO (North) at point A but white fluid was applied on the same and bypassing DO(North), the file was sent to the office of DC(F&A) on 06.09.2005. Though it is mentioned in this note that the items have been procured after completing codal formalities but there is absolutely no file related to the codal formalities as far as HHCLP is concerned. PW29 Ms. Suman Ubrol has stated that as both Bal Sadan and HHCLP were located and functioning in the same premises, hence no separate quotations were asked for both the homes and thus, this court has absolutely no doubt that the codal formalities file Ex.PW1/D has been used for the purchases of HHCLP vide file Ex.PW1/C.
303. The file was then marked to DC (F&A) on 06.09.2005 after applying white fluid on the DO(North) thus, bypassing the DO (North). PW18 Sh. Jage Ram has stated that entry no. 1636 Ex.PW18/C in the register Ex.P2 is in his handwriting. The same number is mentioned in the file Ex.PW1/C on note 5/N Page 176 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. at point A i.e. Ex.PW96/T. The image of the noting 6/N of DC(F&A) is reproduced hereinbelow :
304. Vide this note accused I.S. Pimoli had sought E/S for an amount of Rs.1,71,095/. E/S for an amount of Rs.1,71,095/ was accorded by the Page 177 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. JD(Admn) on 06.09.2005 itself and the file was downmarked to DO (North)/DDO/HOO. The word store keeper is also mentioned but none of the store keeper has stated that they had dealt with the file at any point of time. While downmarking the file also, the file does not seem to have been placed before DO (North) and is signed by V.S. Awasthi at Q157 on 06.09.2005 which has been confirmed to be the signature of V.S. Awasthi as per handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B. Thereafter, on next page there is a noting by the store keeper on 06.09.2005 itself that entry in the relevant record has been made and therefore, payment be made. After this note by the store keeper at Q151A, the file has been marked to DDO/HO and is signed by V.S. Awasthi at Q158. The relevant page is reproduced hereinbelow :
305. Perusal of the above file as well as above documents reveals that Page 178 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. though the A/A was given on 29.07.2005 under the note of DC(F&A) dated 25.07.2005 but the bill of the relevant purchases are dated 12.07.2005 and 11.07.2005 meaning thereby that the purchases were made earlier to the date when administrative sanction was granted. The note seeking E/S of Rs.1,94,670/ is also having contradictory figures. The DC(F&A) has ignored the discrepancies and without seeking any clarification had recommended E/S. The testimony of PW87 and PW1 are relevant in this respect and not quoted again for the sake of brevity. Also, store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua, PW44 has denied to have dealt with this file at any point of time and thus, had not made any noting on 06.09.2005.
M/S SWASTIK CORPORATION AS DEALER OF NAFED AND DCCWS :
306. As far as the argument that no order was given directly or indirectly to M/s Swastik Corporation and M/s Swastik Corporation is the supplier/government agency like DCCWS/NAFED and that the articles were supplied by DCCWS/NAFED is concerned, Ex.PW72/A is the agreement between M/s Swastik Corporation represented by accused Deepika Chauhan and NAFED. The relevant terms and conditions of the said agreement Ex.PW72/A are reproduced hereinbelow :
"............Whereas NAFED is engaged in the supplies of various items i.e. Food stuff, spices, pulses, processed foods and other provisions items, stationary and consumer products etc. to the institutions in Delhi and NCR directly/indirectly. In order to fulfill the objective, NAFED is desirous to have a back to back arrangement with the suppliers of the above items who may secure the orders or participate in the tenders on behalf of NAFED and in a position to arrange supplies as per the terms and conditions prices/delivery schedules, quality as specified by the purchaser/buyers and suppliers have agreed to enter into an agreement with NAFED on the following terms and conditions : NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS UNDER :Page 179 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
(1) Suppliers will participate in the tender/orders
floated by various institutions for supply of various items such as Stationary, General, Clothing, Bedding, Dietary, furniture, etc. on behalf of NAFED. Supplier would quote the rates to various institutions in consultation with NAFED. (2) In case rates quoted by supplier are accepted by institutions, supplier will arrange purchase order in f/o NAFED and after inspecting the stock by NAFED Rep. / Surveyor which should be strictly as per specification and purchase order, obtain DC from NAFED for supply of stock. The supplier will obtain receipt of the stock from the institution stating quantity and specified quality of stock received by the institution from NAFED as per tender/purchase order no. 354155 dated 12.08.2002 and submit to NAFED the same for record for raising bill by NAFED on the institution. The delivery of stocks by the supplier and its acceptance by the Institutions would be deemed as actual delivery and acceptance of NAFED.
It will be duty and responsibility of this supplier that goods/commodity so supplied are passed by the authorities of the Institution and should bring a certificate to this effect to NAFED that goods/commodities supplied have been accepted as per quality and quantity norms required by the institution.
(3) After arranging delivery of the goods as per the items and conditions of the tender/orders and arranging delivery of bill of NAFED to institution, supplier will take all necessary steps to receive payments in favour of NAFED from the institutions within a stipulated period of time i.e. month.
(4) After receiving the payment from the institution, NAFED will release the amount to suppliers, after deducting service charges (as agreed upon which shall vary from item) to item and deductions imposed by the institution on account of shortage, quality cut and late delivery charges etc., if any.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SUPPLIER :
(1).............
(2).............
(3) NAFED will not entertain any complaint from any institution about the quantity, quality of goods after its Page 180 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. delivery. In case of any complaints, supplier has to take up the matter with the institution and settle the same in the best interest of both institutions. In case of any defect of the goods supplied by suppliers, it will be solely responsible for the same.
(4) NAFED and the supplier have agreed upon the terms and conditions for supply of particular item/items on FOR/FOL basis, i.e. inclusive of Transport cost paid and all other taxes, expenses, duties, levies, etc. upto godown of the indenting institutions as the case may be. If it is count that the transaction of the sale in question is tax free and tax is wrongly claimed and by the NAFED the same shall be recovered from the supplier besides penal action if so warranted.
(5).............
(6) After receipt of payment from buyer regarding goods supplied by the supplier, NAFED will release the payment to the supplier within 7 working days after deducting the pre decided services charges and deductions, if any made by the institution on account of quality, shortage and late delivery charges etc. (7) Supplier will ensure that all goods supplied to various institutions are in conformity to ISI/Agmark/FPO specifications/ as per samples as the case may be. (8) The supplier is required to discharge its duties and responsibilities as specified in the sale of Goods Act 1932, Indian Contract Act 1988, Prevention of Corruption Act or any Act or Rule in force applicable in the present agreement and therefore, supplier shall not only comply with the same but any claims, damages or suit instituted by the Buyer in this regard against NAFED or its Officers shall be the ultimate responsibility of the supplier. The supplier should furnish a copy for dealing in the commodities/items. (9).............
(10).............
(11) NAFED will charge service charges on the back to back supplies of different items depending upon quantum/commodity.
(12) In such back to back delivers of stock, NAFED will not invest its own funds in any manner whatsoever. It is the responsibility of the supplier to invest his own funds................."Page 181 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
307. The testimony of PW70 Sh. Anil Kumar Tiwari is also relevant in this respect and the same is reproduced hereinbelow :
".............The delivery challan was issued to M/s Swastik Corporation, the supplier firm, on the request of a letter received from the firm under the signature of the proprietor dated 08.07.2006 which is Ex.PW70/C. After receiving the delivery report on the delivery challans from the supplier firm, a bill was raised by the firm to M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd.............."
"..............As per agreement, it was the supplier firm who itself used to receive the supply order, got the delivery effected and then raised the bill and also, used to collect the payment and our company used to charge some commission and then the payment was made to the supplier firm. On the basis of the DC, the bill nos. 18 & 19 dated 09.07.2005 were raised by the M/s Swastik Corporation to M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. and the bills are already Ex.PW54/A and Ex.PW54/B............"
