Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Krishan Madhawa Singh Etc. on 18 October, 2011
CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)II, ROHINI, DELHI
RC No. S19/1999/E0001/SIUIX
CC No. 7/2009
C B I Vs 1. Krishan Madhawa Singh etc.
S/o Sh. Jai Nath Singh (Postal Asstt.)
R/o J130, Sector9, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
2. Sohan Pal Sharma
S/o Sh. Deep Chand
R/o D74, Gagan Vihar, Delhi94.
3. Rohtash Kanwar (already convicted on 11/10/10)
S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
R/o RZ68, Indira Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59.
4. Mahender Singh Mann (expired)
S/o Sh. Budh Singh
R/o House No. 382, Vill. & PO Prahlad Pur Bangar,
Delhi42.
5. O. P. Dabas
S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh
R/o 326, Vill. & PO Khanjhawal, Delhi81.
6. Satish Kumar
S/o Sh. Mahar Singh
R/o House No. F176, Village Katwaria Sarai,
Harijan Basti,New Delhi16.
7. Daya Ram
S/o Sh. Dharam Pal
R/o Gali No. 5, D5/1207, Ashok Nagar,
Nand Nagri, Delhi93.
8. Harsih Chander (expired)
S/o Sh. Attar Singh
R/o528/4B, Daksha Road, Biswas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi32d and C28, East Uttam Nagar,
CC No. 7/2009 Page 1 / 89
CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc.
New Delhi59.
9. H. N. Pal @ Neta
S/o Sh. Hari Dutt
R/o R1/14, Nawada Housing Complex,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi59.
Date of conclusion of arguments : 14.10.2011
Date of judgement : 18.10.2011
JUDGMENT
The prosecution version in, nutshell, is that Krishan Madhawa Singh; Postal Asstt., Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji; Sorting Asstt., Rohtas Kanwar, Mahinder Singh Mann, O.P.Dabas, Satish Kumar, Daya Ram, Harish Chander and Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of cheating the Government of India by presenting genuine, but stolen KVPs, which were forged in a manner to purport to have been issued from Dadri Post Office and were got encashed from Mangol Puri Post Office, New Delhi to the tune of Rs.25,47,900/. It is alleged that genuine KVPs were dispatched from Nasik Road Security Press, Nasik vide invoice no. S KVPs239 dated 28.9.1995 to different consignees in India by train to Suptd., Central Stamp Depot, Patna, Bihar. However, during transit by railways some of the KVPs were stolen from the railway yard by break opening the wagon. The open short delivery of the CC No. 7/2009 Page 2 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. KVPs was received by the officials of CSD, Patna, Bihar and then reported the matter to police authorities at Patna. The theft of the KVPs was circulated by the office of Chief Post Master( General), Patna, Bihar through out India by issuing Circulars and Postal authorities were advised to guard against encashment of such KVPs.
It is further alleged that after receiving specific information regarding fraudulent payments at Mangol Puri A Block Post Office, Sh. Kadam Singh and Sh.Y.P.Pandey, both ASPOs after obtaining approval of Sr. officers conducting routine checking of the records of Mangol Puri, Block A Post Office. Sh.O.P.Dabas, the then Post Master was questioned but he could not give any satisfactory explanation and details. Then Sh.Kadam Singh and Sh.Y.P.Pandey, both ASPOs went to Ashok Vihar Post office, Delhi and checked the records available there and found huge payments had been made against KVPs which were not issued from Mangol Puri, ABlock Post Office. The record was seized and brought to SSPOs office, Delhi North where it was again scrutinised. Then all those KVPs were reported stolen/missing as per missing/lost circulars. A complaint was made by Sh.Alok Pandey SPOs to Police Station Mangol Puri, New Delhi on 31.7.1998 regarding above referred fraudulent payments from Mangol Puri, A Block Post office. A case under Section 120 B/419/420/468 and 471 IPC was registered on 4.8.1998 vide FIR no.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 3 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. 740/98 at Police Station Mangol Puri. Accused Mahender Singh Mann and Daya Ram were arrested. During interrogation both the accused persons disclosed the involvement of accused K.M.Singh and H.N.Pal @ Neta vide MHA Order no. 14036/128/98UTP dated 7.9.1998, this case was transferred to the CBI and accordingly a separate FIR vide RC No. 1 (E)/1999 was registered in CBI, SIU IX NEW DELHI on 8.2.1999. During the course of investigation, Section 467 IPC was also added besides offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) and Section 8 of PC Act, 1988.
As per the allegations in the FIR, Satish Kumar while functioning as Post Master Mangol Puri Post office , A Block, made payment to the tune of Rs.1,62,000/ in lieu of stolen/forged Kisan Vikas Patras bearing nos.31 BB012100 to 31 BB012119 in connivance of some bogus party. Sh.K.M.Singh, Daya Ram and Harish (now deceased) were also involved in this conspiracy. O.P.Dabas and M.S.Mann, both Post Masters were also in league with K.M.Singh, Daya Ram and Harish made fraudulent payments. Accused K.M.Singh in conspiracy with his coaccused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji, Rohtas Kanwar, Mahinder Singh Mann, O.P.Dabas, Satish Kumar, Daya Ram, Harish Chander and Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta ji forged the stolen Kisan Vikas Patras and got them encashed from Mangol Puri, A Block Post Office. Accused K.M.Singh, Hari Narayan pal, Sohan Pal CC No. 7/2009 Page 4 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Sharma @ Pandit ji obtained through fraudulent means MC43 False (Identity Slip Booklets) from Lodhi Road Post Office which were used in the encashment of these stolen KVPs. The stolen/forged KVPs were purported to have been issued from Machahrauli, Aizwal, Borbille and Bareilly Post Offices in India and presented the same at Mangol puri, A block Post Office. Accused K.M.Singh and Hari Narayan Pal in furtherance of the said conspiracy obtained stolen KVPs obtained stolen KVPS from their acquaintance Afzal Siddiqui and Shahjada Siddiqui Lucknow based.
Investigation further revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma was found in possession in NC32 Forms which were seized during the investigation. Accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji then met accused Harish Chander at Gole Dak khana where Harish Chander was working as a Mail Man. He asked accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji to forged the body portion of the KVPs for encashment. Accused K.M.Singh and accused H.N.Pal @ Neta got prepared Round Post Office Seals/Stamps which were used to forged the KVPs to show them to have been issued from the concerned post office. Accused K.M.Singh contacted accused Daya Ram by asking him to encash some KVPs of his friend Ram Singh. Accused Daya Ram asked him to get it encashed at Jungpura Post Office, where he was working as Postal Asstt. Accused K.M.Singh persuaded him that his CC No. 7/2009 Page 5 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. friend Ram Singh resides in Mangol Puri area, therefore, this KVPs should be encashed at Mangol Puri post offices. Then accused Daya Ram by entering into criminal conspiracy with K.M.Singh and Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji @ Ram Singh introduced them accused Mahinder Singh Mann who facilitated the encashment of KVPs to accused Sohan Pal Sharma.
Accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji personating himself as Ram Singh went to Mangol Puri 'A' Block Post Office on 04.03.1998 and presented 79 KVPs bearing serial no.'s 31BB012100 to 012159 (vide registration no. 411 , 412, 412A, 413 & 413A all dated 30.11.1993)to Post Master Satish Kumar and dishonestly induced him to make payment of Rs. 1,62,000/ to him. On detecting the fraud, accused Satish Kumar accepted his guilt before Postal authorities and deposited Rs. 43,000/ in the government treasury in two installments. He also presented KVPs bearing serial no.'s 31BB012180 to 012188 &b 31BB012190 to 012199 (vide registration no. 415 dt. 30.11.1993) to Post Master Mahender Singh Mann who made the said payment in respect of the KVPs to him (Sohan Pal Sharma). All purported to have been issued from Machrauli Post Office qua amounting to Rs.6,39,900/, Post Office Mangol Puri.
While working as a public servant accused O.P. Dabas misused his official position as public servant to obtain pecuniary CC No. 7/2009 Page 6 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. advantage for unknown persons who impersonated as Vijender Singh and Raja Bala for encashing KVPs bearing serial no.'s 46CC843878 to 46CC843887 amounting to Rs. 1,62,000/ purported to have been issued from Bareilly Cantt. Post office vide registration no. 1279 dt. 18.02.1994 without checking the circulars containing the details of stolen/loss KVPs due to dishonest intention. On detecting the fraud, he accepted his guilt and deposited the entire defrauded amount in four installments in the government treasury. It has come in the investigation that accused Mahender Singh Mann was aware with regard to the identity of accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji but still continued to make payment to him in the name of Ram Singh. He also purusaded Satish Kumar to first make the payment in respect of the stolen/forged KVPs and when the payment was successfully made by him and same was not detected he himself started making the payments.
It came into light that accused Daya Ram had become aware the correct identity of the accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Ram Singh but still, he continued to facilitate the encashment and also remained present at the time of payment by Satish Kumar, his co accused to Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji. Accused K.M. Singh was also found to remain present at Mangol Puri Post office in pursuance of the conspiracy at the time of getting payments by accused Sohan CC No. 7/2009 Page 7 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Pal abovenamed. He was also using his own car bearing registration no. DL3CF0838 as conveyance. Loss circulars issued by Department of Post from time to time available with them. Further, he deliberately did not follow the laid down procedure in the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume II regarding encashment of cash certificates. Investigation has been revealed that the payment to Ram Singh was made by accused Satish Kumar in the presence of accused Mahender Singh Mann and accused Daya Ram and Mahender Singh Mann used to entertain accused K.M. Singh and others at his house where the criminal conspiracy hatched.
Accused Mahender Singh Mann in furtherance of conspiracy with accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji and others introduced him as his relative, Ram Singh to accused Satish Kumar, Sub Post Master and directed him to place an indent of Rs. 5 lacs to Ashok Vihar Head Post Office to Sohan Pal Sharma @ Ram Singh against stolen/missing KVPs by visiting the Mangol Puri A Block Post Office. It is also evident that though Mahender Singh Mann was on leave even then he went to Mangol Puri Post Office and jointly signed the SO Daily Account with Satish Kumar, Sub Post Master for placing an indent but due to the pricking of his conscious accused Satish Kumar did not accept Rs. 5 lacs from Ashok Vihar Head Post Office, thus, the said Rs. 5 lacs were saved. Mahender Singh Mann again CC No. 7/2009 Page 8 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. went to post office and inquired about said Rs. 5 lacs by visiting on the next day. On becoming aware from the Ashok Vihar Head Post Office that the money had not been sent by it, he showed KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB012100 to 012119 and asked him to make the payment to Ram Singh whose identity was confirmed by the accused Mahender Singh Mann. On the pursuation of accused Daya Ram, accused Satish Kumar raised the indent for Rs. 1,50,000/ for these KVPs. The said Ram Singh had pleaded that his father was seriously ill and he needed the money for his treatment. On the next day, a payment of Rs. 1,62,000/ was made to said personated person Ram Singh by accused Satish Kumar in the presence of Mahender Singh Mann and Daya Ram.
Accused Rohtash Kanwar (already convicted on pleading guilty) in conspiracy with accused K.M. Singh and others forged the body writing of KVPs bearing serial no.'s 35BB938103 to 35BB938200 purported to have been issued from Aizwal Post Office, Aizwal 796810 on 27.09.1984 in the fake names of Ashok Mehra, Sunil Mehra, Anil Mehra and Kamla Mehra for a total face value of Rs. 4,90,000/ but these were encashed at Mangol Puri A Block Post Office for a total value of Rs. 6,97,500/.
Accused H.N. Pal @ Neta entered into a criminal conspiracy with Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Post Master of Machrauli Post CC No. 7/2009 Page 9 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Office and got the KVPs purported to have been issued from the said post office. In pursuance of the conspiracy, accused H.N. Pal @ Neta and accused K.M. Singh used to get prepared metal seals for forging the stolen KVPs and the same were kept by Sohan Pal Sharma @ Pandit ji.
Accused Harish Chander (since deceased) used to accompany the accused persons to Mangol Puri A Block post office and received the cash from Sohan Pal @ Pandit ji and Rohtash Kanwar by liasioning with accused Daya Ram he used to go to the house of accused Mahender Singh Mann at his residence for finalizing the deal. He accepted money for his services also.
After completion of investigation, the accused persons were challaned to stand their trial. Charges u/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 420/419/467/468/471/IPC & 409 IPC further read with Sections 13(1)(d) & Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed against all the accused persons. Further, the substantive charges were framed against accused Sohan Pal Sharma u/s 419/420/467/468 & 471 IPC. Substantive charges u/s 467/468 IPC were framed against accused Rohtas Kanwar. Substantive charges u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 IPC were framed against Mahender Singh Mann, O.P. Dabas & Satish Kumar vide order dt. 27.05.2003.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 10 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Since accused Harish Chander died during the pendency of the case so the proceedings stood abetted vide order dt.
To prove its case prosecution produced as many as 36 witnesses in all and closed its evidence.
Let me state in brief the statements made by the prosecution witnesses.
PW 1 - SH.ISHWAR SINGH deposed about the procedure regarding issuance and encashment of KVPs. His testimony shall be discussed in detail at the appropriate place, if so requires.
PW 2 - SH.H.R.VERMA deposed that while working as Sr.Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi North Division during the year 2001 to September 2001 he had accorded sanction for prosecution of Sh.Mahinder Singh Mann S/o Sh.Budh Singh, Daya Ram S/o Sh. Dharampal and Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Mehar Singh under Section 19
(i) (c) of 1988. He further stated that he was the competent authority to remove the above said persons from the service. He has proved the sanction order dated 31.8.2001 as Ex.PW 2/1 by identifying his signatures at point A. CC No. 7/2009 Page 11 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 3 - SH.ROOP CHAND proved Post Office Savings Bank Manual as Ex. PA which prescribes the rules regarding the issue, transfer and encashment of KVPs.
