Delhi District Court
Rpf vs Virender Pratap on 9 December, 2025
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:11:17
+0530
THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV GARG, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-11, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Ct.Case No. 540517/2016
State Vs. Virender Pratap Singh & Ors
CC No.16/2000
PS. RPF/SSB
U/s. Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966.
JUDGMENT
1) The year of commission of offence : 1997 to May 2000
2) The name of the complainant : RPF/State through EO IPF RS Maurya
3) The name & parentage of accused : 1. Virender Pratap Singh persons S/o Late Sh. Balbhadra Singh,
2. Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Chander,
3. Pradeep Kumar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta
4. Arun Singh S/o Sh. Yash Pal Singh
5. Hazari Lal Meena (since deceased)
4) Offence complained of : Section 3 of The Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966
5) The plea of accused : Not Guilty
6) Final order : Acquittal Date of institution of Case : 30.03.2001 Judgment reserved on : 20.11.2025 Judgment announced on : 09.12.2025 BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present complaint was instituted against 20 accused persons with accused Gopal as CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 1/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:24 +0530 absconder. Further vide order dated 30.03.2001, the Court summoned only accused Nos. 1 to 15. Accused Chaman Singh, Prabhu Dayal & Chothu Ram expired before the order on charge dated 20.11.2012 vide which all the accused persons were discharged from the present case. Further, vide order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Ld. Sessions Court, the revision petition filed by the RPF was partly allowed to the extent that the discharge of accused Hazari Lal Meena, Pradeep Kumar, Chaman Singh (since deceased), Arun Singh. Virender Pratap Singh and Ram Kumar was set aside. The aforesaid accused persons had assailed the order of the Ld. Sessions Court before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, however, the said petition was withdrawn by the accused persons. Further, the accused Hazari Lal Meena had later expired and proceedings qua him had abated vide order dated 22.12.2020. This judgment is being pronounced qua the accused V.P. Singh, Ram Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Arun Singh.
2. The case of the RPF/Complainant is the accused VP Singh being the DSKP at Shakur Basti Store had pilfered 186 gas cylinders that were railway property with the help of the Accused Ram Kumar and such pilfered ac gas cylinders were recovered from the unlawful possession of the accused Pradeep Kumar and Arun Kumar.
3. During enquiry, the seizure memo, disclosure and confessional statement of the accused was recorded. Site plan and pointing out memo were prepared at the instance of the accused and the case property was also gotten verified from the experts. Upon completion of enquiry, the present complaint was instituted against the accused.
4. Since the present case was instituted by a public servant in discharge of his official duties, the pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 2/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:29 +0530 and pre-charge evidence was recorded.
5. During the pre-charge evidence, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On the basis of material on record and the testimony of the said 11 witnesses, charge was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. During the post-charge evidence, the accused cross-examined all of the witnesses, and the RPF examined 09 more witness.
7. PW-1 Seelam Seth deposed that on 05.08.2000, he examined the case property at RPF/Shakoor Basti and he had also examined 70 refrigeration gas cylinders. He further deposed that 25 gas cylinders belonged to SRF company, out of which 17 gas cylinders were supplied to the Railway between the year 1998-2000. He proved the necessary certificates Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. He further deposed that after examining the case property, certificate Ex.PW-1/C was issued by him which bear his signature at point X. He further proved the letter Ex.PW-1/D whereby RPF was informed that Pal Refrigeration, Northend Refrigeration, Arun and Pradeep Kumar were not the dealers of SRF Ltd. He further deposed that 70 gas cylinders were produced before the court. During his cross-examination (post-
charge evidence), he deposed that Insp. Maurya, RPF at about 11:00 hours produced the case property for verification. In 1998 & 2000, total 70 cylinders were shown to him out of which 25 belonged to SRF Ltd. and out of these 25 cylinders they supplied 17 cylinders to the railway and remaining 08 cylinders were not supplied to the railway. He further deposed that they were supplying these cylinders to open market as well as government. He did not know the remaining cylinders belonged to which company. He further deposed that they CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 3/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:36 +0530 checked the cylinder numbers at their record and found that same were delivered to the railway and record was submitted by the EO at the time of enquiry. He denied the suggestion that that he had prepared a false verification report at the instance of EO. 7.1PW-1 (upon being recalled for further examination in Post Charge Evidence) deposed that in 2000 he was zonal manager (North & East) in SRF Ltd. and he was in-charge for supplying of AC gas cylinders as Zonal Manager in Sales & Marketing Department. He further deposed that he issued price list of the product i.e. AC Gas cylinders to RPF of the products F-12 & F-22 Ex. PW-1/E(OSR).