"..............Thereafter, the bill no. 180 and 179 both dated
12.07.2005 were raised to the Bal Sadan and HHCLP which are already Ex.PW57/A and Ex.PW54/E and accordingly the payment was made to the firm after deducting our commission. In the month of June 2005, no NIT or cotation (sic quotation) rate was ever received in M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. from the Bal Sadan and HHCLP and in the month of August, one NIT/ cotation (sic quotation) was received in M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. and the document in this regard is also on record which is Ex.PW70/D. In response to the said cotation (sic quotation), a rate list of 36 items was issued under the signatures of Ms. Rakesh Jha. The document is Ex.PW70/E which the signature of Sh. Rakesh Jha at point A. Since the document is without any date, this document may have been misused by the supplier firm showing the cotation (sic quotation) in the month of June 2005..........."
".............. Whenever a firm used to place the supply order, M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. used to raise the bill to the concerned department as per cotation (sic quotation) provided by the supplier firm/party. After receiving the bill from the firm, we also Page 182 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. issued a bill in favour of the department. After receiving the bill from us, the Government department used to check the goods supplied and then they issued the cheque in the name of M/s National Agriculture Cooperative Marketing Federation India Ltd. Thereafter, we used to deduct our commission from the amount received through the cheque and we issued the cheque to the supplier firm..........."
308. The document Ex.PW70/C also corroborates this fact that the order was placed directly to M/s Swastik Corporation and M/s Swastik Corporation had made a request to the Manager, NAFED vide Ex.PW70/C to issue two delivery challans where home name is mentioned as Bal Sadan and HHCLP, Timarpur. The document Ex.PW14/B seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A is a letter of M/s Swastik Corporation dated Nil bearing the signature of Deepika Chauhan as proprietor addressed to Manager, NAFED with a request to quote the rate list on behalf of the firm and send the same to Bal Sadan alongwith the rate list on a plain paper bearing the signatures of representative of M/s Swastik Corporation which is Ex.PW96/X. As per document Ex.PW97/A4, it has been clarified that M/s Swastik Corporation was the registered supplier of NAFED from 16.08.2002 under back to back business arrangement. M/s Swastik Corporation used to procure orders for the supply of goods and NAFED used to supply the goods and NAFED used to supply the goods through M/s Swastik Corporation. It is further clarified in Ex.PW97/A4 that in the transaction in question also, NAFED received the order of Bal Sadan through M/s Swastik Corporation and the goods were delivered to Bal Sadan through M/s Swastik Corporation and NAFED was not directly involved in the transaction.
309. The agreement between DCCWS and M/s Swastik Corporation is also relevant in this respect and relevant terms and conditions are reproduced hereinbelow :
"......................the parties to this agreement are engaged Page 183 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. in the business and commercial activities of procurement and supply of merchandise, besides undertaking the supply contract with various parties, Government Departments and Organizations from time to time. Therefore, the Second Party has approached to the first party for Registration of their firm with the DCCWS for undertaking the business for the purpose of procurement and effective supplies of various items of merchandise to its client organization. The First Party has agreed to the request of Second Party on the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing : (1) That it has been agreed by the parties that the necessary tenders for the supply of merchandise to the client organization shall be filled in and submitted by the First Party in its own name and rates includes in the tenders/quotations will be those provided and suggested by the Second Party at the time of submissions of the tenders.
(2) That after the rates included in the tender are approved by the client organization, it will be the responsibility of the Second Party to execute the supply in accordance with the terms and conditions on the Tender.
(3) ................
(4) ..............It will be the responsibility of the Second Party to get the material inspected at the stag of delivery or any other stage as is required of the First Party in the contract and as per specifications. On the inspection, if any item (s) is/are rejected by the concerned Organization, the replacement will be provided by the Second Party without any extra cost and if replacement of the rejected items is not required by the client organization, the Second Party will be responsible to withdraw the same at their own cost.
(5) ..............
(6) ..............
(7) That the First Party shall make the payment to the Second Party on receipt of the payment of its bills from the client organization after deduction its determined share of profit of supply cost and the rest of the money will be passed on the Second Party.
(8) ...............
(9) That if there is any recovery of any type of account of Page 184 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. short supply or defective supply etc. made or on account of any other reasons, the Second Party shall refund the same to the First Party Forthwith without raising any objection in this regard.
(10) That in case the Second Party fails to perform its part of the contract executed by DCCWS on the basis of rates provided by the Second Party in that case, the Second Party shall render themselves liable to compensation the First Party for any loss or damage that may suffer or sustain by the First Party because of its inability to perform its part of the said Contract or otherwise because of the breach of the aforesaid contract on the part of the Second party."
310. The document ex.PW52/B is a letter dated 16.09.2005 to Manager, DCCWS by accused Deepika Chauhan stating that she had deposited two cheques of Rs.1,34,628/ and Rs.1,18,872/ for supply to the Department of Social Welfare for the name of Bal Sadan and HHCLP, Timarpur and she had requested to arrange the payment to M/s Swastik as soon as possible. Document Ex.PW52/C and Ex.PW52/D also corroborate the facts that bills were received from M/s Swastik Corporation and thereafter, payment was made to M/s Sastik Corporation after approval. As per letter Ex.PW54/G addressed to Manager, NAFED also, accused Deepika Chauhan as proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation had deposited two cheques for supply to the Department of Social Welfare for Bal Sadan and HHCLP and a request was made to arrange the payment to M/s Swastik Corporation as soon as possible.
311. The above documents as well as the agreement between M/s Swastik Corporation & NAFED and M/s Swastik Corporation & DCCWS confirm that M/s Swastik Corporation was having a back to back agreement with NAFED and DCCWS and it was the prerogative of the suppliers firm i.e. M/s Swastik Corporation to secure the orders or to participate in the tenders on behalf of the government agencies i.e. DCCWS or NAFED as the case may be. The rates were also to be quoted by the supplier and in case the rates quoted by the Page 185 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. suppliers were approved then the supplier was to arrange purchase order in favour of the government agency and further to obtain delivery challan. It was also the duty of the supplier to arrange the receipt of the stock from the institution and to submit the receipt to the government agency for raising of bill. The supplier was also duty bound to bring a certificate from the institution that the goods so supplied are passed by the government agency and it was also required from the supplier to receive payments in favour of NAFED or DCCWS from the institution. NAFED or DCCWS were only to take up their service charge/commission and further release the amount to the supplier. In view of the fact that the goods were supplied by M/s Swastik Corporation under the back to back agreement with NAFED and DCCWS, this argument of the defence that it was the prerogative of the government agency to pick up any listed vendor to supply the goods to the home is without any substance. NAFED and DCCWS were not directly involved in the transaction in any manner.
312. The plea of the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan that she was not aware of the fact that her daughter's firm M/s Swastik Corporation was deputed by the government agency to supply the articles/goods is a blatant lie as the orders were placed on M/s Swastik Corporation as they were the registered vendors of NAFED and DCCWS under back to back arrangement. Rajeshwari Chauhan in fact was personally interested in placing these orders to her daughter's firm M/s Swastik Corporation and therefore, she had not relinquished her charge of Superintendent, Bal Sadan and HHCLP even when V.S. Awasthi had joined and till she ensured that the purchase orders have been placed with the firm of her daughter M/s Swastik Corporation and articles are distributed to the inmates.
Page 186 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. CONSPIRACY, FORGERY AND ROLE OF EACH ACCUSED :
313. Section 120A of the India Penal Code which defines 'Criminal Conspiracy' is reproduced as follows :
"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) an illegal act, (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
314. Section 120B provides punishment for criminal conspiracy and provides as under :
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, (imprisonment for life) or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in the code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence."
315. Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. The ingredients of the offences of criminal conspiracy are:
i). agreement between two or more persons.
ii). an agreement to doing or causing to be done either an illegal act or an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.
316. The prosecution thus, has to establish meeting of the minds of the Page 187 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. accused persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means. It has to be borne in mind that a criminal conspiracy is hatched in secrecy, hence it is difficult to establish the same by direct evidence. Thus, the manner and circumstances in which the offences have been committed are relevant and to prove the charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that all the conspirators know each other and every detail of the conspiracy so long as they are co conspirators in the main object of conspiracy anything said, done or written by any of hem would be evidence against the other. It is also not necessary that all the conspirators participate from the inception of conspiracy to its end. If there is unity of object all those participating at different stages of crime will be guilty of conspiracy.