PW 4 - SH.B.D.L.SRIVASTAVA Sr. Superintendent, Post Office was holding joint charge of New Delhi Sorting Division at that time. He had the power of removing the employees up to the rank of Sording Assistant. He proved the Sanction Order dated 31.8.2001 as Ex.PW 4/A whereby sanction was accorded by him for the prosecution of Sohan Pal Sharma @Panditji, the then Sorting Assistant in New Delhi Sorting Division.
PW 5 - SH.A.KHARKWAL was working as Director, Postal Services, Delhi Circle, New Delhi, had accorded sanction for prosecution of Sh.K.M Singh, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh and O.P.Dabas under Section 19 (i) (c) of 1988. He was the competent authority to remove the above said persons from the service. He has proved the sanction order dated 31.8.2001 as Ex.PW 5/1 by identifying his signatures at point A. PW 6 SH.SUNIL KRISHAN NAGAR was running a firm under the name and style of M/s Data Pro Services at Rajinder Palace during the year 1995 to 2000 and he used to design as per specifications given by the customers. He identified the accused K.M.Singh present in the CC No. 7/2009 Page 12 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. court who had come to his shop for preparing the visiting Cards in his name. He also correctly identified accused Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta as the person who accompanied him on that day by pointing out towards him. After completing the job, he had handed over the visiting cards. He had further deposed that after one or two days, they again came to his shop with the request for the designing of three four designs of various Post Offices for the Post Office department. They gave him a rough sketch for preparing the design of the stamp. He charged about Rs.200 to Rs.250/ and handed over the said designs on the next day after its preparation.
PW 7 SH.RAM KUMAR identified accused O.P. Dabas and Daya Ram alongwith their specimen signatures/handwriting S 997 TO S 1036 which have been proved as Ex.PW 7/A 1 to Ex.PW 7/A 40 by identifying his signature at point A and that of Sh.O.P.Dabas at point B and Sh.V.K.Pandey at point C. He further proved the specimen signature and handwriting sheets of accused Daya Ram marked S 969 to S 996 by identifying his signature at points A on sheets S 969 to S 975 and S 985 to S 988 and that of accused Daya Ram at point B as well as signature of Inspector V.K.Pandey, CBI at point C as Ex.PW 7/B1 to Ex.PW 7/B28.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 13 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 8 - SH.JANARDHAN SINGH had deposed that in the year 1997, he was posted as Asstt. Superintendent, Civil Lines, Delhi 54, North and he was dealing with the Complaint Branch, Main Branch, and F IV Branch. He also deposed about his duties in F IV Branch as to circulate the circulars received from the office of Chief Post Master General, Delhi Circle and other circles under the Administrative Control of Delhi North Division. He further deposed that the post offices are required to maintain a register containing the details of such circulars as per the Rule 43 of Saving Bank Manual, Part - II. He has proved the circular No. F1/Misc/199798 dated 6.11.1997 which was issued on the basis of letter no. INV/18/10/1997 dated 15.10.1997 received from CPMG Delhi Circle 1, N. Delhi1 and INV /1812/1996vig dated 15.10.1997 received from APMG/V & 1, Delhi Circle, N. Delhi as Ex.PW 7/A and Ex.PW 7/B in CC No.18/03 by identifying the signatures of Sh.J.S.Dogra, the then SSPO, Delhi, North Division at point A and proved the said circulars as ex.PW 8/A and Ex.PW 8/B respectively. He further stated that as per the circulars encashment of KVPs No. 31 BB 1 to 60,000 was directed to be stopped. He has proved another circular No.F4/Construction/1997 dated 16.12.1997 which was issued on the basis of letter no.INV/G Misc.96 dated 11.11.1997 APMG INV.PMG Assam Circle and INV/411/97 dated 5.12.97 from CPMG, Delhi Circle, New Delhi as CC No. 7/2009 Page 14 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Ex.PW 8/C by identifying his signature at point A. PW 9 SH.LALA RAM BHARTI deposed that he knew Sh. Ram Kumar Paliwal being employed in his division who came to his office with coaccused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta alonwith one another person in the year 1996 and asked him by showing printed sample slip as to whether such slip could be made available to him then he (Lala Ram Bharti) took Ram Kumar Paliwal inside the room of the Post Office, Lodhi Colony where orderly N.K.Joshi was on duty and asked him to give similar slips after showing him the sample slips given by the said Ram Kumar Paliwal. Then peon N.K.Joshi made search for the slips in the store and handed over two booklets containing similar slips to Ram Kumar Paliwal and thereafter, he had accompanied with him in their vehicle parked outside the post office, and had some cold drinks with them (Ram Kumar Paliwal and accused Netaji) and from there accused Netaji and Paliwal left the building of the Post Office along with the slip booklets. The other man who had accompanied with Ram Kumar Paliwal was somewhat dark complexion. He further deposed that 1520 days after the above visit accused Hari Narain Pal @ Netaji accompanied with Ram Kumar Paliwal and some other person who was accompanying them at the time of his first visit again came to our office at Lodhi Road. On being CC No. 7/2009 Page 15 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. asked of Ram Kumar Paliwal, he got 23 more booklets containing the aforementioned slips which they took away with them.
He has further stated that his statement was recorded during the course of investigation by the Investigation officer stands proved as Ex.PW 9/A whereas his statement recorded on 13.9.1999 under section 164 Cr.P.C by the Ld.M.M is proved as Ex.PW9/B. PW 10 - SH.KRISHAN MADAN SINGH deposed that he identified the accused Krishan Madhav Singh being his elder brother. He has further proved the production of documents mentioned at Sr. No. 1 to 5 on 1.7.1999 against Notice of CBI which stands proved as Ex.PW 10/A. He further stated that in perusal of said notice, he had written a letter to SP, CBI SIU - IX, CGO Complex, New Delhi and proved the said letter Ex.PW 10/B by identifying his signature at point A. He proved the original sale deed of property bearing no. K 127, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad as Ex.PW 10/C (Total 14 Pages), site plan of said property as Ex.PW 10/D, Execution of Sale Deed between him and Ghaziabad Development Authority as Ex.PW 10/E by identifying his signature at points A. He has also proved the Ikrarnama of Flat no. G 331 A, Pratap Vihar Ghaziabad as Ex.PW 10/F, General Power of Attorney in his name as Ex.PW 10/G, letter dated 18.5.1999 in respect of property No. K 127, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad by identifying his CC No. 7/2009 Page 16 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. signatures at points A on Ex.PW 10/H. He further proved the letter of said authority dated 18.5.1999 by identifying his signatures at points A as Ex.PW 10/I and another letter dated 20.5.1999 of Ex.PW 10/J of Ghaziabad Development Authority. He had further deposed about the facts that he had incurred all the expenses on the purchase of said properties.
PW 11 - SH.RAVINDER KUMAR LAL deposed that in the month of August 1998, he was working as Assistant Superintendent Investigation with the office of Chief Post Master General (Bihar Circle) and was looking after the affairs of lost instruments including KVPs/Security papers. He had deposed about the procurement of valuable securities i.e. Kishan Vikas Patra as well as National Savings Certificate from the India Security Press, Nasik. He has deposed further that vide letter dated 7.10.99, in which short deliveries of the security paper pertaining to the period 23.3.90 to 29.4.99 were reported by CSD Office Patna. The letter dated 7.10.99 is proved as Ex.PW 11/A and its proforma is Ex.PW 11/B (8 pages). He has further testified that letters dated 30.12.1996 addressed to Sh. Vasudev Prashad APMG, Vigilance and Investigation Office of CPMG, Bihar Circle, Patna and letter dated 5.7.1999 to Sh.Salim Haque by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lal Bazar, Calcutta CC No. 7/2009 Page 17 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. were the enclosures of Ex.PW 11/A and have been further marked as Mark A and B. PW 12 - RAM KUMAR PALIWAL adduced that he knew accused Krishan Madhav Singh as he was posted as Defence Head Quarter, Post Office during his tenure in the said post office, thus, both of them worked together there. He had also stated that Identity Slips were issued at the time of issuing of NSC, KVPs at the request of purchaser. In fact, it contains the attested signature of purchaser by the Sub Post Master from where instruments were purchased. He further deposed that in the year 1996 issuance of Identity Slip booklet had been stopped.
PW 13 - SH.NAND KUMAR JOSHI stated that in the year 1996, he was working as Packer and looking after the work of store in the Lodhi Road Head Post Office and that Sh. Lala Ram Bharti was Postal Assistant (Clerk)in the round Post Office who had asked for delivery of Identity Slip booklets and that Sh. Nand Kishore Joshi handed over two booklets out of 4 booklets available in the dead stock room to Lala Ram Bharti. He also handed over remaining two booklets to Lala Ram Bharti after a gap of one month when he came again to him.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 18 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 14 - SH.DHARAM PAL adduced that he had handed over Ration Card of Hari Narain Pal to Investigating Officer Inspector V.K.Pandey which stands proved as Ex.Pw 14/B. He also identified the photograph of Hari Narain Pal on the said Ration Card pasted thereon at point A. The Ration Card was given by him vide Seizure Memo dated 8.11.1999, proved as Ex.PW 14/A. PW 15 - SH.KADAM SINGH deposed that in the month of June 1998, he was posted as Asstt. Superintendent Post Officer (ASU) in the III Sub Division, Rohini Post Office, Delhi and remained there till November 1998. He was looking after the administrative work as well as conducting enquiries entrusted by the Sr. Officers in respect of any fraud taken place in the Post Offices with the areas of Sub Division. He further deposed that he had received instructions from the Sr. Officer in respect of Mangol Puri, A Block Post Office regarding fraudulent payment made by the Postal Staff. He further testified that Sh. Alok Pandey, the then Superintendent had given him a list of fraudulent transactions in respect of Mangol Puri Post Office. He has proved the statement of Mahinder Singh Mann dated 31.7.1998, the then Postal Asstt., Subzi Mandi, Delhi7 as Ex.PW 15/A and also identified the handwriting and signatures of Mahinder Singh Mann at points A, B, C and D. He further proved his own signature at point F on the CC No. 7/2009 Page 19 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. endorsement. He has also proved the statement of Mahinder Singh Mann made before him on 1.8.1998 running into two pages as Ex.PW 15/B by identifying his signatures on points A and B thereon. He further testified the endorsement encircled in red ink made by him at point C on the said statement. He had also deposed about the fact that statements Ex.PW 15/B was made by Mahinder Singh Mann voluntarily.
He has also proved the statement of Om Prakash Dabas dated 31.8.1997, the then Sub Post Master, A Block Mangolpuri Post Office which was taken during the course of enquiry as Ex.PW 15/C by identifying his handwriting and signature at points A, B, and C. He further identified his own signature at point D on the endorsement. He further proved the statement of Satish Kumar dated 4.8.1998, the then Postal Assistant Ashok Vihar Head Post Office which was taken during the course of enquiry as Ex.PW 15/D by identifying his handwriting and signature at points A, B, and C. He further identified his own signature at point D on the endorsement. He further proved the statement of Satish Kumar taken on 5.8.1998 as Ex.PW 15/E by identifying his signature at point A. He also proved an endorsement by identifying his signature appearing at point B. He proved the statement of Daya Ram dated 4.8.1998, the then Postal Asstt., Ashok Vihar, Head Post Office which was taken CC No. 7/2009 Page 20 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. during the course of enquiry as Ex.PW 15/F by identifying the handwriting and signature at points B as well as his own signature at point A on the endorsement. He also identified the signature of Krishan Lal ASP, who was also present at that time.
PW 17 - SH.LAL HULIANA stated that he had worked as Post Master in the Head Post Office of Aizwal Head Post Office, Mizoram and was familiar with the procedure of issuing of KVPs and NSCs etc. he has further testified that Aizwal Head Post Office was headed by the Post Master HSG II. He has proved the Stock Register in respect of KVPs of Aizwal Head Post office for the period 10.10.1988 to 30.8.1999 as Ex.PW 17/A and entry recorded at page No. 34 in the said register by him on 26.9.1994 1820 blank KVPs in the denomination of Rs.5000/ in the Stock as Ex.PW 17/A1. He had deposed about the receipt of 3000 Blank KVPs of Rs.5000/ bearing Sr. No. 04BB231001 TO 04BB 234000 on 10.1.1992 vide invoice no. 2. Entry in this effect recorded at page no. 11 is proved as Ex.PW 17/A2. He further testified that KVPs of this series were also available for issuance on demand by the purchasers on 26.9.1994 and no KVP was issued on 27.9.1994 in the denomination of Rs.5000/ as no entry to this effect is available in the Stock Register Ex.PW 17/A. He has further testified that he had issued only two KVPs bearing no. 04 BB 233179 & 04 BB 233180 on CC No. 7/2009 Page 21 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. 26.9.1994 and 30.9.1999 meaning thereby, no KVPs were issued from Aizwal Post Office on 27th/28th& 29th September 1994. He had proved the KVPs bearing no.35 BB 938103 to 35 BB 0938200 as Ex.PW 17/1 to Ex.PW 17/98. He has further testified that KVPs bearing no. 35 BB 938103 TO 35 BB 938122 EX.PW 17/1 to EX.PW 17/20 purported to have been issued in the name of Ashok Mehra and Kamla Mehra on 27.9.1994 from Aizawal Post Office videe Regd. No. 729 were not issued under his signatures from the said Post Office. He had further denied about the seal impression at points C and D as well as posting in the designation of Sub Post Master (LSG) in the Aizwal Post Office even the spellings of Aizwal and Pin Code were incorrect. The Pin Code of Aizwal was 796001 whereas in the KVPs Pin Code no.796810 had been mentioned.
