Delhi District Court
Cbi vs [1. R.K. Bajpai on 29 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI
Corruption Case No. 21/01
RC No. 1(A)/98/CBI/ACUI/ND
CBI Vs [1. R.K. Bajpai
S/o Late Sh. Vyas Narayan Bajpai, Senior
Accounts Officer ( Retd.) O/o the
Controller of Defence Accounts ( HQ),
New Delhi,
R/o D12, Wilson Square, Udyan Marg,
Gole Market, New Delhi.]
[2. H.L. Gulati S/o Sh. Chaganda Gulati,
Senior Accounts Officer, O/o DCDA, COD,
Delhi Cantt.,
R/o 758, Sec3, R.K. Puram, New Delhi.]
[3. Stephen George S/o Late Shri George,
Asstt. Accounts Officer, O/o the DCDA
(AF) Subroto Park, Delhi Cantt.,
R/o Flat no. 50C Block DB, LIG Flats, G8
area, Hari Nagar Clock Tower, New
Delhi64.]
[4. N.D. Nautiyal S/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam
Nautiyal, Clerk ( Retd.), O/o Controller of
Defence Accounts ( HQ), New Delhi. R/o
B2/75, Sewak Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.]
CC No.21/01 1 of 96
2
[5. P.R. Suman S/o Sh. Lahori Ram, Senior
Auditor, O/o ALAO, 509, Army Base
Workshop, Agra, R/o Vill. & PO
Arooki, Distt. Mathura.]
[6. S.B. Sharma S/o Sh. Subrahmanyam
Sharma, Senior Auditor, O/o CGDA
( Training), Brar Square, Delhi
Cantt. R/o 1904, Lodhi Road
Complex, New Delhi. ]
[7. T.P. Venugopalan s/o Late Sh.
Narayana Menon, Senior Accounts
officer ( retd.) O/o CGDA, New
Delhi, R/o Flat no. 55, Type IV,
NorthWest, Moti Bagh, New Delhi.]
[8. J.C. Sharma S/o Late Sh. Diwan
Chand Sharma, Asstt. Accounts
Officer, O/o CDA ( Air Force), R.K.
Puram, New Delhi, R/o 179,
Subhash Puri, Kankarkhera, Meerut
Cantt. ]
[9. J.B. Gupta S/o late Sh. Balwant Rai,
Senior Auditor, O/o LAO (CVD),
Delhi Cantt., R/o 3368/6, Gali No.
2, Raghor Pura No.2, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi31.]
(A1 to A9 were discharged vide
order on charge dated 08.09.05)
CC No.21/01 2 of 96
3
10. Lt. Col. (retd.) P.R.S. Rao S/o late
Sh. Pakki Surya Prakash Rao, Dy.
Director Ordnance Services, O/o
DDGOS ( I & BC Section), New
Delhi ( retired), R/o 53, Vijay Puri,
ECIL Post, Secunderabad, A.P.
11. Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal S/o late
Col. (retd.) R.S. Uppal, R/o K2,
Green Park Extn., New Delhi.
12. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. P.D.
Sharma, Asstt. Audit Officer, O/o
the Director General of Audit
( Defence Services), LII Block
Brassey Avenue, New Delhi1, R/o
864, Sector 37, Noida.
Date of Institution : 24.04.2001
Arguments concluded on : 07.10.2013
Date of judgment : 22.10.2013
JUDGMENT:
1. Initially, the chargesheet was filed against 12 accused persons. A1, R.K. Bajpai, A2 H.L. Gulati, A3, Stephen George, A4, N.D. Nautiyal, A5, P.R. Suman, A6, S.B. Sharma, were posted in the MSection of Controller of Defence Accounts( CDA) ( HQ), New Delhi during the year CC No.21/01 3 of 96 4 199495. A1, R.K. Bajpai and A2 H.L. Gulati, were working as Senior Accounts Officers, A3, Stephen George, being the the Assistant Accounts Officer, A4, N.D. Nautiyal, as Clerk and A5, P.R. Suman & A6, S.B. Sharma, as Senior Auditors in the Office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi.
2. A7, T.T. Venugopalan, A8, J.C. Sharma and A9 J.B. Gupta, were officials in the office of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi, during the year 1997.
3. The facts are that MSection of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi, was authorized only to process and pass contingent and miscellaneous bills, after proper verification and functions of the office of the Controller of Defence Accounts ( HQ), New Delhi, was to make payments to suppliers/contractors for the supplies made by the suppliers and jobs undertaken by the contractors etc. on the basis of bills drawn by them, as per codified procedures. There were different sections in the office of Controller of Defence Accounts ( HQ), New Delhi, authorised to deal with different types of bills and MSection of the office of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi, had nothing to do in respect of processing of bills against supplies made to any of CC No.21/01 4 of 96 5 the Units/Departments of Ministry of defence.
4. The case is relating to payment of Rs.8,18,05,575/ during the year 1994 to 1997, as fraudulently and dishonestly payments were made against 20 bogus and forged bills for which no supply was made, and bogus and forged bills were passed in connivance with officials of the office of the CDA (HQ), New Delhi.
5. As per the allegations, A11 Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, had been operating under an assumed name of Anil Kumar Rane, and had submitted those bogus and forged bills in connivance with other accused persons including A10 Lt. Col. (retd.) P.R. S. Rao , who was posted as Deputy Director in the office of Deputy Director General of Ordnance Services ( I & BC Section), New Delhi, during the year 199495. A11 Capt. (retd.) I.B.S.Uppal, in the assumed name of Anil Kumar Rane, as proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, New Delhi, submitted 3 bills during the year 199495 against the supplies purported to have been made by the concerned firm to I & BC Section and GS & C Section of the office of the Deputy Director General Ordnance Services, ( DDGOS), New CC No.21/01 5 of 96 6 Delhi. The function of I &BC Section of the office of DDGOS, was to control inventory and budget of the Ministry of Defence, whereas the function of Unit GS & C Section, i.e. General Stores & Clothes Sections, was to make purchases which were restricted to clothing and general items required for Indian Army. However, GS & C Section, was not to draw any bill for the purchases made by it, and the bills were to be drawn by the concerned depots, who were the consigness of the stores, on the purchase orders placed by GS & C Section. Bills were to be directly sent by the depot authorities to the Controller of Defence Accounts, along with the documents for payments.
6. The allegations as per the chargesheet, are that 3 bills in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, New Delhi, submitted in year 199495 being Bill Nos. (i) C/00080/I & T/OS28/07, (ii) C/4508/PII/GS/OS/94, (iii) C/4508/P II/IN/GS/OS/9495, were directly forwarded by A10 Lt. Col. (Retd.) P.R. S. Rao, as contingent bills, under his own signatures in his capacity as Deputy Director of Ordnance Services, I & BC Section, New Delhi. The 3 bills were CC No.21/01 6 of 96 7 processed and passed for payment by A1, A3, A4 & A5 of MSection of the office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi. As per the allegations, the documents enclosed with the 3 bills submitted by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, were forged and bogus documents and even the sanction for the concerned purchases, were all forged documents. It was alleged that the officials/officers of CDA ( HQ),New Delhi, did not verify the sanction orders, other documents and signatures of the authorised signatories, as per the procedure and bills were passed in an illegal manner for payment of Rs.53,79,990/ on 17.11.1994, for Rs.48,49,990/ on 10.01.1995 and for Rs. 82,79,990/ on 08.02.95.
7. However, as per the allegations, payments were made against the said 3 bills in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, New Delhi, vide cheque nos. 327234, 333133 and 336460, which were got deposited by A11 Capt. (retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in the current account number 6075 in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises in Hongkong Bank, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, which was opened by him on 08.11.1994, mentioning the name of proprietor of the firm, as Anil Kumar CC No.21/01 7 of 96 8 Rane, further alleging that the account was in fact opened and operated, all through by him. In this way, a loss of Rs. 1,85,09,970/, was caused to the Government of India, during October, 1994 to February 1995,
8. Again, during year 19941995, seven more bogus bills were received in the office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi, having been drawn by A11 Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in his assumed and fictitious name as Anil Kumar Rane, being Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises. Concerned seven bills of M/s Rishi Enterprises are as follows:
(i) C/00080/OS28/04
dated 03.05.94 for Rs. 2,49,600/
(ii) C/00080/OS28/05
dated 26.05.94 for Rs. 18,00,000/
(iii) C/4508/PII/55/OS/94
dated 15.09. 94 for Rs. 87,50,000/
(iv) C/4508/PII/INT/GS/OS/94
dated 17.10.94 for Rs. 92,75,000/
(v) C/4508/PII/INT/GS/OS/94
dated 02.12.94 for Rs. 87,75,000/
(vi) C/4508/PII/IN/GS/OS/9495
dated 17.01.95 for Rs. 72,55,000/
CC No.21/01 8 of 96
9
(vii) C/4508/PII/IN/GS/OS/95
dated 09.02.95 for Rs. 38,90,000/
9. As per the allegations, all the seven bills were
dishonestly forwarded to MSection of the office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi as contingent bills by A10 Lt. Col. ( retd.) P.R. S. Rao, in an illegal manner, despite the fact that no supply was made by M/s Rishi Enterprises, against the said seven bills. Further allegations are that equipments/stores for which the said seven bills were drawn by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, as Anil Kumar Rane, were of technical nature while GS & C Section of the office of DDGOS, Army HQs, had no authority to purchase such equipments, nor the same were required by them. Some of the bills were also drawn against supplies purported to have been made to I & BC Section, and same were false, since I & BC Section had no authority to make such purchases. The said seven bills of M/s Rishi Enterprises, were processed and passed for payment by A1, A2, A3, A4 and A6, in connivance with A10 and A11 and A/c Payee cheques being:
CC No.21/01 9 of 96
10
(i) 289045 dated 11.05.94
(ii) 291812 dated 31.05.94
(iii) 326117 dated 02.11.94
(iv) 329107 dated 30.11.94
(v) 330262 dated 15.12.94
(vi) 335582 dated 31.01.95
(vii) 337581 dated 21.02.95
were issued to M/s Rishi Enterprises. All the seven
cheques were deposited in Current A/c no. 5214 in Vijaya
Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, which was in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, having been opened on 15.04.1994 by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in his false/assumed name as Anil Kumar Rane, and the account was operated all through by him only. Money was withdrawn from the said account by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, mostly in cash by issuing cheques on different dates as Anil Kumar Rane. As a result of payment against the seven bills, an amount of Rs. 3,99,94,530/, was paid by the office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi during May, 1994 to February, 1995, on the basis of false and forged documents.
CC No.21/01 10 of 96
11
10. During 1997, again 10 false and bogus bills were submitted by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in the name of another firm M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, under false/assumed name as Anil Kumar Rane, being the Proprietor and same were submitted in the office of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi. In a similar manner, the 10 bills were processed and passed for payment in an illegal manner in the MSection of the office of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi, despite the fact that M Section was not authorised to pass such bills. The 10 bills in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, were preferred in respect of supplies purported to have been made by M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises to I & BC Section of the office of DDGOS. Against the said bills, neither any order was ever placed nor any supply was made. The concerned ten bills of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises submitted were :
(i) C/00072/OS28/04 dated 04.08.97 for Rs.
