Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. on 18 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJENDER KUMAR SHASTRI:SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) [CBI]14, ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI Case No. CBI149/2019 CNR No. DLCT110006742019 CBI Vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. FIR No. RC ACI 2001 A 0001/CBI/ACUINew Delhi U/s 120B r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC & Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. CBI Vs. 1. S.P.S. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. A.P. Singh R/o G911, AWHO Jalvayu Tower, Gurgaon (Haryana). 2. Mukesh Gupta S/o late Sh. S.P. Gupta R/o 16NDSE, PartI, New Delhi110049 3. Naveen Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Daya Chand Jain R/o 32, Prem Puri, Mujzaffar Nagar (UP) Date of institution of the case 23.09.2003 Date on which, case has been 06.05.2011 received in this court Arguments concluded on 15.03.2019 Date of pronouncement of judgment 12.04.2019 CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 1 of 83 JUDGEMENT:
1. On 22.08.2001, First Information Report (FIR) no. RC ACI 2001 A0001was registered in Delhi Special Police Establishment ACUI branch, on the basis of some information, claimed to be reliable. It came to know that Sh. S.P.S. Raj Kumar and Sh. K.M. Arjun posted and functioning as Group Capt. and Flt. Lt. respectively at 7 BRD, Air Force Station, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, entered into a conspiracy with each other and with two private firms namely M/s Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. (in brief M/s DPPCL) and M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. (in brief M/s DCEIL), in year 1999, causing huge wrongful loss to public exchequer. A supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/PtII/1 dated 05.03.1999 was placed by Group Capt. S.P.S. Raj Kumar in the capacity of Station Commander for procurement of 7,000 reams of 5 types of duplicating paper upon M/s DPPCL. The latter firm supplied only 950 reams of paper, while received payment for entire quantity of 7,000 reams, causing wrongful loss to the State Exchequer to the tune of Rs. 8,83,168/ and consequential wrongful gain to himself as well as said firms. Receipt on inspection note was signed by Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun without verifying physical receipt of stores and without comparing the same with supply order. On same day i.e. 05.03.1999 another supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/PtII/2 was issued by same S.P.S. Raj Kumar upon same company M/s DPPCL for supply of 03 types of photocopier paper totaling 7500 reams. The inspection note was signed by CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 2 of 83 Sh. K.M. Arjun without verifying physical receipt. Payment of entire ordered quantity of 7500 reams was made to said firm, but only 750 reams were supplied. It caused wrongful loss to the State amounting Rs. 5,25,469/ and corresponding wrongful gain to said firm.
2. Third supply order no. 7 BRD/410/6/CPD/Lgs/2 was placed on 21.05.1999 upon M/s DCEIL i.e. for supply of 06 types of welding electrodes totaling 13,40,000 pieces. Said order was placed by Air Commodore Sh. Shivendra Singh. Inspection notes were signed by Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun without verifying physical receipt. Against said order of 13,40,000 pieces of electrodes, only 1340 pieces were physically received while payment was made to said firm for entire quantity of 13,40,000 pieces, on the basis of copy of supply order certified by Group Capt. S.P.S. Raj Kumar. All this caused wrongful loss of Rs. 12,28,523/ to State exchequer and corresponding wrongful gain to said firm. According to information, payments were made to said two firms by Pay and Accounts Office, on the basis of Supply Order, inspection notes etc., which were tampered by altering figures. Prescribed procedure was not followed for requirement of material, mentioned above and quantity was manipulated by writing much higher, than actual quantity required. All this resulted in wrongful loss to the public exchequer amounting Rs. 26.40 lakhs (approx.).
3. After investigation, CBI indicted Group Capt. Sh. S.P.S. Raj Kumar, Sh. Mukesh Gupta, stated to be working Director of M/s Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain, Director of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 3 of 83 (P) Ltd., Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. for offences punishable u/s 120B r/w section 13(2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act and again for offence punishable u/s 120B r/w section 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. CBI did not find sufficient evidence to prosecute Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun stating that the latter acknowledged receipt of photocopier paper, duplicating paper and welding electrodes on the copies of inspection notes used by said companies for obtaining payment from Pay & Accounts Office. He acknowledged receipt of quantity, which was actually inspected by Assistant Director (QA) of DGS&D. The quantities were altered and enhanced by employees of said firms without knowledge of Sh. K.M. Arjun and DGS&D. In this way, no offence was made out against him (Sh. K.M. Arjun).
4. By order of this Court dated 28.01.2010, accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar, Mukesh Gupta and Naveen Kumar Jain were charged for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC r/w section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and again for offence punishable u/s 120B r/w section 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. Accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar was also charged for offence punishable u/s 13 (2) r/w section 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. All three of accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, when charges were read over and explained to them.
5. In order to bring home its case, prosecution examined 36 witnesses in total. Out of which, 11 were from Indian Air Force, 04 were from Pay and Accounts Office, 10 were from Office of Director General Supply & Disposal (in brief CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 4 of 83 DGS&D) and 05 were employees of M/s DPPCL.
6. When statements of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar admitted having signed supply order (D4). It is further admitted by this accused that supply order Ex. PW9/A was signed by him. According to him, it was for 25.3 MT papers, sent through DGS&D under rate contract. This accused further admitted his signatures on supply order dated 05.03.1999 (Ex. PW7/DA). This order was placed for purchase of 7500 reams of photocopier papers from M/s DPPCL. When evidence i.e. deposition of PW27 that photocopier paper were generally procured by Station Adjutant from office contingency fund, accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar claimed that as it was Kargil Conflict, he was instructed by Air Commodore Sh. Shivendra Singh to place that order. Accused did not deny the evidence as deposed by PW27 that supply order for purchase of 05 types of duplicating paper with denomination of quantity shown in reams and total number of reams being 7500 was placed upon M/s DPPCL. Fluid/Whitener was used to amend the quantity in MT, total quantity being 25.3 MT. About supply order i.e. Ex. PW4/A (D2) for welding electrodes was issued by Air Commodore Sh. Shivendra Singh and was certified by him i.e. accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar was also admitted by the latter as correct. According to said witness (PW36), said supply order was for 1340 electrodes and that quantity of electrodes was subsequently increased 1000 times by inserting '000' in original link at point X. As per him (accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar), he was innocent, had nothing to do with crime in question. During his job with Indian CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 5 of 83 Airforce, he had several sensitive and prestigious appointments. In his 30 years of distinguished service, he was never blamed for anything until came to Airforce Station, Tuglakabad.
Accused Mukesh Gupta admitted two inspection calls i.e. Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B having been made to Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2) from office of M/s DPPCL, audit of accounts belonging to said firm by Sh. K.D. Luthra (PW11) for financial year 19992000 and 20002001, audit Report for financial year 19992000 is Ex. PW11/A and again for financial year 20002001 is Ex. PW11/C. Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of said firm for financial year 19992000 is Ex. PW11/B and again for financial year 20002001 is Ex. PW11/D. According to said accused, it was a false case. DGS&D deducted an unreasonable and unjustifiable sum of Rs. 14,03,566/ from the payment received by him. Said deduction was despite his protest. He was falsely implicated in this case, when he demanded his legitimate dues.
Accused Naveen Kumar Jain admitted the supply order Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/C having been checked by Sh. Subhash Chand Bhutani (PW5) and payment of Rs. 12,41,840/ as claimed by him. Bill for said amount was reimbursed from Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA) and the same was received by his firm i.e. M/s DCEIL. This accused also admitted that documents pertaining to his firm were provided to CBI by Sh. Lalit Kumar (PW12). According to him, he has nothing to do with crime in question. At the time of Kargil Conflict, he was approached by 7 CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 6 of 83 BRD for supply of electrodes which were used in placing Radars Base Structures and being citizen of India, he felt duty bound to supply those articles to help the nation. He was innocent.
7. Accused Naveen Jain (A3) examined himself as DW1. While accused Mukesh Kumar Gupta (A2) examined Sh. Masood Umar as DW2, Sh. Mahakant Malik as DW3 and Sh. Deepak Prasad Tiwari as DW4.
8. I have heard ld. Sr. Public Prosecutor for CBI and also Ld. Counsels appearing for accused.
9. Sh. M. Satyanarayana, who is examined as PW24 deposed that from year 1996 to 2001, he remained posted at 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi, as Personal Assistant to Chief Logistics Officer (CLO). During aforesaid period, Group Capt. V. Ramesh, Group Capt. S.P.S. Raj Kumar and Group Capt. Om Prakash worked as CLOs. After seeing documents i.e. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PARTII/1 dated 05.03.1999 (Ex. PW9/A) (D5), TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PARTII/2 and TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/2, this witness verified that these were supply orders, signed by accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar.
10. Wing Commander Vikram Bakshi (PW9) stated to have been posted at 7 BRD, Air Force, Tuglakabad, New Delhi from March2000 to October2002 in various capacities as SLO (CMD) and SLO (CPD). He also identified signatures of Group Capt. S.P.S Raj Kumar on supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PART II/1 dated 05.03.1999 having placed upon M/s DPPCL, Kapashera for purchase of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 7 of 83 duplicating papers of 5 types, total quantity being 25.3 metric tons and quantity of reams as 7000 under locally control code head 742/01. Said supply order is Ex. PW9/A. According to this witness, supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PART II/2 dated 05.03.1999 was for different sizes of photocopier paper having 2500 reams each (total 7500 reams) and placed on M/s DPPCL. He identified signatures of Group Capt. S.P.S. Raj Kumar (A1) on this supply order, which is Ex. PW7/DA. Supply order no. 7BRD/410/6/CPD/2 was signed by Air Commodore Shivendra Singh as Air Officer Commanding, Airforce Station, Tuglakabad, and certified by accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar. Said order was for purchase of 13,40,000 nos. (06 types) of electrodes. Said supply order was issued to M/s Dayachand Engg. India (P) Ltd., Muzzafar Nagar. Same is Ex. PW4/A.
11. As per Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ganguli (PW4), he worked as Senior Accountant in the office of Chief Controller of Accounts, Department of Supply, New Delhi and worked at RC1 Section, which deals with Electrical and MS Electrode items. The bills were processed in this section. It was his duty to receive the bills from Section Officer and to process the same. This witness admitted to have received supply order (D2) in his office on 19.08.1999. Said supply order was issued by Sh. Shivendra Singh, having signatures of latter at point C and was attested by S.P.S. Raj Kumar, appearing his signatures at point D. Said order is Ex. PW4/A. This order was related to supply of MS Electrodes by M/s DCEIL for a quantity totaling 1340. He checked supply order and it was counter checked by Sh. Subhash Bhutani. Details CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 8 of 83 of same were recorded by him in the relevant register. This witness identified signatures of Sh. Subhash Bhutani on this supply order at point B. PW4 stated further about bill no. DE/09 dated 27.07.1999 (D8) and exhibited as Ex. PW4/C, having been received by him, for payment on 13.08.1999. It was for Rs. 12,41,480/. Pieces of MS Electrodes were mentioned as 1,34,000 and accompanied by Advance Payment Copy and Balance Payment Copy of concerned inspection note. The contractor claimed 100 % payment on the basis of documents. The payment of aforesaid amount was put up by him and was countersigned by Sh. Subhash Bhutani and were sent to Sh. B.L. Verkhiya, in the accounts branch.
After seeing inspection note dated 29.06.1999 (D3) (Ex. PW4/D), PW4 disclosed that each unit given in said inspection note was in thousand nos. and there was no mention of figure of thousand in the column, where quantity is mentioned in words. The quantity of MS Electrodes was received by Sh. K.M. Arjun, who signed the same at point A. Entry regarding payment of said amount i.e. Rs. 12,41,480/ was made by him in the Payment Register at point X. Said register was countersigned by Pay & Accounts Officer (Sh. B.L. Verkhiya) at point B. Said witness told further about a letter dated 01.07.2000 having been received from Air Force Station, Tuglakabad requesting him for recovery of Rs. 12,30,000/ from the supplier. Said letter is Ex. PW4/E and again letter received from DGS&D to withhold amount of Rs. 12,30,000/ from the firm. Said letter is Ex. PW4/F. CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 9 of 83
12. As per Sh. Subhash Chander Bhutani (PW5), in the year 1999, he was posted as Assistant Account Officer in Department of Chief Controller of Accounts. From May, 1999 to January 2000, he remained posted in RC1 Section. As Assistant Accounts Officer, his duties were to take supply bills submitted by the Accountant. This witness verified supply order Ex.PW4/A (D2). It was for supply of 13,40,000 pieces of welding rodes and received in the Office of CCA (Supply), New Delhi on 19.08.1999. Entry in this regard was made in the dairy of the office. It is further verified by said witness that bill placed by M/s Daya Chand Engineering Limited for the payment of 13,40,000 pieces of welding rodes. Bill was checked and recommended payment of Rs.12,41,840/ as claimed by the party. Said bill is Ex.PW4/C. PW5 identified the signatures of Sh. B. L. Virkiya, Account Officer on aforesaid document at point C. The bill was got reimbursed from the Controller of Defence Accounts (CDA).
Sh. Subhash Chander Bhutani (PW5) further told about the inspection note (Ex.PW4.D) (D3). It was in respect of supply order Ex.PW4/A. After seeing inspection note (Ex.PW4/D), this witness disclosed that number 220, 300, 150, 220 and 150 were mentioned in it. Similarly in the indenter's copy of inspection note i.e. Mark PA1, the quantity in same number i.e. 220, 300, 150, 220, 300 and 150 were mentioned, however, Ex.PW4/D reads "each unit is of 1000 number" in red ink at point B. These remarks were not in indenter's copy i.e. Mark PA1. Entry at point B on document Ex.PW4/D was also made before the said document was submitted before CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 10 of 83 Chief Controller of Accounts (Supply). M/s Daya Chand Engineering Private Limited had received entire payment of Rs.12,41,840/ from CCS (Supply) which was got reimbursed from CDA. The relevant page of register of payment is Ex.PW4/D, signed by this witness at point A. According to him, an amount of Rs.12,41,480/ for 13,40,000 pieces of welding rodes was recommended for payment on 20.08.1999 and the payment was processed by Sh. P. K. Ganguli, the then Accountant. After about one year, Air Force made recovery of amount of Rs.12,30,000/ through document Ex.PW4/B.