He had proved the KVPs bearing no.35 BB 938123 to 35 BB 938146 as Ex.PW 17/21 to Ex.PW 17/44. He has further testified that KVPs bearing no. 35 BB 938123 TO 35 BB938146 EX.PW 17/1 TO EX.PW 17/20 purported to have been issued in the name of Anil Mehra and Kamla Mehra on 27.9.1994 from Aizwal Post Office vide Regd. No. 730 were not issued under his signatures from the said Post Office. He has further denied about the seal impression at points C and D as well as postings in the designation of Sub Post Master (LSG) in the Aizwal Post Office even the spellings of Aizwal and Pin Code CC No. 7/2009 Page 22 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. were incorrect. The Pin Code of Aizwal was 796001 whereas in the KVPs Pin Code no.796810 had been mentioned.
He had further proved the KVPs bearing no.35 BB 938147 to 35 BB 938180 as Ex.PW 17/45 to Ex.PW 17/78. He had further testified that KVPs bearing no. 35 BB 938147 TO 35 BB938180 EX.PW 17/45 TO EX.PW 17/78 purported to have been issued in the name of Sh. Sunil Mehra and Kamla Mehra on 27.9.1994 from Aizwal Post Office vide Regd. No. 731 were, infact, not issued under his signatures from the said Post Office. He had further denied about the seal impression at points C and D as well as postings in the designation of Sub Post Master (LSG) in the Aizwal Post Office even the spellings of Aizwal and Pin Code were incorrect. The Pin Code of Aizwal was 796001 whereas in the KVPs Pin Code no.796810 had been mentioned.
He further proved the KVPs bearing no.35 BB 938181 to 35 BB 938200 as Ex.PW 17/79 to Ex.PW 17/98. He had further testified that KVPs bearing no. 35 BB 938181 TO 35 BB938200 EX.PW 17/79 to EX.PW 17/98 purported to have been issued in the name of Sh. Sunil Mehra and Kamla Mehra on 27.9.1994 from Aizawal Post Office vide Regd. No. 732 were not issued under his signatures from the said Post Office. He has further denied about the seal impression at points C and D as well as postings in the designation of Sub Post Master CC No. 7/2009 Page 23 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. (LSG) in the Aizwal Post Office, even the spellings of Aizwal and Pin Code were incorrect. The Pin Code of Aizwal was 796001 whereas in the KVPs Pin Code no.796810 had been mentioned. He had proved that in case purchaser intends to encash KVPs from any other post office all over India, Identity Slips used to be issued for the encashment of KVPs. He has further testified that Identity Slip bearing Sr.no. 37 which has been proved as Ex.PW 17/99 and purported to have been issued in favour of Sh. Anil Mehra and Smt. Kamla Mehra for the alleged purchase of 24 KVPs bearing Sr. Nos. 35 BB 938123 to 35 BB 938146 did not bear his signatures at point A and the seal impression appearing as Sub Post Master (LSG) Aizwal 796810 also did not belong to him and somebody had forged his signatures as well as seal impressions appearing at point B on Ex.PW 17/99. He has further proved that the signatures and seal impressions appearing at points D and E were also fake as the same were not in use in their Post Office at that time.
He had proved that Identity Slip bearing Sr.no. 38 which has been proved as Ex.PW 17/100 and purported to have been issued in favour of Sh. Sunil Mehra and Smt. Kamla Mehra for the alleged purchase of 24 KVPs bearing Sr. Nos. 35 BB 938167 to 35 BB 938180 did not bear his signatures at point A and the seal impression appearing as Sub Post Master (LSG) Aizwal 796810 also did not CC No. 7/2009 Page 24 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. belong to him and somebody had forged his signatures as well as seal impressions appearing at point B on Ex.PW 17/100. He has further proved that the signatures and seal impressions appearing at points D and E were also fake as the same were not in use in their Post Office at that time. He had further proved that Identity Slip bearing Sr.no. 39 which has been proved as Ex.PW 17/101 and purported to have been issued in favour of Sh. Sunil Mehra and Smt. Kamla Mehra for the alleged purchase of 24 KVPs bearing Sr. Nos. 35 BB 938147 to 35 BB 938166 did not bear his signatures at point A and the seal impression appearing as Sub Post Master (LSG) Aizwal 796810 also did not belong to him and somebody had forged his signatures as well as seal impressions appearing at point B on Ex.PW 17/101. He had also deposed that the signatures and seal impressions appearing at points D and E were also fake as the same were not in use in their Post Office at that time.
He had proved that Identity Slip bearing Sr.no. 40 which has been proved as Ex.PW 17/102 and purported to have been issued in favour of Sh. Sunil Mehra and Smt. Kamla Mehra for the alleged purchase of 24 KVPs bearing Sr. Nos. 35 BB 938181 to 35 BB 938200 did not bear his signatures at point A and the seal impression appearing as Sub Post Master (LSG) Aizwal 796810 also did not belong to him and somebody had forged his signatures as well as seal CC No. 7/2009 Page 25 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. impressions appearing at point B on Ex.PW 17/102. He had further deposed that the signatures and seal impressions appearing at points D and E were also fake as the same were not in use in their Post Office at that time. He had proved that issuance of KVPs Ex.PW 17/1 to Ex.PW 17/98 had not been recorded in the stock register at page 34 Ex.Pw 17/A1 on 27.9.1994.
He had deposed that he had given the seal impressions of different seals which were being used in Aizwal Post Office to the Investigator Officer and proved the same as Ex.PW 17/103 to Ex.Pw 17/106 by identifying his signatures and endorsement at point A on each exhibit. He had further deposed about the Receipt Invoice Register which was maintained in the Aizwal Head Post Office for the receipts of KVPS, NSCs etc and also proved the handing over of the documents mentioned in Seizure Memo dated 10.9.1999 as Ex.PW 17/C bearing his signatures at points A and B. He had also deposed about the fact that the Guard File did not contain any document pertaining to receipt of Kisan Vikas Patras dated 10.1.1992.
PW 18 - SH.JAMUNA PRASHAD PANDEY deposed that in the year 1999, he was posted as Asstt. Superintendent Post Officer (ASU) in the Office of Sr. Superintendent of Post Officer, Delhi, North Division, Civil Lines, Delhi. He remained associated with Sh. Kadam Singh in CC No. 7/2009 Page 26 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. respect of conducting enquiries entrusted by the Sh.Alok Pandey, the then SSPO regarding fraud taken place in the Post Offices within the areas of Sub Division. He had received instructions from the Sr. Officer in respect of Mangol Puri, A block Post Office regarding fraudulent payment made by the Postal Staff. He further testified that Sh.Alok Pandey, the then Superintendent had given him a list of fraudulent transactions in respect of Mangol Puri Post Office. He had proved the seizure memo dated 18.5.1999 vide which he had given 16 statements to CBI during the course of investigation. The Seizure Memo stands proved as Ex.PW 18/A bearing his signatures at points A on each page thereof.
He proved the statement of Mahinder Singh Mann dated 31.7.1998, the then Postal Asstt., Subzi Mandi, Delhi7 as Ex.PW 15/A besides the three statements of Mahinder Singh Mann dated 1.8.1998 as Ex.PW 18/B. Ex.PW 18/C and Ex.PW 15/B. He further proved two statements dated 16.12.1998 as Ex.Pw 18/D and Ex.PW 18/E. He had further proved the statement of Om Prakash Dabas dated 31.7.1998, the then Sub Post Master, A Block Mangolpuri Post Office as Ex.PW 15/C besides the statements dated 1.8.1998 as Ex.Pw 18/F, two statements dated 31.7.1998 as Ex.PW 18/G and Ex.PW 18/H and two statements dated 23.12.1998 as Ex.PW 18/I and Ex.PW 18/J. He had proved the statement of Satish Kumar dated 3.8.1998 as Ex.PW CC No. 7/2009 Page 27 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. 18/K and also proved the statements dated 4.8.1998 as Ex.PW 15/D, statement dated 5.8.1998 as Ex.PW 15/E and statement dated 24.3.1999 Ex.PW 18/L. He also proved the statement of Daya Ram dated 4.8.1998 as Ex.PW 15/F and also proved the statement dated 16.12.1998 as Ex.PW 18/M. He had proved the statements of Sh.Subhash Gupta( since expired ) as Ex.PW 18/B, Ex.PW 18/C and Ex.PW 18/F and also proved his signature at point A. He had further proved the statements of Sh.Roop Chand as Ex.PW 18/D, Ex.Pw 18/E and Ex.PW 18/J, Ex.PW 18/I, Ex.Pw 18/L, Ex.PW 18/M by identifying his signature at point A. He had proved the letters dated 6.7.1999, 7.7.1999, 7.7.1999, 28.7.1999 addressed to Sh.A.K.Gupta, Superintendent of Police by Sh.B.L.Mudgil, the then SSPO, North Division, Delhi as Ex.PW 18/N, Ex.PW 18/o, Ex.PW 18/P and Ex.PW 18/Q by identifying the signatures of Sh.B.L.Mudgil at points A on the said letters.
PW 19 - SH.ALOK PANDEY deposed that he took charge of Sr.Superintendent of Post Offices in the Delhi, North Division, in the year 1997 and Mangol Puri, A Block, Post Office was situated within his jurisdiction. His duties had included the overall administration of all the Post Offices of Delhi, North Division. He had further testified CC No. 7/2009 Page 28 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. that he had received a complaint in the year 1998 though his subordinate Sh. Kadam Singh, the then Asstt. Superintendent regarding fraudulent encashment of KVPs at Mangolpuri A Block, Post office, Delhi. He has further stated that the small Post Offices having their account with the Head Post Offices all over India. Mangol Puri, A Block Post office, Delhi had its account in the Ashok Vihar Head Post Office. He had stated that he ordered for a detailed enquiry to be conducted by the Asstt. Superintendents of Post Offices in Head Post Office, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He had further stated that fraudulent encashment of stolen KPVs declared by the Department in the Mangolpuri, A Block Post Office, Delhi and he obtained the said details from that Post office and compared with list and then reported the matter to SHO, Mangol Puri Police Station on 31.7.1998.
He had proved his complaint and its contents as Ex.PW 19/A by identifying his signature at point A. He had further proved the detailed report dated 4.8.1998 sent to SHO as Mangolpuri alongwith two annexures as Ex.PW 19/B. What have you to state?
He had deposed about the deposit of fraudulent amount and recorded their statements. He has proved the statement dated 31.8.1998 made by Sh.M.S.Mann as Ex.PW 19/C and also proved his endorsement in green ink at point A and his signature below the endorsement at point B. He had further deposed about the statement CC No. 7/2009 Page 29 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. of Mahinder Singh Mann which was recorded on 1.8.1998 and proved the same as Ex.PW 8/C by identifying his endorsement at point B as well as his signature at point C. He had proved the statements dated 317.1997 as Ex.PW 8/G and Ex.PW 8/H which is written by O.P.Dabas in his own handwriting by identifying the signature of O.P.Dabas at point A. An endorsement made by PW 19 Alok Pandey is at point B and his signature at point C. He had further deposed about the receipt of a letter written by O.P.Dabas regarding depositing of Rs.1 Lac as Ex.PW 19/D which was permitted by him vide endorsement dated 1.8.1998 appearing at point B and his signature at point C. He had also identified the signature of O.P.Dabas at point D. He had further proved the statement of Satish Kumar Postal Asstt. Ashok Vihar, Head Post Office recorded on 3.8.1998 already Ex.PW 18/K by his signature at point B and endorsement was made in green ink. He had further stated that statement already exhibited as Ex.PW 18/K was written by Satish Kumar in his own had writing by identifying his signature at points C, D and E. PW 20 - SH.S.N.BHARDWAJ had deposed about the postal divisions in Delhi. He had testified that each division was headed by Sr.Superintendent of Post Officers and the Chief Post Master General, CC No. 7/2009 Page 30 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Delhi Circle was having the administrative control over there. All the divisions of Post Offices had been functioning under the same rules and regulations. He has further stated that he was posted in the Lodhi Road, Head Post Office, New Delhi in the year 1997 and was looking after the seat of supervision of NSC, KVPs, IVPs counter in the said post office. He had further testified that a monthly return in respect of compilation of KVPs was being sent to Director of Account, Delhi by each Head Post Office in a suitable manner.
PW 21 - SH.NITYANAND JHA had identified the accused K.M.Singh who was working as his partner in his property business in the year 199899 when accused was under suspension. He had testified that accused K.M.Singh was residing in G331, HIG Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad which was purchased by him through his brother Krishan Madan Singh, Engineer in Railway for Rs. 2,10,000/.
PW 22 - SH.MAHENDER PAL SHARMA was dealing in properties under the name and style Varsha Properties and identified the accused Krishan Madav Singh who met him in connection with a property matter in the year 199897. He has further testified that Plot measuring 334 Sq Meter bearing no. D127, Sector 12, Pratap Vihar was shown to K.M.Singh which was in the name of Sh. K.K.Taker and CC No. 7/2009 Page 31 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. deal was finalised for Rs.9,35,000/. Accused K.M.Singh paid Rs.3 Lacs as advance and rest of the amount was paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of Registration of Property documents. He had deposed about the purchase of Flat No. G331/A, HIG, Ist Floor, for Rs.5,25,000/on the basis of Power of Attorney by K.M.Singh who paid Rs.2 Lacs as an advance amount. He further deposed about the purchase of jewellary by K.M.Singh from his nephew.