317. It is a settled law that "Criminal conspiracy" is not easy to prove. The conspirators invariably deliberate, plan and act in secret over a period of time. It is not necessary that each one of them must have actively participated in the commission of the offence or was involved in it from the start to finish. What is important is that they were involved in the conspiracy. Conspiracy requires actus reus and accompanying mens rea. To convict a person for conspiracy, the prosecution must show that all accused agreed with each others to accomplish the unlawful object of conspiracy. The Court has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to believe the existence of the conspiracy and that is a matter for judicial inference from proved facts and circumstances.
318. In order to bring home the charge of conspiracy and for the purpose of drawing inferences U/s 10 of the Evidence Act, the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused acted in concert, either through overt or covert acts in furtherance of the common objective. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act introduces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down there are satisfied, the act done by one is admissible against the Page 188 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. coconspirators. Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act is as under :
"Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design. Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
319. Thus, there should be prima facie evidence disclosing reasonable grounds for court to believe that two or more persons were members of a conspiracy., (2) Anything said, done or written by anyone of them in reference to the common intention would be evidence against the other., (3) Anything said, done or written by anyone of them should have been said, done written by them after the intention was formed by anyone of them. The prosecution thus had to prove by chain of events which could lead to strong inference of conspiracy. Conspiracy can be inferred either on the basis of direct or circumstantial evidence. Though direct evidence of conspiracy is difficult in most cases, the circumstances proved should reasonably point to existence of prior concert of mind.
320. In the case of State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT etc. vs. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253, discussing the principles governing the Law of Conspiracy in the case under Sections 120A, 120B and 302 of IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court summarised the principles as follows :
"Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy may be summarized though, as the name Page 189 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. implies, a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal con spiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or le gal act by illegal means. When it is a legal act by il legal means overt act is necessary. Offence of crimi nal conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the in tention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy may tend to prove that a particular ac cused was party to the conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the ac cused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the con spiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a chain A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be members of a single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrols. There may be a kind of umbrella spoke enrolment, where a single person at the cen tre does the enrolling and all the other members Page 190 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. are unknown to each other, though they know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in practice it may be difficult to tell which con spiracy in a particular case falls into which cate gory. It may however, even overlap. But then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role.
When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or consid ering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is commit ted by each and every one who joins in the agree ment. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy.
It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at the same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the con spiracy and when he left.
A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of un fairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence Page 191 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. against some may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to implicate the accused not only in the con spiracy itself but also in the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence against each one of the ac cused charged with the offence of conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand this distinction is important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders.
As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal con spiracy is complete even though there is no agree ment as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The un lawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.
It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and that there is in each con spiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons en ter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and they are jointly re sponsible therefor. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execu tion or furtherance of the common purpose is Page 192 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. deemed to have been said, done or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators pur suant to the original agreement but also to collat eral acts incidental to and growing out of the origi nal purpose A conspirator is not responsible, how ever, for acts done by a co conspirator after termi nation of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspir acy by a new member does not create a new con spiracy nor does it change the status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators in dividually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end does not split up a conspiracy into sev eral different conspiracies.
A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely passive attitude to wards an existing conspiracy. One who commits an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one who tacitly consents to the object of a con spiracy and goes along with other conspirators, ac tually standing by while the others put the conspir acy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active part in the crime."
321. In the light of the above broad principles, let us examine the facts of the present case to find out whether the accused persons had conspired with each other in furtherance to their common object.
322. Questioned documents i.e. Q1 to A17 allegedly signed by DO (North) have not been signed by Ms. Neera Mullick who was posted as DO (North) on 30.06.2005. As discussed above they have not even been signed by Ms. Lata Gupta as alleged by the accused persons. However, in the file related to purchase committee meeting, the signatures of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Mahesh Kumar Sharma and R.K. Sharma have been duly proved as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/A. As discussed above the signatures of the store keeper Smt. J.K. Barua are also forged signatures and do Page 193 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. not pertain to her in the purchase files Ex.PW1/B (Bal Sadan) and Ex.PW1/C (HHCLP). The document Ex.PW50/A is the bill of NAFED pertaining to Bal Sadan on which there is an endorsement allegedly by Ms. Saramma regarding receiving of goods in good condition. On this signatures of Ms. Saramma is Q 186 and as per the handwriting expert report Ex.PW96/B, the person who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked S94 to S99, A82 to A112, they did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked Q185 and Q186. Q186 are thus, not the signatures of Ms. Saramma. Similarly Ex.PW50/B is the bill related to HHCLP allegedly having signatures of Ms. Saramma as Q185 regarding endorsement that the goods are received in good condition. Q185 have also not matched with the specimen signatures of Ms. Saramma S94 to S99 as well as her admitted signatures A82 to A
112. Ms. Saramma during her testimony has also denied her signatures on Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B and has clearly stated that though her name is mentioned against both the aforesaid signatures but she has not received the goods against these challans and has not signed the same. She has further stated that on 08.07.2005 she was not posted at Bal Sadan or HHCLP at Timarpur and therefore, she could not have received the goods or made the endorsement on Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B. Thus, Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B are another forged documents used by the accused persons to get their illegal purchases regularized. The signatures of Smt. Saramma on the delivery challans dated 08.07.2005 i.e. Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B are also not of Smt. Saramma and thus, forged.
323. The accused persons have been charged for the offence under section 420 read with Section 120B IPC, 468/471 read with section 120B IPC, for the substantive offence of 120B IPC as the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had prepared forged documents relating to codal formalities etc. and placed an order for clothing and bedding to the firm M/s Swastik Page 194 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Corporation which belonged to accused Deepika Chauhan, daughter of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan on the basis of the forged documents and also for section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(1)(2) of POC Act read with section 120B IPC. Sections 468 and 471 being relevant are reproduced herein below :
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
324. Section 468 and 471 IPC leads us to section 463. As per section 463 :
"463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
325. Thus, the accused persons can be said to have forged a document, if they make any false document with intent to commit fraud. As far as false documents are concerned, section 464 IPC being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
Page 195 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. "464. Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First - who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the (electronic signature), with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or (electronic signature) was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly - Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with (electronic signature) either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix has (electronic signature) on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he Page 196 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
326. Ld. Counsel for accused I.S. Pimoli and R.K. Sharma have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar, in Crl. A. No. 1695/2009 decided on 04.09.2009, and have argued that offence of forgery is not made out against the accused persons in the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant paras in the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow :
"................In short, a person is said to have made a 'false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document ; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses............."
".............There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of 'false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he Page 197 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery..........."
327. The facts in case of Md. Ibrahim are different from the facts of the present case, in as much as the concerned person in the sale deed had made a false averment that he was owner of land though he was not the owner of the said land but there was no signatures made by the seller in the name of another person or the actual owner of the land. He had signed in his own name. In the present case, it has been proved on record that the signatures of DO (North) on the file related to codal formalities are forged.
328. Following is the table of Q1 to Q17 allegedly signed by DO (North) but it has been opined by the handwriting expert that on comparing the specimen writings & signatures marked S1 to S5 and admitted genuine signatures marked A1 to A15 of Ms. Neera Mullick and S6, S7 and A16 to A28 of Ms. Lata Gupta that the said signatures are technically not comparable nor appear to have been made by the same person (vide FSL report Ex. PW96/A) :
Q1 First Page of Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW32/DX6 Q2 Second Page of Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW32/DX6 Q3 Envelope Ex PW 65/DA Q4 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E Q5 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E 2nd page Q6 Rate list of National Agriculture co operative marketing Ex PW70/E Page 198 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Q7 Envelope Ex PW72/DA Q8 Envelope Ex PW96/E Q9 Quotation of Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd. Ex PW56/DA Q10 Rate list of Delhi Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd.
Ex PW55/B
Q11 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/F
Q12 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/G
Q13 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/I
Q14 Envelope Ex PW96/H
Q15 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/J
Q16 Envelope Ex. PW96/K
Q17 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW33/A
329. It has been further proved on record that the signatures of store keepers i.e. Ms. J.K. Barua and Ms. Saramma on the files related to purchases i.e. Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C as well as on Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B have not been made by the said store keepers and are thus, forged. However, it has not been proved as to who had made the said forged signatures and executed the said documents with the intention of causing it to be believed that such documents were made or executed by DO (North) or the store keeper as the case may be. It is settled law that a person can be said to have made a false document only if it is conclusively proved that he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else. The IO has not obtained the opinion of the handwriting expert in this respect as to whether the said forged signatures could have been made by any of the accused persons and thus, though it is proved on record that the said signatures are not made by the concerned persons but it has also not been proved that any of the accused persons had made those signatures. The said documents however, Page 199 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. would fall in the category of the false documents as it has been claimed that they were made or executed by DO (North) or the store keepers as the case may be, though not so signed by DO (North) or store keepers. The accused persons have used these false documents for getting their purchases approved from JD (Admn) and for causing unlawful gain to M/s Swastik Corporation.