13. Sh. Balbir Singh/Sh. B.S. Jaswal (PW3) was also an employee of DGS & D. According to him, in March 1998, he was posted as Assistant Director in the Office of NI Circle as Assistant director. His duty was to carry out inspection of store and also to prepare inspection note. This witness told about inspection of manufacturing unit of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Private Limited on 25.05.1999 & 27.05.1999 for MS electrodes. Indenter's copy of his inspection note was Ex.PW7/A (D3) signed by him at point X. According to it, this witness inspected welding electrodes of different sizes totaling 13,40,000 pieces. Columns of inspection note were filled up by the representative of the said company namely Sh. Chedi Pandit. After seeing document Ex.PW4/D (D3) and Ex.PW7/A1 (Part of D3), it is disclosed by this witness that same were advances payment copy and balance payment copy of inspection note prepared by him. According to him, words "each unit of 1000 number" at point B at Ex.PW4/D and at point B on Ex.PW7/A1, were not written by CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 11 of 83 him when the said inspection notes were prepared and signed. These words were written later on (not by him). After seeing document Ex.PW3/A (Part of D3), copy of inspection call dated 11.06.1999, Sh. Balbir Singh Jaswal (PW3) told that no such inspection call was received by him before he actually inspected the godown of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Private Limited.
14. Sh. K.M. Arjun examined as PW27 disclosed in the Court that in August 1997, he was posted at 7 BRD as Flt. Lt. from January1999 to August September, 1999. He was holding dual charge as Senior Logistic Officer (SLO), Cargo Management Division (CMD) and Contract & Purchase Division (CPD). In case of CPD, he was responsible for scrutinizing local purchase requirements of 7 BRD. In addition, he was responsible for monitoring Air Headquarter Contract and other Contracts and availability of funds for local purchase under various code heads.
According to him, SLO, CPD was empowered to place supply orders to the Contractors and Vendors, who were registered with 7 BRD. Accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar was posted in 7 BRD as CLO in October1998 and remained posted there till September or October1999. This witness identified signatures of accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar and stamp of Station Commander on supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/Pt.II/2 dated 05.03.1999 (D4) ie. Ex. PW7/DA at point A. Supply order was placed for 7500 reams of photocopier paper on M/s DPPCL. Supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/Pt. II/1 dated 05.03.1999 (D5) (Ex. PW9/A) was for duplicating paper from M/s DPPCL having signatures of accused S.P.S. Raj CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 12 of 83 Kumar at point A. This witness also identified signatures of Air Commodore Sh. Shivender Singh on supply order no. 7 BRD/410/6/CPD/Lgs/2 (D2) i.e. Ex. PW4/A. Said order was placed upon M/s DCEIL for total quantity of 13,40,000 pieces of welding electrodes of various sizes. According to this witness, Air Officer Commanding Air Commodore Shivender Singh was not competent to place this order as he was not authorized DDO. Moreover, the average consumption of Welding Electrodes in 7 BRD for a period of 3 to 6 months was worked out to 1340 pieces and the average shelf life, according to technical staff, was between 1 to 2 years. The quantity mentioned in supply order i.e. 13,40,000 pieces would have been consumed by 7 BRD in about 100 years.
PW27 disclosed further that photocopier paper does not form part of logistics procurement unless specially authorized by higher formations for specific purpose. Same i.e. photocopier paper is generally procured by Station Adjutant from Office Contingency Funds. On the date of placing of supply order, accused S.P.S Raj Kumar was holding position of CLO and not Station Commander. As per telecard consumption of photocopier paper Ex. PW7/DB (D14), yearly requirement of photocopier paper worked out to be about 300 reams. Moreover, it was not in financial competence of accused S.P.S. Rajkumar to place supply order for 7500 reams of photocopier paper.
As per this witness, supply Order Ex. PW9/A appeared to have been raised with denomination of quantity shown in reams. The total no. of reams is 7000.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 13 of 83Fluid /Whitener has been used and quantity of papers is amended to metric tonnes (MT) and shown as below 9.40 MT (Whitener) 2000 Reams (No correction fluid) 3.45 MT (Whitener) 1500 Reams (No correction fluid) 4.05 MT (Whitener) 1500 Reams (No correction fluid) 2.8 MT (Whitener) 1000 Reams (No correction fluid) 5.6 MT (Whitener) 1000 Reams (No correction Fluid) The total shown as 25.3 MT.
After seeing document Ex. PW2/E (D7), this witness told that it was Advance Payment Copy of Inspection Note, receipt coloumn of which, indicates five types of duplicating paper and in coloumns tendered, accepted, total quantity accepted to date. In all three columns, the decimal has been shifted and '0' prior to decimal has been crossed. The total quantity actually received is appended below : 0.94 (Shown as 0X9.4) 0.345 (Shown as 0X3.45) 0.405 (Shown as 0X4.05) 0.28 (Shown as 0X2.8) 0.56 (Shown as 0X5.6) Upon totalling 0.94 + 0.345 + 0.405 + 0.28 + 0.56 comes to 2.53 MT and upon totalling the bracketed figures, it comes to 25.3 MT. The figures in words encircled at point Z and the abovesaid X correction were added later on after his CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 14 of 83 signatures. This witness identified signatures of Flt. Lt. Maneesha Rajput on receipt certificate i.e. on backside of this document at point A. After seeing document Ex. PW2/E2D7), PW27 told that 950 Reams are shown to have been received through said document by Sargeant Sarangi. While these 950 reams were brought on charge by Flt. Lt. Ms. Maneesha Rajput.
After seeing register Ex. PW17/A (D30), PW27 disclosed that it was Local Purchase of Stationary Register maintained by Station Adjutant. According to this register, duplicating papers were received on 28.08.1999 and quantity of same was 950 reams. He identified signatures of Flt. Lt. Maneesha Rajput on the relevant entry at point A. This witness also identified signatures of accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar on document Ex. PW4/A (D2) at points D, D1 and D2.
On being shown, aforesaid witness verified Certified Receipt Voucher (CRV) bearing no. S1/Ex/RV/C/16 (19992000) 9/8 i.e. Ex. PW26/A (D12). According to him, it was raised by CMD upon receiving 26 packets of Welding Electrodes in three sizes. These electrodes were brought on charge after converting the pieces into Kilogram (Kg) i.e. 160 (440 pieces) + 160 (600 pieces) + 80 (300 pieces) = 400 Kg (1340 pieces). This document (Ex. PW26/A) bear stamp of Quality Assurance Service (QAS) M 56 dated 05.08.1999. After seeing register Ex. PW7/D (D29) (Page No. 31), PW27 verified entry made in this regard as SIB/C/25 dated 09.08.1999. According to him, document Ex. PW26/A (D12) is Certified Receipt Voucher (CRV) bearing no. S1/Ex/RV/C/16 (19992000) 9/8 raised by CMD upon CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 15 of 83 receiving 26 packets of Welding Electrodes in three sizes. These electrodes were brought on charge after converting the pieces into Kilograms (Kg) i.e. 160 (440 pieces) + 160 (600 pieces) + 80 (300 pieces) = 400 Kg (1340 pieces). Ex. PW26/A bears the stamp of Quality Assurance Service (QAS) M 56 dated 05.08.1999.
After seeing page no. 31 (Ex. PW7/D4 of D29), it is told by this witness that an entry is made in this register as SIB/C/25 dated 09.08.1999. Quantity and specifications mentioned therein are matching with Ex. PW26/A. He (PW27) verified inspection note no. 90044 raised by DGS & D as Advance Payment Copy i.e. Ex. PW4/D (D3). According to him, quantity mentioned therein of various sizes are as 220, 300, 150, 220, 300 and 150 in Nos. There is a bracket on this document at point B mentioning "each unit is of 1000 nos." Quantities in words are mentioned as 220 nos. only, 300 nos. only, 150 nos. only, 220 nos. only, 300 nos. only and 150 nos. only.
PW27 verified Balance Payment Copy of inspection note no. 190044 Ex. PW7/A1 (D3) and Ex. PW27/A (D36). According to him, in Ex. PW7/A1, the quantity mentioned are shown as 220, 300, 150, 220, 300 and 150 in Nos. There is a bracket at point B on this document mentioning "each unit is of 1000 nos." The quantities, as mentioned above, is also written in words. A receipt certificate has been signed by him at point A. There is receipt voucher no. CRV/BOC/98/99. According to me, no such CRV no. was given by him and same was fake. Further, according to this witness, in document Ex. PW27/A (D36), annotation available in CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 16 of 83 original balance payment copy i.e. "each unit is of 1000 nos." was absent in comparison with Ex. PW7/A1 and Ex. PW4/D. This witness identified signatures of Flt. Lt. Sh. P.K. Rajput on this document i.e. Ex. PW27/A at point A. Further, according to him, 26 packets were received in one small truck and it was found that each of those 26 packets were containing 100 pieces of electrodes. As supply order was not available, he could not cross check the supply. He was informed about receipt of welding electrodes and staff informed him that supply order is not available, therefore, he called up accused S.P.S. Rajkumar, who was his senior and informed him that some electrodes have been arrived. Sh. S.P.S. Raj Kumar (accused) asked him to send the electrodes to the technical store, which he did.
15. Wing Commender Sh. Preetam Kumar Rajput was examined as PW7. According to him, in the year 199899, he was posted at 7 BRD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. He was looking after Storage Site1 of 7 BRD. After seeing inspection note 190044 (DEL/RC/GE/98/58/3/1F) (Ex.PW4/D), this witness verified that it was an inspection note indicating six different types of electrodes. He identified the signatures of Flight Lt. Sh. K. M. Arjun on this inspection note at point A and again inspection certificate (D3) (indenter's copy) having signed by him at point A which is Ex.PW7/A and further inspection note (balance payment copy) (D3) having signed by Flight Lt. Sh. K. M. Arjun at point A on Ex.PW7/A1. After comparing copy of inspection note Ex.PW7/D, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/A1, this witness told that there were some additions on Ex.PW7/D at points A and B. "each unit of 1000 number"
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 17 of 83was added therein while there was no such entry in column 6 of indenter's copy Ex.PW7/A. While being crossexamined by learned counsel for accused SPS Raj Kumar, Sh. Preetam Kumar Rajput (PW7) clarified that he did not receive copy of supply order at the time of taking supply of welding electrodes. Copy of inspection note was received when physical receipt of supply was taken and he compared supply of welding electrodes with the inspection note Ex.PW7/A. Latter (Ex.PW7/A) was received by him from the Purchase Division with supply.
16. Sh. Sudarshan Prasad (PW20) deposed that after preparing RV No.SI/Ex./RV/C/24 dated 18.03.1999 for the period 199899. Said document is Ex.PW20/A (D11) signed by him at point A. According to this witness, he received material mentioned in the aforesaid document. Despite being shown SIB (C) register (Ex.PW7/D2), this witness could not identity if it was the same register which was maintained by him.
At the time of his crossexamination by the learned counsel for accused Mukesh Kumar Gupta (A2), Sh. Sudarshan Prasad (PW20) told that the said document i.e. Ex.PW20/A was not written by him. He did not know if the quantity of paper supplied was actually 1,25,000 reams as mentioned in this document.
17. Sh. Amarnath, who is examined as PW1, remained posted as Sr. Accounts Officer in Department of Supply. This witness disclosed about purchase on rate contract basis. In year 1999, he was posted as Sr. Accounts Officer in CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 18 of 83 Department of Supply. While in year 1997, he was posted as PAO, CBDT, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. As Sr. Accounts Officer, he was looking after supply manual, to give advice on passing of bills, compilation of supply manual, to give advise on passing of any reference from Rate Contract Section.
As per PW1, supply orders are received in the office of CCS (Supply) through Indenting Officer by way of registered post. Same are entered in Receipt and Dispatch Section and then sent to RC Section, where same are placed before Dealing Assistant concerned, who is Accountant or Sr. Accountant. After checking, same are stamped as "Checked" and put up before Jr./Assistant Accounts Officer. When bill is received, it is put in Payment Register for checking by Accountant/Sr. Accountant, then by JAO/AAO and further by PAO.
Supply Orders are prepared in six copies i.e. Consignee Copy, Director General Disposal Copy, CO Copy, Indenting Officer Copy, Paying Authority Copy and one more copy, which he did not recollect. After receipt of supply order from Indenting Officer, inspection note is prepared. Inspection is to be made by inspector of the Director General Supply & Disposal (in brief DGS&D). Five copies are made of it called as Advance Payment Copy, Balance Payment Copy, Supplier Copy, copy for DGS&D and copy for Paying Authority.
For out station supply, the supplier, after proper inspection of material, used to submit bills to CCA supply alongwith first copy of inspection note and proof of dispatch i.e. copy of railway receipt. Original receipt is sent to indentor/consignee.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 19 of 83In CCA Office, after checking the supply order, inspection note, railway receipt (if it is sent by railways), air receipt (if it is sent by air) and it is sent by ship, then bill of lading is required. Bill is first processed by Accountant/Sr. Accountant, who notes in the payment register and put up to JO/AAO and finally before AO/Sr. AO for passing of bill. Pay Order is sent by AO/Sr. AO/PAO, whoever is incharge. After passing of Pay Order, in this way, the bill is to be sent to Cheque Section for arranging payment through Cheque/Demand Draft. Payment is used to be made by Cheque Section to the supplier. First copy of passed bill is sent to the section, two copies to Compilation Section, who after preparing Debit Notes used to send third copy to the Consignor to enable him to see that payment against supply has been made. This was a double check method.
18. As per Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2), in year 1998, he was posted in Delhi Directorate, DGS&D as an Assistant Director. DGS&D places rate contract for Central Government purchases through their direct demanding officers. Stating about procedure, it is disclosed by this witness that when supply order is received from indentor by the supplier, the latter accepts the supply order as per the terms and conditions of rate contract. He (supplier) tendered the stores to the Director, Quality Assurance for undertaking the quality check for the offered stores through inspection calls. After receiving inspection call from the supplier through dak register, the inspection has to be arranged at the supplier/manufacture works i.e. where stores of supplier are available for inspection. Samples are to be drawn as per sample plan of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 20 of 83 the governing specification and the acceptance test is to be carried out. On the basis of test result, test report is prepared and same is to be signed by Assistant Director, Quality Assurance as well as by supplier's representative. After completing the test, if result is found acceptable as per the governing specification, entire quantity is sealed and stamped. After inspection, the case is to be put up in rate contract file to the competent authority for its approval. After approval is received, the supplier submits the allocation list. The allocation list is distribution of stores as per the supply order, according to inspection calls. Subfile of allocated supply orders was to be called from concerned section and inspection note as token of acceptance is handed over to the firm/supplier, for getting it typed as per allocation. On receipt of typed inspection note, it is compared with subfile and signed by Assistant Director, Quality Assurance, in 08 copies.