PW 23 - SH.RAM NIWAS has stated that he was working as Packer in Post office, Surajpur, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar in 1996 and was known to Sri Niwas of his village who was also working as Packer in Postal Department at Gol Dak Khana, Delhi. He also introduced Davinder Kumar, Chowkidar with said Sri Niwas for providing him help.
PW 24 - SH.DEV ANAND adduced that he was working as ASP1, Sub Division, Ashok Vihar under North Division, Civil Lines, Delhi in 1998. He had proved the letter dated 31.7.1998 as Ex.PW 24/A which was received by him from the office of SSPO Delhi, North Division, Civil Lines, Delhi in connection with checking of issuance of KVPs from Machrauli Post Office, Jhajjer, Haryana. He further identified the signature of Sh.Alok Pandey thereon at point A. He alongwith CC No. 7/2009 Page 32 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Krishan Lal, ASP visited the Post Office Machrauli and SDIP, Jhajjer for ascertaining the actual issuance of KVPs from the said Post Office. On comparison, they found that no such KVPs were issued by the said post office and they submitted their visit report (running into three pages) bearing his signature at point A and proved as Ex.PW 23/B. He had proved the working details of Machrauli Post Office prepared by him by identifying the signature of the then Sub Post Master exhibited as Ex.PW 24/C. He had further proved the paper containing details of suspect persons in the matter which was prepared by him in his own handwriting and bears his signature on Ex.PW 24/D. He had also proved the papers containing the name and telephone numbers of Sub Divisional Inspector Jhajjer which was prepared by him in his own handwriting exhibited as Ex.PW 24/E and further proved the paper containing specimen seal and stamp impressions of Machrauli Post Office which were handed over to him by the Sub Post Master of that Post Office on 3.8.1998 as Mark P2.
He further stated that he had prepared the document which were received by them from SSP Delhi, North Division for verification containing the signatures of Sh.Alok Pandey at points A, B, and C on Ex.PW 24/F. He had further stated that the list of KVPs mentioned in the documents Ext.PW24/F was shown to the Sub Post Master, Machrauli Post Office who after having seen the same gave the CC No. 7/2009 Page 33 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. noting on all the three pages by mentioning " Not issued by his post office."
PW 25 SH.SHAMBHU NATH deposed that he was working as Asstt. Post Master (Treasury) at Lodhi Road Post Office in the year 1999 and besides him Sh.N.D.Arora, Vijay Pal Singh and H.P.Singh were also working there as Asstt. Post Master. He used to look after the daily accounts of 70 SubPost Offices. His duty was to remit cash as demanded by the SubPost Offices. The cash was used to be sent on the same day and if it exceeds from Rs.40,000/ then it was to be sent under custody. He had proved the file bearing no. M 89/99 RC 1 (E)/99 S IU - IX exhibited as Ex.PW 12/1 E to Ex.PW 12/64 E pertaining to daily accounts of Hari Nagar and Ashram as Sub Post Offices. He also proved his signatures on the document.
PW 26 - SH.DAVINDER KUMAR proved his association with Ram Niwas who had come to him alongwith two persons including a person by the name of Netaji who was wearing a Kurta Pajama in Dadri Post Office. He had further testified that Netaji had offered him a glass of water mixing with intoxication type of substance. On taking the same he became unconscious. Thereafter the said persons went inside the post office after taking the keys out from his pocket. He CC No. 7/2009 Page 34 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. had further testified that on regaining his conscious, he observed that some stamps were found scattered and they directed him not to disclose the incident to anybody, however, he had narrated the entire incident to Post Master on the next day.
PW 28 - SH.ROSHAN LAL YADAV stated that he was working as Inspector and he had partly investigated the case on the direction of Inspector V.K.Pandey (IO). He had obtained the specimen writings of accused K.M.Singh on 2.3.2000 marked as S 1110 to S 1126 in the presence of Sh. Surinder Sharma, UDC, Registrar of Companies which had been proved as Ex.PW 28/A1 to Ex.PW 28/A15 by identifying his signature at point A and his own signature at point B. He had further stated that he obtained the specimen writings of accused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta running into 14 pages on 14.8.1999 in the presence of independent witness Sh.Triloki Nath, who put his signature at point B on Ex,PW 28/B1 to Ex.PW 28/B14 by identifying his signature at point A. He has further testified that accused K.M.Singh and H.N.Pal had given the specimen writings voluntarily and without any pressure. He also recorded the statement of witness Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 35 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 29 Sh. Chander Bhan had proved his relation with accused Rohtash Kanwar who happened to be his son and also proved the Ration Card of Rohtash Kunwar and his family as Ex. PW 29/A, photograph at point A to A, signature at point B to B and Mukhia Ke Hastaksher at point C. He also identified the accused Rohtash Kanwar.
PW 30 - SH.H.C.SHARMA deposed that while he was posted as Inspector in CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi from June 1997 to April 2003 had investigated the case RC 4 (E)/98 BS & FC/Delhi and during the course of investigation of said case, he seized the FIR NO.29/98 from Inspector Girinder Mohan, GRPF, Patna which was relating to theft of KVPs pertaining to 46 CC series. The said KVPs were dispatched from Security Press Nasik to Circle Stamp Depot, Kolkata. He had proved his signature at point A on the Seizure Memo already proved in CC NO. 19/09 as Ex.PW 33/A. He had proved the annexures of FIR no. 29/98 registered on the basis of complaint dated 23.2.1998 of Sh. Laxman Dixit, Incharge Patna Junction regarding theft of KVPs and details of RRs already placed as Ex.PW 33/A1, Ex.PW 33/A2 and Ex.PW 33/A3 in CC No. 19/09.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 36 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 31 - SH.AJAY KUMAR GAUTAM adduced that he was running a workshop in the name and style of M/s Pappu Motors at Jhugi Jhopri near Mata Colony, Sector 12, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad in the year 1999 and he used to undertake the job of Denting/painting etc. He had further testified that 1213 years back, a phone call was received in his absence at his workshop regarding an accident of a vehicle near Hindan River, By Pass. He alongwith three other persons rushed at the spot and the damaged vehicle NO. DL 3 CF 0838 brought from his workshop. After about 57 days, he received a written slip from CBI officials with the instructions not to deliver the said vehicle to any body. He further stated that the person accompanied with the CBI official was appearing to be the accused K.M.Singh.
PW 32 - SH.RAMESH KUMAR RAMANIA had handed over KVPs to Anwar of Rs.10,000/ each and further deposed that Sh. Bharat, Naresh and Bengali used to come to his liquor shop and Bharat and Bengali gave him some packets in khakhi colour envelope for which Bharat asked him to deliver it to Anwar. He took the packets to Anwar and gave him the same and in turn Anwar gave him Rs. 2 lacs. The packets which were 1213 in number were containing KVPs and were of red colour for which Anwar also gave him Rs. 25,000/ for bringing some more packets.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 37 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. PW 33 DR.R.SHARMA, Asstt. Government Examiner of questioned documents has deposed that the questioned documents were presented on 12.12.2000 for the examination through SPE/CBI, New Delhi bearing letter No.107080 /RCI(E)/99/SIU IX dated 12.12.2000 along with the questioned documents and specimen documents for his opinion regarding handwriting and signatures, who gave his opinion bearing no.CX 159/99 dated 20.7.2001 running into 29 pages vide Ex.PW15/I (in CC No. 13/08) and confirmed that the signatures and hand writings of person who wrote S 1 to S158 (Sohan Pal Sharma) which is Ex.PW15/A1 to Ex.PW15/A158 (in CC NO. 13/08), S 997 to S1036 (O.P.Dabas) exhibited as Ex.PW 7/A1 to Ex.PW 7/A40, S1127 to S1189 (Satish Kumar) exhibited as Ex. PW 36/A1 (collectively), S825 to S838 (Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta) exhibited as Ex.PW 28/B1 to Ex.PW 28/B14 and from S 839 to S 968 (Rohtas Kunwar) collectively marked as Ex.PW 36/A and S357 to S513 are collectively marked as Ex.PW 33/PX have been written by one and the same person. He had further deposed that the questioned documents were presented on 12.12.2000 for the examination through SPE/CBI, New Delhi bearing letter No.17080/RCI(E)/99/SIU IX dated 12.12.2000 alongwith the questioned documents. The opinion and reasons were sent to CBI vide forwarding letter dated CC No. 7/2009 Page 38 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. 25.07.2001 which is Ex.PW15/2 ( In CC no.13/08). The detailed reasoning in respect of opinion is Ex.PW15/3.
He had proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 31 BB 012110 to 31 BB 012159 for an amount of Rs.5000/each and having questioned marks as Q 340 to Q 629 as Ex.PW 33/1 to Ex.PW 33/50. He had also proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 31 BB 012180 to 31 BB 012188 for an amount of Rs.5000/each and having questioned marks as Q 630 to Q 683 as Ex.PW 33/51 to Ex.PW 33/59. He had further proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 31 BB 012190 to 31 BB 012199 for an amount of Rs.5000/each and having questioned marks as Q 684 to Q 748 as Ex.PW 33/60 to Ex.PW 33/69. He had proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 31 BB 012100 to 31 BB 012109 for an amount of Rs. 5000/each and having questioned marks as Q 276 to Q 329 as Ex.PW 33/70 to Ex.PW 33/79. He had further proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 35 BB 938103 to 35 BB 938200 for an amount of Rs.5000/each and having questioned marks as Q 1302 to Q 1865 as Ex.PW 17/1 to Ex.Pw 17/98. He had also proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 46 CC 843878 to 46 CC 84388 for an amount of Rs.10,000/each and having questioned marks as Q 944 to Q 987 as Ex.PW 33/80 to Ex.Pw 33/90. He had proved the KVPs bearing Sr. NO. 46 CC 843849 to 46 CC 843857 for an amount of Rs.10,000/each and having questioned marks as Q 909 to Q 943 as Ex.PW 33/91 to Ex.PW 33/99.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 39 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. He had proved the Receipt of Department of Posts bearing questioned writings marked Q17411 which is now Ex.PW33/100; Q17412 which is now Ex.PW33/101; Q17413 which is now Ex.PW33/102; Q17414 which is now Ex.PW33/103; Q17415 which is now Ex.PW33/104; Q17416 which is now Ex.PW33/105; Q17417 which is now Ex.PW33/106; Q1866 & Q1867 which is already Ex.PW17/99; Q17437 which is now Ex.PW33/107; Q17436 which is now Ex.PW33/108; Q17924 which is now Ex.PW33/109; Q987 to Q990 which is now Ex.PW33/110; Q17423 which is now Ex.PW33/111; Q7980 to Q7984 which is already Ex.PW11/F47.
He had proved the Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D64 (markings Q6380 to Q6390) bearing questioned writings marked Q6380 which is Ex.PW33/112; Q6381 which is now Ex.PW33/113; Q6382 which is now Ex.PW33/114; Q6383 which is now Ex.PW33/115; Q6384 which is now Ex.PW33/116; Q6385 which is now Ex.PW33/117; Q6386 which is now Ex.PW33/118; Q6387 which is now Ex.PW33/119; Q6388 which is now Ex.PW33/120; Q6389 which is now Ex.PW33/121; Q6390 which is now Ex.PW33/122; Q6391 which is now Ex.PW33/123; Q6392 which is now Ex.PW33/124. He had further proved the Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D40 & 64 (markings Q6346 to Q6365) bearing questioned writings marked Q6346 & Q6347 which is now CC No. 7/2009 Page 40 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Ex.PW33/125; Q6348 & Q6349 which is now Ex.PW33/126; Q6350 & Q6350A which is now Ex.PW33/127; Q6351 which is now Ex.PW33/128; Q6352 which is now Ex.PW33/129; Q6353 which is now Ex.PW33/130; Q6354 which is now Ex.PW33/131; Q6355 which is now Ex.PW33/132; Q6356 which is now Ex.PW33/133; Q6357 which is now Ex.PW33/134; Q6358 which is now Ex.PW33/135; Q6359 which is now Ex.PW33/136; Q6360 which is now Ex.PW33/137; Q6361 which is now Ex.PW33/138; Q6362 which is now Ex.PW33/139; Q6363 which is now Ex.PW33/140; Q6364 which is now Ex.PW33/141; Q6365, Q6365 A & Q6365 B which is now Ex.PW33/142.
He had proved the Receipt/Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D64 (markings Q6399 to Q6423) bearing questioned writings marked Q6399 which is now Ex.PW33/143; Q6400 which is now Ex.PW33/144; Q6401 which is now Ex.PW33/145; Q6402 which is now Ex.PW33/146; Q6403 which is now Ex.PW33/147; Q6404 which is now Ex.PW33/148; Q6405 which is now Ex.PW33/149; Q6406 which is now Ex.PW33/150; Q6407 which is now Ex.PW33/151; Q6408 which is now Ex.PW33/152; Q6409 which is now Ex.PW33/153; Q6410 which is now Ex.PW33/154; Q6411 which is now Ex.PW33/155; Q6412 which is now Ex.PW33/156; Q6413 which is now Ex.PW33/157; Q6414 which is now CC No. 7/2009 Page 41 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Ex.PW33/158; Q6415 which is now Ex.PW33/159; Q6416 which is now Ex.PW33/160; Q6417 which is now Ex.PW33/161; Q6418 which is now Ex.PW33/162; Q6419 which is now Ex.PW33/163; Q6420 which is now Ex.PW33/164; Q6421 which is now Ex.PW33/165; Q6422 which is now Ex.PW33/166; Q6423 which is now Ex.PW33/167. He had proved the Receipt/Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D64 (markings Q6366 to Q6379) bearing questioned writings marked Q6366 which is now Ex.PW33/168; Q6367 which is now Ex.PW33/169; Q6368 which is now Ex.PW33/170; Q6369 which is now Ex.PW33/171; Q6370 which is now Ex.PW33/172; Q6371 which is now Ex.PW33/173; Q6372 which is now Ex.PW33/174; Q6373 which is now Ex.PW33/175; Q6374 which is now Ex.PW33/176; Q6375 which is now Ex.PW33/177; Q6376 which is now Ex.PW33/178; Q6377 which is now Ex.PW33/179; Q6378 which is now Ex.PW33/180; Q6379 which is now Ex.PW33/181.