2,49,600/
(ii) C/00072/OS28/05 dated 14.08.97 for Rs.
9,85,000/ CC No.21/01 11 of 96 12
(iii) C/00072/OS28/06 dated 26.08.97 for Rs.
18,50,000/
(iv) C/00072/OS28/07 dated 01.09.97 for Rs.
23,75,500/
(v) C/00072/OS28/08 dated 02.09.97 for Rs.
34,70,000/
(vi) C/00072/OS28/09 dated 12.09.97 for Rs.
22,98,000/
(vii) C/00072/OS28/10 dated 23.09.97 for Rs.
14,90,000/
(viii) C/00072/OS28/11 dated 03.10.97 for Rs.
38,70,000/
(ix) C/00072/OS28/12 dated 09.10.97 for Rs.
23,98,000/
(x) C/00072/OS28/13 dated 16.10.97 for Rs.
32,95,000/ As per the allegations, the bills were processed and passed for payment by A7, A8 and A9, who were officials in the office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi, during the relevant time. Existng procedures of passing the bills were not followed by A7 to A9 and also, they did not check the documents, which were false and forged. The bill dated 01.09.1997 for Rs.23,75,500/, was passed by A7 to A9, without there being any sanction of the competent authority.
CC No.21/01 12 of 96
13
Further allegations are that investigation disclosed that no supply was made and the documents submitted by A11, Capt. (Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, along with these 10 bills, were all false and forged.
11. Cheques for the payment of first 9 bills in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, were issued, having the details as follows:
(i) 449322 dated 19.08.97
(ii) 449502 dated 21.08.97
(iii) 450189 dated 29.08.97
(iv) 451150 dated 05.09.97
(v) 451435 dated 09.09.97
(vi) 451777 dated 18.09.97
(vii) 453163 dated 26.09.97
(viii) 454283 dated 13.10.97
(ix) 454595 dated 16.10.97
The cheques were credited in the account of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises in Vijaya Bank, being account No. 6075, which was opened on 01.09.1997 in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, and the account was being CC No.21/01 13 of 96 14 operated by A11 Capt.(retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in his false and assumed name, as Anil Kumar Rane.
12. The bill no. C/00072/S28/13 dated 16.10.1997 for Rs.32.95 lacs was passed for Rs.32,94,985/ on 22.10.1997 by A7 to A9 in conspiracy with A11, Capt.( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, in an illegal manner, but the cheque for payment of the bill could not be issued as certain discrepancies in the bill were detected by a senior officer in the office of CDA( HQ), New Delhi.
13. There are also allegations against A11, Capt. (Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, of his continuing to be in possession of an Identity Card, despite having been relieved from the services of Indian Army on 27.02.1991, and it is alleged that on 19.12.1989, A11, Capt. (Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, falsely reported the loss of his Identity Card No. 087450, while undergoing training at Delhi, but his effective Identity Card on 19.12.1989 was No. 112657. On account of report of loss of Identity card, another Identity Card no. 116810, was issued to him on 24.07.1990. While being relieved, he surrendered Identity Card no. 116810, but continued to retain his Identity CC No.21/01 14 of 96 15 Card no. 112657, in an illegal manner. It is alleged that Identity Card no. 112657, was retained by A11, Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, with the sole malafide intention to use the same for getting easy entry in all offices /Defence Establishments including O/o CDA ( HQ), New Delhi and I & BC Section of the O/o DDGOS .
14. The allegations against A12, A.K. Sharma are that during year 199495, he was working as Assistant Audit Officer in the Office of Director General of Audit( Defence Services), New Delhi, and was competent to examine records of the office of CDA ( HQ), New Delhi for the purpose of auditing. It is alleged that while working in that capacity, he came to know about the illegal activities of A10, Lt. Col. (retd.) P.R.S. Rao, demanded Rs. 10 lacs as illegal gratification from A10 Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao on the assurance, to not get the concerned transactions audited/detected by his office and later on, accepted Rs. 9.39 lacs in cash as well as cheques/demand drafts from him during year 1995 and 199798. It is alleged that Rs. 5 lacs were received in cash by A12 A.K. Sharma and later on, he CC No.21/01 15 of 96 16 accepted Rs.4.39 lacs through cheques/demand drafts. The details of the cheques/DDs received by A12, A.K. Sharma are:
(a) Demand Draft No. 769511 dated 15.11.97 for Rs. 75,000/ of Vyasya Bank Ltd., Sainik Puri, Secunderabad.
(b) Demand Draft No. 769520 dated 06.01.98 for Rs. 50,000/ of Vyasya Bank Ltd., Sainik Puri, Secunderabad.
(c) Demand Draft No. 769535 dated 14.03.98 for Rs. 1.25 lacs of Vyasya Bank Ltd., Sainik Puri, Secunderabad.
(d) Demand Draft No. 609058 dated 13.09.97 for Rs. 50,000/ of State Bank of Hyderabad, Vikram Puri, Hyderabad.
(e) Cheque No. 423566 dated 06.07.97 for Rs. 30,000/ drawn on SBI, Palakonda (AP) ( Credit of Rs. 29,873/).
(f) Cheque No. 12074 for Rs.40,000/ drawn on Syndicate Bank, Noida.
(g) Cheque No. 683966 for Rs.2,000/ drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, KRIBHCO Branch, Noida.
(h) Cheque No. 417283 for Rs.3,000/ drawn on Syndicate Bank, South Block, New Delhi.
(i) Cheque No. 270581 for Rs.1,000/ drawn on Canara Bank, Noida.
(j) Cheque No. 664443 for Rs.7,000/ drawn on DHQ Post Office, New Delhi.
(k) Cheque no. 755990 for Rs.3,000/ drawn on SBI, INS Extension Counter, New Delhi.
(l) Cheque No. 684002 for Rs.3,000/ drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, KRIBHCO Branch, Noida.
CC No.21/01 16 of 96
17
(m) Cheque no. 198977 for Rs.30,000/ drawn on Citi Bank, New Delhi.
(n) Cheque no. 423604 for Rs.18,000/ drawn on State Bank of India, Palakunda ( A.P.)
(o) Cheque no. 394328 for Rs.2,000/ drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Nehru Place, New Delhi.
The cheques mentioned at Sr. No. m to o, above were given by A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma, to his brother Arun Kumar Sharma, for repayment of a personal loan, which were deposited by Arun Kumar Sharma in his SB A/c no. 85391 in Syndicate Bank, Transport Bhawan Branch, New Delhi. It is alleged that all the cheques were issued either from the account of A10, Lt. Col. ( retd.) P.R.S. Rao or from account of his dependent family members, as per his instructions.
15. The accused persons were chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420,419,467,471,411 IPC r/w Section 420 IPC as well as for Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
16. Vide order on charge dated 08.09.05, A1 to A9, were discharged and charge under different sections were directed to be framed against A10, A11 and A12.
CC No.21/01 17 of 96
18
17. Vide order dated 07.10.2005, charge for offences punishable under Section 120B IPC, Section 420 IPC, Section 420/511 IPC, Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were framed against A10 to A12.
18. However, at a later stage, it was noticed that there was some variance with the charges framed against the accused persons on 07.10.2005, and the order on charge dated 08.09.2005. Charge was reframed against A10 to A12 on 06.05.2013. Charge for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as charge for substantive offence as per Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention Corruption Act, punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against A12, A.K. Sharma.
19. A11, Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal was charged for offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC r/w Section 420,471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, A11, Capt. CC No.21/01 18 of 96 19 ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, was charged for substantive offences punishable under Sections 420 IPC, 420/511 IPC and the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC.
20. A10, Lt.Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, was charged for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420/471 IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, A10, Lt.Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, was charged for substantive offences as per Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All the three accused being A10 to A12, denied the charges framed, and claimed trial.
21. Prosecution has examined 57 witnesses in order to prove its case against the accused persons.
22. Accused persons being A10 to A12 were examined Under Section 313 CrPC and their statements were recorded. A10, Lt. Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao, denied the allegations and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Further stand taken on behalf of A10 is that the signatures CC No.21/01 19 of 96 20 purported to be of his on the various bills and supporting documents submitted in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, allegedly sent by him to the MSection of CDA (HQ), were not his and someone might have forged his signatures, on those documents.
23. A11, Cap.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal has taken the stand that it is a case of mistaken identity. He was having no connection with M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, M/s Rishi Enterprises or M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises.
24. A12, A.K.Sharma has taken the stand that he had obtained a loan of Rs.4,39,000/ from coaccused Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao to meet the expenses of treatment of his father who was suffering from cancer, at that time. It is also the stand taken by accused A.K.Sharma that he had started repaying the loan amount taken from A10 Lt. Col.(Retd.) P.R.S.Rao and will clear the loan amount shortly. Further, it is stated on behalf of accused A.K.Sharma that he was merely concerned with the budget/coordination of bills, audit teams sent for audit and has not conducted any audit relating to the CC No.21/01 20 of 96 21 transaction concerning the present case.
25. Accused A.K.Sharma examined one witness in his defence. DW1, Sunil Tyagi, Accountant in State Bank of India, Sector36, Noida, has produced the statement of SB Account No.20044525961 in the name of Ashok Kumar Sharma and same has been proved as Ex.DW1/A. The witness deposed that out of the nine cheques debited to the account, six cheques were credited to account No. 10082914594 and the witness deposed that he had gathered that said account, stands in the name of Rama Shankar Rao Pakki, (A10).
26. On behalf of A11, Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal, three witnesses have been examined. DW2, Ravi Kumar is Chief Assistant Director, Reception Organization, Ministry of Defence and has testified as regards the procedure followed at Ministry of Defence Receptions, deposing that a visitor need to sign the visitor book and a visitor slip is issued to a visitor and that too, only on confirmation by the officer, to be visited. The witness also testified that separate visitor book is maintained for civilians, service personnels and for retired CC No.21/01 21 of 96 22 service personnels and also a separate visitor book for foreigners at Army Head Quarter. The witness has been examined to prove the point that even if a retired military officer wants to visit the army headquarter, he needs to make entry in the relevant visitor book at the reception and even service personnels, who are not posted at a particular defence organization, also need to make an entry in the visitor book, while visiting the organization, where they are not posted.
27. Another witness examined on behalf of A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal is DW3, V.C.Mishra, who is an handwriting expert, engaged by him to prove the point that the signatures and the handwriting purported to be that of Anil Kumar Rane, made by him in assumed name, are not the signatures and writings of accused I.B.S.Uppal. The witness has examined the questioned documents in reference to the admitted documents and gave his opinion concluding that questioned writings have not been written by the writer of admitted writings, i.e. A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal.
28. DW4, Dr.C.N.Bhattacharya, also examined on behalf of A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal, is the DirectorcumChief CC No.21/01 22 of 96 23 Forensic Scientist in Directorate of Forensic Science Services, MHA, New Delhi and the witness has been examined as regards disciplinary action being taken against PW49, Mr.B.A.Vaid, GEQD. The witness has testified that after the allegations of irregularities committed by Mr.B.A.Vaid and another examiner Mr. Narender Kumar, were examined by a committee, both Mr. B.A.Vaid (PW49) and Mr. Narender Kumar have been placed under suspension.