This witness recalled two inspection calls having been received in his office from M/s DPPCL. According to him, entry to this effect was made in inspection call register and it was marked to him (PW2) by Dy. Director Sh. K.C. Jha. He (PW2) visited the firm (named above) for conducting inspection on said calls and issued the inspection note after getting approval from the competent authority. After seeing document (D5), this witness verified that these are aforesaid two inspection calls received from M/s DPPCL. Same are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. Ex. PW2/A is concerning duplicating papers having approximate value of Rs. 7 lakhs. Details are given on a separate paper attached alongwith Ex. PW2/A and CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 21 of 83 same is Ex. PW2/A1. Ex. PW2/B is regarding photocopier paper for an approximate value of Rs. 3,10,000/. The details are mentioned on a separate paper attached alongwith Ex. PW2/B and same is Ex. PW2/B1. PW2 clarified that quantity mentioned in inspection call (Ex. PW2/A1) is 200, 150, 150, 100 and 100 reams. Similarly, quantity of goods mentioned in annexure Ex. PW2/B1 at point Y1 is 250, 250 and 250 reams.
This witness verified that aforesaid two inspection calls received from M/s DPPCL were duly entered in Inspection Call Register (D23). Same is Ex. PW2/C. This witness further told about copy of inspection note (D6) dated 30.03.1999, having been prepared by him after carrying out inspection on 23rd and 24th March1999, and clarified that no Camp Call was offered by said company. He made inspection for quantity, as mentioned in inspection calls Ex. PW2/B and Ex. PW2/B1, which are signed by him at points A. Inspection note is Ex. PW2/D. Said inspection note was got typed by him from the Office of M/s Delhi Paper Products Co. Pvt. Ltd. as there was shortage of staff in their office.
PW2 stated further that he issued inspection note only for total quantity of 750 reams and not 7500 reams as mentioned in the inspection note. At the time of preparing inspection note, he mentioned the quantity as 250 reams and not 2500 reams. Additional zero was added later on. Similarly, according to him, quantity which is mentioned in words i.e. "two thousand five hundred reams only" was not written by him. Same was written subsequently, after he put his signatures. It is CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 22 of 83 stated again by this witness that he did not receive any letter for enhancement of quantity either from his office or firm i.e. supplier. He did not issue any other inspection note and inspection note mentioned above was final and same is clear from the number '1F' mentioned in letter i.e. DEL/RC/NM/98/176/26/1F i.e. Ex. PW2/B. The term 1F is written, only when full and final inspection note is prepared for final quantity.
After seeing inspection note dated 26.03.1999 no.
DEL/RC/NM/98/175/4/1F (Ex. PW2/E), it is clarified by this witness that said I note is regarding duplicating papers, signed by him at point A and it was issued by him for quantity as mentioned in Ex. PW2/A1. Decimals regarding quantity have been shifted and final figure was cut. He had issued I note for quantities i.e. 0.94 MT, 0.345 MT, 0.405 MT, 0.28 MT and 0.56 MT. He did not sign the cutting appearing on this I note.
PW2 stated further that after signing inspection note as per procedure, he handed over 05 copies of inspection note to representative of Delhi Papers Products Company Pvt. Ltd. so that contractor can make supply to concerned consignee, according to inspection note by road or by rail.
After seeing inspection note (D6) (Ex. PW2/D), this witness disclosed that he inspected only 250 reams and not 2500 reams as mentioned in inspection note Ex. PW2/D at point 1, 2 and 3. The total quantity was 750 reams (250 + 250 + 250). According to him, if he had made any cutting or addition in said inspection call, he CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 23 of 83 would have indicated the same in column no. 7 of inspection note. Backside portion of INote Ex. PW2/D (D6), which is handwritten was filled up by the consignee. After being shown inspection note Ex. PW2/E, this witness identified his signatures at point A on this inspection note and clarified that there was overwriting at point B and B1 regarding signatures in column tendered accepted total quantity etc. As per him, Inote was altered subsequently. Backside portion of this Inote Ex. PW2/E (D7) is handwritten and same was filled up by the consignee. Again, after seeing accounts copy of inspection note i.e. Ex. PW2/E, PW2 identified his signatures at point A on it, but clarified that signatures in his name appearing at overwriting/alteration at point B are not his signatures. Further, said witness identified his signatures on inspection note (consignee copy) i.e. Ex. PW2/E1 at point A, however, stated that alteration/overwriting on it was not signed by him. According to him, if he had any addition/overwriting/alterations, he would have signed all five copies. PW2 deposed further that he had crosschecked inspection note with supply order and that supply order contained same figure i.e. 750 and 250 reams respectively. As per him, originally he issued inspection note for following points i.e. size (420 x 297 mm) (297 x 210 mm) (215 x 330 mm) (215 x 342 mm) and (430 x 342 mm). He handed over five copies of inspection note to Sh. Chedi Pandit, an employee of M/s DPPCL.
During crossexamination of this witness on behalf accused Mukesh Kumar Gupta, the witness was shown file no. D28 (Ex. PW2/DA17). After seeing page no. 169, it is disclosed by him that it was supply order of duplicating paper CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 24 of 83 issued by DPPCL by Air Force Station, Tuglakabad and again Ex. PW2/DA18 was copy of supply order meant for Chief Controller of Accounts. According to it, the order placed was for 7,000 reams of various sizes of papers equivalent to 25.3 MT, as mentioned on page no. 170 of this document. As per said witness, on the request made by supplier for release of payment, the payment is released when Pay and Accounts Office compares the inspection note sent by Quality Assurance Department with inspection note submitted by the supplier.
19. Wing Commander Maneesha Rajput, who is examined as PW17 deposed that in year 19992000 she remained posted at 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. During that period, she was handling charge of Officer Incharge Service Institute and was to take over responsibility of Station Adjutant in the absence of permanent incumbent. Papers were to be procured by Station Adjutant. There was a register maintained in the office of Adjutant regarding papers collected and brought on charge. In August1999, permanent incumbent for the post of Station Adjutant Flt. Lt. V. Balu was on leave and she was officiating as Station Adjutant. She remembered Mr. Sarangi, who was handling OCG had informed her that some papers were to be collected from logistic section. He (Mr. Sarangi) asked her to sign receipt of paper. She signed accordingly for quantity of paper, which was of some higher quantity than actually received by her. After register for local purchase of stationary (D30) (x. PW17/A) was shown to the witness, she verified having 950 reams of duplicating papers brought on charge provided by logistic under DGS&D contract CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 25 of 83 dated 28.08.1999. She identified her signatures on page no. 15 of this document, which is separately Ex. PW17/B. This witness told further that during her tenure in 7 BRD, auditors informed her that though she had signed for 950 reams of paper, but the payment was made for larger quantity of papers.
20. Sh. S.V. Swami (PW15) told that he used to work with Delhi Papers Product Company Ltd. In year 1999, he was working as an Accountant with said company and as accountant his duties were to make vouchers and to make debit/credit entries. After seeing bill bearing no. 063 dated 27.04.1999 (D9), this witness verified that said bill was received in his department and was dealt by him. He identified his signatures on this bill at point A. This witness further verified to have received an amount of Rs. 9,83,528/ from Chief Controller of Accounts, Department of Supply, as mentioned in this bill. PW15 further verified having received bill no. 285 dated 09.07.1999 (D10) and dealt with same. It is signed by him at point A. He received an amount of Rs. 5,85,644/, as mentioned in the bill. Both of payments were received through cheques, which were deposited in the bank account of company. Said bills are Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW15/B.
21. Sh. Rajnish Kumar Vasudev (PW16) was Chief Manager at Retail Assets Group. According to him, he remained posted as Officer in Branch Office, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi from April1997 to May2002. On 15.07.1998, an account no. CC139 was opened in the name of M/s Delhi Paper Products Company Pvt. Ltd. and two cheques no. 679614 dated 11.05.1999 for Rs. 13,06,415/ CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 26 of 83 and another cheque no. 684334 dated 03.08.1999 for Rs. 36,69,042/ were deposited in that account on 11.05.1999 and 03.08.1999 respectively. Said cheques were duly credited in the account of M/s DPPCL on 12.05.1999 and 04.08.1999 respectively.
22. Sh. Dalip Singh Rewaria (PW18) told to have remained posted as Pay and Accounts Officer in the Office of CCA Department of Supply, Akbar Road, New Delhi from 30.04.1997 to 06.08.2000. According to him, he was assigned the duty of passing bills for payment, put up by AAO. He used to pass bill, after comparing the same with concerned inspection note and supply order. Payments could be released on the basis of photocopy of inspection note also, but same should be certified true copy. After seeing bill Ex. PW15/A (D3) i.e. no. 63 dated 27.04.1999, this witness verified that it was bill of M/s Delhi Papers Product Company Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 9,83,528.00 for 7500 reams (2500 + 2500 + 2500) of photocopier paper having been received in their office on 28.04.1999 with advance copy of inspection note dated 30.03.1999. Bill was passed by him on the recommendation of Sr. Accountant and then AAO. After seeing payment register, this witness identified relevant entry made by concerned Dealing Assistant, which is signed by him on relevant page i.e. Ex. PW18/A at point A. When supply order Ex. PW7/DA (D4) was shown to PW18, latter disclosed that it was supply order pertaining to photocopier paper dated 05.03.1999 issued by Group Capt. S.P.S Raj Kumar (accused). After seeing bill Ex. PW15/B (D
10) i.e. no. 285/DP/105/04/99 dated 19.07.1999, PW18 told that it was bill of M/s CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 27 of 83 DPPCL for a sum of Rs. 5,85,644.00 towards the supply of 25.3 MT of duplicating paper, which was received in their office on 03.08.2000 alongwith advance copy, balance copy and Accounts copy of inspection note dated 26.03.1999. The bill was passed by him (PW18) on the recommendation of Sr. Accountant and the then AAO. This witness further identified signatures of Ms. Kusum Lata Rataugi, the then AAO on relevant page of payment register i.e. Ex. PW18/C. According to him, supply order pertaining to duplicating paper dated 05.03.1999 was issued by Group Capt. S.P.S. Raj Kumar and he identified signatures of latter i.e. S.P.S. Raj Kumar at point B on said supply order. Same is Ex. PW9/A (D5). According to said witness, clearly fluid has been used in figure mentioned in said supply order and same was duly attested by Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun.
23. Sh. Bahori Lal Verkhia (PW19) told to Court that from year 1998 to 2001 he remained posted as Pay and Accounts Officer in the office of CCA, Department of Supply, Akbar Road, New Delhi. He was assigned the duty to pass bills of payment put up by AAO. After seeing bill Ex. PW4/C i.e. no. DE/09 dated 27.07.1999 (D8), this witness disclosed that it was bill of M/s Daya Chand Industries Pvt. Ltd. for a sum of Rs. 12,41,839.98. It was passed by him (PW19). It bears his signatures at point C. This witness further identified his own signatures as well as signatures of Dealing Assistant on relevant page of register maintained by Supply Office of Chief Pay & Accounts Office. Relevant page is Ex. PW4/B (D8) and further that a payment of Rs. 12,41,839.98 was made against the supply of welding CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 28 of 83 electrodes 13,40,000 in quantity.
24. Sh. K. D. Luthra (PW11) told that he was Chartered Accountant by profession. He remained auditor of firm i.e. M/s Delhi Paper Product Limited from the year 199394 onwards. He audited accounts of the said firm in the financial year 19992000 and 20002001. Sh. Mukesh Gupta and his wife Smt. Rajni Gupta were directors of the said company. This witness verified audit report of this company for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 i.e. Ex.PW11/A signed by him at point A. BalanceSheet and Proof & Loss Account on the basis of which audit report pertaining to year 19992000 was prepared is Ex.PW11/B (3 pages). This witness further verified audit report of the said company for the period 200001 i.e. Ex.PW11/C. BalanceSheet and Profit & Loss Account of the said company at the time of preparing audit report for the year 200001 was Ex.PW11/D.
25. Sh. Lalit Kumar (PW12) was posted in Punjab National Bank, Nai Mandi Branch, Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh as computer operator. According to said witness, he used to feed entries in the computer in ordinary course of performance of his duties. This witness verified the fact that an account was opened in the said branch i.e. Punjab National Bank, Nai Mandi Branch, Muzaffar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh on 19.11.1987 in the name of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Private Limited. Account opening form in this regard is Ex.PW12/B. PW12 verified the signatures of Chief Manager Sh. R. D. Kailly on a letter through which Sh. Daya Chand Jain and Naveen Kumar Jain stated to be Director was authorized to operate the account as CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 29 of 83 authorized signatory. The letter in this regard is Ex.PW12/D. Further, this witness verified the authenticity of computer generated statement of accounts pertaining to the said company from 01.01.1999 to 30.09.1999 i.e. Ex.PW12/E. Said witness explained that the cheque deposit slip for the amount of Rs.12,41,840/ i.e. Ex.PW12/F and the cheque amount was shown to have been credited in the statement of account of the said company after deducting commission of Rs.1,111/. The relevant entry is at page no.226 of statement of account Ex.PW12/E. After deduction, amount is reflected as Rs.12,40,729/.
26. Sh. Raman Bhalla (PW21) told that in year 1999 he remained posted as UDC in the Office of Director of Quality Assurance, DGS&D, Delhi. After being shown, this witness verified entry about supply order for photocopier paper placed on M/s DPPCL in Supply Order Register (D24), which was Ex. PW10/A. Entry in that regard was made at Sl. No. 26 SO No. G11/199899/46 dated 23.02.1999. Said document is Ex. PW21/A. This witness further told about inspection note Ex. PW2/D (D6) having been entered at point X, Withdrawal Statement Ex. PW13/DA1 mentioned at Sl. No. 26 of register and supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS Part II/1 dated 05.03.1999 placed by AOC, Airforce, Tughlakabad for Rs. 2,00,075/. The relevant page is Mark21/A. Withdrawal Statement, mentioned above, is Ex. PW13/DA1.
27. Sh. P. K. Goswami (PW22) told that in the year 2000, he was posted as Assistant Director (Administration) in the Office of Director of Quality Assurance, CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 30 of 83 DGS & D, New Delhi. His duties were to supervise the administrative work of different wings of the said office. According to him, in the year 2000, major renovation work of ceiling was done at third and fourth floors of the buildings of DGS & D. During renovation work, there was no proper security and safety of the records lying in the office as most of the window's glass panes were not installed. There were monkey menance in the area. Monkeys used to enter into the offices around the area including DGS & D building. They (monkeys) used to take away the material like files, documents etc. from the office situated in said building. Several files were misplaced / lost from the office of the DGS & D during that period.
28. As per Sh. T. R. Gill (PW31), in the year 2001 he was posted as Deputy Director (Vigilance) in DGS & D, New Delhi. This witness told about handing over certain documents to IO of this case. Those documents included bunch of inspection calls received by this witness on 16.03.1999 (Ex.PW31/B Collectively) (62 in number) (D31), bunch of inspection calls received in his office on 11.06.1999 (Ex.PW31/C) (42 in number), supply order file DEL/RC/NM/98/176/26 Ex.PW2/F (D15), Ex.PW2/DA9 (D33), Ex.PW2/C (D23), supply order opening register Ex.PW31/D, supply order opening register Ex.PW10/A (D24). Those documents were sent to CBI through covering letter dated 08.11.2001 Ex.PW31/A. List of aforesaid documents prepared by Sh. P. K. Goswami is Ex.PW31/A.