The accused persons are thus, liable for use of the forged documents.
330. On comparison of the questioned documents Q185 and Q186 with the standard writings & signatures marked S94 to S99 & A82 to A112 of Smt. Saramma, the handwriting expert vide report Ex. PW96/B, opined that the same have not been written by one and the same person :
Q185 Order Ex PW50/B of National Agricultural co operative Marketing federation of India Ltd.
Q186 Order Ex PW50/A of National Agricultural co operative Marketing federation of India Ltd.
331. As far as the bill Ex.PW50/A and Ex.PW50/B are concerned though they have been proved to be false documents, as the same are not signed by Ms. Saramma but it has not been proved as to who had made these documents and who had allegedly signed as 'Saramma' and therefore, regarding these documents offence under section 471 IPC i.e. use of the forged documents as genuine, is made out.
332. As far as signatures of store keeper on the purchase file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and signatures of DO(North) on file of codal formalities Ex.PW1/D is concerned, section 470 IPC being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
"470. Forged [document or electronic record] : A false [document or electronic record] made wholly or in part by forgery is designated "a forged [document or electronic Page 200 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. record]".
333. The signatures of other accused persons i.e. Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma on the documents contained in Ex.PW1/D have been proved and therefore, this court has no hesitation in holding that false documents in relation to codal formalities were made by the accused no. 1 to 3 and were antedated. The signatures of the store keepers in the purchase files Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C are also forged and on these files, the signatures and handwriting of Rajeshwari Chauhan and handwriting of accused M.K. Sharma have also been proved in the notings. Therefore, despite the fact that it has not been proved as to which of the accused persons made the forged signatures of DO (North) and of store keepers, in view of Section 470 IPC, and the fact that the signatures/handwriting of accused persons 1 to 3 exist on these documents, they are liable for creating false document and forgery for the purpose of cheating. Also, a comparison of letter Ex.PW96/M (office copy of NIT) and Ex.PW28/D (corresponding letter seized from NCCF) reveals that in one of the letter the date of opening tender is 25.06.2005 and whereas in Ex.PW28/D, the date of opening is 01.08.2005. Both the letters are signed by Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan as per handwriting expert reports. This mentioning of different dates on these documents also amounts to forgery and making of false documents. Accused Deepika Chauhan is the ultimate beneficiary being the proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation. The role of accused I.S. Pimoli came at the time of getting the expost facto sanction approved in the file of Bal Sadan and also in making a note for approval of expost facto expenditure sanction as far as file of HHCLP is concerned. The court has no hesitation in holding that the conspiracy in the present case is kind of umbrellaspoke enrolment where Rajeshwari Chauhan was at the centre enrolling the other accused persons.
Page 201 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
334. As regards cheating, it was further held in case of Mohd. Ibrahim (Supra.), as under :
"............... The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows : (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to delivery any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). ................"
335. All the accused persons succeeded by manipulation of records and by forging the documents, to place purchase orders to the firm of Deepika Chauhan and thus, cause wrongful gain to her. The orders could not have been placed on the firm of accused Deepika Chauhan but for the personal interest of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. Had the codal formalities been complied as per GFRs and not manipulated/forged, payment of Rs.3,42,619/ would not have been released. Deepika Chauhan thus, unlawfully gained business worth Rs.3,42,619/ to which she was otherwise not entitled. By dishonest inducement the competent authority of Social Welfare was made to accord sanction and disburse Rs.3,42,619/ to M/s Swastik Corporation.
Page 202 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
(i) ROLE OF ACCUSED RAJESHWARI CHAUHAN :
336. Ld. counsel for the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan argued that vide order no. F.10/1/86DSW/Estt./9580709 dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/A, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was transferred from Bal Sadan, Timarpur to ICDS, Jahangirpuri, Delhi with additional charge of DDO, Blind School for boys, Kingsway Camp, Delhi. It is further argued that as per Ex.DW9/A wherein at serial no. 3, working place Blind School period/duration is mentioned as 07.04.2005 to 07.07.2005. It is further argued that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had taken over the charge of Blind School cashbook from Sh. P.K. Bedi on 27.05.2005 and handed over the charge to Sh. B.S. Tolia on 04.07.2005 and thereafter, she was again transferred, vide order dated 17.06.2005, from Blind School to Widow Home/ SSHW w.e.f. 07.07.2005 to 04.08.2005 and in compliance of this order, she had joined the Blind Boys School as DDO on 07.04.2005.
337. Ld. counsel for the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan further argued that in place of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, Sh. Shailesh Kumar Shrivastava was given the additional charge of Bal Sadan, Timarpur, vide order dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/A of Joint Director (Admn.), DSW, however, in compliance of transfer order dated 07.04.2005, Sh. Shailesh Kumar Shrivastava had not taken the charge from Rajeshwari Chauhan due to his differences/enmity with Rajeshwari Chauhan. It is further argued that on 10.06.2005, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had given a representation in this regard to Director, social Welfare. It is further argued that Sh. Shailesh Kumar Shrivastava was replaced/transferred by V.S. Awasthi, vide transfer order no. F.10(1/86/DSW/Estt./44814531/17658693 dated 17.06.2005 issued by Joint Director (Admn.), DSW Ex.PW16/J, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was transferred from Blind School to Widow Home SSH, HADB & HADPB, Jail Road, Delhi, accordingly V.S. Awasthi joined the Bal Sadan in the absence of Page 203 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Rajeshwari Chauhan joined SSWH and Widow Home, Jail Road as per transfer order dated 17.06.2005 from Blind School. It is further argued that at the time of joining of V.S. Awasthi in Bal Sadan, Timarpur, Delhi, all the inmates had gone to their homes, due to summer vacation period and after joining in the Bal Sadan, V.S. Awasthi had called accused Rajeshwari Chauhan from SSH and Widow Home, HADB and HADPB, Jail Road as Superintendent/DDO/HOO and stated that school inmates would reopen on 1st July and after seeing the stock position of uniform and other items required for the inmates, he would take only formal charge from her. It is further argued that under the emergent circumstances, in order to meet out the requirement of school going inmates, an urgent supply order was placed to government cooperative agencies like NAFED and DCCWS on 29.06.2005 on the basis of approved rates of 200405. It is further argued that order dated 29.06.2005 was prepared and signed by Sh. J.K. Barua and Ms. Saramma on the directions of V.S. Awasthi but the said order was signed by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, DDO/HO on the request of V.S. Awasthi, the then Superintendent since V.S. Awasthi had not taken the charge from Rajeshwari Chauhan of DDO/HOO and till that day the specimen signature of V.S. Awasthi was not sent to various agencies for authentication and records. It is further argued that as per the emergency purchase order dated 29.06.2005, goods were received in Bal Sadan and HHCLP from NAFED and DCCWS on 08.07.2005 by caretaker and storekeeper in the supervision of V.S. Awasthi and the same were distributed amongst the inmates under the control and supervision of V.S. Awasthi and in this regard, accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had no concern with that.
338. Ld. counsel for the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan further argued that accused V.S. Awasthi had sought the expenditure sanction with respect to the emergency purchase order dated 29.06.2005 from the Page 204 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. competent authority i.e. Joint Director (Admn.), Department of Social Welfare, Delhi Gate who had accorded expost facto expenditure sanction on 06.09.2005 vide Ex.PW1/B (in case of Bal Sadan and HHCLP) after seeing the original verified bills and previous year approved statement shown in the comparative statement. It is further argued that these verified bills were examined by the Dy. Controller of Accounts and thereafter, on the recommendation of DC (F&A), competent authority accorded the expenditure sanction in the relevant file. It is further argued that after obtaining the expenditure sanction from the competent authority, contingency bills no. 58, 59, 60 and 61 were preferred to the Pay and Accounts Office11, Old Secretariat alongwith Ex.PW41/F and Ex.PW80/C.