29. No witness has been examined on behalf of accused no. 10, Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao.
30. Arguments were heard on behalf of both prosecution as well as the accused persons.
31. PW1, Gyan Chand, Officer, Vijaya Bank, Bhikaji Cama Place, has proved current account No.5214 opened in Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Branch, in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, 1819 Nangal Raya Commercial Complex, New Delhi, with Proprietor Anil Rane. The account was introduced by J.K.Malhotra examined on behalf of prosecution as PW5. Account opening form Ex.PW1/A has been proved by the witness. PW1 has also proved the CC No.21/01 23 of 96 24 account opening form Ex.PW1/B in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, 1819 Nangal Raya Commercial Complex, New Delhi, vide current account No.6075, which was a Proprietorship concern and its account being introduced by Sh. Vinod Kulkarni, officer of the bank branch. Current account no.5214 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises was closed vide application dated 05.09.1997 Ex.PW1/C. Specimen signature card of M/s Rishi Enterprises signed by Anil Rane Ex.PW1/D and that of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises signed by Proprietor Ex.PW1/E, has been proved by PW1.
32. PW2 Vinod Samual Kulkarni, had introduced M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises to open current account No. 6075 vide account opening form Ex.PW1/B. PW2 deposed that Anil Kumar Rane was known to him, as he was already having an account in the bank, being account No.5214 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and on that basis, he had introduced him and thus, account in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises was opened. The witness did not support the prosecution case as regards the identity of accused CC No.21/01 24 of 96 25 Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal, as Anil Kumar Rane and was cross examined on behalf of prosecution.
33. PW5, J.K.Malhotra has deposed that in year 1994, he was working with M/s Rama Tours & Travels having its office at Arunchal Building, Barakhamba road and that company was having a current account with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba road. PW5 deposed that he had introduced one Anil Rane, Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises and had identified his signatures on account opening form Ex.PW1/A. PW5 also testified that visiting card markC, attached with account opening form was of M/s Rama Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd. with his name as Executive Director. The witness did not support the case of prosecution as regards the identity of the person named Anil Rane, who was introduced by him for opening an account vide account opening form Ex.PW1/A with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road and was cross examined on behalf of prosecution.
34. PW6, Rajeshwar Dayal Mathur, has deposed as regards the opening of a current account being A/c No.05119133600 in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises vide application CC No.21/01 25 of 96 26 Ex.PW6/A, with Hongkong & Shangai Bank, A.Rane its Proprietor, which was introduced by M/s Network Ltd.
35. PW3, Rajiv Kapoor, who in year 1994, was working with M/s Network Ltd., New Delhi as Sr. Regional Manager, has testified that account opening form Ex.PW6/A does not have his signatures, though the signatures appearing at point X appears to be of his. PW3, Rajiv Kapoor further testified that he had not introduced the account, as he was not knowing the person at all.
36. Both, PW2 Vinod Samual Kulkani, who had introduced the opening of current account No.6075 vide application Ex.PW1/B with Vijaya Bank and PW5, J.K.Malhotra, who introduced the opening of account no. 5214 of Anil Rane, Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises vide account opening form Ex.PW1/A with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba branch, New Delhi, did not support the case of the prosecution as regards the identity of said Anil Rane, as of accused Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal, and were cross examined on behalf of prosecution after being declared hostile. Their deposition on the point of opening of an account of M/s Rishi CC No.21/01 26 of 96 27 Enterprises as well as in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises vide account opening form Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B have to be taken into consideration, so far is reliable and credible and cannot be discarded totally, merely on the ground that witnesses were declared hostile. From deposition of PW1, Gyan Chand and PW2, Vinod Samual Kulkarni and PW5, J.K.Malhotra, it has come on the record that account no.5214 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, Anil Rane, being its Proprietor and current account no.6075 in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, with Anil Kumar Rane, as Proprietor were got opened with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Branch, New Delhi on 15.09.94 and 01.09.1997 respectively. There is a photograph affixed on documents alongwith A/c Opening Form of current account no.6075, Ex.PW1/B. Similarly, there is a photograph affixed of a person named Anil Kumar Rane on A/c Opening Form of account no.5214 Ex.PW1/A in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises. PW2 Vinod Samual Kulkarni, after having been declared hostile, have stated that photograph affixed on documents prepared alongwith account opening form CC No.21/01 27 of 96 28 Ex.PW1/B is different, meaning thereby that photograph of the person, which was affixed at the time of opening of the account, is not the photograph which is found affixed on documents prepared alongwith Ex.PW1/B. Similarly, PW5 J.K.Malhotra has stated that so far he remembers, the photograph on the account opening form Ex.PW1/A of account no.5214 with Vijaya Bank was not there at the time of the introduction. The accused Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal has also denied that. In the photographs appearing on Ex.PW1/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E, striking similarities can be seen as regards the person in the photographs, with the photograph of A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal appearing on his identity card Ex.PW39/B, being identity card no.112657.
37. Further, PW4 Smt. Pushpa Malhotra, was the owner of premises located at 217218, Nangal Raya Complex, New Delhi, which was let out to a person named Anil Kumar Rane, and the table space was provided @ Rs.1000/ per month. PW4, Smt. Pushpa Malhotra being wife of PW5, J.K. Malhotra, had also not identified A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, as the person named Anil Kumar Rane, to whom the CC No.21/01 28 of 96 29 space was let out by her, but in crossexamination on behalf of the prosecution (she had also been declared hostile), admitted that said Anil Kumar Rane, had given her the visiting card belonging to him and that same card was given by her to CBI, when she had visited CBI office. PW4, did not accept to prove that visiting card Ex. PW4/A, was the same, which was given to her by Mr. Rane, but she had identified the signature of PW5, J.K. Malhotra, on the back side of Ex. PW4/A, stating that Ex. PW4/A was got printed by said Anil Rane, after he had taken the table space from her on rent.
38. As per the case of the prosecution, a visiting card of M/s Rishi Enterprises with Anil Kumar Rane as Sales Executive, was also recovered from the house where A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, was residing on 28.07.1998, i.e. K2, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. On behalf of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, it was contended that no such visiting card was received from the place where A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, was residing on 28.07.1998, in the search conducted by CBI, and that was the reason for A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, not signing the seizure memo Ex.
CC No.21/01 29 of 96
30
PW34/A.
39. PW35, Gopal Krishna Datta, who had joined the CBI team on 28.07.1998, while conducting search at K2, Green park Extension, New Delhi, has testifed that a visiting card being Ex. PW35/A, was recovered in the search conducted at the place, in his presence, and he had initialed Ex. PW35/A. Perusal of Personal Search cum Arrest Memo Ex. PW34/B, shows that copy of the same was received by A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, and he had put his signatures, thereon in acknowledgment of the same.
40. In the written submissions filed on behalf of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, it has also been contended that the photographs affixed on A/c Opening Form being Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW6/A, have been manipulated and probably affixed later on, stating that all the concerned persons associated with the opening of the accounts in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises and M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, with Anil Kumar Rane, as the Proprietor, being PW1 to PW6, denied that the photographs affixed on the A/c Opening Forms, are of the person, they CC No.21/01 30 of 96 31 knew as Anil Kumar Rane. It is another way of saying that probably the photographs, which were affixed on the A/c Opening Forms, particularly Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW6/A, were of the person, who had opened the account, with Anil Kumar Rane, as the Proprietor and the photographs of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, were put later on, by CBI during investigation, as it is stated that the photographs on the A/c Opening Forms Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW6/A, seems to have been created later on, by the Investigating Agency. A different look has been sought to be given to the photographs affixed on the A/c Opening Forms Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW6/A, as the person is wearing spectacles and not having mostache, whereas A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, is seen having mostache and not wearing glasses, in the photographs affixed on Identity Card Ex. PW39/B.
41. The questioned writings and signatures appearing on documents, seized during investigation of the case, which have been signed as A.Rane, by A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, as per the case of the prosecution, along with his writing appearing in several admitted documents, were sent to CC No.21/01 31 of 96 32 CFSL for examination, and the report was submitted after examination by Shubhashis Dey, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and Dr. B.A. Vaid, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla. Specimen writings of some other officers whose purported signatures and writings appeared in the documents relating to the case were also sent for examination. The reports submitted are, dated 25.09.1998 Ex. PW49/228, dated 30.06.99 Ex. PW49/229 and dated 12.05.2000 Ex. PW49/230. Dr. B.A. Vaid, was examined as PW49, by whom the reports, as submitted by him, and Shubhashis Dey, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, were proved. As per the report, Ex. PW49/230, the questioned writings of A.Rane, being Ex. PW49/133 to Ex. PW49/144, appearing on cheques issued in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, Ex. PW1/H1 to Ex. PW1/H104 on cheques issued in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, Ex. PW49/103 to Ex. PW49/132 on cheques issued in the name of Ms/ Sri Krishna Enterprises as well as the Payinslips, were opined to have been written by the CC No.21/01 32 of 96 33 person by whom the admitted writing and signature appearing on documents Ex. PW49/169 to Ex. PW49/227, was made, i.e. A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal. Similarly, vide report Ex. PW49/229, it was opined that questioned writings on Ex. PW49/6, Ex. PW49/7, Ex. PW49/8 and Ex. PW1/E, which are the communication of A. Rane with the banks, opening of accounts in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, as well as Hongkong and Shanghai Banks, New Delhi, were found to have been written by the person by whom the admitted writing being Ex. PW49/103 to Ex. PW49/132, were written, i.e. A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal
42. On behalf of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, it was contended that not much value could be attached to the report submitted by Government Examiners of Questioned Documents, since as per their opinion dated 12.05.2000, Ex. PW49/233, they had asked for specimen and admitted writings of (1) M.K. Bhardwaj (2) Brigadier Ramesh Mehta ( 3) Major General S. Mendiratta (4) Brigadier D.S. Manjreker CC No.21/01 33 of 96 34 and A11 Capt. (Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, but CBI did not send the specimen/admitted writings of anyone of those. Further, it was contended that PW49, Dr. B.A. Vaid, during his examination, exhibited a letter Ex. PW49/234 dated 16.10.2000, giving the reasons which were forwarded by him, but the same was denied by Deputy SP, N.K. Mukherjee, in his crossexamination, while being examined as PW57. It was also contended that PW49, Dr. B.A. Vaid, had resorted to vague terms like having considered cumulatively the effect of examination, without pointing out specific similarities between the questioned and admitted writings in the reasons put forth by him. On the contrary, it has been contended that examination of questioned and admitted writings( admitted writing of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal), has been done more professionally by DW3, V.C. Mishra, who was examined by him, in his defence. It is stated that DW3, V.C. Mishra, had photographed 88 documents, used enlargements to show that same had not been written by A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal. It has been contended that the report Ex. DW3/B, given by DW3, V.C. Mishra, is more reliable.