29. Sh. Vijay Laxman Sharma (PW34) was also an officer of DGS & D, New Delhi. According to him, in the year 2002, he was posted as Director, Paper CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 31 of 83 Products (PP). This witness also told about handing over the document Ex.PW34/A (Calculation of conversion from unit reams to unit metric tons) (D18) to IO. The said document was sent through forwarding letter Ex.PW34/B.
30. Sh. Sanjoy Mitra (PW25) stated before the Court that from 1997 to 2002, he was posted as Equipment Assistant/Store Keeper at 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi. Whatever goods/articles were sent to store, same were first sent to Transport Section/Receipt and Dispatch Section (R&D) alongwith receipt vouchers. A register called Store Inward Book (SIB) was maintained by the Store Keeper. After seeing register i.e. SIB(C) for the period 19982000, this witness verified entry made by him in this register having no. SIB/C/25 dated 09.08.1999. Said entry was regarding receipt of MS Welding Electrodes weighing 160 Kg, 160 Kg, 80 Kg, totaling 400 Kg and 1340 in nos. having received from Transportation Section. Said entry is Ex. PW7/D4 and aforesaid register is Ex. PW7/D2 (D29).
31. Sh. Rakesh Chandra Verma (PW26) is stated to be an exemployee of 7 BRD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. This witness identified the signatures of Flight Lt. P. K. Rajput, the then SLO (CMD), on documents Ex.PW7/A (D3), Ex.PW4/D (D3) and Ex.PW7/A1 (D3). Flight Lt. K. M. Arjun served as SLO (CMD) at that time. According to him, no CVR number is mentioned on documents Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/A1.
32. Sh. V. Balasubramanian (PW29) stated to have been posted as Station Adjutant at 7 BRD, Air Force, Tughlakabad, New Delhi from November, 1997 to CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 32 of 83 July, 2000. According to him, as Station Adjutant, he was to maintain discipline, procurement of stationary and forms for entire Unit. This witness identified supply order dated 05.03.1999 i.e. Ex.PW9/A having been issued by accused SPS Raj Kumar in capacity of Station Commender. According to him, said SPS Raj Kumar was not Station Commender rather he was posted as Chief Logistic Officer. After sending document Ex.PW2/E2 i.e. consignee copy of inspection note, this witness disclosed that no CRV number was written on this document. Similarly, according to him, no CRV number was written on another copy of inspection note Ex.PW2/D which was advance copy of inspection note. After seeing local purchase stationery register (Page No.13 of D30) (Ex.PW17/A), Sh. V. Balasubramaniam (PW29) told that quantity of duplicating paper of 950 reams was shown to have been supplied by Whale Stationery Products Limited through logistics. Relevant entry in this regard is Ex.PW17/B.
33. Group Captain I. V. K. Rao was examined as PW30. He was posted as Logistic Officer at 7 BRD, Airforce Station, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. He was officiating as CLO. This witness verified to have handed over following documents to IO during investigation of the present case :
• Document Ex.PW7/DB (Colly), Document Ex.PW7/DC (Colly), Document Ex.7/DD [all parts of D14] • Document Ex.PW7/D3, Document Ex.PW13/B, Document Ex.PW13/C and Document Ex.PW13/D [all parts of D13] • Document Ex.PW2/E2 (D7), CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 33 of 83 • Document Ex.PW7/A (D3), • Document Ex.PW26A (D12), • Document Ex.PW20/A (D11), • Document Ex.PW7/D2 (SIB register) (D29), • Document Ex.PW17/A (Local purchase register)(D30) List of these documents is Ex.PW30/A (2 pages) signed by him at point A. All these documents were sent to IO through covering letter Ex.PW30/A.
34. Sh. Chedi Pandit and Sh. Jagdish Shah are stated to be two of employees of M/s DPPCL, who are examined as PW6 and PW32 respectively. According to PW6, from year 1998 to February2002, he worked with M/s DPPCL as Trainee Sales. Sh. Mukesh Gupta used to look after the whole work of DGS&D, on behalf of said company. He (PW6) used to do work under his (Mukesh Gupta) instructions. Mr. Mukesh Gupta used to ask him to make call for inspection of articles/consignment. Inspection calls were to be prepared by him (PW6). Inspector used to call for the preparation of inspection note and he (PW6) used to attend those calls, as and when required. Eight copies of inspection report were to be prepared. These Inotes were either got typed or handwritten by him, as and when required as per supply order and inspection call. After seeing inspection call (D19) i.e. Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/B1, this witness told that same were written in his handwriting. Inspection call pertains to 250 reams of paper. After seeing copy of inspection note (D6) i.e. Ex.PW2/D, this witness disclosed that said inspection note CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 34 of 83 was filled up as per inspection call Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/B1. According to this witness, as per inspection call, numbers of reams in this inspection note should have been 250. He did not know who added additional zero in this inspection note.
During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused no.1, PW6 explained that all inspection notes concerning this case were prepared by the typist at the instance and instruction of owner (Sh. Mukesh Gupta). The inspection notes were brought from the office of DGS&D at the behest of owner of company. After seeing inspection call letters Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/B1, said witness identified his signatures on these documents and told that he used to take these inspection calls personally from the office of DGS&D and handed over the same to concerned dealing clerk, at counter. The inspection notes concerning this case were prepared by typist in their office and same were sent to Assistant Director (QA) DGS&D Office by him (PW6) personally. The inspection notes after being typed were checked by Sh. Mukesh Gupta. PW6 further explained in his crossexamination about inspection conducted by Sh. G.N. Gupta in this case. According to him, when he handed over the inspection note to Sh. G.N. Gupta, the latter used to take it before filing/signing. After signing the inspection note, Sh. G.N. Gupta used to return the same, which were usually in five copies. He used to handover five copies of inspection note to accused Mukesh Kumar Gupta.
35. Sh. Jagdish Shah, who is examined as PW32 stated on oath that he joined M/s Delhi Papers Product Co. Ltd. as Sales Officer in year 1999 or 2000 as CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 35 of 83 Accounts Officer. His duty was to visit various govt. departments for collecting purchase/supply orders as well as to issue bills/receipt after receipt of acknowledgment from the department. He visited several departments including 7 BRD, Airforce Racecourse, Western Air Command etc. This witness admitted to have filled up/written following supply orders as well as inspection notes A. Supply Order dated 05.03.1999 Ex. PW7/DA (D4) (except order number encircled at point Y. B. Supply Order dated 05.03.1999) (Ex. PW9/A) (D5) (except encircled portions at points Y1, Z1 & Z2 C. Portions of inspection note i.e. Ex. PW2/D (D6) (encircled at as Y2 and Y3).
D. Portions of document i.e. Advance Payment Copy of Inspection Note (Ex. PW2/E2) (D7) (encircled as Y4 and Y5).
E. Portion of document i.e. Account Office Copy of Inspection Note (Ex. PW2/E1) (D7).
F. Document i.e. copy of supply order (Ex. PW4/A) (D2) (except portion encircled at X2, Y, Y1 & Y2).
G. Portion encircled as Y8 and Y9 of document i.e. Advance payment copy of Inspection Note dated 29.06.1999) ( part of D3).
According to him, all these documents were written by him after going in the office of 7 BRD, Delhi and documents like purchase orders were given by him to CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 36 of 83 the department concerned, after filling the same. Documents Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/D mentioned above i.e. copy of supply order (D2) and advance payment copy of inspection note were written by him on the asking of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta (accused). This witness verified his specimen handwriting/signatures having been taken by CBI, during investigation of this case, which are Ex. PW32/A (38 pages).
During crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Mukesh Gupta, this witness disclosed that he met S.P.S Raj Kumar (accused) at the time when he visited office of 7 BRD in March1999 for placement of orders regarding duplicating as well as photocopier papers. The latter i.e. Sh. S.P.S. Raj Kumar asked him as which company he was representing and who was owner/ MD of that company and again that what kind of product they used to supply. Next time, he met accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar alongwith Sh. Mukesh Gupta, their MD i.e. accused. Sh. Mukesh Gupta had a meeting with Sh. S.P.S. Raj Kumar and he did not know as what they talked about. After 2 3 days of that meeting, he went to office of 7 BRD and filled up supply order form. This witness further admitted, having submitted following bills and copies of inspection notes for payment A. Supply and Disposal Bill Form Ex. PW15/A (D9).
B. Inspection note of DLRC/NM/98/176/26/1F having receipt of 7 BRD Ex. PW2/D (D6).
C. Bill Ex. PW15/A pertaining to supply of 7500 reams of photocopier paper.
D. Supply and Disposal Bills form Ex. PW15/B (D10).
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 37 of 83
E. Inspection note of DEL/RC/NM/98/175/4/1F having the receipt of the 7 BRD
alongwith it.
F. Inspection Note pertaining to duplicating paper Ex. PW2/E (D7).
G. Bill Ex. PW15/B pertaining to supply of 25.300 MT of duplicating paper.
36. Dr. S.R. Singh (PW35) was a Forensic Expert. According to him, he was promoted as Director, CFSL, CBI, MHA, New Delhi in the year 1996. This witness claimed to have forwarded report to Sh. N. K. Aggarwal, the then Senior Scientific Officer to the Superintendent of CBI through forwarding letter Ex.PW35/A (D41). He identified the signature of Sh. N. K. Aggarwal at point B on the said document and again said to have forwarded another report given by Sh. N. K. Aggarwal i.e. Ex.PW35/D. The forwarding letter in this regard is Ex.PW35/C. As per him, Sh. N. K. Aggarwal worked under him and he saw him writing and signing documents before him, hence, he can identify handwriting and signatures of Sh. N. K. Aggarwal. The latter has already expired.
37. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (PW8) is stated to have remained posted in Delhi Directorate of DGS&D as Deputy Director (Quality Assurance). According to him, duty of said witness as Deputy Director (QA) was to register firms/companies with DGS&D and to supervise the work of various inspectors, doing inspection. This witness identified signatures of Sh. B.S. Jaswal, Assistant Director (QA, GRII) on following documents
a) Inspection Note (Advance Payment Copy) (D3) (Ex. PW4/D).
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 38 of 83b) Inspection Note (Indenter's Copy) (D3) (Ex. PW7/A) c) Inspection Note (Balance Payment Copy) (D3) (Ex. PW7/A1).
PW8 was shown again documents i.e. Supply Order Receipt Register (D25). According to him, it was maintained in their office during his posting there. Entry at page no. 125 and 126 in this register was about supply order no. 7 BRD/410/6/GPP/LGS/2 dated 21.05.1999 from Air Officer Commanding, Tuglakabad. Total number of different types of electrodes 1340 in number were inspected by Sh. B.S. Jaswal, AD (QA). As per supply order register, mentioned above, the total value of said order was around Rs. 40,000/ approximately.
38. Sh. Pratap Singh (PW10) is also stated to have worked with Director General Supply and Disposal as Office Superintendent in the office of Director (Quality and Assurance) as UDC. According to him, during year 19992000, he was dealing rate contracts and supply order files. After seeing page no. 125 and 126 of register (D25), this witness disclosed that Sl. No. 3 of this register, there is entry regarding supply order no. 7 BRD/410/6/GPD/LGS/2 dated 21.05.1999, indenter of which was Air Force Commanding Tuglakabad and supplier was M/s DCEIL. These entries were at Sl. No. 3 and exhibited as Ex. PW8/A. The supply order was regarding supply of welding electrodes. This witness also verified inspection note Ex. PW7/A in respect of supply order mentioned above. Entry was made at Sl. No. 5 in this regard.
39. Sh. Vinod Kumar Saluja (PW13) told that in year 1999 he was posted as CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 39 of 83 Assistant Director (QA) GradeII in Directorate of Quality Assurance i.e. part of DGS&D, New Delhi. According to him, as Assistant Director (QA), he used to conduct inspection stores on inspection calls. He verified inspection of stores belonging to M/s DPPCL, after receipt of inspection call from manufacturer. According to him, inspection was made by him about quantity i.e. reams, as mentioned at point X in Ex. PW2/F (D15). After seeing file (D32), this witness verified inspection calls received in his office on 16.03.1999. At page no. 22 of said document, there was a letter from M/s DPPCL for store inspection. According to him, approximate value mentioned in that order was Rs. 3,45,988/. At page no. 24 of said file (D32), there was another letter from M/s DPPCL for offer for store inspection. Approximate value of goods is mentioned as Rs. 3,10,000/. Said letter is marked as Mark13/X1. Similarly at page no. 26 of said document, there is offer by M/s DPPCL for store inspection. Approximate value of goods is mentioned as Rs. 6,10,000/. At page no. 28 of same document, there is another letter from M/s DPPCL for offer for store inspection. Approximate value of goods is mentioned as Rs. 7,00,000/. This witness further verified offer of inspection received from M/s DPPCL having been mentioned in inspection call register (Ex. PW2/C). Again, after seeing file (D33), this witness told that it was drawl statement submitted by M/s DPPCL.
40. Sh. K. Babu (PW28) was one of IOs of this case. According to him, investigation of this case was entrusted to him in June1992. He examined 56 CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 40 of 83 witnesses and collected some documents. He seized some documents from Sh. M.K. Malik, Manager (Q&A), Delhi Paper Products Company Ltd. through seizure memo Ex. PW28/A signed by him at point A. PW28 identified signatures of Sh. M.K. Malik on this document at point B. Documents seized by said witness are marked as PW2/X (Colly.) and PW2/X1 (Colly.). Documents after seizure were deposited in malkhana and then handed over to Sh. V.M. Mittal, later IO of the case.
41. Sh. V.M. Mittal is examined as PW36 and verified registration of FIR in this case, on the basis of their source information, copy of which is Ex. PW36/A. He examined 26 witnesses, list of which is filed alongwith chargesheet. Sh. Mittal told to have seized following documents/material S.No. Particulars of Documents From whom seized Seizure memo exhibit no.
1 Manual typewriter Make Godrej Prima. Office of Delhi Papers Ex. PW36/B
Product Pvt. Ltd.,
Kapashera, New Delhi.
2 Specimen typewritten impressions of
typewriter mentioned above Ex. PW36/D
(Colly.) (18 sheets), typed by Ms. Shanta
Shashi, employee of M/s Delhi Paper
Products Co. Pvt. Ltd.
3 Certified copy of supply order no. 7 Vide letter dated
BRD/410/6/CPD/Lgs dated 21.05.1999 Ex. 19.09.2001 of Sh. Amar PW4/A (D2). Nath from Sh. N.P. Yadav.