339. Ld. counsel for the accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and Deepika Chauhan further argued that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was not involved in any manner in the process of procurement, receiving and distributing the goods, obtaining expenditure sanction of the competent authority and thereafter, releasing the payment to the NAFED/DCCWS. It is further argued that it is clear that after seeing the expenditure sanction file and original contingency bills that payment with respect to goods purchased vide purchase order dated 29.06.2005 was released on the basis of approval and sanction of the competent authority and single penny was not incurred without the approval and sanction of the competent authority. It is further argued that it is settled law that when payment released with the approval and sanction of the competent authority, the irregular purchases are treated as regularized. It is further argued that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan was not involved at all in any manner in the process of seeking expenditure sanction relating to purchase order dated 29.06.2005 and thereafter, releasing the payment to the NAFED and DCCWS and this fact is confirmed by PW1 Sh. Jai Parkash, member of the audit team, PW32 Ms. Neera Mullick, District Officer, PW26 Sh. P.P. Dhull, the then Joint Director and PW43 Ms. Asha Gandhi, district Officer, Page 205 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. Social Welfare.
340. Ld. counsel for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has argued that as the schools were to be opened on 01.07.2005 therefore, purchases were made as the clothing and bedding were required on urgent basis. However, if there was any such urgency, the store keeper would have made requisition alongwith the stock position but the store keeper has stated that she had not made any requisition based upon the demands of goods and therefore, this ground of purchase due to emergency or urgency is an afterthought on the part of the accused.
341. Regarding expost facto sanction and emergency/urgency, the office memorandum dated 08.04.1999 Ex.PW90/B as well as Ex.PW1/D3 are relevant. The first para of the said office memorandum is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Some instances have come to notice where the Departments of Govt. of NCT of Delhi incurred liabilities without the prior approval of Finance Department and thereafter, sought expost facto expenditure sanctions. It should always be possible for the Administrative Department to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Department even in urgent/emergent cases. The officers of the Finance Department also fully appreciate the requirements of a given situation. In extreme cases involving unexpected situations like a natural calamity or a major accident or disaster, the Administrative Department may have to act in anticipation of the formal sanction. In such cases, the expenditure should be incurred with the approval of the Secretary of the department and should be kept to the minimum necessary and formal proposal for seeking expost approval should be mooted to the Finance Department within 15 days of such occurrence. Excepting such rare eventualities, there should be no occasion for seeking expost approvals..............."
342. Perusal of the above para of office memorandum shows that only Page 206 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. natural calamity, major accident or disaster has been treated as emergent condition wherein expenditure can be incurred with the approval of the Secretary of the Department and the expost facto approval has to be mooted to the Finance Department within 15 days. It is further clarified that except such rare natural calamity, major accident or disaster, there should be no occasion for seeking expost facto approvals.
343. It is not disputed that Rajeshwari Chauhan was transferred from Bal Sadan vide order dated 07.04.2005 Ex.PW16/A from Bal Sadan to ICDS, Jahangirpuri with additional charge of DDO, Blind School for Boys. It is also not disputed that she had joined at Blind School in pursuance to said transfer order and remained posted at Blind School till 04.07.2005 and in pursuance to transfer order dated 17.06.2005, she had joined Widow Home from 07.07.2005 to 04.08.2005. Despite the fact that she had joined her new place of posting she had not relinquished her charge at Bal Sadan and HHCLP. Even if this explanation of the accused that she did not want to hand over the charge to Sh. Shailesh Kumar Srivastava due to their differences/enmity is accepted still it is not understandable as to why she did not hand over the charge to V.S. Awasthi when he joined as DDO/HO, Bal Sadan and HHCLP in the month of June 2005. This explanation that V.S. Awasthi had called Rajeshwari Chauhan and had told her that he had only taken formal charge from her after seeing the stock position of uniform, is again an excuse to justify the illegal acts by the accused. There were no emergent circumstances such as natural calamity, accident or disaster. Also, if V.S. Awasthi had signed the order dated 29.06.2005, this explanation that Rajeshwari Chauhan had signed the order at the request of V.S. Awasthi as V.S. Awasthi had not taken the charge from Rajeshwari Chauhan as DDO/HO and till that day the specimen signature of V.S. Awasthi was not sent to various agencies for authentication and records, is not acceptable. Though Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the Page 207 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. goods were received on 08.07.2005 by the caretaker and the store keeper and were distributed under the control and supervision of V.S. Awasthi and that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan had no concern with that but PW44 J.K. Barua clearly stated that the entries in the stock register were not made on the dates mentioned against them but antedated entries were made in July 2005 at the instance of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. PW44 has further deposed that the articles were brought to the respective home by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. She has further deposed during her crossexamination also that the order placed upon DCCWS was prepared on the instructions of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan. PW46 Sh. R.K. Sahu also stated that though in the stock register Ex.PW36/H some articles have been shown issued to him but he had not received these articles nor his signatures are there in the said register acknowledging the receipt of the purchased articles. PW Smt. Saramma has also stated that Rajeshwari Chauhan did not relinquish her charge though she stood transferred to Blind School. All the above testimony clearly established that Rajeshwari Chauhan had got antedated entries made in the registers regarding receiving and distribution of articles and she had brought the articles to the concerned homes and the articles were also distributed before she relinquished her charge at Bal Sadan and HHCLP.
344. As far as the argument that Rajeshwari Chauan was not concerned with the A/A and E/S by the competent authority, the testimony of PW18 Jage Ram on this issue is relevant. He has categorically deposed that Rajshwari Chauhan had brought the file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C to the office of DF(F&A) and after the sanction by JD (Admn) on 06.09.2005 itself, the files were handed back to Rajeshwari Chauhan. Perusal of the files revealed that the same were received back at Bal Sadan and HHCLP from the office of DC (F&A) on 06.09.2005 itself for release of the payment. The fact that this entire process took place within a day i.e. on 06.09.2005, establishes that it could have happened only if the file was personally taken by a person to the office of Page 208 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. DC(F&A) and is personally received back and brought to the homes. If the files would have gone through Dak and would have returned through Dak, then it is absolutely impossible that the entire process would have been completed on the same day and thus, it is proved that Rajeshwari Chauhan had personally taken the files Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C by hand to the office of DC(F&A) to get the sanction on 06.09.2005.
345. As far as the argument that the purchases are deemed to be regularized subject to audit, if the purchases made on the basis of expost facto sanction are approved by the competent authority is concerned, this court has no hesitation in holding that regularization of purchases does not and cannot mean regularization of offences of forgery and cheating as well as misconduct by the public servant.
346. Ld. counsel for accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has relied upon Abdulla Mohammed Pagarkar Vs State (Union Territory of Goa, Daman & Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, wherein it was held that mere disregard of relevant provisions of GFR as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, in absence of a showing beyond reasonable doubt about the guilt, may raise strong suspicion against the accused but would not constitute offences and that the onus of proof of existence of every ingredient of charge always rested on the prosecution and never shifts on the accused. The court totally agrees that the mere disregard of relevant provisions of GFRs do not constitute offence but the facts of the present case are distinguishable in as much as not only the GFRs were not followed but the codal formalities were forged and antedated. The signatures of store keepers were also forged. Forged documents were used to get the A/A and E/S from JD (Admn). The quotations received in July 2005 were shown to have been received in June 2005. Various other facts which are already discussed above are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. As already Page 209 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. observed, Rajeshwari Chauhan was the main conspirator who had enrolled other conspirators having apparent nexus with the other accused persons who acted with premeditated design to create false documents for seeking administrative approval and expenditure sanction.
347. Questioned documents which have matched with the specimen writings & signatures marked S12 to S19 and admitted genuine signatures marked A35 to A46 of Rajeshwari Chauhan, vide FSL report Ex. PW96/A :
Q35 Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW28/F also Ex PW32/DX 6 Q36 Second Page of Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW28/F also Ex PW32/DX6 Q37 Envelope Ex PW 65/DA Q38 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E Q39 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E 2nd page Q40 Envelope Ex PW72/DA Q41 Rate list of National Agriculture co operative marketing Ex PW70/E Q42 Quotation of Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd. Ex PW56/DA Q42A Envelope Ex PW96/E Q43 Rate list of Delhi Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd.