CC No.21/01 34 of 96
35
43. In his report Ex. DW3/B, DW3 V.C. Mishra, has concluded that on the cumulative effect of the reasons and the observations taken together, he was of the opinion that the questioned writings have not been written by writer of 'A' series, meaning thereby, that A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, was not the author of questioned writings, being relied upon on behalf of the prosecution. Similarly, the signatures appearing on the cheques purported to have been signed by A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, as Anil Kumar Rane, DW3, V.C. Mishra, had concluded that on the cumulative effect of the reasons and observations taken together, he was of the opinion that 49 Q series writings have not been written by the writer of 25 A series writings, meaning thereby that A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, was not the author of the writing and the signatures appearing on questioned documents. However, a closer look of the report, Ex. DW3/B, shows that DW3, V.C. Mishra, has gone overboard, since in the observations, he had noted "19 Q series writings are a blend of two forgeries", i.e. Free hand simulated forgery( by copying some model genuine writings) and impersonation CC No.21/01 35 of 96 36 forgery ( not copied forgery but writing in forger's own handwriting). Similarly, in regard to the writing appearing on the cheques, issued under the purported signature of Anil Kumar Rane, the observation made is that "disputed body writing on 49 cheques shows the evidence of free hand simulated and traced forgeries". Some part of the disputed cheque writings clearly show the evidence of "traced forgeries" as some of the letters and words on various disputed cheques interse show almost exact sameness in words.
44. In other words, DW3 V.C. Mishra, is giving a report that someone had forged the writing of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, in the questioned writings examined by him in comparison with the admitted writings and forgery could be clearly seen because at some places, the forger had resorted to impersonation forgery ( not copied forgery), but writing in forger's own handwriting and while writing cheques had also resorted to "traced forgeries". Assignment of DW3, V.C. Mishra, was only to find out whether or not A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, was the author of the questioned CC No.21/01 36 of 96 37 writings on documents, attributed to Anil Kumar Rane, as Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises and M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, but report is giving the impression, that someone was having access and was in fact in possession of the genuine writings of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, and had resorted to simulated forgery as well as used tracing methods to commit forgery. It was also noted by DW3, V.C. Mishra, in his report Ex. DW3/B that some part of the writings made in the questioned writings are exactly similar to that appearing in the admitted writings attributed to A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, and might have been done with perfection, after resorting to tracing methods by a forger. Such a report by DW3, V.C. Mishra, is not reliable and credible enough to discredit the report given by Government Examiners of Questioned Documents and it is notwithstanding the fact that PW49, Dr. B.A. Vaid, is under suspension, because of allegations of irregularities, having been allegedly committed by him while examining the documents pertaining to some other matter. It has also to be kept in mind apart from Dr. CC No.21/01 37 of 96 38 B.A. Vaid, who was working as Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla, at the time of filing of the report, the report was also vetted by Mr. Shubhashis Dey, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents at Shimla.
45. On behalf of A11 Capt. ( Retd. ) I.B.S. Uppal, reliance was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Rahim Khan Vs. Kurshid Khan AIR 1975 SC 290, wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the witness identifying the writing should have some familiarity with the handwriting of the person, and opinion evidence being hearsay, becomes relevant only if, the condition laid down in Section 47 of the Evidence Act, are proved. A further reliance was placed on a case decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Sandeep Dixit Vs. State LAWS (DLH)2012405, wherein, it was held by Hon'ble High Court that it was a settled proposition of law that expert opinion is not a conclusive proof of the validity of the handwriting or document in question, in the absence of any independent corroboration. Reliance was placed on another case decided CC No.21/01 38 of 96 39 by Hon'ble High Court of Madras titled as Sayed Samsudeen Vs. State reported as LAWS ( MAD)20129232, wherein it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Madras that in view of factual and legal position, regarding the science of identification of handwriting, no serious reliance can be attached to expert opinion.
46. There is no issue with the proposition of law being submitted on behalf of A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, but in the present case, it is not the expert opinion alone vide report Ex. PW49/228 and Ex. PW49/229, but there is a corroborative evidence available on record, produced on behalf of the prosecution, which is in the testimony of PW1 Gyan Chand, an officer of Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, by whom the A/c Opening Form Ex. PW1/B, in respect of current A/c No.6075 in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises with Anil Kumar Rane as Proprietor, has been proved. PW1 has also proved the account opening form Ex.PW1/A of current A/c No.5214 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, Anil Rane its Proprietor, where also his photograph is affixed. There is a photograph CC No.21/01 39 of 96 40 of A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, affixed on the documents prepared alongwith A/c Opening Form, at the time of opening of the account, and there is no way of manipulation of the photograph, unless A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, had cooperated with the prosecution during investigation of the case, in the sense that he had got shaved off his mostache, and had taken to glasses for the purpose of getting himself photographed, which could be later on manipulated by the Investigating Officer. That would not have been possible without the bank officials acting accordingly. Similarly, there is a photograph of A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, on the A/c Opening Form Ex. PW6/A given to the Hongkong Bank, while opening the A/c No. 051191336001, in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, and manipulation of photographs on the A/c Opening Form Ex. PW6/A, would not have been possible without active cooperation of A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, and complicity of the bank officials during the investigation of the case.
47. It is not the case of A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal that he had any stage of investigation or thereafter had CC No.21/01 40 of 96 41 provided a photograph of his to the Investigating Officer or was, forcibly photographed by the IO. PW5 J.K. Malhotra, though not identifying A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, as Anil Kumar Rane, the person who was inducted by him, being a tenant in the premises belonging to his wife, PW4 Smt. Pushpa Malhotra, in the property no. 217/218 in Aditya Building, Nangla Raya, had admitted in his crossexamination that Visiting Card Ex. PW4/A, was given by him to CBI. Ex. PW4/A, is the visiting card of Anil Rane, Sales Executive, M/s Rishi Enterprises, RPG Recoh Ltd. Anil Rane, was introduced by PW5, J.K. Malhotra, while an account was opened in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises by him with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road Branch, New Delhi vide A/c Opening Form Ex. PW1/A being current A/c No.5214. Ex.PW1/A also bears a photograph of his. PW5, J.K. Malhotra, only stated that he was not able to identify the person appearing in the photograph, as the one who was introduced by him. The person was introduced by PW5, J.K. Malhotra, in the year 1994, but he was examined in the year 2008. The reason may be due to loss of memory, by lapse of CC No.21/01 41 of 96 42 time or disinclination to identify the person, but even then, PW5 J.K. Malhotra, has not specifically denied that A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, was not the person introduced by him, while opening the account in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, with Vijaya Bank in the year 1994.
48. Similarly, PW2, Vinod Samual Kulkarni, was declared hostile, but despite that he had admitted the fact that a person named Anil Rane, was introduced by him, while opening his account in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, being Current A/c No. 6075 with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, and the introduction was made by him by virtue of another account of Anil Kumar Rane, as Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises, being A/c No. 5214. PW2, in his examinationinchief also stated that a person was shown to him in the CBI office, who was identified by him as Anil Kumar Rane. PW2, Vinod Samual Kulkarni, further stated that he identified that person as Anil Kumar Rane by mistake and then took the stand that the person was identified by him as Anil Kumar Rane, as he was under stress and was alone. Attention of the witness was drawn to his CC No.21/01 42 of 96 43 statement U/S 161 CrPC Ex. PW2/A by Ld. PP during cross examination wherein he had identified A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, as the person who was introduced by him, while opening the account of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises with Vijaya Bank as Anil Rane (in statement U/S 161 CrPC), wherein it was stated specifically by him that " Though there is some change in his face on account of mostache and spectacles, and also change of the style of hairs, but there should not be any doubt that this is the individual who is Sh. Anil Kumar Rane. I do not know any other name of this gentleman" (in statement U/S 161 CrPC). Thus, there is sufficient corroborative evidence, apart from the report by Government Examiners of Questioned Documents, being Ex. PW49/228 and Ex. PW49/229 that A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, was the person by whom the A/c no. 5214 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises vide A/c Opening Form Ex. PW1/A and current A/c no. 6075 in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, acting as Anil Kumar Rane vide A/c Opening Form Ex. PW1/B, were opened and were operated by him. There is also sufficient evidence on record CC No.21/01 43 of 96 44 to conclude that A/c no. 05119133600 in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises with Anil Kumar Rane as Proprietor, was opened by A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, vide A/c Opening Form Ex. PW6/A with Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, and the account was being operated by him.
49. The role attributed to A10 Lt. Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao is that in year 199495, he was working as Deputy Director in the office of Deputy Director General of Ordnance Services, ( I & BC Section), New Delhi, and in year 1994, office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi, received three bills submitted by M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, New Delhi for a total payment of Rs.1,85,09,970/, which were forwarded as contingent bills by A10 Lt. Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao under his own signatures in his capacity as Deputy Director of Ordnance Services ( I & BC Section), New Delhi. Further, seven bills in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises were received in the office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi for a total sum of Rs. 3,99,94,530/, which were forwarded to MSection of the office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi as contingent bills by A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao. A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao, CC No.21/01 44 of 96 45 denied the role attributed to him in forwarding the bills to CDA (HQ), New Delhi and has taken the stand that his signatures on those bills were forged by someone else. During investigation of the case, specimen signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao were taken on 12.11.1998. PW41, Ataul Mustafa has testified that in November, 1998, he was working as LDC in the office of CBI ACUI, Lodhi road, New Delhi and specimen writings and signatures of A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao were taken in his presence in different style and font on nine sheets and same has been proved by him collectively as Ex.PW41/A. Specimen writings of one Mr.M.K.Jain was also taken in the presence of the witness on 07.08.1998, but same are not relevant now. Examination of the questioned writing/signature of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao appearing on documents Ex.PW25/A1, Ex.PW49/10 to Ex.PW49/26 identified as Q76 to Q94 and Q107 to Q109 and on documents Ex.PW49/37 to Ex.PW49/39 were examined by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla with the specimen signatures and handwriting of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) CC No.21/01 45 of 96 46 P.R.S.Rao as S44 to S52 exhibited as Ex.PW41/A and as per the report dated 30.06.1999 Ex.PW49/229, the author of questioned writing and signatures appearing as Q76 to Q94, Q107 to Q109 (Ex.PW25/A1, Ex.PW49/10 to Ex.PW49/26 and Ex.PW49/37 to Ex.PW49/39) was the person having written S44 to S55 (Ex.PW41/A) i.e. A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao. The documents in question are the one relating to the forwarding of bills to CDA (HQ), New Delhi in reference of alleged supplies made by M/s Rishi Enterprises.