4 Advance payment copy Ex. PW4/D (D3) Sh. N.P. Yadav CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 41 of 83 and Balance payment copy Ex. PW7/A1 (D
3) of inspection note pertaining to the welding electrodes.
5 Indenter's copy the Inspection Note already I.V.K. Rao, the then Sqn.
Ex. PW7/A (D3). Ldr, Airforce Station,
Tuklakabad.
6 Supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/Pt. Sh. N.P. Yadav.
II/2 dated 05.03.1999 Ex. PW7/DA (D4).
7 Supply order no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs/Pt. Sh. N.P. Yadav.
II/1 dated 05.03.1999 Ex. PW9/A (D5)
pertaining to duplicating paper.
8 Advance payment copy Ex. PW2/D (D6) of Sh. N.P. Yadav.
inspection note pertaining to photocopy
paper.
9 Advance payment copy Ex. PW2/E (Part of Sh. N.P. Yadav
D7) and Accounts Office Copy Ex. PW2/E1
(Part of D7) of inspection note pertaining to
duplicating paper.
10 Consignee copy of the aforesaid inspection Sh. I.V.K. Rao, the then
note Ex. PW2/E2 (Part of D7). Sqn. Ldr, Airforce Station,
Tuklakabad.
11 Attested copy of the bill no. DE/09 dated
27.07.1999 of M/s Daya Chand Engineering
Industries Pvt. Ltd. (DCEIPL) Ex. PW4/B
12 Original bill DE/09 Ex. PW4/C (D8) for Sh. N.P. Yadav.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 42 of 83
payment of welding electrodes.
13 Attested copy of the bill no. 063 dated Sh. N.P. Yadav.
23.04.1999 of DPPCL Ex. PW18/A (D9) for
payments of photocopier papers.
14 Original bill no. 285/DP/105/04/99 dated
19.07.1999 of DPPCL Ex. PW15/B (D10)
for payments of duplicating papers.
15 Certified copy of the payment register of Sh. N.P. Yadav.
deptt. of supply (Ex. PW18/C).
16 Original CRV bearing no. SI/Ex/RV/C/24 Sh. I.V.K. Rao, the then
dated 18.03.1999 pertaining to receipt of Sqn. Ldr, Airforce Station, photocopier paper (Ex. PW20/A) (D11). Tuklakabad.
17 Original CRV bearing no. SI/Ex/RV/C/16 Sh. I.V.K. Rao, the then dated 09.08.1999 pertaining to receipt of Sqn. Ldr, Airforce Station, welding electrodes (Ex. PW26/A) (D12). Tuklakabad.
18 Telecards no. CCN 326, 327 and 328 Ex. Sh. I.V.K. Rao, the then PW30/C & Ex. PW30/D and Ex. PW7/B3, Sqn. Ldr, Airforce Station, (D13) pertaining to welding electrodes. Tuklakabad.
19 Telecards no. CCN 346 Ex. PW7/DD, CCN Sh. I.V.K. Rao, the then 347 i.e. Ex. PW7/DC and CCN 348 i.e. Ex. Sqn. Ldr, Airforce Station, PW7/DB, (D14) pertaining to photocopier Tuklakabad.
paper.
20 Certified copy of account opening form Ex.
PW12/B (D16), 21 Specimen signature card Ex. PW12/C (D16) 22 Statement of accounts pertaining to account CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 43 of 83 No. CC2104 of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. (DEIPL) Ex. PW12/E (D
16), 23 Credit slip dated 28.08.1999 for Rs.
12,40,729/ Ex. PW12/F (D16)
24 Original List of Authorized Signatory i.e. Ex. Through forwarding letter
PW12/D (D16). dated 25.02.2002 of Chief
Manager PNB, New
Mandi, Muzaffar Nagar
25 Photocopies of Auditor's report dated
25.08.2000 pertaining to M/s DEIPL
Ex.PW36/E (Colly) (D17)
26 MOA of M/s DEIPL Ex.PW36/F (D17). Accused Naveen Jain.
27 Conversion sheet of duplicating papers Ex. Sh. V L Sharma, Director
PW34/A (D18) regarding conversion of DGS & D.
weight into number of sheets.
28 Copy of the inspection call along with Sh. G N Gupta, the then
forwarding letter bearing No. NEE477 i.e. Assist. Director, Grade II. Ex. PW2/A (D19) for duplicating paper.
29 Copy of the inspection call along with Sh. G N Gupta, the then forwarding letter Ex. PW2/B (D19) for Assist. Director, Grade II. duplicating paper for 4 different supply orders.
30 Certified copy of supply order No. Accused Mukesh Gupta
UGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs Part II/1 dated
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 44 of 83
05.03.1999 Ex. PW2/DA10 (D20),
pertaining to duplicating paper.
31 Photocopy of the advance payment copy of Accused Mukesh Gupta
inspection note No. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs
Part II/1 dated 05.03.1999 i.e. Ex. PW9/B
(D21).
32 Article of Memorandum of Association of Accused Mukesh Gupta
M/s DPPCL Ex. PW36/K.
33 Inspection call register NI Circle for the Sh. T R Gill, the then
period 01.12.1998 to 30.06.1999 of DGS & D Dept. Director, Vigilance, i.e. Ex. PW2/C (D23). DGS & D. 34 Supply Order register of DGS& D Ex. Sh. T R Gill, the then PW10/A (D24) Dept. Director, Vigilance, DGS & D. 35 Supply Order register of DGS& D i.e. Ex. Sh. T R Gill, the then PW31/D (D25). Dept. Director, Vigilance, DGS & D. 36 Rate Contract File No. WMT1/631 Ex. Sh. T R Gill, the then PW5/DA (D26) Dept. Director, Vigilance, DGS & D. 37 Rate Contract File No. PP3/RC4494/PP/98 Sh. T R Gill, the then 99/P3/DPPC/COAD/ 089 Ex. PW2/DA13 Dept. Director, Vigilance, (D27). DGS & D. 38 Rate Contract File No. PP3/RC Sh. T R Gill, the then 06010400/011999/105/D Dept. Director, Vigilance, CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 45 of 83 0488/Duplicating/DPPC/COAD Ex. DGS & D. PW2/DA17 (D28).
39 The Stock Invert Book [SIB(C)] Register for Sqn. Leader Sh. I V K year 199899 and 19992000 of 7 BRD Rao of 7 BRD , Airforce Airforce Station Tuglakabad Delhi. Station Tuglakabad.
40 Local purchase of stationary register Ex. Sqn. Leader Sh. I V K PW17/A (D30) of 7 BRD, Airforce Station, Rao of 7 BRD , Airforce Tuglakabad. Station Tuglakabad 41 Stock Register of M/s DEIPL from Accused Naveen Jain.
01.04.1999 to 31.03.2000 Ex. PW36/N (D
31)
42 File containing inspection calls (Ex. PW31/B) Sh. T R Gill, the then
(D32). Dept. Director, Vigilance,
DGS & D.
43 File containing drawl report of M/s DPPCL Sh. T R Gill, the then
Ex. PW2/BA9 (D33). Dept. Director, Vigilance,
DGS & D.
44 File containing Inspection calls received in Sh. T R Gill, the then
DGS&D Ex.PW31/C (D34) Dept. Director, Vigilance,
DGS & D.
45 Certified copies of the account opening Chief Manager, OBC
form, Specimen Signature Card, Statement Bank, Vasant Lok, Vasant of Account, copy of the pay in slips dated Vihar, New Delhi.
12.05.1999 and 04.08.1999 of account No. CC 39 in the name of M/s DPPCL CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 46 of 83 Ex.PW16/A (Colly) (D35).
46 Photocopy of the balance payment copy of Sqn. Ldr. Sh. K Saha.
Inspection note Ex. PW27/A pertaining to
welding electrodes and Challan dated
17.03.1999 of DPPCL for Photocopier paper
Ex. PW33/A.
47 Copy of the DGS& D Manual Ex. PW8/DX. DGS&D.
48 Specimen signatures /hand writings of Sh.
Chedi Pandit, employee of M/s DPPCL.
Ex.PW 36/S (Colly) (D39).
49 Specimen signatures /hand writings of Sh.
Jagdish Saha, employee of M/s DPPCL
Ex.PW32/A (Colly) (D39).
50 CFSL report dated 14.06.2002 Ex.PW35/A
(D41) and another CFSL Report dated
03.10.2003 Ex. PW35/C (D2).
51 Carbon copies of Inspection note also
bearing No. DEL/RC/NM/98/114/79/1F
dated 26.03.1999 Ex.PW36/T.
52 Carbon copies of Inspection note no. Accused Mukesh Gupta
DEL/RC/NM/98/114/81/1F dated 30.03.1999
Ex. PW36/T1 (D40).
42. Accused Naveen Kumar Jain examined himself as DW1. It is deposed on CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 47 of 83 oath by said accused that he was running a company in the name of Ms. Daya Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was an approved and certified supplier of welding electrodes to the Governments Department through DGS & D Rate Contract. On 23.12.1997, they submitted their offer and rates for the rate contract of year 199899. The same is Ex. PW36/D3. Rate contract (D26) was awarded on the basis of that offer. Supplier's copy of supply order was received from 7 BRD Tughlakabad and an inspection call was received on 11.06.1999 to DGS & D, for inspection of stock. Sh. Balbir Singh Jaswal visited his factory for inspection on 25.06.1999 and inspected the stock. The inspection was concluded on 27.06.1999. Advance payment copy and balance payment copy of inspection note (page no. 136 to 139 of D3) were delivered to him. Goods were delivered on the instruction of Flt. Lt. Mr. K.M. Arjun and he got receipt of delivered goods . He submitted bill (D8) with the advance payment copy and balance payment copy of inspection note(page no. 136 to 139 of D3) to Pay and Account Office and received payment of Rs. 12,41,840/.
Accused Naveen Kumar Jain verified to have received a letter dt. 08.08.2000 from DGS&D alleging short supply at 7 BRD. Said letter is Ex. DW1/A. According to him value of Rs. 1340000/ pieces of electrodes as per rate contract came to Rs. 12,41,840/ and that from 11.06.1999 to 02.07.1999 stock of welding electrodes with his company was more than 13,40,000 pieces. Said accused further told that he paid Rs. 1,04,592.72 as Central Excise Duty and Rs. 47,763.10 as Central Sales Taxe on supply Ex. PW36/D2. Assistant Commissioner Trade Tax Uttar CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 48 of 83 Pradesh imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,19,409/ on this supply for not submitting form by 7 BRD. Copy of order in this regard is Ex. DW1/F. Balance sheet of their company alongwith Audit Report certified by Chartered Accountant is Ex. DW1/G. Letter received from the DGS & D dt. 11.03.2002 stating that 7 BRD was their Direct Demanding Officer (DDO). Said letter is Ex. DW1/H.
43. Sh. Masood Umar (DW2), Sh. Mahankant Malik (DW3) and Sh. Deepak Prasad Tiwari (DW4) were examined by accused Mukesh Gupta. Sh. Masood Umar (DW2) disclosed that from 19822016 he remained Director of M/s. Popular Printers and Packers Pvt. Ltd., which was dealing in printing of papers, books and allied products. They used to receive printing jobs from 7 BRD situated at Tughlakabad, New Delhi. That work included printing of books, forms, visiting cards, letter heads etc. to be provided for their officers. 7 BRD used to send papers for printing aforesaid material. No seal of 7 BRD was affixed on those papers but same was found wrapped in wrappers of Delhi Paper Products Co. Ltd. During investigation (of this case) by CBI, he provided detail of job done by him as well as format of printed material as provided by 7 BRD.
44. As per Sh. Mahakant Malik (DW3), in the year 199899, he was employed with M/s. DPPCL, as Quality Assurance Manager. His duty was to arrange material, received from production and to get the same inspected from DGS & D Inspectors. Inspector used to visit their factory. The goods could be delivered without waiting for inspection notes, if same (goods) were inspected and stamped. After CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 49 of 83 seeing document marked PW2/X, this witness told that these were office copy of stamping plan and test reports prepared by him. These bear his signatures at point A, except the last page.
DW3 told further that Mr. Chedi Pandit was responsible for coordinating with DGS & D Inspectors, for placing inspection calls. He verified documents Ex. PW2/A, Ex. PW2/A1, Ex. PW2/B and PW2/B1, as copies of inspection calls placed by M/s DPPCL to DGS & D. According to him, Inspector from DGS & D inspected the product in their factory on 17.03.1999, but inspection, sampling and testing continued for 78 days. This witness again told about registers Ex. PW36/DY and PW36/DZ. Both being stock registers of M/s DPPCL maintained from 199899 and 19992000 respectively. According to him, aforesaid registers were maintained by him, during course of his duties. Sh. Mukesh Gupta (accused) was Director/Owner of said company but he rarely visited their factory in Delhi. DW3 mentioned Sh. Jagdish Shah, an employee of same (M/s DPPCL), who used to see marketing work for that company. Sh. Jagdish Shah and Sh. Chedi Pandit used to report to Sh. D.P. Tiwari.
45. Sh. Deepak Prasad Tiwari (DW4) told to have worked with M/s Delhi Paper Products Company Pvt. Ltd. (M/s DPPCL) from 1988 to 2009. According to him, in year 199899, he was posted with Delhi Factory of DPPCL as Sr. Manager Coordination. Sh. Chedi Pandit was also employed as a Coordination Officer. His duty was to coordinate with Director, Quality Assurance (DQA) and DGS & D, which included to place inspection calls, camp calls, to coordinate with Inspectors of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 50 of 83 DQA regarding their visit to the factory, to provide documents to the Inspector, to collect blank inspection notes after inspection was done. The Inspection notes were got typed by Sh. Chedi Pandit. This witness also told about Sh. Jagdish Shah who was marketing Manager in their Company. He (Jagdish Shah) used to collect orders against DGS & D rate contract. His duty included to carry the copy of DGS & D rate contract to show that their company was authorized and also to carry blank supply orders for obtaining orders from various Government Departments, when such orders was placed. Since the form was of technical in nature, as such Jagdish Shah used to fill the same, under the instruction of Officer concerned. It was duty of Sh. Jagdish Shah to get bills prepared and then to submit the same to Chief Controller of Accounts, alongwith copy of inspection note. If there was any complaint regarding quality or quantity of goods, same was to be filed within 45 days.
After seeing document Ex. PW2/D(D6) and Ex. PW2/E(D7), it is verified by DW4 that these are inspection notes issued by Sh. G.N. Gupta, Assistant Director signed by latter at point A. Supply orders pertaining to aforesaid inspection notes were brought by Sh. Jagdish Shah. These were orders for supply of 7500 reams of photocopier paper as well as 7000 reams of duplicating papers of various sizes. Inspection call for these orders was placed by Sh. Chedi Pandit on 16.03.1999 for part inspection. Inspection started on 17.03.1999 by Sh. G.N. Gupta and in that process, camp call was also made. Inspection ended in 810 days.