Ex PW55/B
Q44 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/F
Q45 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/G
Q46 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/I
Q46A Envelope Ex PW96/H
Q47 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/J
Q48 Envelope Ex. PW96/K
Q49 Letter No. F5/BS/DSW10/ 200506 dated 15.06.2005 Ex PW
96/L
Page 210 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
Q50 Letter No. BS/F5/DSW/200506 dated 15.06.2005 Ex PW96/M
Q51 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW33/A
Q54 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW33/A
348. Questioned documents of Smt. Rajeshwari Chauhan with standard writings & signatures marked S12 to S19, S30 to S54 and A35/1 to A45/1, A45, A50 to A53, A65 to A71 vide FSL report Ex. PW96/B:
Q136 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW43/A of file Ex. PW1/B
Q140 Note Sheet 1/N Ex PW96/N of file Ex. PW1/B
Q141 Note Sheet 2/N Ex PW96/O of file Ex. PW1/B
Q142 List Ex PW33/B of file Ex PW1/B
Q143 List Ex PW33/C of file Ex PW1/B
Q152 Note Sheet 1/N Ex PW96/R in File PW1/C
Q153 Note Sheet 2/N Ex PW96/S in File PW1/C
Q161 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW58/A in File PW1/C
Q191 Undated letter of office of Suptt. Bal Sadan Ex PW28/D
inviting Quotation to be opened on 01.08.2005.
349. In judgment titled State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath, Crl. Appeal No. 000234/1992, passed on 12.05.1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that :
"It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression reasonable doubt is incapable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge.
In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill at p.34, Vol.1 of the 5th Edn., it is stated : The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fairminded man might, with reason, Page 211 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt.
In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade V. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793), the Hob'ble Supreme Court adopted the same approach to the principle of benefit of doubt and struck a note of caution that the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating crime and escape.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
350. Thus, a reasonable doubt arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a reasonable way. The golden thread to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt is not to be stretched morbidly to include every little doubt.
351. In view of the facts as discussed, the court has absolutely no reasonable doubt that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan has entered into conspiracy and forged the documents with codal formalities, forged the documents and also used the forged documents related to receiving of goods as genuine on behalf of store keeper Ms. Saramma and induced the Department of Social Welfare to release the payment of Rs.3,42,691/ for M/s Swastik Corporation owned by her daughter accused Deepika Chauhan, thus, cheated the Department of Social Welfare and thus, committed the offences of forgery, for the purposes of Page 212 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. cheating, use of forged documents as genuine, cheating, conspiracy and criminal misconduct being a public servant.
(ii) ROLE OF ACCUSED M.K. Sharma :
352. Following is the list of questioned documents of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Sharma matched with his specimen writings & signatures marked S8 to S11 and admitted genuine signatures marked A29 to A34 vide FSL report Ex. PW96/A:
Q18 Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW32/DX6 (also Ex.PW28/F).
Q19 Second Page of Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW32/DX6 (also Ex.PW28/F).
Q20 Envelope Ex PW 65/DA
Q21 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E
Q22 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E 2nd page
Q23 Rate list of National Agriculture co operative marketing Ex
PW70/E
Q24 Envelope Ex PW72/DA
Q25 Envelope Ex PW96/E
Q26 Quotation of Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd. Ex
PW56/DA
Q27 Rate list of Delhi Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd. Ex
PW55/B
Q28 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/F
Q29 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/G
Q30 Envelope Ex PW96/H
Q31 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/I
Q32 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/J
Q33 Envelope Ex. PW96/K
Q34 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW33/A
Page 213 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
353. All the above questioned signatures are in the purchase file Ex PW1/D and are related to the opening of Quotations during the alleged Purchase meeting dated 30.06.2005. The purchase committee meeting dated 30.06.2005 has already held to be bogus and the documents forged and ante timed. The role of Sh. M.K. Sharma has been described above under the heading 'codal formalities'. Apart from the codal formalities Ex.PW1/D, accused M.K. Sharma has also written note 3/N in purchase file of Bal Sadan (Ex.PW1/B) and note 4/N and 5/N in the purchase file of HHCLP (Ex.PW1/C).
354. Questioned documents of Shri Mahesh Sharma matched with standard writings & signatures marked S69 to S79, S79A, S79B and A54 to A57 & A72 to A77 vide FSL report Ex. PW96/B are under :
Q137 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW43/B in File PW1/B
Q162 Note Sheet 4/N Ex PW43/C in File PW1/C
Q162/1 Note Sheet 5/N Ex PW96/T in File PW1/C
355. Through these notes accused M.K. Sharma tried to justify the purchases on the ground of urgency.
356. Ld. Counsel for accused M.K. Sharma has argued that there is no reference to the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 in the file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C till the expost facto sanction was granted on 06.09.2005 on the recommendations of DC (F&A) and the same could only have been because purchases had already been made on 29.06.2005 and therefore, the comparative statement prepared on the later date on 30.06.2005 could not have been used or made to cover up the illegal purchases already made on 29.06.2005. However, perusal of the file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C reveals that there is a mention that the quotations for the current year were invited in a separate file. It is further argued that to suggest that the comparative statement was made belatedly with an intention to cover up the purchases, is absolutely Page 214 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. frivolous and absurd as had there been any intention to do so there was no stopping to accused persons to put a date prior to 29.06.2005 on the comparative statement. However, as already observed that the purchase proposal moved on 02.07.2005 was not moved for expost facto sanction, the store keepers have also deposed that purchase orders were prepared by them on the instructions of accused Rajeshwari Chauhan and were antedated. The testimony of PW44 Smt. J.K. Barua is relevant in this respect. It is also argued that once the expost facto administrative approval and administrative sanction is granted by the JD (Admn), then irregularities, if any, in the purchase procedure stands regularized as deposed by the prosecution witnesses.
However, as already observed in relation to Rajeshwari Chauhan also even if the purchases stood regularized, the offence of cheating, forgery and conspiracy and misconduct by public servant would not stand regularized. Ld. Defence counsel has relied upon certain judgments related to circumstantial evidence. However, the present case of the prosecution is based more on the documentary evidence than on circumstantial evidence. The documents are speaking for themselves in the present case. Also, it is not a case of administrative lapse, as argued by almost all the defence counsels. All the accused persons joined in the conspiracy to ensure that the purchase orders in question were placed on the firm M/s Swastik Corporation. Accused M.K. Sharma not only became part of the bogus purchase committee but also tried to justify the purchases on the grounds of urgency/emergency through the notes 3/N, 4/N and 5/N which are proved to be in his handwriting, clearly indicating the mens rea as well as actus reus to commit the offences of conspiracy, forgery for the purposes of cheating, use of forged document as genuine, cheating and criminal misconduct being public servant.
Page 215 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
(iii) ROLE OF ACCUSED R.K. Sharma :
357. Following is the list of questioned documents of Shri R.K. Sharma (Rajender Kumar Sharma) matched with specimen writings & signatures marked S20 to S29 and admitted genuine signatures marked A47 to A49 vide FSL report Ex. PW96/A:
Q55 Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW28/F also Ex PW32/DX 6 Q56 Second Page of Office of the Supdt. Bal Sadan Comparative Statement of Clothing, Bedding Article 2005 Ex PW28/F also Ex PW32/DX6 Q57 Envelope Ex PW 65/DA Q58 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E Q59 Letter no. 200506/15 dated 24.06.2005 Ex PW65/E 2nd page Q60 Rate list of National Agriculture co operative marketing Ex PW70/E Q61 Envelope Ex PW72/DA Q62 Quotation of Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd. Ex PW56/DA Q63 Envelope Ex PW96/E Q64 Rate list of Delhi Consumers co operative wholesale store Ltd.
Ex PW55/B
Q65 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/F
Q66 Rate list of Neel Kanth corporation Ex PW96/G
Q67 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/I
Q68 Envelope Ex PW96/H
Q69 Letter of Gurkul Gramin Shilp Store Ex. PW96/J
Q70 Envelope Ex. PW96/K
Q71 Note Sheet 3/N Ex PW33/A
358. All the above signatures of accused R.K. Sharma are on the codal Page 216 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. formalities file Ex.PW1/D.