He further deposed that they supplied AC Gas Cylinders to Northern Railway in the financial year 1999-2000 and one M/S Walia refrigeration company at Daryaganj who were authorized distributor of their company. He further deposed that the Walia company informed them that their company cylinders were available in open market at less rate as decided or stipulated by their company. He further deposed that he had verified the case property i.e. AC Gas cylinders. He further proved list of 13 AC Gas cylinder having product number, cylinder number invoice number and invoice date Ex. PW-1/A(OSR). He further deposed that he also provided the detailed list four cylinders supplied to Northern railway Ex.PW1/B (OSR), the invoice details to RPF of the cylinders Ex.PW 1/F, list of F-12 cylinders Ex.PW 1/G, list of F-22 cylinders Ex.PW1/H, one another list of F-12 cylinders supply to northern railway which also provided to RPF Ex.PW1/I. He further deposed that he provided the list to RPF mentioning that Samaypal Singh, Chanan Singh, Arun Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were not CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 4/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:42 +0530 their authorized dealers and no AC refrigeration gas cylinders were supplied to them Ex.PW 1/D. He further deposed that a reply of letter given by him to RPF Ex.PW1/J in which he mentioned that 607 empty cylinders of floron refrigerant gas are pending from Shakur Basti railway store which were to be returned to them as on date 12.09.2000. He further deposed that on 05.08.2000 17 cylinders, AC refrigerant gas were produced for verification before him out of which 25 AC gas cylinders were of SRF, seventy cylinders AC refrigerant gas were produced for verification limited company. He further deposed that 13 & 4 AC gas cylinders were supplied to northern railway. He further proved the Verification report Ex. PW-1/C. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Kumar, Arun and Pradeep, he deposed that at the time of verification, 70 AC gas cylinders were produced before him out of which 25 AC gas cylinders were belongs to his SRF company.
He further deposed that they also supplied such type of cylinders to other customers other than railway. He denied the suggestion that he issued false details and verification report to RPF. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused VP Singh, he deposed the he had not supplied the copy of the invoices/ purchase orders to the RPF department on the basis of which Ex.PW-1/G, Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/F packing list as required by RPF were prepared. He further deposed that he was not asked to supply the copy of invoices/purchase orders by the RPF. He denied the suggestion that he had forwarded Ex.PW-1/G, Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/F as prepared by his subordinates without verifying the contents thereof. He denied the suggestion that he had forwarded the details the CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 5/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:47 +0530 cylinders without verifying the details. He admitted that Ex.PW-1/F, Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/I there is no mention of invoice Numbers. He further deposed that these Exhibits are packing list /annexure are part of each /different invoices. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the documents and submitted them in mechanical manner on the asking of the RPF to suit their case or that no such record was verified and submitted as deposed by him to the RPF. He denied the suggestion that such type of cylinders are easily available in the market.