DW4 stated further that duplicating and photocopier papers were duly CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 51 of 83 supplied as per supply order Ex. PW7/DA and Ex. PW9/A. As per rate contract, quality of duplicating paper was required to be mentioned in metric tons and not in reams. Minimum quantity of duplicating paper was 9 metric tons.
Said witness told about a complaint received from 7 BRD and DGS & D but after 13 months of supply. Again that letters Ex. DW4/A and DW4/B were written by him (DW4) to DGS&D in response of aforestated letters, received from therein. They checked their stock and found that there was no short supply or pilferage on their part. According to this witness, Sh. Mukesh Gupta was not involved in any process of placing supply orders, production, inspection calls etc.
46. By filing written arguments/submissions, accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar admitted the fact that supply orders no. TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs Pt. II/1 (D4) (Ex. PW7/DA) and TUGH/410/6/CPD/Lgs Pt. II/1 (D5) (Ex. PW9/A) were issued by him for procurement of two types of papers through DGS&D rate contract and again that third supply order given by 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, Airforce Station for supply of welding electrodes, was signed by Air Officer Commanding (AOC) Air Commodore Shivendra Singh and same was attested by him (S.P.S. Raj Kumar). As per Ld. defence counsels, all these supply orders were issued by competent authority i.e. Direct Demanding Officer (DDO) of 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, Airforce Station, New Delhi. Items were received and utilized by 7 BRD. Payments were duly made by Pay and Accounts Office, after following due procedure and hence there was no illegality. They reminded that Kargil Conflict continued from May 03 rd to July 26th CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 52 of 83 1999 and hence large quantity of welding electrodes needed, during that period. Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain, Director of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. received letters dated 08.08.2000 and 11.03.2002 from DGS&D for reversal of payment received by him alleging short supply of welding electrodes. According to Ld. Counsel, by issuing such letter, DGS&D had only objection about short supply and not on the competence of accused S.P.S Raj Kumar to place supply orders, mentioned above. All this negates charge against his client that AOC or CLO had no power to place order of such large quantity of electrodes i.e. 13,40,000 pieces or that order exceeded his financial powers. The supply orders were placed for procurement of two types of papers and their quantity was mentioned in reams, but DGS&D required quantity to be mentioned in metric tons (MT) and not in reams. Due to said reason, some corrections were made in supply orders, converting units of goods from reams to MT and that by Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun. Accused S.P.S Raj Kumar cannot be faulted for those corrections (if any). Ld. Counsel blamed IO of the case for not seizing Manual (IA) 1501, wherein procedure of procurement of items under DGS&D Rate Contract was defined.
The accused have objection for not implicating Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjuj as an accused. The latter has been examined as a prosecution witness. According to them, it was duty of Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun being then SLO Cargo Movement Division (CMD) to physically verify the items received and the quantity and quality of those items to tally with office copy of supply order. Instead of physically verifying the quantity of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 53 of 83 goods, Sh. K.M. Arjun gave acknowledgement for full items. Moreover, despite periodical audit at 7 BRD, no shortage of stock was noticed. Ld. Counsel referred clause 21.7 of DGS&D1001 (DW1/L) i.e. General Terms and Conditions Governing Rate Contract and DDO and consignee, which reads as follow Consignee should ensure that any loss and or damage to stores that may have occurred during transit should be notified to the contractor within 45 days of the arrival of stores at destination, failure to do so would render purchaser's claim for such loss/damage, being rejected by the contractor.
Even if, there was short supply, the consignee could inform this fact to the contractor within 45 days of arrival of store, but no such complaint was lodged by consignee during aforesaid period. All 08 copies of supply orders and other original documents were in possession of prosecution having been seized by the IO, but the latter did not file the same. Accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar served Indian Airforce as Group Capt. Admittedly, he was a public servant. As per Ld. Counsel, he (accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar)could not have been prosecuted without sanction u/s 197 Cr.P.C, which was not obtained in this case. Again, it is pointed out by Ld. Counsel that his client faced General Court Martial (GCM) for the same offence. He was found guilty and was punishment for deduction of two year's service. On a review petition filed by IAF before GCM, his client (accused S.P.S Raj Kumar) was dismissed from his job. He challenged said order before High Court of Delhi and the latter was pleased to set aside verdict of GCM. Indian Airforce challenged that order before Apex Court of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 54 of 83 India and the Court was pleased to send the matter back to Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The tribunal after hearing the matter came to conclusion that dismissal from the service was too harsh for not performing duty with due diligence, where exchequer did not suffer any pecuniary loss. It enhanced the deduction of service from 2 years to 3 years, but pleased to release all retirement benefits to him i.e. accused. According to Ld. Counsel, his client has already been punished by Armed Forces Tribunal. His trial in this case amounts double jeopardy, which is contrary to principles of Criminal Justice.
Contending that none from witnesses examined by the prosecution deposed against his client, who served motherland till entire life, Ld. Counsel requests for his acquittal.
Ld. Counsel cited following precedents
a) Shivaji Sahbrao Bodade Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1973 SC 2622).
b) Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 637
645).
c) Salim Zia Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1979 SC 391). d) State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sugdhir Kumar @ Bunti [2016 (5) LRC 365 (Del)]. e) Omkar Singh Vs. State of Haryana [2014 (6) LRC 417 (P&H). f) Monu Kumar @ Monu Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [2015 (3) LRC 344 CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 55 of 83 (Del)]. g) Ritesh Chakravarty Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [JT 2006 (12) SC 416] h) Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [2004 (8) SCC 1] i) State of Rajasthan Vs. Mangi Lal Pindwall (AIR 1996 SC 2181) j) Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Crl. A 210/2005, Supreme Court of India). k) Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand & Ors. [(1999) 7 SCC 467] l) M. Narayanan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerla [AIR 1963 SC 1116 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 186 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 724]. m) S.K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra [1977 AIR 822, 1977 SCR (2) 533]. n) Veerchand Jain Vs. State of Chattisgarh (2012 SCC Online Chh 276 : 2013 Cri LJ 3409). o) A. Sivaprakash Vs. State of Kerala [(2016) 12 SCC 273 : 2016 SCC Online SC 482 at page 279] p) Jaffer Sharief Vs. State [(2013 ) 1 SCC 205]. q) N.K. Ganguly Vs. CBI. r) Anil Kumar Vs. M.K. Ayiappa [(2013) 10 SCC 705]. s) General Officer Commanding Vs. CBI. CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 56 of 83 t) Nemi Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan [2016 SCC Online SC 1715] u) T. Barai Vs. Henry Ah Hoe [(1983) 1 SCC 177] v) Jayabalan Vs. UT of Pondicherry [(2010) 1 SCC 199]
48. Arguing on behalf of accused Naveen Kumar Jain, it is contended by Sh. Kamal J.S. Maan, Advocate that MS Electrode is a small item and in common parlance, 1000 pieces are taken as one unit. None of prosecution witnesses deposed that supply order was for 1340 pieces only. Even DGS&D in two of its letters issued to the supplier blamed the latter for supplying lesser quantity of goods. Same did not dispute that 13,40,000 pieces of electrodes were supplied by his client. According to him, prosecution changed its stand after pronouncement of order by Arbitrator on 17.06.2003 disallowing the claim of Rs. 12,29,700/ and procured an additional report from CFSL dated 30.09.2003 (Ex. PW35/D) on the basis of a copy of supply order. Sh. Jagdish Shah disclosed in his crossexamination on 28.04.2018 that he filled up forms Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW7/DA and Ex. PW9/A, on the asking of Flt. Lt. Sh. K.M. Arjun. Said witness did not tell about any addition or alteration in the copy of supply order. Sh. P.K. Rajput (PW7), who was officer responsible to lookafter Store Site1, deposed in the Court that he did not remember the items mentioned in inspection note (Ex. PW7/A) were received by him, while being Incharge of Store. On 17.07.2015, same witness deposed that he weighed and counted welding electrodes as 400 Kg equal to approx. 13,440 pieces. The availability of 13,440 pieces with inspection seal of one of stores of 7 BRD belied the testimony of Sh. Balbir Singh (PW3) that CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 57 of 83 inspection was conducted of 1340 pieces and the supply order was only for 1340 pieces. Said witness could not produce his own copy of supply order, camp call, sampling and testing reports etc. Said witness i.e. Sh. Balbir Singh filed an affidavit before the Arbitrator, which is Ex. PW3/DX1 verifying that all the documents were seized by prosecution, but the prosecution did not prove said documents, rather examined Sh. P.K. Goswami (PW22), who told the Court that the documents were taken away by monkeys. As per Ld. Counsel, even Sh. K.M. Arjun (PW27) after document Ex. PW4/A (D2) i.e. copy of supply order placed by Air Commodore Shivendra Singh on M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries told that total quantity ordered was 13,40,000 pieces of welding electrodes, in various sizes.
Contending that supply order placed by 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, Airforce Station, was of 13,40,000 pieces i.e. 1340 x 1000. All these items were duly received and utilized in 7 BRD. Payments were also made for the same quantity by Pay and Accounts Office and hence no offence is made out against his client.
Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case titled as DudhNath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 SC 911.
49. It is contended by Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate for accused Mukesh Gupta that there is no allegation of CBI even, that any undue benefit was received by his client. Sh. Amar Nath (PW1) and Sh. Pradeep Kumar Ganguly (PW4) who are Senior Account Officers of CCA, Sh. Subhash Chand Bhutani who is Assistant Account Officer, Sh. Dalip Singh Rewaria (PW18), Officer of CCA and Sh. Bahori CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 58 of 83 Lal Verkhia, another Officer of CCA told about the payment made to M/s DPPCL but according to them, payments were released only after verifying the supply order, inspection note, receipt of goods by consignee and payment bill by M/s DPPCL. All these were in consonance with each other and in accordance with rate contract. It is further verified by these witnesses that once bills from the supplier were received alongwith copy of inspection note and supply order, same are compared with office copy in the Office of CCA and even conformation is sought from the consignee about clearing the bills. Moreover, even according to prosecution, one copy of supply order and one copy of inspection note are sent directly to Pay & Account Office, by the indenter and DQA office respectively through official dak and are never handed over to supplier. The Pay & Account Office clears the bills of supplier, only after confirming the official copy with the copy of documents submitted by the supplier alongwith the bills. In such case, even it is presumed that supply is manipulated, the inspection note received by DQA and consignee even then bills could not have been cleared as copy of INote available with CCA will not have matched and, hence, bills would not have been rejected. This system of DGS & D was absolutely foolproof having multiple checks. It was not possible to manipulate the record.
In the inspection note, the Inspector is supposed to write 'P' or 'F' to denote that inspection was for entire quantity or quantity in part. Term 'P' denotes 'part quantity' and term 'F' denotes entire (final) quantity. As per learned counsel, in the inspection note of duplicating paper as well as photocopier paper, mentioning of CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 59 of 83 term 'F' confirms that entire quantity in terms of supply order was inspected and the said quantity was 25.3 MT / 7000 reams of duplicating papers (Ex.PW9/A) and 7500 reams of photocopier papers (Ex.PW7/DA). It is neither the case of CBI nor charge is framed against accused that these supply orders were of 750 reams/2.53 MT or 700 reams or that supply order in this regard was forged.
As per DGS & D rates, duplicating papers can be supplied only when minimum quantity of same is 9 MT. If quantity of paper to be supplied was less than 9 MT, DQA would have refused inspection. DQA undertook inspection in this case only when supply order was more than 9 MT i.e. 25.3 MT and not 2.53 MT. In this way, deposition of Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) alleging that he inspected only 2.53 MT of duplicating paper as falsified. It was not possible for DQA to issue inspection note specifying term 'F', if supply order was of 25.3 MT. Moreover even Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) disclosed inspection note was got approved by his superior officers before issuance but Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) did not require approval from the higher officers if value of goods was upto Rs.5 lacs. The cost of 750 reams / 2.53 MT of duplicating papers goes to Rs.98,532/ and Rs.58,564/. It was within financial limits of Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2). In such case, the latter was not required to take approval from his higher officers. All this confirms that quantity inspected by said witness was 7500 reams and 25.3 MT, which was valued more than financial powers of the said witness i.e. Rs.9,85,320/ and Rs.5,85,640/.
Learned counsel contended further that as per procedure, quantity CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 60 of 83 inspected is required to be mentioned in words as well as in number. In inspection notes issued by Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) (Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW2/E1 and Ex.PW2/E2), the quantity mentioned in the words is matching with the quantity mentioned in the figure. Although there are some corrections in mentioning of number in Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/E1 and Ex.PW2/E2, there was no manipulation in the quantity mentioned in the words. The correction is verified by Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) by signing the same in Ex.PW2/E & Ex.PW2/E1. Although, Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) denied to have appended his signatures on these documents but this fact is not corroborated by any other evidence. Sampling plan, camp call and test report indicate that Sh. G. N. Gupta (PW2) inspected 7500 reams and 7000 reams pertaining to supply orders in question starting from 17.03.1999.
Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate kept on arguing. According to him, from the statements of witnesses from 7 BRD, it is emerged that there was no document like register with 7 BRD having record of goods received in its store. A register of civil transport movement is maintained at the guard room, which mentions movements of vehicles coming in or going out of 7 BRD. Flt. Lt. K.M. Arjun (PW27) told that he used to appoint an official of corporal rank, to receive the goods. The goods could not be received unless same carry stamp of DGS&D. Upon receipt, the goods are inspected by an internal inspection department and after inspection, same were to be entered in Stock Inward Book (SIB). The entry was to be made in CRV as well as in tally cards. After entering in this way, the goods were sent to various departments for CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 61 of 83 consumption. If SIB (Ex. PW7/D2) (D29) is taken as true, photocopier paper was received on 18.03.2009 from Whale Stationary Pvt. Ltd. vide tally card no. 37717. Entry in local purchase stationary register shows receipt of 950 reams of duplicating paper from Whale Stationary Pvt. Ltd. through logistics. CRV of photocopier is Ex. PW20/A (D11) and tally cards regarding same photocopier are Ex. PW7/D3 (D13), Ex. PW7/DB (D14), Ex. PW7/DC and Ex. PW7/DD. No tally card or CRV regarding duplicating paper is proved on record.
Sh. K.M. Arjun (PW27) admitted that he did not physically verify the arrival or quantity of goods, he appended his signatures, after confirmation by his officials. He did not verify from office copy of supply order before issuing receipt on the backside of Inote. Although, according to Wing Commander Sh. Vikram Bakshi (PW9), it was duty of receipt issuing officer to ensure that receipt about quantity of goods should be in accordance with supply order. Sh. K.M. Arjun admitted that he did not remember having signed Inote, when rear portion was unfilled or figures on the front side of Inote were manipulated after his signatures and again that it was not required to mention quantity of goods in words. As per him (Ld. Counsel), when I note is admittedly signed by PW27 and receipt column of it mentions "1F". All this shows that supply order of photocopier paper was for 7500 reams.