359. Ld. Counsel for accused R.K. Sharma submitted that accused R.K. Sharma signed on the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 (Ex.PW28/F) and above his signatures, he put a condition as per GFR and purchase procedure of DSW in accordance with department circular dated 27.01.2003 in his handwriting stating "Subject to A/A & E/S of Competent Authority and placing purchase order as a whole below Rs. 2 lakh only and exclusively use for Bal Sadan" and therefore, R.K. Sharma specifically clarified his official position as JAOII and further put a rider in his handwriting. He further argued that purchase committee had identified lowest one rate and comparative statement was signed on 30.06.2005 whereas purchase orders were placed on 29.06.2005. He further argued that the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 has not been used for making purchases against the subsequent sanctions. He further argued that in the comparative statement dated 30.06.2005 accused R.K. Sharma has mentioned that the said comparative statement could only be used for Bal Sadan and only for purchases below Rs. 2 lakh, therefore, this comparative statement could not have been used for HHCLP. He further argued that it is not the case of the prosecution nor has any evidence been led proving that accused R.K. Sharma had either prior to 30.06.2005 or ever visited met or had any knowledge from any source either oral or documentary that any purchases were made for Bal Sadan and HHCLP.
He further argued that accused R.K. Sharma was summoned for purchase committee meeting dated 30.06.2005 and he participated in the said meeting duly attended by other members of the purchase committee and PW46 R.K. Sahu in his crossexamination dated 05.04.2018 has clearly deposed that Smt. Lata Gupta was DO (N) on 30.06.2005. He further argued that similarly PW 50 Smt. G. Saramma has in her crossexamination dated 26.04.2018 stated that till 30.06.2005 when she was posted at Bal Sadan, Timarpur, Smt. Lata Gupta was DO(N) and she further stated that on 30.06.2005 when quotation were Page 217 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. opened the said witness was present in Bal Sadan and the quotations were opened in the presence of Smt. Lata Gupta and other accused persons on 30.06.2005.
360. Ld. counsel for accused R.K. Sharma further argued that accused R.K. Sharma had no role in the purchase made on 29.06.2005 and he has no role in obtaining the Administrative Approval / Expenditure Sanction / Expost facto sanction for the said purchases or in the release of payments towards such purchases. He further argued that accused R.K. Sharma simply attended the purchase committee as the accounts functionary being JAOII at that time.
361. Ld. counsel for accused R.K. Sharma has placed reliance upon State of Gujarat Vs Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi, AIR 1985 SC 1092 wherein it is held that :
"..............In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Where the witness is found to be partly truthful or to spring from tainted sources, the Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration, adequate and reasonable to meet the demands of the situation, but a court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants, who, in the course of their duties or even otherwise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. If there association with the investigating agencies is unusual, frequent of designed, there may be occasion to view their evidence with suspicion. But merely because they are called in to associate themselves with the investigation, as they happened to be available or it is convenient to call them, it is no ground to view their evidence with suspicion. Even in cases where officers, who, in the course of their duties, generally assist the investigating agencies, there is no need to view their evidence with suspicion as an invariable rule............."Page 218 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
362. The judgment in Subhash Chand Chauhan & Ors. Vs CBI, Crl. A. No.462/467/2002 decided on 04.01.2005 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, it is also relevant wherein it has been observed :
"Needless to state that in a criminal trial, evidence of eye witness requires a careful assessment and evaluation for credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency or inherent inconsistency in reference to the account as stated by one witness on being cross checked with the account as stated by the other witness. Finally, probative value of the evidence has to be put into scales for a cumulative evaluation.
Degree of proof cannot be stated in mathematical units, but the guiding principle that the evidence must point only towards the guilt and should exclude innocence, must never be lost sight of."
363. It is also worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Vemkatachaliah, J., in State of U.P. Vs Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 :
"Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concept of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of Page 219 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice."
364. Certainly the court should not view with suspicion the testimony of government agencies who have assisted the investigating agency but it is also the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. In order to separate grain from chaff, the statements of PW46 Sh. R.K. Sahu, PW50 Ms. G. Saramma that Ms. Lata Gupta was DO (North) on 30.06.2005 or that some tender proceedings conducted by Ms. Lata Gupta on 30.06.2005 took place, are to be discarded, being not supported by any documentary evidence. Also, mere mentioning of the condition such as subject to A/A and E/S and passing an order bill of Rs. 2 Lakhs for exclusive use of Bal Sadan cannot absolve the accused of the offence of forgery. As far as the condition that the comparative statement was put for exclusive use of Bal Sadan is concerned, PW29 Suman Abrol has clearly deposed that as both Bal Sadan and HHCLP are situated in the same building therefore, no separate quotations were asked for both the homes. In the above discussion, it has already been held that the signatures of DO (North) on the files related to codal formalities i.e. Ex.PW1/D are forged and that no such purchase meeting or opening of tender took place on 30.06.2005. all these proceedings of file Ex.PW1/D are antedated. The said discussion is not reproduced herein again. In view of the fact that it has been proved that no meeting took place on 30.06.2005 and the entire file of codal formalities i.e. Ex.PW1/D was created in order to justify the purchase through file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C and the fact that in the file Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C, it has been mentioned that the quotations have been invited in a separate file i.e. Ex.PW1/D. The codal formalities file Ex.PW1/D can be easily connected to Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The members of the purchase committee were at least had the duty to ensure that the quorum was complete.
Page 220 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. It has been proved that this purchase committee meeting was not attended by any of the DO (North) specifically by Ms. Neera Mullick who was posted as DO (North) at the relevant time. It is thus, proved that accused R.K. Sharma was joined in conspiracy by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan to create a file containing false documents relating to codal formalities and R.K. Sharma had also signed all the documents.
365. Moreover, as per Ex.PW16/H, JAOII (HQ) was attached with the legal purchase committee of DO (NWII), DO (E) and DO (NE) and thus, R.K. Sharma, being JAOII was not attached with DO (North) and thus, could not have been member of the purchase committee of North District. Accused R.K. Sharma has thus, committed the offence of forgery for the purposes of cheating, use of forged documents as genuine, cheating, conspiracy and criminal misconduct by a public servant.
(IV) ROLE OF ACCUSED DEEPIKA CHAUHAN :
366. It it not disputed on behalf of accused Deepika Chauhan or on behalf of any of the accused persons that purchase orders in question were received by the firm of Deepika Chauhan i.e. M/s Swastik Corporation. M/s Swastik Corporation was one of the vendors listed with NAFED and DCCWS under back to back arrangement. M/s Swastik Corporation had managed to procure the purchase orders and therefore, got the delivery challan issued from the concerned agencies. The cheques in favour of DCCWS and NAFED were also collected by M/s Swastik Corporation and were handed over to DCCWS and NAFED for release of their payment after deducting the commission. Accused Deepika Chauhan was the ultimate beneficiary of the entire conspiracy, forgery and cheating and it is proved that she has entered into conspiracy with the other coaccused persons and procured purchase orders for her firm M/s Swastik Corporation.
Page 221 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. (v) ROLE OF ACCUSED I.S. PIMOLI :
367. Ld. Counsel for accused I.S. Pimoli has filed written submissions wherein it has been stated that the charges framed against accused I.S. Pimoli are bad in want of sanction by the prosecution under section 197 Cr.P.C. for the acts done by him in the above case was in discharge of his official duty which was limited to the role of examining the proposal file for the availability of funds for the proposal, the bills forwarded to him duly certified by concerned official of home and for sending the same to the sanctioning authority after mentioning the set proforma of the conditions and formalities to be complied by the Home forwarding the same whereafter it was the sanctioning authority who had to examine the same at its entirety. It is further submitted that it is admitted position in the above case that no sanction under section 197 of Cr.P.C. has been obtained against accused I.S. Pimoli for prosecuting him for the above alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that it is settled law that requirement of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is applicable against the retired official as well and issue of sanction under aforesaid provision can be raised at any stage. In this regard reliance has been placed on P.K. Pradhan Vs State of Sikkim (2001) 6 SCC 704 and D. Devaraja Vs Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695.