PW 33 Dr.R.Sharma had proved the Receipt/Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D64 (markings Q6391 to Q6398) bearing questioned writings marked Q6391 which is now Ex.PW33/182; Q6392 which is now Ex.PW33/183; Q6393 which is now Ex.PW33/184; Q6394 which is now Ex.PW33/185; Q6395 which is now Ex.PW33/186; Q6396 CC No. 7/2009 Page 42 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. which is now Ex.PW33/187; Q6397 which is now Ex.PW33/188; Q6398 which is now Ex.PW33/189.
He had proved the Receipt/Sub Office Daily Accounts in file D24 (markings Q1 to Q274) bearing questioned writings marked Q1 to Q6 which is now Ex.PW33/190; Q7 to Q13 which is now Ex.PW33/191; Q14 to Q19 which is now Ex.PW33/192; Q20 to Q26 which is now Ex.PW33/193; Q27 to Q33 which is now Ex.PW33/194; Q34 to Q39 which is now Ex.PW33/195; Q40 to Q49 which is now Ex.PW33/196; Q50 to Q54 which is now Ex.PW33/197; Q55 to Q64 which is now Ex.PW33/198; Q65 to Q73 which is now Ex.PW33/199; Q74 to Q84 which is now Ex.PW33/200; Q85 to Q95 which is now Ex.PW33/201;Q96 to Q101 which is now Ex.PW33/202; Q102 to Q112 which is now Ex.PW33/203; Q113 to Q120 which is now Ex.PW33/204; Q121 to Q130 which is now Ex.PW33/205; Q131 to Q141 which is now Ex.PW33/206; Q141A, Q142 to Q148 which is now Ex.PW33/207; Q149 to Q158 which is now Ex.PW33/208;Q159to Q167 which is now Ex.PW33/209; Q168 to Q177 which is now Ex.PW33/210; Q178 to Q189 which is now Ex.PW33/211; Q190 to Q195 which is now Ex.PW33/212; Q196 to Q200 which is now Ex.PW33/213; Q201 to Q206 which is now Ex.PW33/214; Q207 to Q210 which is now Ex.PW33/215; Q211 to Q218 which is now Ex.PW33/216;
CC No. 7/2009 Page 43 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Q219 to Q222 which is now Ex.PW33/217; Q223 to Q230 which is now Ex.PW33/218; Q231 to Q236 which is now Ex.PW33/219; Q237 to Q240 which is now Ex.PW33/220; Q241 to Q246 which is now Ex.PW33/221; Q247 to Q252 which is now Ex.PW33/222; Q253 to Q259 which is now Ex.PW33/223; Q260 to Q263 which is now Ex.PW33/224; Q264 to Q267 which is now Ex.PW33/225; Q268 to Q271 which is now Ex.PW33/226; Q272 to Q274 which is now Ex.PW33/227.
PW 34 - SH.NISAR AHMED had stated that he was working as a Receptionist in Burlington Hotel, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow in the year 1999 and he used to maintain the Visitors Register by making entries therein. He had testified that Sh. Ekhlash Nayyar Alvi was the Manager at that time. He had handed over the Visitors Occupancy Register to Inspector V.K.Pandey, CBI on 10.8.1999 vide Seizure Memo which already exhibited as Ex.PW 17/A in ( CC No. 1/10 relating to Post Office, Nirankari Colony) by identifying his signatures at points A and that of Sh.Eklas Nayyar Alvi at point B. He had proved the Visitors Register of Burlington Hotel, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow for the period 4.8.1995 to 1.7.1999 as Ex.PW 17/B ( in CC NO. 1/10). He had further proved the entries in the said Register regarding stay in the Hotel by K.M.Singh R/o J130, Sector9, Vijay Nagar Ghaziabad CC No. 7/2009 Page 44 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. dated 11.1.1996, 23.4.1996, 24.4.1996, 29.7.1996, 15.6.1997, 27.6.1997 and 14.10.1997 and entries stands proved as Ex.PW 17/B1, Ex.PW 17/B2, Ex.PW 17/B3, Ex.PW 17/B4, Ex.PW 17/B 5, Ex.PW 17/B6 and Ex.PW 17/B7 ( in CC No. 1/10).
PW 35 SH.NARESH PRASHAD had deposed that in the year 1999, Bharat took him to the shop of Ramesh, he had carried some articles wrapped in cloth and after reaching at a shop Ramesh Ramania asked him to take out some papers, he did accordingly which were in red colour for this, Bharat gave him Rs.200/as fare.
PW 36 INSPECTOR V.K.PANDEY had deposed that during the year 1999, he was posted as Inspector of Police in SIUIX Branch of CBI at CGO Complex, New Delhi. He was entrusted with an investigation of this case. Initially, he had conducted searches at various places in Delhi. During the course of investigation, he had collected/seized the documents from various departments/persons, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation sanction for prosecution of Govt. officials accused in this case was obtained from the competent authority. All the accused persons were arrested by him during the course of investigation.
He had proved the specimen signature of accused Hari CC No. 7/2009 Page 45 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Narayan Pal @ Neta from S825 to S838 which were taken by Inspector R.L.Yadav of the same branch who was assisting him in this case. The specimen signatures/ handwritings from S825 to S838 already stand Ex.PW 28/B1 to Ex.PW 28/A14. However, specimen signature/ handwriting from S839 to S968 were taken by him. It bears his signature on each sheet thereof at points A and specimen signature/handwritings of accused Hari Narayan Pal from S839 to S968 are collectively marked as Ex.PW 36/A. He had deposed that the specimen signature of accused Satish Kumar from S1127 to S1189 which were taken by him. The specimen signatures/handwritings from S1127 to S1189 are Ex.PW 36/A - 1(collectively) and it bears his signatures at point A on each sheet thereof. He had further deposed that the specimen signature of accused K.M.Singh from S1090 to S1126 which were taken by him. The specimen signatures/handwritings from S1090 to S1126 are Ex.PW 36/A2 (collectively) and it bears his signatures at point A on each sheet thereof. Whereas Inspector R.L.Yadav had obtained the specimen signature/handwritings of accused K.M.Singh from S1110 to S1126 which already stands Ex.PW 28/A1 to Ex.PW 28/A15.
He had proved the Seizure memo dated 8.11.1999 D118 vide which he had seized Ration Card no.878640, Circle 12 issued on 14.7.1997 in the name of Sh.Rohtas Kunwar S/o Sh.Chander Bhan CC No. 7/2009 Page 46 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. R/o RZ 68, Indra Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi from Sh. Chander Bhan. The said seizure memo bears his signature at point A. the same is Ex.PW 36/A3 and the Ration Card already stands Ex.PW 29/A which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 36/A3. He also identify the signature of Sh.Chander Bhan at point B on the said seizure memo. He had proved that Sh.Ravinder Kumar Lal, ASP, Patna Circle had given an undertaking for producing the original documents in the court. The said undertaking D112 is marked as Ex.PW 36/A4 which bears the signature of Sh.Ravinder Kumar Lal at point A. He had also proved the Seizure memo dated 27.10.1999 D113 vide which he had seized photo copies of letter no.F1/V1/9899 dated 31.7.1998 addressed to SHO, PS Mangol Puri by Sh.Alok Pandey, SSPO's Delhi North Division and letter no. F1/V1/9899 dated 31.7.1998 addressed to Sh.S.Chadha, CPMG, Delhi by sh.Alok Pandey. The aforesaid letters were seized from Sh.L.P.Yadav, ASPO's North Division Delhi by him. The said seizure memo is marked as Ex.PW 36/A5. It bears his signature at point A and that of Sh.L.P.Yadav at point B which he identified. The respective letters duly attested as true copy by Sh.L.P.Yadav are marked as Ex.PW 36/A6 and Ex.PW 36/A7. He identified the signature of Sh.L.P.Yadav on both letters at points A. He had proved the seizure memo dated 30.10.1999 vide which he had seized original ACG 67 receipt nos.099, 002, 009 and CC No. 7/2009 Page 47 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. 008 dated 1.8.1998, 3.8.1998, 4.8.1998 and 4.8.1998 respectively from accused O.P.Dabas S/o Sh.Bhagwan Singh R/o House No. 326, Kanjhawala, Delhi. The said seizure memo bears his signature at point A and that of accused O.P.Dabas at points B which he identified. The seizure memo is marked as Ex.PW 36/A8 against the aforesaid receipts which were seized from the accused O.P.Dabas by him, he(O.P.Dabas) had deposited Rs.1,62,000/ at the Civil Lines, Post office, Delhi. The aforesaid ACG67 receipts are marked as Ex.PW 36/A9 to Ex.PW 36/A12. He further proved the letter dated 17.9.1998 D1 which was received in the office of Dr.Tri Nath Mishra, Director, CBI on 24.9.1998. The said letter bears the signature of Dr.Tri Nath Mishra at point A regarding receipt of said letter. The same is Ex.PW 26/A13. The said letter was received by DIG SIC III and it bears the signature of Sh.Ashok Kumar, the then DIG at point B which he identified as he had worked with him and had come across his handwriting/signatures during the course of duties.
He had proved the letters dated 18.5.1999 addressed to the SubPost Master, Machrolli, Post Office, Distt.Rohtak, Haryana (D3) to Controller of Stamps , Central Stamps Depot, Nasik Road, Nasik (D4) to Sr. Suptd. Of Post office, Barellie Division, Barellie (D5), to Post Master HSG, Aizwal (D6) and to Sr. Suptd. Of Post offices Mumbai City, NorthWest Division Mumbai (D7). All bear the CC No. 7/2009 Page 48 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. signatures of Sh.Arun Kumar Gupta, the then Suptd. Of Police which he identified at points A on each page of the said letters as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing during the course of official duties. The same are marked as Ex.PW 36/A14 to Ex.PW 36/A18. He had further proved the letter dated 3.6.1999 (D8), vide which a statement showing the details of KVPs dispatched to various consignors was received by him on 8.6.1999 during the course of investigation. The letter as well as statement is collectively marked as Ex.PW 36/A19 which bears his signatures on endorsement at point X regarding receipt of said letter. He had also proved that he received a letter dated 4.6.1999 (D9) from the Sub Post Master Machrolli on 8.6.1999 by him. The said letter is marked as Ex.PW 36/A20 which bears his signatures on endorsement at point X regarding receipt of said letter. He had further proved a letter dated 28.5.1999 (D10), vide which list of KVPs in question which were not issued by that office was received by him on 14.6.1999 during the course of investigation. The letter as well as list of KVPs is collectively marked as Ex.PW 36/A21 which bears his signatures on endorsement at point X regarding receipt of said letter.
He had proved the letter dated 17.6.1999 (D11) which was received from Sh.M.A.Shingaram, SSP (NorthWest Division) Borivili, Mumbai which bears his endorsement regarding receipt of CC No. 7/2009 Page 49 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. said letter on 24.6.1999 encircled in red at point X. The letter is marked as Ex.PW 36/A22. The letter Ex.PW 36/A22 also bears the hand writing of the then SP Arun Kumar Gutpa at point X1 encircled in red which he identified as he had worked with him and seen him writing and signing. He had also proved the letter dated 31.7.1998 which already stands Ex.PW 19/A (D13) was received during the course of investigation. Similarly, a letter dated 4.8.1998 which already stands Ex.PW 19/B (D14) was also received during the course of investigation. He had proved the seized disclosure statements of accused Daya Ram (D15) and Mahinder Singh Mann (D16) which were recorded by the Investigating officer of PS Mangol Puri. Both are marked Ex.PW 36/A23 and Ex.PW 36/A24.
He had proved a Personal Search Memo dated 24.6.1999 (D17) in respect of accused K.M.Singh which was made after his arrest. The said Personal Search Memo bears his signature at point A and that of accused K.M.SINGH at point B which he identified as he had signed before him. The Personal Search Memo is marked as Ex. PW 36/A25.
He also proved a Personal Search Memo dated 2.7.1999 (D18) in respect of accused Sohan Pal which was made after his arrest. The said Personal Search Memo bears his signature at point A and that of accused Sohan Pal at point B which he identified as he CC No. 7/2009 Page 50 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. had signed before him. The Personal Search Memo is marked as Ex. PW 36/A26.
He had proved that he had seized the Identity Card and Driving Licence of accused Sohan Pal (D19) vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW 36/A26. Both are marked as Ex.PW 36/A27 (collectively). He had proved that he had seized the Identity Card of accused K.M.SINGH (D20) vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW 36/A25. Both are marked as Ex.PW 36/A28.