According to Ld. Counsel, both of duplicating papers and photocopier papers were duly supplied as per supply order and same were used for printing of various items from Popular Printers. Sh. K. Babu one of IOs interrogated Sh. Masood CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 62 of 83 Umar (DW2), Sh. Mahankant Malik (DW3) and Sh. Deepak Prasad Tiwari (DW4), who told about papers having been supplied by DPPCL to have been used for printing from M/s Popular Printers. Said witnesses, when examined by accused in his defence, disclosed about items printed from that printer. IO deliberately withheld their statements. Even otherwise, according to Ld. Counsel, CBI did not make out effort to seize record from concerned officials, their offices were not searched. CBI blindly believed some officials stating that record was taken away by monkeys.
Answering the allegation that supply order and inspection notes were filled up by Sh. Chedi Pandit and Sh. Jagdish Saha, employees of DPPCL, Ld. Counsel explained that Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2), Mr. Saluja (PW6), Sh. Cheddi Pandit and Sh. Jagdish Saha (PW26) disclosed in their deposition that inspectors from DGS&D used to take assistance from suppliers/their employees in filling up supply orders. Sh. G.N. Gupta admitted that inspection notes are to be filled up by office of supplier as there was scarcity of staff with DQA. Moreover, Sh. G.N. Gupta admitted in his crossexamination that his deposition was based upon documents shown to him before the Court and he did not remember the facts. In this way, no reliance can be placed upon his testimony. IO seized entire record from accused Mukesh Gupta. Said documents were neither filed with the chargesheet nor returned to said accused.
Ld. Counsel refuted the allegations of conspiracy among all three accused. According to him, supply orders for paper (duplicating as well as CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 63 of 83 photocopier) are dated 05.031999, while supply order for welding electrodes is dated 21.05.1999. Similarly, inspection notes about papers mentioned above were issued in MarchApril, 1999 while Inote about welding electrodes was issued on 29.06.1999. Moreover, issuing authorities of supply orders and Inotes were different persons. Supply order for duplicating papers was issued by S.P.S. Raj Kumar while supply order for welding electrodes was issued by Sh. Shivender Singh. Inspection note for papers was issued by Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2) while inspection note for welding electrodes was issued by Sh. B.S. Jaswal. In these circumstances, by no stretch of imagination, it cannot be presumed that there was any single conspiracy involving all three accused. Defending accused Mukesh Gupta, Ld. Counsel submitted further that DPPCL, being run by said accused has a turnover of more than 2530 crores. It was not imaginable that he would have conspired with coaccused for such a meager amount of Rs. 14 lakhs, as alleged against him. Ld. Counsel ridiculed the deposition of Sh. Cheddi Pandit (PW6). The latter has stated on oath that Sh. Mukesh Gupta used to lookafter work of DGS&D and he (PW6) worked under his instruction. He (PW6) used to bring blank inspection notes and filled the same. After typing inspection notes, same used to be checked by accused Mukesh Gupta and subsequently Assistant Director used to check these Inotes and tally same with sub file. According to Mr. Arora, it was not possible for such person like Mukesh Gupta to keep vigil on each and every paper in his factory especially when there were so many employees to manage affairs of his company. According to him, Sh. Cheddi CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 64 of 83 Pandit and Sh. Jagdish Shah have been threatened by CBI to falsely implicate his client Sh. Mukesh Gupta.
50. As described above, in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., accused SPS Raj Kumar admitted his signatures on all three supply orders, copies of which are Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW4/A & Ex.PW7/DA. Although, according to him, order for welding electrodes i.e. Ex.PW4/A was simply attested by him. It was issued by Air Commodore Sh. Shivendra Singh. Accused Mukesh Gupta admitted two inspection calls i.e. Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B having been made from the office of M/s DPPCL to Sh. G. N. Gupta. Similarly, accused Naveen Jain admitted supply orders Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/C having been received in his company i.e. M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. and again receipt of payment of Rs.12,41,840/, as claimed by him. Said accused (Naveen Jain) examined himself as DW1 and told to be running aforestated company, which was an approved and a certified supplier of welding electrodes to the Government Departments through DGS & D rate contract. Said accused admitted rate contract (D26) having been awarded to his firm on the basis of his offer dated 23.12.1997, receipt of supply order Ex. PW4/A, inspection call having been made on 11.06.1999 to DGS & D for inspection of stock, inspection of stock made by Sh. Balbir Singh Jaswal (PW3) on 25.06.1999 and 27.06.1999, further receipt of copies of INote i.e. advance payment copy and balance payment copy (D3), delivery of the goods, submitting of bills along with advance payment copy and balance payment copy of INote to Pay & Account Office and again receipt CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 65 of 83 of payment of Rs.12,41,840/.
51. Although, all aforesaid facts have been established on record from the deposition of witnesses. According to Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an admitted fact need not to be proved and hence I do not think it proper to reproduce evidence in this regard here.
52. Briefing the deposition of witnesses again, it is reproduced here that Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2) told to have inspected store of M/s DPPCL on inspection calls Ex. PW2/A (regarding duplicating paper) and Ex. PW2/B (in respect of photocopier paper) made by the latter. Details of aforesaid inspection calls (Ex. PW2/A) are mentioned on separate sheets i.e. Ex. PW2/A1 and Ex. PW2/B1 respectively. Quantity of paper on this sheet is written as 200 + 150 + 150 + 100 + 100 = 700 reams. Value of goods (papers) was shown as Rs. 7 lakhs. Approximate value of photocopier paper is noted as Rs. 3,10,000/ while quantity of goods (papers) in Annexure Ex. PW2/B1 stated as 250 + 250 + 250 i.e. 750 reams. As per PW2, he got Inotes typed from Office of DPPCL. He issued Inotes for total quantity of 750 reams and not 7500 reams. Similarly, said witness told about Inote regarding 250 reams and not 2500 reams. According to said witness, he crosschecked Inotes with supply orders. Supply order also contained same figures i.e. 750 reams and 250 reams respectively. He handed over 05 copies of Inotes to Sh. Chedi Pandit, an employee of M/s DPPCL.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 66 of 8353. Sh. Balbir Singh/Sh. B.S. Jaswal, who is examined as PW3 was employed as Assistant Director, DGS&D. Said witness inspected store of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. on 25.05.1999 and 27.05.1999 for MS Electrodes. He verified having signed Inote Ex. PW7/A (D3) i.e. Indenter's Copy. According to him, columns of Inotes were filled up by Sh. Chedi Pandit. After seeing Ex. PW4/D (D3), Ex. PW7/A1 (Part of D3) i.e. Advance Payment Copy and Balance Payment Copy of Inote, this witness told that term "each unit of 1000 nos." was not written, when he inspected the goods. Sh. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal (PW8), who was a Deputy Director (Quality Assurance) in the Office of DGS&D verified after seeing register (D25) that as per Inote, the inspection was done of 1340 pieces of electrodes. Sh. Sanjoy Mitra (PW25) was Equipment Assistant/Store Keeper at 7 BRD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi told about Store Inward Book (SIB) maintained by Store Keeper. After seeing register for the year 19982000, this witness verified about entry regarding receipt of MS Welding Electrodes weighing 160 Kg, 160 Kg, 80 Kg, totaling 400 Kg and 1340 in nos. Wing Commander Maneesha Rajput told to have received the supply. She verified 950 reams of duplicating papers having brought on charge on 28.08.1999. According to Sh. K.M. Arjun (PW27), average consumption of Welding Electrodes in 7 BRD for a period of 3 to 6 months was worked out to 1340 pieces and quantity mentioned in supply order i.e. 13,40,000 pieces would have been consumed by 7 BRD in about 100 years. As per supply order, yearly requirement of photocopier paper was worked out to be about 300 CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 67 of 83 reams. This witness verified to have received 950 reams by Sargeant Sarangi and same quantity i.e. 950 reams were brought on charge by Flt. Lt. Ms. Maneesha Rajput.
54. After seeing SIB Register Ex. PW7/D2 (D2), Wing Commander Vikram Bakshi (PW9) verified that supply of photocopier paper in this register was recorded as 250 x 3 i.e. 750 reams or 3,75,000 sheets have been received from M/s Whale Co. Pvt. Ltd. This witness told about tally cards Ex. PW7/DB (D124) pertaining to photocopier paper. According to it, 1,25,000 sheets in each size had been brought on charge on 18.03.1999. Similarly, 750 reams of photocopier paper (three sizes) had been received and brought on charge against supply order Ex. PW7/DA. as per SIB Register maintained by CMD, according to this witness, entry about welding electrodes is dated 09.08.1999. According to which 400 Kg (160Kg + 160Kg + 80Kg) had been received on that day i.e. on 09.08.1999 and brought on charge. Said entry was matching with indenter's copy i.e. Ex. PW7/A of Inote. Said SIB Register showed total 1340 nos. of electrodes, having been received.
55. From the evidence, as discussed above, it is well proved that manipulation was made in certain copies of Inotes and supply order for electrodes. Payments were received for supply of 7000 reams of duplicating papers, 7500 reams of photocopier papers by M/s DPPCL and 13,40,000 pieces of welding electrodes by M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. It is also proved as discussed above that actually 950 reams of duplicating papers, 750 reams of photocopier papers were CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 68 of 83 supplied by M/s DPPCL of which accused Mukesh Gupta was acting director. Similarly, M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain supplied only 400 Kg/1340 pieces of electrodes.
56. SIB register mentions about supply of papers received from M/s Whale Company Pvt. Ltd. Referring said fact, Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate contended that supply of said paper itself was doubtful. I do not find much substance in this plea. The fact that some photocopier and duplicating papers were supplied by M/s DPPCL is not denied, rather is claim of accused Mukesh Gupta also. PW2 (G.N. Gupta) told to have received two inspection calls from M/s DPPCL, which are Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B. Said two documents are written on papers, appearing Letterhead of Delhi Paper Products Pvt. Ltd. and Logo of Whale Group. Said documents are verified by PW2 as same, received from M/s DPPCL. No reason to disbelieve said witness in this regard.
57. DW2 deposed about sending of papers to Popular Printers by the officers of Indian Airforce, for printing personal materials. Although, according to said witness, he was interrogated by IO during investigation of this case. There is nothing on record to verify this fact. Even IO was not crossexamined on this point and hence it is not proved that this witness was actually interrogated or his statement was recorded by IO. Even if said fact was true, it is not plea of said accused also that he approached higher officers of CBI or the Court blaming the IO for not relying upon his statement. Moreover, even if true, it does not affect merits of the case. It was CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 69 of 83 still for the accused to prove that material i.e. papers and electrodes were actually supplied by them, payment of which were claimed.
58. So far as claim of accused that complaint regarding short supply could have been lodged within 45 days of supply, as per rules is concerned, the accused could take this plea somewhere else, but not before this Court, when same are blamed for cheating as well as for forgery and case is within limitation.
59. I agree with Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate stating that system of DGS&D was absolutely foolproof, having multiple checks. Ld. Counsel referred several witnesses who told that payments to suppliers i.e. M/s DPPCL and M/s DCEIL were released only after verifying supply order, inspection note, receipt of goods by consignee and payment bills. Once bills from the supplier were received alongwith copy of Inote and supply order, same were to be verified with office copy in the office of CCA and even confirmation was sought from the consignee about clearing the bills. One copy of supply order and one copy of Inote were to be sent directly to Pay and Accounts Office by the Indenter and DQA Office respectively through official dak. Same were never handed over to the supplier. Pay and Accounts Office clears the bill of the supplier only after confirming the same with the copy of documents submitted by the supplier alongwith the bills. It was not so easy to get payment by forging some of documents. There would have been a deep conspiracy involving some other officials also. Incident of monkey menace appears to have been an afterthought story. Despite all this, the accused persons cannot claim to be CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 70 of 83 acquitted, simply for that reason.
60. Similarly, as contended by Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate, it is apparent that Sh. K.M. Arjun (PW27) was negligent in giving receipt of goods without verifying same with copy of supply order. It is pointed out that said witness i.e. Sh. K.M. Arjun was found guilty of negligence and was punished after disciplinary proceedings.
It is well established on record that supply order and Inote were got filled up from the office/officials of supplier itself. Even Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2) admitted the fact that due to scarcity of staff, he took help of official (Sh. Chedi Pandit) in preparing Inote. All these were acts of grave negligence. There remained chances for the supplier to temper with terms of order. As mentioned above, disciplinary proceedings are stated to have been initiated against erring officials, there is no need for further action by this Court.
61. So far as plea of Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate that duplicating papers on DGS&D Rate Contract could be supplied only when minimum quantity was 9 MT. Sh. G.N. Gupta (PW2) took approval from superior officers despite having power to inspect the store of the supplier, when value of goods was upto Rs. 5 lakhs is concerned, even if, Sh. G.N. Gupta sought approval from his higher officer when he was fully competent and no approval was required, all this was not enough to verify that quantity inspected by said witness was of material, having value less than Rs. 5 lakhs or quantity of paper to be supplied was 7500 reams or 25.3 MT. Simply on this CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 71 of 83 ground, testimony of Sh. G.N. Gupta cannot be discarded.
62. Sh. Jagdish Shah (PW32) admitted to have filled up supply order Ex. PW4/A except portion of it encircled as X2, Y, Y1 and Y2. Quantity of welding electrodes as nos. 2,20,000, 30,000, 1,50,000, 2,20,000, 30,000 and 1,50,000 are mentioned at point X of this document, meaning thereby that same were written by Jagdish Shah. PW32 further disclosed to have submitted Ex. PW15/A (D9) i.e. Supply & Disposal Bill to Pay & Accounts Office alongwith Inote (Ex. PW2/D) pertaining to 7500 reams of photocopier paper as well as Ex. PW15/B (D10) with I note Ex. PW2/E having receipt of 7 BRD pertaining to duplicating papers, 25.3 MT in quantity.
63. Handwriting ExpertSh. N.K. Aggarwal in his report Ex. PW35/B told about writing at point Q6 to Q12 as similar to specimen writing of Sh. Jagdish Shah. Point Q5 is '1000' (No.) in column 'accounting unit' of Ex. PW4/D. Q11 are quantity of electrodes allegedly manipulated/tampered. After examination of questioned documents, said expert gave following opinion, which is Ex. PW35/B I. The questioned typed scripts marked Q1 to Q3 agree in general size and design of typed characters with the standard typed characters marked S1 to S18 and A1, A2. However, sufficient individual identifying characteristics in the form of wear and tear defects were not found similarly common between the questioned and the standard typed scripts for establishing the use of same type of machine for typing the questioned and the standard typed scripts.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 72 of 83II. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed questioned portions marked Q1A to Q1(I) reveal that the existing figure 2500 was originally 250 and figure 0 has been added subsequently at the thousand place of the original figure 250 at the red enclosed portions marked Q1A to Q1(I).
III. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q2A to Q2C reveal that the original figure 0.9 was altered to existing figure xx9.4 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q2A to Q2C.
IV. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q2D to Q2F reveal that the original figure 0.3 was altered to existing figure xx3.45, xx3.45 and xxx3.45 respectively by putting additional typed characters in the questioned read enclosed portions marked Q2D to Q2F.
V. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q2G to Q2I reveal that the original figure 0.4 was altered to existing figure xxx4.05, xxx4.05 and xx4.05 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q2G to Q2I.
VI. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q2J to Q2L reveal that the original figure 0.2 was altered to existing figure xxx2.8, xx2.8 and xx2.8 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q2J to Q2L.
VII. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q2M to CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 73 of 83 Q2O reveal that the original figure 0.5 was altered to existing figure xxx5.6, xx5.6 and xx5.6 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q2M to Q2O.
VIII. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q3A to Q3C reveal that the original figure 0.9 was altered to existing figure xx9.4, xx9.4 and xxx9.4 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q3A to Q3C.
IX. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q3D to Q3F reveal that the original figure 0.3 was altered to existing figures xxx3.45, xx3.45 and xxx3.45 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q3D to Q3F.
X. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q3G to Q3(I) reveal that the original figure 0.4 was altered to existing figures xxxx4.05, xx4.05 and xxxx4.05 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q3G to Q3(I).
XI. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q3J to Q 3L reveal that the original figure 0.2 was altered to existing figures xx2.8, xx2.8 and xx2.8 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q3J to Q3L.
XII. Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q3M to Q3O reveal that the original figure 0.5 was altered to existing figure xx5.6, xx5.6 and CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 74 of 83 xx5.6 by putting additional typed characters in the questioned red enclosed portions marked Q3M to Q3O.
XIII. Handwritten evidence points to the writer of the specimen writings marked S19 to S36 purported to be written by Chhedi Pandit being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked Q4 and Q5.
Same expert i.e. Sh. N.K. Aggarwal gave opinion about manipulation in documents about using/insertion of words "each unit of 1000 nos.". His report is Ex. PW35/D. Said witness gave following opinion "Instrumental examination of the red enclosed portions marked Q14/2 to Q14/6 revealed that figures of zero at the unit, tens and hundreds place have been added using black ball pen ink to the already existing photocopied figures 300, 150, 220, 300 and 150 respectively".
64. Sh. K.M. Arjun (PW27) verified to have received Ex. PW27/A (D36) i.e. Balance Payment Copy of Inote for welding electrodes, where term 'each unit of 1000 No.' was missing. While said term was found written in Ex. PW7/A1 and Ex. PW4/F. Said document i.e. Ex. PW27/A was received from store's file. From all this, it is clear that no. of welding electrodes were tallied with Ex. PW27/A, when received in 7 BRD. It is signed by Flt. Lt. P.K. Rajput.
PW27 deposed further that alongwith Ex. PW2/D (D6) i.e. advance payment copy of Inote, he was told that 750 reams of papers were received, quantity on Inote in figure 7500 reams were changed by adding '0'. Similarly, according to CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 75 of 83 this witness, quantity in Ex. PW2/E (D7) i.e. Advance Payment Copy of Inote was enhanced to 25.3 MT by shifting decimal from 2.53 MT making the same as 25.3 MT. Further, quantity is shown to have been enhanced by shifting decimal in Ex. PW2/E2 (D7) which is consignee copy of Inote. Moreover, fluid/whitener was applied to convert quantity in metric tons from reams and that after his signatures.
65. Sh. Dalip Singh Rewaria (PW18) from Pay & Accounts Office told about payment of bill for Rs. 9,83,528/ for 7500 reams of photocopier papers belonging to M/s DPPCL received with Advance Payment Copy of Inote, showing inspection of 7500 reams of this type of paper. Again, same witness (PW18) told about another bill received from M/s DPPCL towards supply of 25.3 MT of duplicating paper. Bill was received alongwith Advance Payment Copy, Balance Copy and Accounts Copy of Inote.
66. Group Capt. (Retd.) Kaushal Shah (PW33) told about Ex. PW27/A (Balance Payment Copy of Inote) pertaining to electrodes having sent to CBI from 7 BRD. Sh. Balbir Singh Jaswal (PW3) told that words 'each unit of 1000 no.' were not written, when he prepared said Inote. Columns of Inotes were filled up by representative of M/s Daya Chand Engineering Industries (P) Ltd. namely Chedi Pandit.
67. Sh. Chedi Pandit (PW6) who worked as Trainee Sales Assistant with M/s DPPCL admitted that Inotes were either got typed or written by him. Again that all inspection notes concerning this case were prepared by the typist at the instance CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 76 of 83 and instruction of the owner. Inspection Notes were brought from the Office of DGS&D at the behest of owner of company. He handed over same (Inotes) to owner Sh. Mukesh Gupta. Inotes after being typed were checked by Sh. Mukesh Gupta.
68. So far as contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that Sh. Chedi Pandit was threatened by CBI Officers and hence deposed falsely, is concerned. True, said witness told about his fear of being beaten by CBI officials, but when? according to said witness himself, only if he had not signed documents prepared by them (CBI officials). It is not deposition of said witness that he was forced to give false statement. It is pointed out that said witness was not made to sign any document, except to give specimen signatures/handwriting. Even if it is presumed that specimen signatures of PW6 were taken forcefully. No reason to discard testimony of said witness on merits of case for reason mentioned above. Admittedly, he was working with M/s DPPCL as Sales Accountant. There is no reason to disbelieve him.
69. It did not matter much if supply of 950 reams of duplicating papers was made, in spite of 750 reams, as per forging the documents. Even 950 reams were less than quantity, of which payment was received by M/s DPPCL.
70. As mentioned above, according to accused S.P.S. Raj Kumar, he issued order for supply of papers more than quantity required by 7 BRD as Kargil War had erupted. Similarly, according to accused Naveen Kumar Jain, he was asked to supply more quantity of electrodes, due to Kargil War and being a true Indian Citizen, he obliged to send this supply immediately without any delay. I do not find any force in CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 77 of 83 this plea. There is no evidence at all to prove that said accused was approached by any officer from Indian Airforce to supply more electrodes without adopting due procedure. Said plea appears to be a pseudo patriotism and an afterthought excuse, simply to give colour of patriotism, otherwise, there was no sense to claim payment of 13,40,000 electrodes, when actually 1340 pieces were supplied. This act was rather a kick on the back of nation. Matter would have been different, if accused did not claim any payment citing his love for the country.
71. It is apparent that copies of Inotes specifically, which were used to get payment of bills, were tempered by showing enhanced quantity. It were companies of accused Mukesh Gupta and Naveen Kumar Jain which were benefited by all these manipulations. Although it is deposed by Sh. Mahakant Malik (DW3) that Mukesh Gupta i.e. Director/Owner of Company (M/s DPPCL) rarely visited their factory in Delhi, Sh. Jagdish Shah used to see its marketing work. According to Sh. Jagdish Shah (PW32), accused Mukesh Gupta looked after all works of said company related to DGS&D. Inspection notes (five) in this case were prepared by him (PW6) and handed over to accused Mukesh Gupta.
72. As discussed above, documents i.e. Inotes etc. in relation to inspection of welding electrodes were prepared with help of Sh. Chedi Pandit. All this evidence leaves no doubt in coming to conclusion that supply orders and inspection notes were got tempered with/manipulated by accused Mukesh Gupta and Naveen Kumar Jain, both of them being active directors of M/s DPPCL and M/s DCEIL respectively. To CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 78 of 83 say that M/s DPPCL was a big firm, more than 100 persons were employed therein or again that having a big turnover, accused Mukesh Gupta could not have been expected to make forgery for a meager amount of Rs. 26.40 lakhs, like in this case, has no basis.
73. As per ld. Sr. PP it is admitted by Sh. Jagdish Saha (PW32) who was an employee of M/s DPPCL that supply orders i.e. Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW7/DA, Ex. PW9/A as well as Ex. PW2/D (Advance payment copy of Inspection Note), Ex. PW 2/E2 (Consignee copy of Inspection Note), Ex. PW2/E (Advance payment copy of Inspection Note), Ex. PW 2/E1 (Accounts copy of Inspection Note) and Ex. PW4/D (Advance Payment copy of Inspection Note), all these documents were written by him in the office of 7 BRD. Ex. PW4/A & Ex.PW4/D were written by him on the asking of Sh. Mukesh Gupta (Accused). Said witness admitted to have met accused Sh. S P S Raj Kumar who enquired from him as to which company he (PW32) belonged and what kind of product it used to supply. Said witness stated that he met accused S P S Raj Kumar along with Accused Sh. Mukesh Gupta and both of them i.e. S P S Raj Kumar and Mukesh Gupta had a meeting and he (witness) did not know what they talked. Similarly, Sh. K M Arjun (PW27) told about acceptance of papers in store on the asking of accused Sh. S P S Raj Kumar. All this shows that he (accused S P S Raj Kumar) was involved in conspiracy with coaccused and allowed tempering of his order, as part of that conspiracy.
74. Even as per case of prosecution accused S P S Raj Kumar signed two CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 79 of 83 supply orders, one for procurement of 7000 reams of 5 types of duplicating papers and other for supply of 3 types of Photocopier papers totaling to 7,500 reams, both from M/s DPPCL. Sh. Vikram Bakshi (PW9) who was posted in 7 BRD, Airforce, Tughlakabad as SLO (CMD), SLD (CPD) from March, 2000 to October 2002, verified that order No. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PartII/1 dated 05.03.1999 was for total quantity of 25.3 metric tone/7000 of Duplicating paper, while another order bearing No. TUGH/410/6/CPD/LGS/PartII/2 dated 05.03.1999 which was for 3 different sizes of photocopier paper having 2500 reams each, having total quantity of 7500 reams. Even, if it is presumed that said accused (S P S Raj Kumar) had a meeting with accused Mukesh Gupta, it does not prove that both of them hatched any criminal conspiracy. Trite it to say that 7 BRD sought to purchase papers. It was not unnatural for accused S P S Raj Kumar to have a meeting with accused Mukesh Gupta, who was supplier of such paper under DGS&D rates.
75. So far as deposition of Sh. K M Arjun (PW27) as contended by Ld. Sr. PP is concerned, said witness disclosed before this court that on the date of receipt of welding electrodes, he was informed that some electrodes had arrived. After checking the supply order, his staff informed him that supply order was not available. Thereafter, he (Sh. K M Arjun) called up accused S P S Raj Kumar who was his senior. He (PW27) informed him (S P S Raj Kumar) that some electrodes have arrived. He (PW27) was asked by Sh. S P S Raj Kumar to send the electrodes to Technical Store, which he did.
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 80 of 8376. Even if it is true, there is nothing in deposition of said witnesses showing that accused S P S Raj Kumar was informed about short supply According to PW27 even, supply order was not available and hence, there was no question of tallying goods along with supply order.
77. Further according to Ld. Sr. PP, Sh. K M Arjun (PW27) photocopier paper did not form part of logistic procurement, unless specifically authorized by Higher formation for specific purpose. In this way, accused S P S Raj Kumar was not competent to place such orders. PW27 disclosed that he came to know about aforesaid fact, at the time of court of inquiry. All this was a hear say evidence. Prosecution failed to prove that accused S P S Raj was not competent to place such orders. Even otherwise, as per Ld. Defence Counsel, as per rules DDO was fully competent to place such orders.
No offence is made out against accused S P S Raj Kumar, same is thus acquitted. Bail bonds filed by him are cancelled. His surety is discharged.
78. Ld. Sr. PP tried his best, to establish that all three accused were connived with each other in doing offence in question, as both of Sh. Mukesh Gupta and Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain took help of Sh. Chedi Pandit in manipulating documents.
79. Apart from said fact, there is no evidence at all to establish nexus between said accused. There is nothing to show any meeting of mind between them for purpose of cheating or forgery of documents. Simply to say that Sh. Chedi Pandit who was an employee of M/s DPPCL prepared Inote on behalf of Inspector from CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 81 of 83 DGS&D which facilitated tempering in said Inote and helped accused Naveen Kumar Jain does not in itself show conspiracy between said accused and Sh. Mukesh Gupta. CBI failed to prove any conspiracy between these accused and hence no offence punishable u/s 120B IPC read is made out. At the same time, CBI succeeded in establishing that each of said accused (Mukesh Gupta and Naveen Kumar Jain) cheated public money by dishonestly inducing officials of Pay and Accounts Office to make payment of bills prepared on the basis of forged documents i.e. supply orders/Inotes punishable u/s 420 IPC. If the fact that said documents were forged, was within the knowledge of officials of Pay and Accounts Office, same would not have released the payment. It is also well established that both of said accused committed forgery by making/forging supply orders/Inotes regarding supply/inspection of papers and electrodes with intention to have wrongful gain and consequential wrongful loss to public money and again used such forged documents to get payment of inflated bills. All this is offence punishable u/s 468 as well as 471 of IPC. Both of them are convicted for offence punishable u/s 420, 468 and 471 IPC while acquitted from other charges.
80. I am in consonance with Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate stating that investigating agency i.e. CBI should have been fair to accused even. Precedents referred by Mr. Arora as detailed above are clear mandate of Apex Court, on this issue.
As per Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate, CBI seized so many documents from CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 82 of 83 various persons including accused. Neither all of those documents are placed on record alongwith chargesheet nor same are returned to the accused. Further, CBI concocted a false story of monkey menace. IO did not make any effort to seize these documents from officials concerned and no action was initiated against those officials. According to him, these documents are deliberately withheld by the CBI. Officers of CBI i.e. IOs produced only those documents, which were incriminating to accused and documents favouring them were withheld. Ld. Counsel prays that as fair investigation was not done, due to which, accused are entitled to be acquitted.
81. It is not denied that a plethora of documents were seized during investigation of this case. When IO of case was called, on an application filed by accused, it came to light that many of documents have been dumped in malkhana of CBI, same are neither filed in Court not returned to persons from whom same were seized. Even no receipt was given to persons concerned. It is procedure, contrary to law. This Court expresses its displeasure over the conduct of IO, in this regard. The accused persons may have their remedy to get those documents back, if not returned till now or can file complaint against officials concerned, but aforesaid cannot be a reason, to acquit the accused.
Announced in Open Court
today i.e. 12.04.2019 (Rajender Kumar Shastri)
Special Judge (PC Act) [CBI]14
Rouse Avenue Court Complex/New Delhi
CBI Case No. 149/19 CBI vs. S.P.S. Raj Kumar Etc. Page 83 of 83