368. Ld. counsel for accused I.S. Pimoli has further argued that no offence under either of the alleged offence under section 420 or 468 or 471 is proved to have been committed by the accused I.S. Pimoli and in this regard place reliance on Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751. It is further argued that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that accused I.S. Pimoli created a false document or used false document as genuine with the knowledge of the same being forged. It is further argued that there is no case of even inducement to anyone to constitute offence under section 420 IPC, there is no complaint from the department or any official of Page 222 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the same as to any alleged inducement by I.S. Pimoli nor there can be any case of alleged inducement to his superior when the entire file before him was forwarded by him to his superior JD (Admn) and the same is proved on record to have gone to his office through diary dispatch clerk I.e PW Jage Ram and he accorded sanction in absence of accused I.S. Pimoli which he was expected to do after perusing the entire file. It is further argued that accused R.K. Sharma was not a subordinate of accused I.S. Pimoli nor there being any evidence to the effect that they ever worked together, the alleged case of the conspiracy developed by prosecution against the accused I.S. Pimoli through aforesaid accused R.K. Sharma is not proved. Thus, no alleged offence under section 120B IPC for commission of the alleged offence under section 420 or 468 or 471 IPC with other accused persons is established on record as against accused I.S. Pimoli.
369. Ld. counsel for accused I.S. Pimoli further argued that offence under section 13(1)(d)(ii) and section 13(2) of PC Act is not attracted against accused I.S. Pimoli for there being absence of mens rea which is essential for the above ofences and more particularly for there being no specific allegations in chargesheet of obtaining any pecuniary advantage and also in support of contentions that thte sanction was to be granted by JD (Admn) to whom I.S. Pimoli had sent the complete file before him and he granted the same after perusing the same, which he was expected as per his duty. In this regard reliance has been made on A. Shivprakash Vs State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0541/2016. It is further argued that no criminal case is made out against him but would amount to administrative lapse only more particularly when the sanction was to be granted by JD (Admn) to whom I.S. Pimoli had sent the complete file which he was expected as per his duty and in this regard reliance is placed upon Anil Kumar Bose Vs State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 616 and Rita Handa Vs CBI, 2008 (105) DRJ 331.
Page 223 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
370. As far as the argument that sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. is required, in Harihar Prasad Vs State of Bihar, (1972) 3 SCC 89, it was held that :
"..............As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B read with section 409 of the Penal Code is concerned and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is no part of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar to a prosecution under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Penal Code............"
371. In State of U.P. Vs M.P. Gupta, (2004) 2 SCC 349, where offence alleged against a public servant were under sections 406, 409, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"...............That apart, the contention of the respondent that for offences under Sections 406 and 409 read with Section 120B IPC sanction under Section 197 of the Code is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution is equally fallacious. This court has stated the legal position in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli case and also Amrik Singh case that it is not every offence committed by a public servant which requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code, nor even every act done by him while he is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. Following the above legal position it was held in Harihar Prasad Vs state of Bihar as follows : (SCC p. 115, para 66) "As far as the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B read with Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned and also Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, they cannot be said to be of the nature mentioned in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To put it shortly, it is no part of the duty of a public servant, while discharging his official duties, Page 224 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. to enter into a criminal conspiracy or to indulge in criminal misconduct. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, therefore, no bar.".
Above views are reiterated in State of Kerala Vs. V. Padmanabhan Nair both Amrik Singh and Shreekantiah were noted in that case. Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC relate to forgery of valuable security, Will etc; forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine a forged document respectively. It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the Code is therefore, no bar."
372. In view of the above case law, sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. was not required in the facts of the present case. As far as the offence of forgery is concerned, signatures of accused I.S. Pimoli are not on any of the forged documents. However, it is proved that he was part of the conspiracy as he made a note for expost facto sanction without any emergent situation. The notings of I.S. Pimoli on the files Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C clearly reflect that he ignored all the previous notings and treated the case for seeking expost facto sanction, despite there being no such proposal. The facts as discussed above are not discussed again for the sake of brevity. His role at the time of creating of false documents is not made out but it is also proved that he was enrolled by accused Rajeshwari Chauhan in the conspiracy for seeking A/A and E/S from J.D. (Admn). The office of DC(F&A) was not a post office and it was the duty of accused I.S. Pimoli to have checked all the documents including purchase orders/bills etc. before forwarding the file to J.D. (Admn). JD (Admn) Sh. Sanjay Gihar, DW10 has deposed that he had accorded sanction on the basis of the note put up by the Finance Section headed by DC (F&A).
373. It is also a settled law that in a conspiracy, anything said, done or written by anyone of the conspirators is evidence against the other. The joint responsibility of the conspirators extends not only to what is done by any of Page 225 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. the conspirators but also to collateral acts incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. The accused I.S. Pimoli thus, agreed with other accused persons to obtain pecuniary advantage by fraudulently obtaining purchase orders for M/s Swastik Corporation on the basis of forged codal formalities etc. and thus, misused his position as public servant thereby cheating the Department of Social Welfare. He is thus, convicted for the substantive offence of 120B IPC, as well as for Section 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and for offence under section 13(1)(d) PC Act read with Section 120B IPC.
CONCLUSION :
374. A golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. However, the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations, as has been held by this court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagbir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 :
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to ones imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."Page 226 of 229
CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
375. Similarly, in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., stated thus :
"The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down and lose credibility with the community."
376. In view of the facts and circumstances, the court has no doubt that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma, all being public servants, fraudulently obtained purchase orders for supply of clothing and bedding items for Bal Sadan and HHCLP and obtain pecuniary advantage for M/s Swastik Corporation owned by Deepika Chauhan by flouting the departmental procedure and by forging codal formalities and being public servants or by abusing their positions in furtherance of aforesaid conspiracy obtained pecuniary advantage comprising of purchase orders and consequential release of payment to the tune of Rs.3,42,619/ for M/s Swastik Corporation, owned by Deepika Chauhan and cheated Social Welfare Department of GNCT by dishonestly inducing it to place purchase order and consequential release of payment to the tune of Rs.3,42,619/ in favour of M/s Swastik Corporation and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy prepared forged documents in respect of codal formalities viz proceedings of purchase committee, comparative rate chart, quotation letters purportedly signed on 30.06.2005 intending that it shall be used for the purpose of cheating Social Welfare Department of GNCT and also the proposals by store keeper and receiving of goods by Smt. Saramma and also used aforesaid documents as genuine thus Page 227 of 229 CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc. committed offence under section 120B IPC, 13(i)(d) of PC Act punishable under section 13(2) of PC Act read with Section 120B IPC, 420 IPC read with section 120B IPC, section 468 read with section 120B IPC and 471 read with section 120B IPC.
377. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Deepika Chauhan in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement to commit the offence under section 420, 468, 471 OPC and 13(i)(d) of PC Act entered into conspiracy with the other accused persons and procured purchase orders for her firm M/s Swastik Corporation and thus, committed an offence punishable under section 120B IPC. It is also proved that accused I.S. Pimoli being part of conspiracy, agreed with other accused persons to cheat the Department of Social Welfare and misused this position as public servant and thus, committed offences under section 120B IPC, 420 read with section 120B IPC, 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) PC Act read with section 120B IPC. Accused I.S. Pimoli is however, acquitted of the substantive offences under section 468/471 IPC.
378. In view of the above discussions, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section the 420 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) PC Act read with Section 120B IPC and 468/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and for 120B IPC against accused Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma.
379. The prosecution has also succeeded in proving the offence under section 120B IPC against accused Deepika Chauhan as well as offence under section 120B IPC, Section 13(i)(d)(ii) and 13(2) PC Act read with Section 120B IPC and 420 IPC read with Section 120B IPC against accused I.S. Pimoli.
Page 228 of 229CC No.126/2019 State Vs. Rajeshwari Chauhan etc.
380. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Rajeshwari Chauhan, M.K. Sharma and R.K. Sharma, Deepika Chauhan and I.S.Pimoli are held guilty for the abovesaid offences. Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL Announced in the open court BANSAL Date: 2021.12.23 on this 23rd December 2021. 16:01:54 +0530 (Kiran Bansal) Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB)01 RADC, New Delhi 23.12.2021 Page 229 of 229