8. PW-2 R S Maurya deposed that on the basis of secret information from Vigilance Department, on 27.07.2000 Insp. MS Dagar, Insp. BK Ram, SI Vineet Gautam, SI RA Siddqui were present at Palam Railway Station Gate and had put some barricading. He further deposed that as soon as tempo bearing no. DDL-3971 came out, it was stopped and checked and 2 AC Gas Cylinders bearing the same numbers as were stolen from the railway store were recovered. He further deposed that the driver Kuldeep could not produce any authority to retain the said AC gas cylinders and the same were accordingly seized by the RPF and the accused was arrested and the tempo was also seized by seizure, arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW2/A and the Jamatalashi of accused Kuldeep was carried out vide Memo Ex. PW2/B. He further proved the disclosure statement of accused Kuldeep Ex.PW2/C wherein he deposed that he had stolen cylinders from Shakur Basti Store Depot earlier also and sold the same to accused Samaypal. He further deposed that pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused Kuldeep of the shop of the accused Samaypal which is situated at Humayunpur. He further deposed that search was carried of CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 6/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:53 +0530 the shop of the accused Samaypal and 4 AC gas cylinders were recovered on which the numbers were marked and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D and entire proceedings were recorded. He further deposed that accused Prem, Sushil & Ravipal were also present at the shop and they were arrested and they had disclosed that more gas cylinders are kept at the house of accused Samaypal and their disclosure statement were recorded as Ex.PW2/E (disclosure statement of accused Prem) and Ex.PW2/F (disclosure statement of accused Ravipal and accused Sushil). He further deposed that accused Samaypal was not present at the shop. He further deposed that at the pointing out of accused Prem, Sushil & Ravipal, 11 gas cylinders were recovered from the house of accused Samaypal which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/G. He further deposed that accused Kuldeep also pointed out the house of accused Samaypal. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000 at about 11:00 AM, at the pointing out of accused Sushil and Ravipal, at Humayupur they told that at Railway colony, Kashmere Gate, railway employee Hazari Lal Meena's house and told that they had purchased cylinders from the accused Hazari Lal Meena. He further deposed that upon checking the said house 2 AC gas cylinders that were stolen from railways and the material used/fitted in railway AC coaches was recovered and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/H. He further proved the arrest memo Ex.PW2/I of accused Hazari Lal Meena and he further deposed that site plan Ex.PW2/J was prepared then and there. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000 at Humayupur, accused Samaypal had rented a basement which was searched and 14 AC gas cylinders were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/K. He further CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 7/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:11:59 +0530 proved the statements of accused Ram Kumar Ex.PW2/L, accused Ramesh Ex.PW2/M, accused Hazari Lal Meena Ex.PW2/N. He further proved the statement of Roop Rani Ex.PW2/O and the site plan of rented basement of accused Samaypal Ex.PW2/P. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000 at Bhagwati Enterprises situated at Humayupur, it was searched and 1 AC gas Cylinder was recovered and seized vide Ex.PW2/Q and accused Pradeep Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/R and the site plan of the shop of Pradeep was prepared Ex.PW2/S. He further deposed that the shop owner/landlord of the shop of accused Pradeep is Mr. Ashok Kumar whose statement is Ex.PW2/T. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000 he along with Insp. Shiv Prakash arrested the accused Ram Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/U. He further deposed that in his disclosure statement Ex.PW2/V the accused Ram Kumar told that he had forged signatures & in collusion with DSKP VP Singh, they used to take out cylinders from Shakur Basti Depot Store. He further deposed that on 29.07.200, the case was registered at RPF post Shakur Basti. He further deposed that the disclosure statement of accused Hazari Lal Meena Ex.PW2/W was recorded. He further deposed that the accused Ram Kumar got recovered the rubber stamps from his home situated in Rohini vide memo Ex.PW2/X and the sample seal Ex. PW2/Y was taken and the site plan of the site of recovery Ex. PW2/Z was prepared by him. He further deposed that the identification of the recovered rubber stamp was carried out at the shop from where the said rubber stamp was prepared at Lahori Gate vide memo Ex. PW2/A1. He further deposed that vide disclosure memo Ex. PW2/B1, the accused Prem had disclosed that AC gas cylinders can also be recovered from the house CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 8/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:05 +0530 of Thakur Chanan Singh that were taken by him from the accused Samay Pal. He further proved the site plan Ex. PW2/C1 of the godown of accused Chanan Singh