50. Apart from the report Ex.PW49/229 by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla, which were vetted by Subhashish Dey, Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and Dr. B.A.Vaid, Assistant Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, prosecution has examined PW25 Retired Major General Ramesh Mehta who had worked as Deputy Director General of Inventory and Budget Control Section in the office of DDGOS from February, 1993 to August, 1994. PW25, Retired Major General Ramesh Mehta has testified that during the period, he was holding the post of a Brigadier and I & BC CC No.21/01 46 of 96 47 Section, during those days, was not having any authority to make direct purchase of any type of stores. PW25, Retired Major General Ramesh Mehta further testified that A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao was known to him, who was a subordinate of the witness and was working as a Deputy Director in the I & BC Section in the office of DDGOS. PW25, retired Major General Ramesh Mehta has identified the signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao on various documents on bills pertaining to M/s Krishna Enterprises, which were exhibited collectively, as Ex.PW25/B1. PW25 retired Major General Ramesh Mehta has also testified that signatures appearing on the documents accompanying those bills purported to be of his, on documents exhibited for identification collectively as Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/A1, Ex.PW25/A2, Ex.PW25/A3, Ex.PW25/A4 and Ex.PW25/A5, and also on documents exhibited for identification collectively as Ex.PW25/B1, Ex.PW25/B2 and Ex.PW25/B3, were not of his. Prosecution has also examined PW26, Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta, who was posted to DDGOS, I & BC in September, 1994, CC No.21/01 47 of 96 48 having worked there till December 1994, when he proceeded for one month leave and was posted to Ordnance Depot, Shakur Basti, Delhi. PW26, Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta deposed that while proceeding on leave, he handed over the charge to A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao and when he rejoined on 28.12.1994, he took movement order and proceeded to new unit. PW26, Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta identified the signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao on bill Ex.PW25/B1 in file pertaining to bills of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises. PW26, Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta also denied the signatures appearing in documents collectively exhibited as Ex.PW25/A2 as being of his and testified that I & BC was not authorised to procure any material and so, there was no question of raising any bills. Opinion of both, PW25, Retired Major General Ramesh Mehta and PW26, Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta is relevant as A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao was a subordinate to them during the period they were posted in DDGOS, I & BC Section and both of them have claimed to be acquainted with writings and the signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) CC No.21/01 48 of 96 49 P.R.S.Rao, as they had seen him writing and signing. There is a credible and reliable corroboration of the report Ex.PW49/229 submitted by the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla to the effect that the documents and the bills in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises forwarded to the MSection of CDA (HQ) for release of the payment during year 199495, were forwarded by A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao under his own signature and a false plea is being taken by A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao of his signature having being forged on the relevant documents.
51. All the three accused being A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao, A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal and A12 Ashok Kumar Sharma, have been charged for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC. Criminal conspiracy has been defined U/S 120A IPC which reads as under : S. 120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (1) An illegal act, or (2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a CC No.21/01 49 of 96 50 criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more partners to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.
52. Three bills in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises were sent to CDA (HQ), New Delhi by A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao. First bill is dated 03.11.1994 which was for a sum of Rs.53,80,000/ on account of procurement of storesKIN Trex 11000 (new series multi joint isokine tic testing system alongwith associated accessories) which alongwith the supporting documents has been exhibited as Ex.PW25/B1. The second bill is dated 30.01.1995 for a sum of Rs. 82,80,000/, which was for procurement of storespecial radiation equipment for SIG INT pertaining to GS & C branch, collectively exhibited as Ex.PW25/B2 alongwith supporting documents and third bill was dated 03.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.48,50,000/ for procurement of storespecial CC No.21/01 50 of 96 51 radiation equipment for SIG INT which alongwith the supporting documents have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW25/B3.
53. There were seven bills in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises. First bill of M/s Rishi Enterprises dated 26.05.1994 is for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/ which alongwith supporting documents have been exhibited collectively as Ex.PW25/A1. Another bill of M/s Rishi Enterprises is dated 14.10.1994 for a sum of Rs.87,50,000/ pertaining to GS & C Section which alongwith supporting documents have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW25/A2. Third bill is dated 05.12.1994 for a sum of Rs.87,75,000/ also pertaining to GS & C Section and the bill alongwith supporting documents have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW25/A3. Another bill is dated 23.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.72,55,000/ which was for procurement of store - special radiation equipment for signal INT pertaining to GS & C Section and has been exhibited collectively alongwith supporting documents as Ex.PW25/A4. Next bill is dated 09.02.1995 for a sum of Rs. 38,90,000/ pertaining to GS & C Section and is for CC No.21/01 51 of 96 52 procurement of store - special radiation equipment for SIG INT and alongwith supporting documents have been collectively exhibited as Ex.PW27/M. There is another contingent bill dated 03.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.2,49,000/ for purchase of laminating film and has been exhibited collectively as Ex.PW25/A alongwith supporting documents. Then, there is bill dated 16.11.1994 for Rs.92,75,000/ for procurement of special equipment for SIG INT, bill is pertaining to GS & C Section and the bill alongwith supporting documents have been exhibited collectively as Ex.PW25/A5. Only the bills Ex.PW25/A1 (colly.), Ex.PW25/A (colly.) and Ex.PW25/B1 are under the signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao. Remaining bills are under the signatures of Deputy Director, Ordinance Services, NGO's Branch.
54. PW30, V.P.Raja had worked as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence w.e.f 05.03.1993 to 30.06.1995 and was first Joint Secretary, Incharge of Army Purchase Organisation and Works Section and then Joint Secretary, Incharge of Planning & Coordination. PW30, V.P.Raja testified that he CC No.21/01 52 of 96 53 was never Incharge of section dealing with ordnance corps of Indian Army. The witness has testified as regards the subject procurement of special equipment for signals INT which were given the exhibit as Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/H for the purpose of identification and it was in regard to the orders conveying the sanction of the President for purchase of the items for which bills were submitted by M/s Rishi Enterprises as well as Sri Krishna Enterprises and the witness has denied his signatures on those orders conveying the sanctions for procurement, meaning thereby that there was no sanction to purchase the stores for which the bills Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/A1, Ex.PW25/A2, Ex.PW25/A3, Ex.PW25/A4, Ex.PW25/A5 and Ex.PW27/M were raised.
55. PW31, Divya Prasad was working as Under Secretary in the Ministry of Defence from year 1992 to year 1998. The witness has testified as regards the orders conveying the sanction for procurement of stores for which bills Ex.PW25/A1 in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, Ex.PW25/B1 in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises were raised and denied his signatures appearing on orders CC No.21/01 53 of 96 54 conveying the sanctions Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B respectively. The witness has also denied his signatures appearing on the orders conveying the sanctions for procurement of stores for which bills in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises were raised in the year 1997 and the orders were given the exhibits for identification only, as Ex. PW31/C to Ex. PW31/K.
56. Similarly, PW32, Suman K.Sharma has denied his signatures on the orders conveying sanctions to make the procurement and the orders are dated 20.04.1994 Ex.PW32/A, dated 23.07.1997 Ex.PW32/B. The orders found placed alongwith the bill, one in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and another in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises. On these orders, the name of the witness was typed, but the signatures has been denied by the witness, as of his own.
57. PW27, Ratti Ram, during the period from year 1992 uptil May, 1995, was posted as Sr. Accounts Officer in Disbursement Section, CDA (HQ), New Delhi. Some of the cheques in question were signed by PW27, Ratti Ram. PW27, Ratti Ram had proved that cheques Ex.PW27/A2, Ex.
CC No.21/01 54 of 96
55
PW27/A4, Ex. PW27/A5, Ex. PW27/A6, Ex. PW27/A7, Ex. PW27/A8, Ex.PW27/A9, for different sums, in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and Ex. PW27/A1, Ex. PW27/A3 for different sums in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, were signed by him as Cheque Signing Officer. PW27 has also proved the cheques Ex.PW27/B1 to Ex.PW27/B9 in favour of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises as having been signed by D.R.Kansal, the then Account Officer whereas cheque for a sum of Rs.82,79,980/ Ex.PW27/C in respect of bill in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises was signed by K.K.Bhatia. The witness has also testified as regards the approval by Sr. Accounts Officer, Sh. R.K.Vajpayee, who was also initially chargesheeted as A1.
58. PW28 K.K.Bhatia, was posted as Sr. Accounts Officer in the office of CDA (HQ), New Delhi from year 19881996 and was posted in the Disbursement Section in year 1995. The witness had signed the cheque No.336460 dated 09.02.1995 amounting to Rs.82,79,990/ in favour of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, New Delhi and same has been proved by him as Ex.PW27/C, which was issued for contingent bill CC No.21/01 55 of 96 56 No.C/4508/PII/IN/GS/OS/9495.
59. PW29 is D.R.Kansal, who was posted in CDA (HQ), New Delhi from year 199293 till June, 2001 and has proved the cheques Ex.PW27/B1 to Ex.PW27/B9 in favour of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises for the bills raised by them, as having been signed by him, testifying that those were received from the stores section.
60. PW25, Retired Major General Ramesh Mehta has testified as to the bills submitted by M/s Rishi Enterprises as contingent bills and some of those bears the signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao as well. The bills are Ex.PW25/A bearing No.C/00080/OS2804, bill Ex.PW25/A1, being No.C/00080/9495/OS28, bill Ex.PW25/A2, being No.C/4508/PII/GS/OS94, bill Ex.PW25/A3, being No.C/4508/PXII/I&T/GS/OS/94, bill Ex.PW25/A4, No. C/4508/PII/IN/GS/OS94, bill Ex.PW25/A5, No.C/4508/P II/1, all pertaining to M/s Rishi Enterprises and bill Ex.PW25/B1 being No.C/00080/I&T/9495/OS28, bill Ex.PW25/B2 being No.C/4598/PII/IN/GS/OS/9495 and bill Ex.PW25/B3 no.C/4508/PII/GS/OS/94, all pertaining to M/s CC No.21/01 56 of 96 57 Sri Krishna Enterprises, denying his signatures on the documents, deposing that I & BC Section was having no direct authority to make purchase of any type of stores. Similarly, PW26 Retired Major General Satish Mendiratta has also deposed as to the bills submitted, relating to M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises and has identified signatures of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao on bill Ex.PW25/B1, pertaining to M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises. The witness also denied his signatures appearing in documents filed with bills Ex.PW25/B1 to Ex.PW25/B3.
61. Thus, false and bogus bills were submitted by A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal acting as Anil Rane, Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises and of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises for supply of the material, which was never supplied to any unit of the Army particularly I & BC Section and G & SC Section of DDGOS. A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao, who was working as Deputy Director, I & BC Section of DDGOS in year 199495, had forwarded the bills pertaining to M/s Rishi Enterprises being Ex.PW25/A, Ex.PW25/A1 to Ex.PW25/A5, Ex.PW27/M to the MSection of CDA (HQ), New Delhi for CC No.21/01 57 of 96 58 processing and payment of the same. The bills were accompanied with supporting documents particularly the sanctions for making the procurement being Ex.PW30/A to Ex.PW30/H, being under purported signatures of PW30, V.P.Raja, who was working as Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence at that time and order for sanction for procurement of the equipments being Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B, under the purported signatures of PW31, Divya Prasad, who was Under Secretary in the Ministry of Defence at the relevant time and the sanction orders were forged. Payments were made against the false bills submitted in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises vide cheques Ex.PW27/A1 to Ex.PW27/A9 as well as cheque Ex.PW27/C. Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record as regards the existence of a conspiracy of cheating the government by submitting false bills for supply of stores and materials, which were never supplied to any Unit of Indian Army, in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises as well as M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises during the year 1994 and 1995 and there is also sufficient evidence on record to conclude that A10 CC No.21/01 58 of 96 59 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao as well as A11 Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal, were conspirators in the conspiracy alongwith others, as it would not have been possible to execute the conspiracy, by the two persons alone, keeping in view the ramifications of the conspiracy, and several persons/Units involved in processing of the bills submitted, till the final payment, which was to be made, by accounts payee cheque only.
62. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence on the record as regards the existence of a conspiracy in year 1997 also, when the false bills Ex. 29/A to Ex. PW29/H pertaining to M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises were submitted to the M Section, CDA (HQ), New Delhi for payments in year 1997, which were accompanied with false orders of sanctions for procurement of stores/articles being Ex.PW31/C to Ex.PW31/K, which were processed and cheques Ex.PW27/B1 to Ex.PW27/B9, were issued in favour of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises. A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao was not in the service of Indian Army at that time, having retired in year 1995, but A11 Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal, was CC No.21/01 59 of 96 60 in conspiracy alongwith others, as the bills were submitted in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, he acting as Proprietor of the same, as Anil Kumar Rane, under his assumed name.
63. As regards the involvement of A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma, as a coconspirator in the conspiracy, the allegations against him are that after coming to know of the illegal activities of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao in regard to payments against the false bills for which no supply had been made, he made a demand of Rs.10 Lacs from A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao and during the period between 1995 to 1997, received a sum of Rs.9.39 Lacs from him. Rs.5 lacs, as per the allegations, were received in cash. However, apart from the allegations, there is no evidence of the same. Payment of Rs.4.39 Lacs was received by A12 Ashok Kumar Sharma from A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao through various cheques/demand drafts from the account of A11 or from accounts of his immediate family members and the instruments received were deposited in the account of A12 A.K.Sharma being account no.311, with Indian Overseas CC No.21/01 60 of 96 61 Bank, Noida Branch. Three of the cheques were also deposited in the account of Arun Kumar Sharma, brother of A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma in his saving account No.85391 maintained with Parliament Street Branch of Syndicate Bank, being Ex. PW37/A dated 06.07.1997 for a sum of Rs.30,000/ having been raised on the account of Rama Shanker Rao with Citi Bank at Vijay Puri Housing Colony and Ex. PW37/B dated 06.07.1997 for a sum of Rs.18,000/ drawn on account of Miss Pakki Jyotsana, D/o A10 Lt. Col.( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, as well as Ex.PW8/B dated 06.07.1997 for a sum of Rs.2,000/ drawn on A/c No.1182 belonging to Miss Pakki Jyotsana. Payment of Rs.4.39 Lacs is not denied by A10 Lt.Col. (retired) P.R.S.Rao nor by A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma and both have taken the stand that it was a loan given by A10 to A12 to help him in meeting the expenses of treatment of his father, who was suffering from cancer at that time. Apart from receiving the money and that too, for the purpose of not going for the audit of the illegal transactions / activities of A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao, there is no other evidence of A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma, being involved in the CC No.21/01 61 of 96 62 conspiracy of submission of the false bills or ensuring the payment against the false bills. It has also to be kept in mind that no audit of any of the transactions which are the subject matter of the present proceeding, was done by A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma. So, the charge of offence punishable U/S 120B IPC against him is not proved.
64. A10 Lt.Col.(retired) P.R.S.Rao has been further charged for offence punishable U/S 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for criminal misconduct of abusing his official position and obtaining to coaccused A11 Capt. (retired) I.B.S.Uppal, pecuniary advantage of Rs. 7,31,95,480/, which was by means of helping and ensuring the processing of the false bills, for that amount, submitted by A11 Capt.(retired) I.B.S.Uppal, in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, during the period 199495.
65. The bills in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises are, dated 03.11.1994 exhibited collectively as Ex.PW25/B1 for a sum of Rs.53,80,000/, another bill dated 30.01.1995 CC No.21/01 62 of 96 63 Ex.PW25/B2 for a sum of Rs.82,80,000/, another bill dated 03.01.1995 Ex.PW25/B3 for a sum of Rs.48,50,000/ and the bills submitted in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises were Ex.PW25/A1 dated 26.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.18,00,000/, Ex.PW25/A2 (colly.) dated 14.10.1994 for a sum of Rs. 87,50,000/, Ex.PW25/A3 dated 05.12.1994 for a sum of Rs. 87,75,000/, Ex.PW25/A4 dated 23.01.1995 for a sum of Rs. 72,55,000/, Ex.PW25/A (colly.) dated 03.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.2,49,600/, Ex.PW25/A5 dated 16.11.1994 for a sum of Rs.92,75,000/ .
66. Pursuant to the submitting of bills in the names of M/s Rishi Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, by A11, Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, acting as Anil Kumar Rane, which were forwarded to MSection of CDA (HQ), the bills were processed in the MSection, and ultimately cheques were signed by PW27 Ratti Ram, who was working as Senior Accounts Officer at that time, and also by Sh. K.K. Bhatia, working with CDA(HQ). Similarly, the bills submitted in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, which were submitted by A11, Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, acting as Anil CC No.21/01 63 of 96 64 Kumar Rane, its Proprietor, the bills were processed in the M Section of CDA(HQ), and later on, the cheques were signed by Mr. D.R. Kansal, working as Accounts Officer with CDA(HQ), at the relevant time. The cheques issued in favour of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises were no. 333133 dated 10.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.48,49,990/, Ex. PW27/A1, cheque no. 327234 dated 21.11.1994 for a sum of Rs. 53,79,990/, Ex. PW27/A3, cheque no. 336460 dated 09.02.1995 for a sum of Rs.82,79,990/, Ex. PW27/C. The cheques issued in favour of M/s Rishi Enterprises were no. 291812 dated 31.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.17,99,990/ Ex. PW27/A2, no. 329107 dated 30.11.1994 for a sum of Rs. 92,74,990/, Ex. PW27/A4, no. 337581 dated 21.02.1995 for a sum of Rs.38,89,990/, Ex. PW27/A5, no. 289045 dated 11.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.2,54,590/, Ex. PW27/A6, no. 326117 dated 02.11.1994 for a sum of Rs.87,49,990/, Ex. PW27/A7, no. 330262 dated 15.12.1994 for a sum of Rs. 87,74,990/ Ex. PW27/A8 and no. 335582 dated 31.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.72,54,990/, Ex. PW27/A9. The cheques issued in favour of Sh. Venkateshwara Enterprises were no.
CC No.21/01 64 of 96
65
449322 dated 19.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.2,49,585/, Ex. PW27/B1, no.449502 dated 21.08.1997 for a sum of Rs. 9,84,985/ Ex.PW27/B2, no. 450189 dated 29.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.18,49,985, Ex. PW27/B3, no. 454283 dated 13.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.38,69,985/ Ex, PW27/B4, no. 45495 dated 16.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.23,97,985/, Ex. PW27/B5, no. 451435 dated 09.09.97 for a sum of Rs. 34,69,985/ Ex. PW27/B6, no. 451150 dated 05.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.23,75,485/, Ex. PW27/B7, no. 451777 dated 18.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.22,97,985/, Ex. PW27/B8 and no. 453163 dated 26.09.97 for a sum of Rs.14,89,985, Ex. PW27/B9.
67. The cheques in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises, were deposited in the account no. 5214 of M/s Rishi Enterprise with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Branch, New Delhi, Anil Kumar Rane, being its Proprietor. Similarly, the cheques issued in favour of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprise, were deposited in Current A/c no. 6075 of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprise with Vijaya Bank, Barakhamba Branch, New Delhi, Anil Kumar Rane, acting as CC No.21/01 65 of 96 66 its Proprietor. The cheques issued in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, were deposited in account no. 051191336001 of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises with Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., New Delhi. The amount from all the three accounts, was withdrawn by its Proprietor, Anil Kumar Rane, through cheques, which were mostly self cheques and the amount was withdrawn mostly in cash.
68. Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of corruption Act reads as follows:
" (d) if he,
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"
CC No.21/01 66 of 96
67
69. By resorting to corrupt means, A10, Lt. Col.
( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, and also by abusing his position as a public servant, he had obtained for A11, Capt.(Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, pecuniary advantage amounting to Rs.3,99,94,530/ pertaining to bills raised in the name of M/s Rishi Enterprises and Rs.1,85,09,970/ pertaining to bills raised in the name of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises, totalling for a sum of Rs. 5,85,04,500/ during year 199495. So, the allegations of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are proved against A10, Lt.Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S.Rao, and so, the charge.
70. A10 Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, has also been charged for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reads as under:
"Punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or 11. whoever abets any offence punishable under Section 7 or section 11 whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and CC No.21/01 67 of 96 68 shall also be liable to fine".
71. The charge is in reference to abetting of offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 7 and 11 of the PC Act reads as under:
S.7 Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agreed to to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward fro doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
CC No.21/01 68 of 96
69
S. 11. Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. Whoever, being a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration, or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been , or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by such public servant, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
72. Chargesheet for offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act was also filed against A12, A.K.Sharma, but no charge for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was framed against A12, A.K. Sharma, and so, A10 Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, cannot be held liable for offence punishable under CC No.21/01 69 of 96 70 Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as no one has been charged for offence punishable under Section 7 or Under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
73. A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, has been charged for substantive offence punishable under Section 420 IPC (twice over) once for impersonating as Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprise and also as Proprietor of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises during year 199495 and submitting bills of various consignments totalling for payment of Rs. 5,85,04,500/, and secondly impersonating himself as Anil Kumar Rane, Proprietor of M/s Venkateshwara Enterprises, cheating Government to the tune of Rs.1,89,85,965/ during August 1997 to October 1997, while submitting 9 bills of various consignments. Cheating has been defined under Section 415 of IPC, which reads as under:
415. Cheating. Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the persons so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and whcih act or omission causes or is likely to CC No.21/01 70 of 96 71 cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat".
74. A11, Capt.( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, acting as Anil Kumar Rane, Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises and M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises in year 1994 as well as in year 1997, had entered into a conspiracy with A10, Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao and other unknown persons, to make the payment of the amount under various cheques issued in favour of M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises which were no. 333133 dated 10.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.48,49,990/, Ex. PW27/A1, cheque no. 327234 dated 21.11.1994 for a sum of Rs.53,79,990/, Ex. PW27/A3, cheque no. 336460 dated 09.02.1995 for a sum of Rs.82,79,990/, Ex. PW27/C. The cheques issued in favour of M/s Rishi Enterprises were no. 291812 dated 31.05.1994 for a sum of Rs.17,99,990/ Ex. PW27/A2, no. 329107 dated 30.11.1994 for a sum of Rs.92,74,990/, Ex. PW27/A4, no. 337581 dated 21.02.1995 for a sum of Rs.38,89,990/, Ex. PW27/A5, no. 289045 dated 11.05.1994 for a sum of Rs. 2,54,590/, Ex. PW27/A6, no. 326117 dated 02.11.1994 for CC No.21/01 71 of 96 72 a sum of Rs.87,49,990/, Ex. PW27/A7, no. 330262 dated 15.12.1994 for a sum of Rs.87,74,990/ Ex. PW27/A8 and no. 335582 dated 31.01.1995 for a sum of Rs.72,54,990/, Ex. PW27/A9. The cheques issued in favour of Sh. Venkateshwara Enterprises were no.449322 dated 19.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.2,49,585/ Ex. PW27/B1, no.449502 dated 21.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.9,84,985/ Ex.PW27/B2, no. 450189 dated 29.08.1997 for a sum of Rs.18,49,985, Ex. PW27/B3, no. 454283 dated 13.10.1997 for a sum of Rs. 38,69,985/ Ex, PW27/B4, no. 45495 dated 16.10.1997 for a sum of Rs.23,97,985/, Ex. PW27/B5, no. 451435 dated 09.09.97 for a sum of Rs.34,69,985/ Ex. PW27/B6, no. 451150 dated 05.09.1997 for a sum of Rs.23,75,485/, Ex. PW27/B7, no. 451777 dated 18.09.1997 for a sum of Rs. 22,97,985/, Ex. PW27/B8 and no. 453163 dated 26.09.97 for a sum of Rs.14,89,985, Ex. PW27/B9, which were got deposited by him in accounts no. 5214, 6075 and 05119133601. This way, A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, has dishonestly induced the concerned officials by whom the cheques were signed and the bogus bills pertaining to the 3 CC No.21/01 72 of 96 73 Enterprises of A.K. Rane, were processed to deliver the money by way of cheques amounting to Rs. 3,99,94,530 and Rs.1,85,09,970, totalling for a sum of Rs.5,85,04,500/ during the year 1994, and of Rs.1,89,85,965/ during the year 1997. The allegations of charge of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC (for both heads in charge) is thus, proved against A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal.