He had proved the Seizure memo dated 8.11.1999 (D21) vide which he had seized one Ration Card no. 357231 issued by Circle 27 in the name of accused Hari Narayan S/o Sh. Hari Dutt. The Seizure memo bears his signature at point C and the same already stands Ex.PW 14/A and the Ration Card already stands Ex.PW 14/B. He proved a letter dated 15.4.1999 (D22) which was issued under the signatures of Sh.Arun Kumar Gupta the then SP. He identifie his signature at point A as he had worked with him and seen him signing and writing during the official course of duty. The letter is marked Ex.PW 36/A29. He had also proved a letter dated 23.4.1999 (D23) running into two pages which was received from the Sr. Suptd Post Office in response to letter dated 15.4.1999 already marked Ex.PW 36/A29. The said letter was received during the course of investigation and the same is marked as Ex.PW 36/A30. He CC No. 7/2009 Page 51 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. had further proved that he received a letter dated 19.7.2000 (D31) running into 2 pages from the Sr. Suptd. of Post office. The said letter bears his endorsement encircled in Red at point X regarding the receipt of said letter. The letter is marked Ex.PW 36/A31 and further proved a letter dated 17.8.2001 (D143) which was issued under the signature of Smt. S.Sundri Nanda, the then SP. The said letter already stands Ex.PW 16/X. He identified her signature at point A. He had also proved a letter dated 3.2.2001 (D144) already marked as Ex.PW 16/Y was received by Smt. Sunderi Nanda, the then SP.
He had proved that Sh.Devender Kumar, Lala Ram and Nand Kishore got recorded their statements under Section 164 CrPC before Sh.Vinay Kumar Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.9.1999 respectively. The statement of Devender Kumar (D97) running into 5 pages is marked as Ex.PW 36/A32, statement of Nand Kishore (D98) running into 3 pages is marked as Ex.PW 36/A33 and statement of Lala Ram Bharti (D99) running into 4 pages is marked as Ex.PW 36/A34. He had also proved that he had received letters dated 12.7.1999 (D105) and letters dated 13.7.1999 (D106) and letter dated 6.7.1999 (D106). These are collectively marked as Ex.PW 36/A37.
He had proved that accused Satish Kumar voluntarily got recorded his statement under Section 164 CrPC before Sh.Chandra CC No. 7/2009 Page 52 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Bose, MM, Delhi on 19.1.2000. The said statement is running into 5 pages which was recorded by the Ld. MM on 19.1.2000 and is marked as Ex.PW 36/A38. He had proved that he had collected the seal impression of SPM, Bareilly Cantt 243001 (D88) which are marked Ex.PW 36/A39.
He had also proved the Seizure Memo dated 16.1.2000 (D127) vide which he had seized one Maruti Car no. DL 3CF 0838 having Green Colour (originally white) which was owned and driven by accused K.M.Singh from Sh.Ajay Kumar Gautam of M/s Pappu Garage, Mata Colony, Vijay Nagar, Sector 1112 Tiraha, Gazaiabad, UP. The said Seizure memo bears his signature at point A and that of Ajay Kumar Gautam at point B which he identified as he had signed before him. The Seizure memo is Ex.PW 36/A40. He had further proved that on 16.1.2000 itself, the said Car was again handed over vide Superdarinama (D128) to Sh.Ajay Kumar Gautam. The Superdarinama bears his signature at point A and Ajay Kumar Gutam at point B who had signed before him The superdarinama is marked as Ex.PW 36/A41 and further proved that accused K.M.Singh had filed a rejoinder alongwith enclosures (D129) to the reply filed by the CBI. The copy of the same was received by him. The same is marked as Ex.PW 36/A42.
He had proved Seizure Memo D40 which already stands CC No. 7/2009 Page 53 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Ex.PW 16/Q bears his signature at point B and further proved the seizure memo dated 18.3.1999 (D41) vide which he had seized documents mentioned therein from Sh.Y.P.Pandey, Asstt. Suptd of Post offices (North Division), Delhi. The said Seizure memo already stands Ex. PW 18/A and bears his signature at point B and that of Sh.Y.P.Pandey at points A. He had proved the seizure memo marked Ex.Pw 18/A vide which he had seized 16 original statements of Mahender Singh Mann, O.P.Dabas, Satish Kumar and Daya Ram which were recorded by the officers of Postal Department during the course of inquiry conducted by them. The statements of Sh. Mahender Singh Mann (D42) recorded by various officers already stands Ex.PW 15/A, Ex.PW 19/C, Ex.PW 18/B , Ex.PW 18/C, Ex.PW 15/B, Ex.PW 18/D and Ex.PW 18/E. He had further proved the statements of Accused Om Prakash Dabas Ex.PW 15/C, Ex.PW 18/F, Ex.Pw 18/G, Ex.PW 18/H, Ex.PW 18/J, Ex.PW 18/I. Accused O.P.Dabas had also written a letter whereby he had sought permission to deposit Rs.1 Lac. The said letter already stands Ex.PW 19/D. He further proved Statements of accused Satish Kumar already stands Ex.PW 18/K, Ex.PW 15/D, Ex.PW 25/E and Ex.PW 18/L. He also proved the Statement of accused Daya Ram which already stands Ex.PW 15/F and Ex.PW 18/M. He had proved an envelope (D74) which was received from CC No. 7/2009 Page 54 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. the Sub Post Master, Barelliy Cantt and the same is marked Ex.PW 36/A43. He further proved a letter dated 16/28.7.1999 (D68) which was received from the Sr. Suptd. Post offices, (North Division) Delhi by him on 30.7.1999. It bears his signature at point B. the said letter already stands Ex.PW 18/Q. He had proved a letter dated 03.07.1999 (D60) which was written by Sh. Krishan Madan, brother of accused K.M. Singh to the S.P. CBI, SIUIX. The said letter was marked to him by the then S.P. Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta. He identified his signatures on the said letter at point A, as he was well conversant with his signatures and handwriting as he had worked with him and seen him writing and signing. The said letter was marked as Ex. PW36/A44. The aforesaid letter was received in pursuance to a notice issued by him for producing the documents/articles u/s.91 Cr.PC, which already stands exhibited as Ex. PW10/A. He had proved a bunch of papers containing seven pages in respect of sale of car bearing registration no. DL3CF0838 by Hansraj Tyagi to accused K.M. Singh on 05.08.1998. All the seven pages bear the signatures of accused K.M. Singh at points A, which he identified as he had put his signatures before him on 25.01.2000. All the seven pages are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A45.
He had proved a letter dated 27.07.1999, addressed to the CC No. 7/2009 Page 55 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Superintendent of Police, CBI SIUIX (D67), which was received from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, alongwith AnnexuresI & H, regarding list of lost/stolen KVPs paid at Nirankari Colony Post Office, Delhi. The letter alongwith annexures are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A46. It bears his endorsement regarding receipt of said letter alongwith annexures on 28.07.1999 at point A. He had also proved a production memo (D45), vide which an inventory in respect of properties was prepared by him and accused K.M. Singh also produced certain property documents on 27.06.1999. The said production memo running into two pages bear his signatures at point A, and that of accused K.M. Singh at points B, and that of a witness Sh. K.P. Singh at points C. The production memo was marked as Ex. PW36/A47.
He had also stated that he had received a letter alongwith annexures dated 17.04.1999 (D35), which was received from Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi North Division, Delhi110054 and had proved the said letter marked as Ex. PW36/A48. He had further stated that he had received letter from Rajiv Sharma of Varsha Jewellers (D48) regarding purchase of gold jewellery from him by accused K.M. Singh. The said letter was marked as Ex. PW36/A49.
He had proved that an application for transfer of saving CC No. 7/2009 Page 56 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. certificates from one post office to another which was received in respect of KVPs bearing nos.45BB502351 to 45BB502370, having registration no.1634 (D75). The said letter was marked as Ex. PW36/A50. He had stated that he had received a letter on 20.07.1999, from Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi, North Division, alongwith annexures (D66). The said letter bears his endorsement regarding receipt of said letter alongwith annexures encircled with red ink at point A. The same are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A51.
He further stated that accused Satish Kumar had produced a photocopy of receipt no.023, vide which he had deposited Rs. 20,000/ with the Department of Post on 10.08.1998 on account for fraudulent payment against KVPs of Mangol Puri Post Office, A Block, Delhi. The said receipt also bears the handwriting of accused Satish Kumar at its back encircled at point X with red ink. The receipt was marked as Mark 36/PX. He further proved a notesheet showing posting and duties assigned to accused O.P.Dabas was received from the ASP(D) on 28.07.1999. The same is marked as Ex. PW36/A52.
He had further stated that accused Satish Kumar had produced a photocopy of receipt no.021, vide which he had deposited Rs.23,000/ with the Department of Post on 06.08.1998 on account for fraudulent payment against KVPs of Mangol Puri Post Office, A CC No. 7/2009 Page 57 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Block, Delhi. The said receipt also bears the handwriting of accused Satish Kumar at its back encircled at point X with red ink. The receipt is marked as Mark 36/PX1. He had testified that vide letter dated 29.04.1999 (D43), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point A. The same is marked as Ex. PW36/A53.
He had further adduced that accused K.M. Singh had received the original property documents against the Court order dated 11.05.2007. He identified his signatures/ handwriting at points A, on each page thereof, as he had made them in his presence. All these documents are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A54. He had stated that vide letter dated 07.07.1999 (D63), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point B. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW18/B. He had further stated that vide letter dated 12.07.1999 alongwith annexures (D65), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point A. The same is marked as Ex. PW36/A55.
He had proved the signatures of accused Daya Ram from CC No. 7/2009 Page 58 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. S969 to S996, which were taken by him. The specimen signatures/handwriting from S969 to S996, already stands exhibited as Exs. PW7/B1 to Ex. PW7/B28. It bears his signatures at points C, on each sheet thereof. He had further stated that he had seen the specimen signatures of accused O.P. Dabas from S997 to S1036, which were taken by him. The specimen signatures/ handwriting from S997 to S1036, already stands exhibited as Exs. PW7/A1 to Ex. PW7/A40. It bears his signatures at points C, on each sheet thereof. He had proved the specimen signatures of accused Mahender Singh Mann from S1190 to S1239, which were taken by him. The specimen signatures/handwriting from S1190 to S1239, are now marked as Ex. PW36/A56 to PW36/A105. It bears his signatures at points A, on each sheet thereof.
He further proved a seizure memo dated 02.09.1999 (D85), vide which he had seized certain documents mentioned therein from Sh. Dwarka Prasad, SubPostmaster Bareilly Cantt., UP. The said seizure memo bears his signature at point A and that of Sh. Dwarka Prasad at point B, which he identified at point B as he made his signature in his presence. The same is marked as Ex. PW36/A106. He had stated that vide letter dated 06.07.1999 alongwith annexures (D61), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi CC No. 7/2009 Page 59 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point B. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW18/N and further proved that vide letter dated 07.07.1999 alongwith annexures (D62), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point B. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW18/O. He had further stated that vide letter dated 07.07.1999 alongwith annexures (D62), he had received list of original documents from the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North Division, and his endorsement in this respect is encircled in red at point B. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW18/O. He had further proved a seizure memo dated 24.02.1999 (D12), vide which he had seized certain documents mentioned therein from Sh. S.M. Dagar, Inspector of Police, District Crime Cell (N/W), Delhi Police, New Delhi. The said seizure memo bears his signature at point A and that of Inspector S.M. Dagar at point B, which he identify at point B as he made his signatures in his presence. The same is marked as Ex. PW36/A107. He had further proved a carbon copy of FIR No.740/98, PS Mangol Puri, against which CBI FIR No. RC 1(E)99/SIUIX, dated 08.02.1999 was registered. The carbon copy of FIR is marked as Ex. PW36/A108.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 60 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. He had also proved an Inventory Memo dated 27.06.1999 (D44), which was prepared on the basis of certain items available in the premises of accused K.M. Singh at Flat No. G331. The Inventory Memo running into four pages, bear his signature at points A on each page thereof and that of accused K.M. Singh at points B on each page thereof, which he identified. The Inventory Memo is now marked as Ex. PW36/A19.
He had proved a search list, which was prepared by him in pursuance to Section 165 Cr.PC. Vide search list dated 02.07.1999, three blank NC32 Forms alongwith certain other items, as per search list, were seized from the premises of accused Sohan Pal Sharma on 02.07.1999. The search list running into two pages bear his signature at point A on both pages and that of accused Sohan Pal Sharma on both pages, which he identified as he had made his signatures before him on that day. He also identify the signatures of two independent witnesses Sh. Gyaneshwar Singh and Sh. Ishwar Singh at points C & D on both the pages. The search list (D56) is now marked as Ex. PW36/A110, and the NC32 Forms (D58), which were seized on 02.07.1999, in the presence of independent witnesses, he identified the signatures of Sh. Gyaneshwar Singh at points A and that of Ishwar Singh at points B. These are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A111. He had also proved that a letter dated 06.11.1997 of Senior CC No. 7/2009 Page 61 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Superintendent of Post Offices(D26), which was regarding stoppage of fraudulent encashment of KVPs nos. 31BB000001 & 31BB060000. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW7/A and further proved another letter dated 31.07.1998 of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi, North Division (D27), which was received during the course of investigation. The said letter bears the signatures of Sh.Alok Pandey, SSPO's. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW24/A. He had proved a report dated 03.08.1998 (D28), running into three pages was received, which already stands exhibited as Ex.PW24/B and also proved a detail regarding the officials posted in the SubPost Office, Machrauli (D29) and the registration numbers of KVPs was received by him. The said detail already stands exhibited as Ex. PW24/C. He had proved samples of seals of Machrauli SubPost Office was received from SubPostmaster, Machrauli, and the same are marked as Ex. PW36/A112. Similarly, during the course of investigation, details mentioned in Exs. PW24/D & PW24/E were received and also various samples used during the relevant period in Machrauli Post Office was received from SubPostmaster Machrauli. These are collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A113. He had proved the various details regarding encashment of KVPs at Mangol Puri Post Office, A Block, Delhi, issued from Machrauli Post Office, Rohtak, CC No. 7/2009 Page 62 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Haryana, was received from the SubPostmaster, Machrauli, on 03.08.1998. The said detail running into three pages, already stands exhibited as Ex. PW24/F. However, Sh. Hawa Singh, SubPostmaster, Machrauli Post Office, had made an endorsement on the said details that "not issued by this office", encircled in red ink at points X. He had further proved a letter dated 11.08.1998 was received from Sh. Hawa Singh, SubPostmaster (D30), wherein he had informed that as per the office record, the KVPs in question were not issued by the said Post Office i.e. Machrauli. The letter alongwith envelope (D30) is collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A114. He also enclosed a list of KVPs, which were not issued from the said Post Office. The endorsement encircled in red ink on the said details at point X, is now marked as Ex. PW36/A115. He had proved the letters dated 13.08.1998 (D31), 18.08.1998 (D32), 19.08.1998 (D33), were received and these are marked as Exs. PW36/A116, PW36/A117 & PW36/A118 respectively. The letter dated 18.08.1998 (D32) clarifies that no such KVP type and serial number had been issued by that office (Aizwal Post Office) on 27.09.1998.