prepared at the instance of SI Siddiqui. He further deposed that the enquiry in the present matter was carried out by three teams. He further deposed that the accused Samay Pal made his disclosure statement Ex. PW2/D1 and disclosed that he can get recovered the AC gas cylinders that have been sold by him to others. He further proved the site plan Ex. PW2/E of the first recovery from the accused Kuldeep Singh. He further proved the statements of accused VP Singh, which were recorded by him on 25.08.2000 Ex. PW2/F1, on 28.08.2000 Ex. PW2/G1 and on 17.11.2000 Ex. PW2/H1. He further proved the statement of Khalasi Ramesh Chand Ex. PW2/J1. He further deposed that the accused DSKP Chothu Ram was arrested on 23.11.2000 vide memo Ex. PW2/K1 and the disclosure statement of accused Chothu Ram Ex. PW2/L1 was recorded by him. He further deposed that the accused PD Kabar was arrested by him on 29.11.2000 vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/M1 and his statement was recorded by him Ex. PW2/N1. He further deposed that on 06.12.2000 Senior DSKP Puran Singh Negi was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/O1 and his statement was recorded Ex. PW2/P1. He further deposed that during enquiry and interrogation from witnesses, one gas cylinder was verified by M/s SRF and GLF company. He further deposed that the accused persons in collusion with each other had prepared fake issue notes and had pilfered AC gas cylinders from the Shakoor Basti Store and had sold the same to accused Samayal Singh. He further deposed that the forged issue notes, seal, etc. were seized and on completion of enquiry the present complaint was filed against accused Kuldeep Prem CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 9/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:10 +0530 Sushil Ravi Pal Pradeep Kumar Hazari Lal Meena Ramesh Virendra Pratap Singh, Ram Kumar, Chandan Singh, Arun Kumar, Samayal, Chota, Ram Prem, Dayal Puran Singh and Gopal. He further identified the accused persons as well as the case property 20 empty passes Ex. PW-2/72 to Ex. PW-2/82 & two filled issue note Ex. PW-2/83 and Ex. PW-2/84 and used envelopes Ex. PW-2/85, and Seal of SSE/Electric wire Ex. PW-2/86. During cross-examination, he deposed that it is correct that material passes through gate of SSB store from a proper gate pass. He further deposed that it is incorrect that nothing was recovered from the accused Ramesh and Ram Kumar, and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. During cross- examination, he deposed that from the recovered gas cylinder some were of SRM company and some were of GFS Company. He further deposed that they had recovered 74 AC gas cylinders but he does not remember how many cylinders were of which company. He further deposed that he does not remember at that time how many cylinders were recovered from each accused. He further deposed that there was no special mark on cylinders to show that the same was Railway Property. He further deposed that the said cylinders were seized due to numbers mentioned on it. He denied the suggestion that the alleged cylinders supplied to the public persons also. He further deposed that these alleged cylinders supplied only by the authorized dealer to the Railway as per number mentioned therein. He further deposed that no written document was recovered from accused Ram Kumar. He denied the suggestion that verification of the alleged cylinders was not conducted from above two companies and that no recovery was effected from the accused persons and it was falsely implanted upon CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 10/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:16 +0530 accused persons 8.1 PW-2 during his re-examination deposed that he was the inquiry officer of the present case. During inquiry specimen signature Ex.
PW2/Q of V.P. Singh were collected by him. He further deposed that he also collected the record Ex.PW2/R regarding the issue of gate pass, vehicle number through which cylinders were transported alongwith details of the person i.e. Hazari Lal through whom the cylinders were transported. He further deposed that he also collected the record Ex. PW2/S of list of receipt issued from Deputy SSB to SSE/ACC Delhi from 01.02.2000 to 09.08.2000. He further deposed that he also collected list Ex. PW2/T of receipt of issue note from Deputy SSB from 01.01.1997 to 09.08.2000. He further deposed that he also recorded the statement Ex. PW2/U of Ramji Lal, Store Manager, Delhi Mandal and the statement of Sanjay Walia, Prabhati Ram, Raja Ram and Daulat Ram, which are Ex. PW2/V to Ex. PW2/Y. He further deposed that during inquiry he also received a letter of misappropriation of railway material i.e. AC Gas Cylinder Ex.PW2/Z and Ex. PW2/Z1. He further deposed that a list Ex.PW2/Z2 for January 1999 to June 2000 was collected in which gate pass number, issue note number and consignee details were mentioned. He further deposed that during inquiry, he also collected photocopy of purchase order Ex.PW1/F and that he also collected details of cylinders for Railways product F-12 Ex. PW1/G as well as the details of cylinders for Railways product F-22 Ex. PW1/H. He further deposed that he collected the details of cylinders for Railways product F-12 Ex. PW1/L. He further deposed that he also collected record of cylinders issued to Railway by