75. Further, A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, has been charged (twice over) for offence punishable under Section 471 IPC, first in regard to the submission of 10 forged bills posing as Anil Kumar Rane, proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprise, during the year 199495 and secondly, submitting 10 forged bills during August 1997 to October 1997, in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, and using the same as genuine documents.
76. Making of a false document has been defined under Section 464 IPC, which reads as under:
464. Making a false document. [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First Who dishonestly or fraudulently CC No.21/01 73 of 96 74
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixed any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the executing of a document or the authenticity of the [electronic signature], with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or [electronic signature] was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he know that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with [electronic signature] either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his [electronic signature] on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, CC No.21/01 74 of 96 75 he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
77. From the evidence brought on record, the bills in question do not fall into any of the 3 categories, required to be fulfilled, for terming a document as a false document. First condition is that the document has been made by a person with the intention of causing it to be believed to have been made, signed, sealed, etc. by a person by whom or by whose authority, it was not made. Second condition is that of alteration in the document, which is not the case, and third condition, is getting a document signed, sealed, etc. by a person who by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or because of any deception, was not knowing the contents of the document which is also not the case in the present proceedings. The case against A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal is of acting under the assumed name of Anil Kumar Rane, as Proprietor of M/s Rishi Enterprises, M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises and M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises. The bills in questions cannot be termed as false document as CC No.21/01 75 of 96 76 defined under Section 464 IPC, and so, the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC (charged twice over), is not made out against A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal.
78. Further, A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, has been charged for offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC, in regard to the bill dated 22.10.1997 in the name of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises submitted in the office of CDA(HQ), New Delhi, allowed for a sum of Rs.32,94,985/. Contingent bill Ex. PW33/W42 was for a sum of Rs. 32,95,000/, and it was accompanied with 'Acceptance of quotation' by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, signing as A.Rane, being Proprietor of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises, which is dated 15.09.1997, Ex. PW33/D45. Contingent bill Ex. PW33/W42, was passed for payment of Rs.32,94,985/ as per Ex. PW33/W50, and it is only that the payment could not be made because of certain discrepancies noted by a senior officer in CDA(HQ), New Delhi. Thus, an attempt had been made by A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal, acting as A.Rane, Proprietor of M/s Shree Venkateshwara Enterprises to cheat Government of India of Rs.32,95,000/ by CC No.21/01 76 of 96 77 submitting the false bill and receipt dated 10.10.1997 Ex. PW33/D48. Thus, charge for offence punishable under Section 420/511 IPC is also made out and proved against A11 Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal.
79. A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma, was further charged for substantive offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegations against him are that of receiving Rs.9.39 lacs from A10, Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, on the assurance that the illegal activities being undertaken by him, shall not be exposed and not audited by the team, as he was posted as Assistant Audit Officer in the office of Director General of Audit( Defence Services), New Delhi. The allegations are of receiving of Rs. 5 lacs in cash and Rs.4.39 lacs, by way of cheques/Demand Drafts, issued from his accounts, as well as accounts of his immediate family member. There is no evidence brought on record on behalf of the prosecution in regard to the payment allegedly received by him in cash. As regards the sum of Rs.4.39 lacs received by A12,Ashok Kumar Sharma, PW9, A.K. Dhupar, being CC No.21/01 77 of 96 78 Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, has testified that he had joined Noida Branch of Indian Overseas Bank in year 1998 and has proved that vide credit voucher Ex. PW9/A, a sum of Rs.75,000/, was credited to SB A/c no. 311 of Mr. A.K. Sharma, maintained with the bank. The amount of Rs. 75,000/ related to DD Ex. PW13/A dated 15.11.1997, issued from Vaishya Bank Ltd., Noida Branch, as testified by PW13, Vinay Raj Gupta, who was working as Senior Officer in Vaishya Bank. PW9, A.K. Dhupar, further proved credit voucher dated 21.03.1998 vide which amount of Rs. 1,25,000/, was credited to SB A/c no. 311 of A.K. Sharma with Indian Overseas Bank and credit voucher proved as Ex. PW9/B. The payment relates to DD dated 14.03.1998, for a sum of Rs.1,25,000, Ex. PW13/C.
80. PW9 A.K. Dhupar, also proved credit voucher dated 05.02.1998 Ex. PW9/C, vide which a sum of Rs. 50,000/ was credited to SB A/c No. 311 of A.K.Sharma with Indian Overseas Bank, Noida Branch. This payment related to DD dated 06.01.1998 for Rs.50,000/ Ex. PW13/B. PW13 Vinay Raj Gupta, further testified that all the three demand CC No.21/01 78 of 96 79 drafts Ex. PW13/A, Ex. PW13/B and Ex. PW13/C, were issued in favour of A.K. Sharma, by Johnson Computer Academy Extension Counter,Sainik Puri, Sikandarabad of Vaishya Bank Ltd.
81. PW17 Bollam Linga Tata, has proved SB A/c no. 93, A10 Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, jointly with Ms. Radha Rao with Sainik Puri, Extension Counter, Branch of Vaishya Bank Ltd in Sikandarabad. Demand Drafts Ex. PW13/A, Ex. PW13/B, Ex. PW13/C, have been issued from this account of A10, P.R.S. Rao, and jointly with Ms. Radha Rao.
82. PW9, A.K. Dhupar, also proved the credit voucher dated 08.08.1997, wherein amount of Rs.29,873/ was credited to SB A/c no. 311 of A.K. Sharma, Ex. PW9/D with Indian Overseas Bank, Noida Branch. This payment relates to cheque dated 06.07.1997 for Rs.30,000/ drawn on SBI, Palakonda branch Vishakhapatnam, and proved vide Statement of A/c Ex. PW20/A, SB A/c No. 5034/34 of Smt. Pakki Radha Rao W/o Rama Shanker Rao.
83. PW9, A.K. Dhupar, also proved the credit voucher dated 28.07.1997 for Rs.40,000/ with Indian CC No.21/01 79 of 96 80 Overseas Bank, Noida Branch, Ex. PW9/E and the payment related to cheque no. 356948 dated 28.07.1997 for Rs.40,000/ in favour of A.K. Sharma, issued from A/c of A10, Lt. Col. P.R.S. Rao, SB A/c no. 12074, maintained with Syndicate Bank, Sec18, Noida Branch. The amount was debited to the account of P.R.S. Rao on 29.07.1997.
84. Next is credit voucher dated 27.09.1997 for Rs. 50,000/ Ex. PW9/F, credited to SB A/c no. 311 of A.K.Sharma with Indian Overseas Bank, Noida Branch, it relates to cheque dated 13.09.97 for Rs.50,000/ in favour of A.K.Sharma, issued from Vikram Puri Branch of State of Hyderabad, the cheque being Ex. PW9/A proved by PW19 Lal Bihari Ram. Again, a sum of Rs.3,000/ was credited to the A/c of A.K. Sharma with Indian Overseas Bank, Kribhco Branch, Sec 1, Noida, and the payment related to cheque no. 684002, Ex. PW8/C for Rs.3,000/ dated 06.07.1997 drawn on SB A/c no. 1007 with the same bank, the account being of Deepak Rao. Then, there are deposits in the account of A.K. Sharma, vide cheque no. 683966 Ex. PW8/D, for Rs.2,000/ dated 06.07.1997, issued from SB A/c no. 1183 of the same CC No.21/01 80 of 96 81 bank belonging to A10, Lt. Col. P.R. S. Rao, in favour of A.K. Sharma.
85. Then, there is payment of Rs.1,000/ vide cheque no. 270581 dated 06.07.1997, in favour of A.K. Sharma, cheque Ex. PW11/B from A/c no. 16715 of P. Deepak Rao maintained with Canara Bank, Noida Main Branch. Payments of Rs.30,000/, Rs.18,000/ and Rs.2,000/, were made vide cheques Ex. PW37/A, Ex. PW37/F and Ex. PW8/B these cheques were deposited in the account of Arun Sharma bearing SB A/c no. 85391, maintained with Parliament Street Branch of Syndicate Bank. Then, there is a payment of Rs. 3,000/ vide cheuqe dated 06.07.1997, Ex. PW18./A in favour of A12, A.K. Sharma, having been drawn on SB A/c no. 6974 of A10, Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S.Rao, with SBI, Palika Bazar, New Delhi Branch. Then, payment of Rs. 7,000/ has been made vide cheque no. 664443 dated 06.07.97 Ex. PW19/A, favouring A12. A.K. Sharma, drawn on Parliament Street, Head Post Office, New Delhi on A/c no. 1615653 of A10 Lt. Col.(Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, with the post office saving bank, HPO, New Delhi. There is also payment of CC No.21/01 81 of 96 82 Rs.3,000 vide a cheque dated 06.07.97, Ex. PW22/B, in favour of A12, A.K. Sharma, having been drawn on the account of A10, Lt. Col.( Retd. ) P.R.S. Rao, with Syndicate Bank, being A/c No.63958 with South Block Branch, New Delhi.
86. The payment as such is not disputed either by A10, Lt. Col.(Retd.) P.R.S. Rao or by A12,A.K. Sharma, and it is the case of both that sum of Rs.4.39 lacs, was received by A12, A.K.Sharma from A10 Lt. Col. (Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, as a loan. The manner in which the payments have been received by A12 from A10, do not support the claim of A10 and A12, that money was received as a loan. For instance, payments were made for different sums on different dates between 06.07.1997 and 14.03.1998 and cheques were drawn on different accounts belonging to A10 as well as his family members. For instance, payment of Rs.1,000/ was made vide cheque dated 06.07.97, Ex. PW11/B, drawn on the account of P. Deepak Rao, with Canara Bank, Noida, being son of A10, who was only a student at that time. Three other cheques are dated 06.07.97 for a sum of Rs.2000/, Rs. 3,000/ and Rs.