He had proved that an enquiry report in case of fraudulent payments of lost/stolen KVPs at Mangol Puri, A Block Post Office, Delhi(D34), was received. The said enquiry report running into 15 pages is collectively marked as Ex. PW36/A119 and further proved an CC No. 7/2009 Page 63 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. application for transfer of saving certificates from one post office to another (D73) was received in respect of NSCs mentioned therein, which is now marked as Ex. PW36/A120. He had proved the the original FIR dated 08.02.1999 in RC1E/99, which already stands exhibited as Ex. PW16/Z in CC no.13/08. He identified the signatures of the then S.P. SIU(IX)/New Delhi, Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta at point A, as he was conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta being his senior officer. The photocopy of the said original FIR is now Ex. PW36/A121.
He had further stated that he had sent a letter dated 12.12.2010 under the signature of S.P. CBI Smt.S.Sundari Nanda, whose signatures he identified at point A as he was conversant with her handwriting and signatures, for obtaining the expert opinion. The said letter already stands exhibited as Ex. PW16/T in CC no.13/08. He had obtained expert opinion on the questioned documents against the accused persons. The GEQD opinion already stands exhibited as Ex. PW15/1 in CC no.13/08 and the reasons of expert already stands exhibited as Ex. PW15/3 in CC No.13/08.
He had deposed that that he had obtained the sanction for prosecution against accused Sohan Pal Sharma from the competent authority. The said sanction order already stands exhibited as Ex. PW4/A, against accused Mahender Singh Mann, Daya Ram & Satish CC No. 7/2009 Page 64 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Kumar, which already stands exhibited as Ex. PW2/1, against accused K.M. Singh & O.P. Dabas, which already stands exhibited as Ex. PW5/1 and after completion of investigation, he submitted the chargesheet against the accused persons, mentioned therein.
After concluding the prosecution evidence, all the accused persons were examined u/s 313 CrPC to which they denied entire incriminating evidence against hem. It is stated that nothing recovered from their possession or at their instance and their signatures had been obtained on blank papers by putting pressure upon them. It is further stated that they had no nexus with the commission of offence, thus, they are totally innocent. In defence accused persons did not lead any evidence.
On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, it is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor Sh. Amrit Pal Singh for CBI that the evidence produced by the prosecution is wholly reliable to establish its case against the accused persons for the charges framed against them and they be convicted for the said offences.
Now I taken up the case of each accused separately as under : CC No. 7/2009 Page 65 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Evidence qua accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A9) Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that PW6 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar has testified that from 1995 to 2000 he was running the firm M/s Data Pro Service at Rajender Place and that accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal had come to his shop requesting him for designing a few designs of various post offices for the Post Office Department. He testified that they gave rough sketch for preparing the designs of the stamps and that he charged about Rs.200/ to Rs. 250/ and he prepared designs and handed over the same on next date. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the statement of the accused Mahender Singh Mann (accused since expired), who in departmental inquiry has stated the name of K. M. Singh. It is argued by Sh. Hamid Ansari, adv. for the accused persons that accused K. M. Singh had been acquitted in one case and he has been discharged in another case on the same grounds and the only evidence against him was the similar evidence of Sunil Krishan Nagar. It is argued that Sh. Amar Nath, Ld. Special Judge did not find this evidence sufficient to connect the accused with the present office.
On the other hand Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that additional evidence has come in this case in form of the statement Ex.PW18/B of Mahender Singh Mann, which he had made before the CC No. 7/2009 Page 66 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Inquiry Officer in Departmental Inquiry. It is submitted that in this statement he had stated that accused K. M. Singh PA works in Jagpura Post Office and he and Pal (Neta) and Harish and accused Daya Ram came to him in a Maruti Car and got the payment of Rs.81,000/ from him. It is argued that this statement proves beyond doubt that accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal were fully involved in the present crime.
I have carefully considered the evidence of PW6 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar. In this statement, it is not clear as to in which year accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal had got the stamps prepared. Although the evidence of this witness shows that accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal got the some stamps prepared but the prosecution was bound to prove that the said stamps were the same stamps, which were used in the present offence. The evidence in this regard is not forthcoming. The offence was committed in the year 1998. It is not clear from the evidence of PW6 as to in which year accused K. M. Singh got the stamps prepared from PW6. So far as the statement Ex.PW18/B of Mahender Singh Mann is concerned, I am of the opinion that it is well settled law that the confession of the co accused is a weak type of evidence and it should be used as a supporting/corroborative evidence only, if the substantial evidence against the accused is forthcoming. The only evidence against CC No. 7/2009 Page 67 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal is that they got some postal stamps prepared and the confession/statement of co accused Mahender Singh Mann in the Departmental Inquiry and recovery of some NC 32 forms from his Zen Car. I have already stated that the statement/confession of the co accused should be used against the accused only if a very substantial evidence/circumstances are brought on record against the accused. The testimony of PW6 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar, though creates a grave suspicion on the conduct of accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal but this simple evidence is not enough to connect these accused persons with the crime. Therefore I give benefit of doubt to accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal and acquit them.
Evidence qua Sohan Pal Sharma/Panditji (A2) It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen hand writing of accused Sohan Pal Singh Sharma was taken by the Investigating Officer without the permission of the Magistrate and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence against him. I am of the opinion that there were divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench of Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra and Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. CC No. 7/2009 Page 68 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench in its decision dated 30.9.2011, clearly held that the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the Magistrate. In view of this law, this court would discus the evidence on record against Sohan Pal Sharma (A2). PW4 Sh. B. D. L. Srivastava Singh, Superintendent Post Office proved the sanction order dated 21.8.2001 vide which he had accorded sanction for prosecution of this accused, who was working as Sorting Assistant in New Delhi Sorting Devision. The charge against this accused is that he had forged the stolen KVPs Ex.PW33/1 to 79 by personating as Ram Singh. This accused has stated that in a statement under Section 313 CrPC that his specimen signatures were obtained on blank paper by pressurizing him. However there is CC No. 7/2009 Page 69 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. nothing on record to prove this fact. I have already stated that the Investigating Officer is fully competent to take such specimen hand writing even without the permission of the Magistrate. The testimony of PW33 Dr. R. Sharma would show that the specimen signatures of all the accused persons had been taken but the hand writing/signatures on the KVPs tallied only with accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) and Rohatsh (since convicted). I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this expert. It is argues by Ld. Public Prosecutor that had there been any chance to manipulate and falsely implicate the accused persons, the Investigating Officer could also have created false evidence against the other accused persons also. I find substance in the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that solely on the basis of evidence of hand writing expert, accused should not be convicted. I am of the opinion that this cannot be a general view rather this aspect should be seen on the case to case basis. In the present case the Investigating Officer had taken large number of specimen hand writing/signatures giving a wide range of his hand writing to be compared with the questioned documents. In such circumstances the expert's opinion, which is connecting the accused with the questioned hand writing/signatures cannot be doubted. Nothing has come in cross examination to assail his testimony. Accused also did not examine any CC No. 7/2009 Page 70 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. hand writing expert in his defence to disprove the prosecution case. Therefore to my mind, the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that he was part of conspiracy and had impersonated as holders of KVPs by forging the signatures. I have perused the expert's report Ex.PW15/A relevant pages are the second paragraph of page 8 to the end of page
16. The report clearly shows that the hand writing and the signatures on the back of the KVPs under the column receipt of discharge have been written by accused Sohan Pal Sharma. Tallying of such a large numbers of hand writing with the specimen hand writing of this accused leaves me in no doubt that these KVPs have been forged by this accused. Hence I convict the accused Sohan Pal Sharma under Section 419/420/467 & 471 IPC as well as under Section 120B IPC for commission of the aforesaid offences.
Accused No.3 Rohtash (A3) He has already been convicted on 11.10.2010.
Accused No.4 Mahender Singh Mann and A8 Harish Chander have already expired.
Accused O. P. Dabas (A5) The charge against him is that he released an amount of Rs.1,62,000/ on the forged KVPs to a fake person. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for this accused that the forged/stolen KVPs were presented in the Post Ofice before he had joined the Post Office. It is submitted CC No. 7/2009 Page 71 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. that his predecessor had sent the form NC 32, which was sent to Bareilly Cantt, Post Office on 18.5.1998. It is submitted that the said NC 32 was duly verified by Bareilly Cantt, Post Office and sent to Post Office Mangol Puri under a register cover (D74). It is stated that on receipt of NC 32, having been duly verified, he was duty bound to make payment to the holder namely Vijender after tallying the signatures of the claimant. It is stated by him in a statement under Section 313 CrPC that practice of tallying the signatures is quite prevalent and it is being followed in all the Post Offices and that this practice was not questioned by any Postal Authority at all uptill now and that the said payment later on turned out to be wrong payment to the said Vijender, who turned out to be a fake person. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel that he never received any circular mentioning the numbers of the stolen KVPs. It is pertinent to note that PW1 has given the procedure in his testimony. PW1, in his testimony, he stated that "after discharge of the certificate with payment, three copies of discharge general are prepared, out of which two are sent to Head Office and one is retained in the concerned Post Office". He further stated that after discharge of the certificate, intimation used to be sent to the issuing post office by form NC 10 about the discharge of the certificate. He also stated that it was obligatory to verify from the list of stolen KVPs before encashment of any KVPs. However he stated CC No. 7/2009 Page 72 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. that it was very difficult to do so in practice. On court question this witness stated as to how form NC 10 was issued to Post Office, the witness informed that it was done in duplicate by register post.
Ld. Defence Counsel for has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW36 Sh. V. K. Pandey has stated that during the course of investigation an envelope D74 Ex.PW36/A43 was seized. I have seen this letter which is purported to have been sent by Sub Post Master, Bareilly Cantt and is addressed to Post Master, Mangol Puri. The accused has drawn my attention to a seizure memo a document D68 in which there is one letter/form NC32 from the Post Office, Bareilly Cantt to the Post Master Mangol Puri verifying the KVPS no. 46 CC 845878 to 46 CC 843887 in which the relating KVPS dated 18.2.1994 had been issued. It is argued that the holders of these KVPs had cheated the Post Office by impersonation but the accused O. P. Dabas was not in conspiracy with the accused persons and that he encashed the KVPs only after the same were verified by Bareilly Post Office and after tallying the signatures of the holder.
Ld. Public Prosecutor however argues that this accused has not explained as to why he did not send the copy of the discharge certificate to the Head Office and why he did not send the intimation of such discharge by form NC 10 to the Post Office from which the same purported to have been issued. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn CC No. 7/2009 Page 73 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. my attention to the fact that the KVPs were stolen & were never issued from Bareilly Post Office. In view of the above stated circumstances I had put further questions under Section 313 CrPC on the dates 7.10.2011 and 14.10.2011, which are reproduced as under : Further statement of accused O. P. Dabas S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh R/o 326, Vill. & PO Khanjhawal, Delhi81 under Section 313 CrPC. Without Oath.
Q1. You have stated in your previous statement under Section 313 CrPC that you have compared the signatures after tallying the signatures of the claimant. However you have not stated as to from which signatures you had tallied the signatures on the KVPs.?
Ans. I had tallied the signatures on KVPs purported to have been signed by one Vijender Singh from the signatures, appearing on the original NC32 and the photo copy of that original NC32 shows his signatures at point A, which is now exhibited as Ex.J1 in D12. This photo copy was not there at the time when I made the payment. Since the said signatures had been verified by the previous post master, therefore I tallied the signatures on KVPs with the signatures on original Form NC32 Ex.J1.
Q2. Please see the signatures at point A on Ex.J1 and compare it with the signatures on the KVPs. Whether, as per your own observations, same tally with each other or not?
Ans. I have seen these signatures and the same tally with each other.
Q3. You have drawn the attention of this court to photo copy of Form NC32, which was seized by the Investigating Officer of PS Mangol Puri and was further taken in possession by CBI. You have CC No. 7/2009 Page 74 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. stated in your statement under Section 313 CrPC that you had released the cash because Form N32 was duly verified from Bareli Cant Post Office under the register cover D74. Can you tell as to whether is the original NC32?
Ans. I cannot say anything about it but the original must be with the Post Office.
Q4. I draw your attention to Rule 23(9) of the Post Office Saving Bank Manual VolumeII wherein it is stated that in all case in which a certificate is encashed at any office other than the office of registration, the advice of payment (NC10) should be sent to the office of registration. Whether you sent Form NC10 in this regard to the Post Office Bareli Cant from where these KVPs were purported to have been issued?
Ans. I had not sent NC10 to Bareli Cant Post Office because it is only sent when identify slip is issued by the Issuing Post Office. When such identity slip is not issued and Form NC32 is sent for verification, in that case, if the KVPs are verified on Form NC32 by the Issuing Post Office, Form 10 is not sent and the Rule 32(9) would not be applicable.
Q5. Can you cite any rule in support of your above stated submissions?
Ans. I need some time to peruse the rules and sometime may be given to me to answer this question.
Request allowed.
RO & AC (VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBIII Rohini/7.10.2011 CC No. 7/2009 Page 75 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Further statement in continuation of statement dt. 07.10.2011 of accused O.P. Dabas, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh u/s 313 CrPC Without oath Q In reference to the question no. 4 and its answer given by you on last date i.e. 07.10.2011, can you cite any rule in support of your said answer? A It is stated that the provisions of Rule 23 as given in question no. 4 above, is not relevant because it was not a case where identity slip was issued by the transferee post office. In this case, it is the case of transfer of certificate to the post office other than the issuing post office where it is treated as a new purchase of the certificate and the procedure given in Rule no. 37 of the book is relevant. The relevant portion of Rule No. 37 (5) is as under:
"The office to which the certificate has been transferred will number the application for transfer in a separate series maintained for the purpose immediately on receipt. The application for transfer will be treated in the new office in every respect like an application for purchase. An intimation shall be sent to the holder on the address given in the application for transfer (Form NC32)informing him of the transfer and requesting him to present the certificate at the post office for proper endorsement of transfer etc. thereon. When the certificate is presented a remark "Transferred to the Books of........... office and registered under No....." will be recorded on the certificate under the dated signature of the Postmaster and the certificate stamped with the date stamp of the office."
Q Do you want to say anything else?
CC No. 7/2009 Page 76 / 89
CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc.
A I remained posted as Sub Post Master in Mangol Puri A Block Post
Office from 27.05.1998 to 31.07.1998 for a very short time. I myself reported to Senior Superintendent of Post Office on 31.07.1998 that a wrong payment has been made by me.
RO & AC VINOD KUMAR
SPL. JUDGE : CBIII
ROHINI : DELHI
14.10.2011
The defence of the accused that when ever form NC32 has been verified by the Issuing Post Office, form NC10 is not required to be sent, is without any merit. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC he has referred to Rule No. 37(5) of the Post Office Manual VolumeII. This provision only deals with the transfer of certificate from one Post Office to another Post Office. Rule 37(5) is not concerned with the question of encashment of KVPs, which is squarely dealt with under a specific head "encashment of certificate"
and Rule 23(9) is very specific and the same is reproduced as under : "(9) - In all cases in which a certificate is encashed at any office other than the office of registration an advice of payment (NC10) should not be sent to the office of registration vide Rule 7".
Therefore, to say that NC10 is not required to be sent is not correct. It is pertinent to note that PW1 has also specifically CC No. 7/2009 Page 77 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. testified about the requirement of sending NC10 in such cases to the Issuing Post Office and the accused O. P. Dabas has not led any evidence to show, any rule or practice contrary to it.
Although this accused had been unable to satisfactorily explain the circumstances put again him but at the same time as an abundant caution this court will have to rule out as to whether this accused acted bonafidely without having sufficient knowledge of rules etc. Only then it can be determined as to whether he had had abused his powers within the purview of 13(1)(d) II of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In his statement dated 7.10.2011 this accused has stated that he had tallied the signatures of KVPs with the signatures on form NC 32. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC dated 1.3.2004 in answer to the question no. 178, this accused stated that the said NC32 form was duly verified from Bareilly Cantt Post Office under register cover (D74). If this defence of the accused is taken to be true, it should mean that the date of release/encashment should be after receipt of the registered cover (D74) in Mangol Puri Post Office, where this accused was posted. Ex.PW33/109 shows that accused had given the number of discharge as 739 and encashed the relevant KVPs on 10.6.1998. A perusal of (D74), which is an envelope Ex.PW36/A, shows that this letter purports to have been sent by Sub Post Master, Bareilly Cantt Post Office to Post Master, Mangol Puri, A CC No. 7/2009 Page 78 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Block, Delhi. As per accused this envelope contained verified NC32. The back side of this envelope bears a stamp of Bareilly Cantt having a date 12.6.1998. Therefore this letter could not have reached the Post Office, Mangol Puri before 12.6.1998, whereas as per Ex.PW33/109, the KVPs were encahsed on 10.6.1998 by accused O. P. Dabas, which was admittedly prepared by him. Therefore the defence of accused O. P. Dabas that he had verified the signatures of KVPs after verifying the NC form 32, which was received in register envelope (D74) is patently false. Further more he did not send NC 10 to the Bareilly Cantt after such discharge of KVPs. The only inference that can be drawn from this omission would be that accused knew that the KVPs were forged, because otherwise, the concerned persons at Bareilly Cantt Post Office would have come to know about the fraud. I may point out that Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that the signatures of holder on KVPs do not tally with the signatures of the holder on photocopy of NC32. I have perused these signatures. Though the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor are very substantial but since the original NC32 is not on judicial file, it would not be appropriate to press this point against the accused.
Therefore I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused O. P. Dabas (A5) under Section 13(1)(d) II of Prevention of Corruption Act as well as he was in CC No. 7/2009 Page 79 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. conspiracy with the other co accused persons in commission of the offence and accordingly I convict him under Section 120 IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471 & 409 IPC. I also convict him for substantial offence under Section 409 IPC.
Accused Satish Kumar (A6) The charge against accused Satish Kumar is that he was part of conspiracy in the cheating, forgery etc. and that being part of this conspiracy he misused his official position as a public servant to obtain pecuniary advantage for accused Sohan Pal Sharma, who impersonated as Ram Singh for encashment of the stolen KVPs no. 31 VV 012100 to 31 VV 0d121119 and that he misappropriate the Government money being in conspiracy with other offenders. Accused had made a statement under Section 164 CrPC stating all the circumstances. In statement under Section 313 CrPC he stated that he has been exonerated in the domestic inquiry conducted by the department. In his statement under Section 164 CrpC he stated that he was cheated by Daya Ram and Mahender Singh Mann. He further stated that he was working in In Ashok Vihar as Post Officer upto February 1998 and he was posted as Sub Post Master in the Post Office situated in ABlock, Mangol Puri from 1.3.1998. He stated that he objected to his posting as Sub Post Master on the ground that in his service book it has been mentioned that he should not be posted Sub CC No. 7/2009 Page 80 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Post Master being the Incharge of the Post Office and that he should not be posted on cash counter as mentioned in his service book. It is stated that despite his objection he was posted as Sub Post Master in ABlock, Mangol Puri, Post Office. He stated that he was posted in this office only for 2 or 3 days. He took the charge from Mahender Singh Mann, who was working as Sub Post Master. He stated that Mahender Singh Mann asked him to prepare indent for Rs.5 lacs as payment to the public persons, which will be made tomorrow regarding the encashment of KVPs. He stated that he refused to do so for such indent of huge amount because there was no security in the Post Office but Mahender Singh Mann and Daya Ram influenced and persuaded him to do so. He stated that he and Mahender Singh Man jointly signed for indent for Rs.5 lacs in daily account of the office. He stated that he remained concerned at his home and even could not sleep because it was such a large amount and anything could had happened. He stated that about 5:00 am next day morning, he telephoned his Head Office, Ashok Vihar, which was received by cashier Har Prasad and asked him not sign any amount of money regarding which the indent of Rs.5 lacs had been sent. He stated that the next date at about 11:00 am Mahender Singh Mann and Daya Ram and one another person came to the office and asked him as to whether the cash amount had come from Head Office. He told him CC No. 7/2009 Page 81 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. that no money had been received from Head Quarter. It is further testified that accused Mahender Singh Mann showed him KVPs numbering from 31 VV 2012100 to 31 VV 012 and asked for payment to the person, who was with him. He stated that Mahender Singh Man also verified the identity of the said persons as Ram Singh. It is stated that Ram singh had stated that his father was seriously ill and he requires money urgently. He stated that accused Daya Ram is also involved for preparing the indent and this is how he made the payment of Rs.1,62,000/. He stated that he was not aware if there was a circular of lost KVPs and that he came to know about it only after his suspicion. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that witness has nowhere proved these facts in his defence. Rather his statement shows that not only he himself that accused Daya Ram was also fully involved in this crime.
It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that the defence given by this accused itself shows that he had acted in collusion with Mahender Singh Man. He has stated that he and Mahender Singh Man had jointly signed for the indent of Rs.5 lacs and that at the asking of Mahender Singh Man and Daya Ram he made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ because Mahender Singh Man had verified the identity of Ram Singh.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 82 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. I have considered the rival contentions. It is stated by Satish Kumar that he had verified the signatures on the identity slip. In answer to question no. 150, this accused had stated that he had made the payment on the basis of identity slip and after comparing the signatures. No identity slip has been shown by the accused with which he had compared the signatures. This accused also did not send form NC 10 after the payment. His own statement under Section 164 CrPC implicates him into the crime. He has not proved that he has been exonerated by the department. He has not produced his service book to prove that he is highly inefficient to carry out the job of concerning cash. As per his own statement, he remained in the office for 2 or 3 days. In such a short time why he released the money indiscriminately is not understandable. The only reason is that he had dishonest intentions and he was mixed with the other accused persons. Therefore I also convict him under Section 13(2) of Prevenion of Corruption Act and under Section 120B IPC read with Section 412/420/467/471/409 IPC. I also convict him for substantial offence under Section 409 IPC. These facts and circumstances clearly prove that accused had not only abused his position as public servant but he was also in conspiracy with the other accused persons. Accused Daya Ram (A7) The only evidence against him is that he made the CC No. 7/2009 Page 83 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. statement before the inquiry officer at the stage of departmental inquiry that in one case of KVPs he would given the details after joining the duties. This statement is Ex.PW15/F but when subsequently he made detailed statement Ex.PW18/A in which he stated that on 4.3.1998 he was on duty and he along with Mahender Singh Man did not go to Mangol Puri Post Office, nor he asked Satish Kumar to make payment of the KVPs no. 31 BB 012100 and 012119 on the basis of identity slip nor he gave any oral identification. It is argued by Ld. Public Prosecutor that he has not explained as to under what circumstances he had made the first statement Ex.PW15/F. I have perused the statement under Section 164 CrPC Ex.PW36/A of Satish Kumar. In this statement the main allegation is against accused Mahender Singh Man and there is only one passing reference of Daya Ram that he was also involved in persuading him for preparing the indent of Rs.1.50 lacs and when the payment of Rs. 1,62,000/ was made, Mahender singh Man and Daya Ram were also present. Therefore the statement under Section 164 CrPC is not very strong implicating Daya Ram. If the statement Ex.PW15/A is read carefully, it does not make it clear that as to what identification he had given and whose identification he had given. Therefore I give benefit of doubt to accused Daya Ram and acquit him.
In view of above discussions accused K. M. Singh (A1), CC No. 7/2009 Page 84 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Daya Ram (A7) and H. N. Pal (A9) stand acquitted. Whereas accused O. P. Dabas (A5) and Satish Kumar (A6) stand convicted under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Both of them are also convicted under Section 409 IPC individually. Both of them are further convicted under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/469/409 IPC.
Accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) is convicted for the substantial offences under Section 419/420/467/471 IPC as well as under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471/409 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 18.10.2011.
(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBIII Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 7/2009 Page 85 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR SPL. JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)II, ROHINI, DELHI RC No. S19/1999/E0001/SIUIX CC No. 7/2009 C B I Vs 1. Sohan Pal Sharma S/o Sh. Deep Chand R/o D74, Gagan Vihar, Delhi94.
2. O. P. Dabas S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh R/o 326, Vill. & PO Khanjhawal, Delhi81.
3. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Mahar Singh R/o House No. F176, Village Katwaria Sarai, Harijan Basti,New Delhi16.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 20.10.2011 Present : Sh. Amrit Pal Singh, Ld. P. P. for CBI.
Convict Sohan Pal Sharma on bail with counsel Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv.
Convict O. P. Dabas on bail with counsel Sh. Manish Nayar, adv.
Convict Satish Kumar on bail.
Arguments on sentence have been heard. I sentence the convicts as under :
1. Sohan Pal Sharma
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under CC No. 7/2009 Page 86 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Section 419 IPC.
(ii)To undergo simple imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/ under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/ under Section 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(iv)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/ under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
(v)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine in the sum of Rs.10,000/ under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
2. O. P. Dabas and Satish Kumar It is argued by Ld. Counsel for convict O. P. Dabas that a lenient view should be taken as he has deposited the entire amount in the Post Office soon after the detection of the crime. It is further argued CC No. 7/2009 Page 87 / 89 CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. by Ld. Counsel that convict Satish Kumar had also deposited Rs. 43,000/ in the Post office and he undertakes that within one week he shall deposit Rs.80,000/, which is the balance amount in the Post Office and that therefore a lenient view may be taken while sentencing them.
Considering the fact that convict O. P. Dabas had deposited the entire misappropriated amount in the Post Office and convict Satish Kumar had deposited such amount partly in the Post Office and he has undertaken to deposit the balance amount within seven day in the Post office. I take a lenient view against both the convicts while sentencing and I sentence them as under :
(i) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(ii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 409 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iii)To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ each under Section 120B IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
CC No. 7/2009 Page 88 / 89CBI Vs Krishan Madhawa Singh etc. Apart from this convict Satish Kumar shall deposit Rs.80,000/, which is the balance amount to the Post Office within seven days. In default he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
All the sentences against all the accused persons shall run concurrently. Benefit under Section 428 CrPC may be given to them if they have remained in jail earlier in this case during the trial. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 20.10.2011.
(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBIII Rohini Courts, Delhi CC No. 7/2009 Page 89 / 89