CC No.21/01 82 of 96
83
2,000/, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D, were drawn in favour of A12, against the account no. 11182 of Miss Jyotsana D/o A10, and account no. 1183 of A10, Lt. Col. ( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao, himself respectively. Again, a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,000/ dated 06.07.97 Ex. PW19/A, in favour of A12, was drawn on account of A10, against his account no. 1615653 with Post Office Saving Bank, Parliament Street, HPO, New Delhi. Similarly, payments of other smaller amounts were made on different dates. A12, A.K. Sharma has claimed that he was forced to seek loan from A10, who was earlier residing in the area of Noida, U.P. before settling in Andhara Pradesh after his retirement, so as to meet the expenses of treatment of his father.
87. One witness being DW1, Sunil Tyagi, Accountant of State Bank of India, Sec36, Noida, has been examined. The witness has deposed as regards the 6 cheques which were issued by A12 in favour of A10 for dishcarge of the loan liability and DW1 has deposed that 6 cheques issued in favour of A10( Lt. Col.( Retd.) P.R.S. Rao) has been cleared. Statement of account Ex. DW1/A of Saving Bank CC No.21/01 83 of 96 84 A/c No. 20044525961, has been proved which is to show that a sum of Rs.20,000/ approximately, have been paid back by A12 to A10. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P.C, A12 has also stated that he shall be clearing the loan taken from A10 shortly.
88. There is no substance in the stand being taken on behalf of A12 as regards the amount received as loan from A10. No evidence worth the name has been produced on behalf of A12, as regards the illness of his father during the relevant period. Moreover, PW37, Arun Sharma, being elder brother of A10 has testified that during the period from year 1994 to year 1996, he had given a loan of Rs.70,000/ to his elder brother, Ashok Kumar Sharma(A12) out of his personal savings and after having withdrawn some amount from GPF. PW37 Arun Sharma, further deposed that in year 1996, he had purchased a flat and therefore, was in need of money, but Ashok Kumar Sharma was not able to pay the amount at that time and on persistent demand, Rs. 22,000/ were returned by him in cash and two cheques for a sum of Rs. 30,000/ and Rs. 18,000/, were given. The cheques are Ex. PW37/A and Ex.
CC No.21/01 84 of 96
85
PW37/B, which were in favour of Ashok Kumar Sharma and not in favour of the witness.
89. It was contended on behalf of A11 that there are two distinct allegations against the accused persons, one pertaining to year 19941995 and another pertaining to year 1997. The bills pertaining to M/s Rishi Enterprise and M/s Sri Krishna Enterprises were for the period during the year 199495 whereas the bills pertaining to M/s Shree Venkateshwar Enterprise were for the period during the year 1997. Moreover, A10 Lt.Col.(Retd.)P.R.S.Rao was not there in the service of DDGOS in year 1997 having retired in year 1995. These were series of acts committed by accused persons particularly A11 as a part of the conspiracy alongwith others extending from year 199495 to year 1997. As such, accused persons can be charged together for the allegations relating to year 199495 as well as allegations relating to year 1997 under provisions of Section 223 CrPC.
90. Prosecution has examined PW50, Mrs. Sudha Raj Gopal in order to prove the sanction to prosecute A12, A.K.Sharma. PW50 has testified that on 28.02.2000, she was CC No.21/01 85 of 96 86 working as Director General of Audit, Defence Services at New Delhi and by virtue of the post, she was holding, she was competent to remove A.K.Sharma, the then Asstt. Audit Officer in the office of Director General of Audit, Defence Services, New Delhi, from his post. The witness has proved the Sanction Order Ex.PW50/A accorded by her.
91. Prosecution has also examined PW43, Jaswant Singh in regard to the sanction to prosecute A10 Lt.Col. (Retd.)P.R.S.Rao. PW43 Jaswant Singh testified that in month of June, 2000, he was working as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and after receiving the CBI report, including statements of witnesses and the documents produced, he had submitted a note to the competent authority and when it was approved, he had authenticated the sanction order dated 14.06.2000 against Lt.Col.(Retd.) P.R.S.Rao. Sanction order Ex.PW43/A has been proved by the witness.
92. In the written submissions filed as well as during oral submissions made on behalf of A11 Capt. (Retd.) I.B.S.Uppal, it was contended that specimen signatures / admitted signatures of PW33, M.K.Bhardwaj and Brigadier CC No.21/01 86 of 96 87 D.S.Manjrekar, were not sent to the Government Examiners of Questioned Documents, Government of India at Shimla despite their letter dated 14.06.2000 Ex.PW49/233, which were very essential, since both Mr. M.K.Bhardwaj and Brigadier D.S.Manjrekar were the concerned officers in the Section, where the alleged fraud had taken place. It was also contended that even the report in regard to the specimen signatures of several other officers which were sent for comparison with other documents, had not been placed on record by the Investigating Officer and also that specimen signatures and writings of A11 was not obtained for sending to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison with the questioned documents, despite an application having been moved by A11. It could be that other officers as well as other persons, may also be involved in the conspiracy whose role has not been brought to light during investigation of the case, but the issue now is whether or not the accused being A10 and A11 had the role, alleged against them, in the conspiracy. It has been held in preceding paras of the judgment that the identity and the role played by CC No.21/01 87 of 96 88 them has been proved by the prosecution.
93. In view of the above discussions, it is held that prosecution has been able to prove its case against A10, P.R.S.Rao for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. Further, prosecution has been able to prove its case against A10, P.R.S.Rao for the substantive offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. However, prosecution has failed to prove the charge for offence punishable U/S 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against him.
94. Further, it is held that prosecution has been able to prove its case against A11, I.B.S.Uppal, for the offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt and also for substantive offence punishable U/S 420 IPC (on both counts) as well as for offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC. However, prosecution has not been able to prove its case against A11 CC No.21/01 88 of 96 89 for offence punishable U/S 471 IPC (on both counts).
95. Prosecution has also been able to prove its case against A12, Ashok Kumar Sharma for the offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. However, prosecution has failed to prove the charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
96. Accordingly, A10, P.R.S.Rao is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, A10, P.R.S.Rao is held guilty and convicted for the substantive offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, he is acquitted of the charge U/S 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
97. A11, I.B.S.Uppal is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, A11, I.B.S.Uppal is held CC No.21/01 89 of 96 90 guilty and convicted for substantive offence punishable U/S 420 IPC (on both counts) as well as for offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC. However, he is acquitted for the charge U/S 471 IPC (on both counts).
98. Accused no.12, Ashok Kumar Sharma is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, he is acquitted of the charge U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 22.10. 2013 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (P C ACT)/ DELHI
CC No.21/01 90 of 96
91
IN THE COURT OF SH. J.P.S MALIK :SPECIAL JUDGE CBI03 (PC ACT): TIS HAZARI: DELHI Corruption Case No. 21/01 RC No. 1(A)/98/CBI/ACUI/ND CBI Vs
1. Lt. Col. (retd.) P.R.S. Rao S/o late Sh. Pakki Surya Prakash Rao, Dy.
Director Ordnance Services, O/o DDGOS ( I & BC Section), New Delhi ( retired), R/o 53, Vijay Puri, ECIL Post, Secunderabad, A.P.
2. Capt. ( Retd.) I.B.S. Uppal S/o late Col. (retd.) R.S. Uppal, R/o K2, Green Park Extn., New Delhi.
3. Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. P.D. Sharma, Asstt. Audit Officer, O/o the Director General of Audit ( Defence Services), LII Block Brassey Avenue, New Delhi1, R/o 864, Sector 37, Noida.
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Convict P.R.S. Rao, convict I.B.S. Uppal and convict Ashok Kumar Sharma, who have been held guilty for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC as well as under different substantive offences, were heard on the CC No.21/01 91 of 96 92 point of sentence. Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of convict Ashok Kumar Sharma as well as convict I.B.S. Uppal.
2. The convict I.B.S.Uppal has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, convict I.B.S.Uppal has been held guilty and convicted for substantive offence punishable U/S 420 IPC (on two counts) as well as for offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC. The contention made on behalf of convict I.B.S. Uppal is that he was released from Army in year 1991 on medical grounds, have two daughters aged 22 years and 19 years, who are both medical students, to provide proper care, and is also sole bread earner of his family. It has also been stated that wife of convict I.B.S. Uppal, is a house lady and suffering from foot deformity. Relying upon a case decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar & Ors. 2008 (III) AD ( Cr.) (SC) 581, request is made for a lenient view and awarding of minimum CC No.21/01 92 of 96 93 sentence provided under the provisions of Section 420 IPC and under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, apart from conviction under Section 120B IPC. However, that was a case under the provisions of Punjab Excise Act. Hon'ble High Court in the matter had extended the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Order passed by Hon'ble High Court was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court and convict in that case was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months alongwith fine.
3. Reliance was also placed on behalf of convict I.B.S. Uppal, on a case decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Ram Ratten Vs. State Through CBI, 2011 (2) C.C. Cases(HC) 126. It was also stated that convict, I.B.S. Uppal, was aged about 55 years.
4. Convict, P.R. S. Rao, who has been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further P.R.S.Rao held guilty and convicted for the substantive CC No.21/01 93 of 96 94 offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, through Counsel submitted that he was aged about 73 years and was suffering from Cancer and was at present under treatment.
5. Convict Ashok Kumar Sharma, who has been held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, through Counsel submitted that he was under
suspension from year 2009 till 2011 and that was only because of allegations in the present case. Request is made for a lenient view.
6. On behalf of prosecution, Sh. Brajesh Shukla, Sr. PP had argued that a stringent punishment for the convicts be awarded, keeping in view their background, arguing that defence personnels are expected to exhibit better behaviour and not expected to indulge in embezzlement of government money. Prayer is made for granting of severe punishment, which should run consecutively, awarded under different sections.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and CC No.21/01 94 of 96 95 the manner in which the money has been withdrawn fraudulently on the basis of bogus bills, leniency is not warranted. There is no particular mitigating factor for taking a lenient view, for any of the convict.
8. Accordingly, convict P.R.S.Rao is sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, convict P.R.S.Rao is sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac for substantive offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Sentence awarded under both the Sections shall run concurrently. The convict shall undergo SI for 6 months, in case of default of payment of fine.
9. Convict, I.B.S.Uppal is sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, convict I.B.S.Uppal is sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac separately, for both the CC No.21/01 95 of 96 96 charges under Section 420 IPC. Further, convict I.B.S.Uppal is sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year for offence punishable U/S 420/511 IPC. Sentence awarded under different Sections shall run concurrently. The convict shall undergo SI for 6 months, in case of default of payment of fine.
10. Convict, Ashok Kumar Sharma is sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1 Lac for offence punishable U/S 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Convict, Ashok Kumar Sharma shall undergo SI for 3 months, in case of default of payment of fine.
11. All the three convicts shall have the benefit of provisions of Section 428 CrPC for the period, if any, undergone by them in imprisonment during trial of the case. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence shall be given to the convicts free of cost. Fine paid by all the convicts.
Announced in open court (J.P.S. MALIK)
On 29.10. 2013 SPECIAL JUDGE
CBI03 (P C ACT)/ DELHI
CC No.21/01 96 of 96