Gujrat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Mark PW2/1 and CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 11/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:21 +0530 the photocopy of cylinder issue note from GFL Mark PW2/2 was collected by him. He further deposed that a detail of supply cylinders to railway by SRF was also received Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that letter Ex. PW1/J was received from SRF company Ltd. regarding the pending 607 empty cylinders, which were to be received from Shakur Basti Store. He further deposed that a letter Ex. PW2/Z3 was received from Tushar Sinha of GFL, who verfied that 40 AC Gas cylinders out of 45 AC Gas cylinder produced before him were of his company Ms. Gujrat Fluorochemicals Ltd. He further deposed that a letter having detail of AC Gas Cylinders Ex. PW18/A also received from GFL and another letter Ex. PW2/Z4 was received from GFL regarding the holding of 532 AC Gas Cylinders at Shakur Basti. He further deposed that another letter Ex. PW2/Z5 was also received from GFL in which the company mentioned that Chandan Singh, Samay Pal Singh, Pradeep Kumar Gupta and Arun Kumar were not their authorized stockist. He further deposed that the case property Low Voltage Relay Ampere Metre and V Belt was verified by D.C. Singh as Railway property vide verification report Ex. PW4/A. He further deposed that during inquiry, he also collected the record Ex.PW16/A from Rajesh Tiwari, Assistant Store Controller, Ex.PW10/B, Ex. PW10/E, Ex. PW10/F from Mohar Singh, District Store Controller, Ex. PW16/B. He further deposed that shortage of AC Refrigerant Gas Cylinders Ex. PW10/G and Ex. PW15/A was received by him during inquiry alongwith issue note and gate pass. He further deposed that imprest schedule / issue note no. 3135 Ex. PW14/O was received which was shown to Sr. Section Engineer, ACC Northern Railway New Delhi, who gave his report that the said imprest schedule CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 12/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:29 +0530 was not prepared by their office and the said gas was not received in their office vide letter Ex. PW2/Z6. He further deposed that during inquiry, he also collected filled leave forms and other documents, which were signed by accused V.P. Singh, Ex. PW10/I to Ex. PW10/O. He further deposed that a memo regarding the preparation of document of Temp no. DDL3971 was prepared Ex.PW2/Z7. He further deposed that during inquiry, crime register Ex.PW2/Z8 and malkhana register Ex.PW2/Z9were maintained at PRF post SSB. After completion of all the inquiry, complaint Ex.PW2/Z10 filed by him against the accused persons mentioned in the complaint. He further identified the accused persons. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for Accused VP Singh, he deposed that he had not seized the original Ledger / Registers from the receipt department of SSB Store regarding the fact that the cylinders in questioned were received at SSB store. He further deposed that he cannot say whether he had made any in-charge or superior office from receipt department of SSB store as witness in the present case. He further deposed that Accused Chothu Ram, P.D Kakkar and Prabhu Dayal Negi were senior DSKP and VP Singh was Junior to them. He further deposed that he had not seized any periodical audit reports conducted by Account Office of SSB store pertaining to AC Gas cylinder during the course of enquiry. He further deposed that he had seized all the concerned gate passes which are relevant to the present case. He denied the suggestion that the gate passes seized contain the entire details and particular of the articles i.e., No. of AC gas cylinder. He further denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the enquiry fairly and properly in the present case and that the co-accused had not given any disclosure statement as CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 13/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:35 +0530 deposed by him. He further denied the suggestion that the documents were manipulated and concocted to falsely implicate accused VP Singh in the present case and that no wrong doings were found in the records and working of accused VP Singh in the course of his duties as deposed by him. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Pradeep, Arun and Ram, he deposed that on 27.07.2000, he was posted as IPF CIB Delhi Division and had received enquiry of this case on 01.08.2000. He further deposed that two AC Gas Cylinder were recovered from Kuldeep and Four AC Gas Cylinder were recovered from Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal and One AC Gas Cylinder were recovered from Pradeep, 11 Cylinder from the Home of Samay Pal and 16 from the Store / Godown of the Samay Pal, 20 AC Gas Cylinder from Channan and 16 AC Gas Cylinder were recovered from the unlawful possession of Arun and 2 AC Gas Cylinder were recovered from Hazari Lal Meena. He further deposed that in total 70 AC Gas Cylinders were recovered from the unlawful possession of the accused. He further deposed that 20 AC Gas Cylinders were proved to have been issued by GLF and 13 from SRF were issued for railway store. He further deposed that he does not know rest of the cylinders belonged to which company. He denied the suggestion that he did not inquire the matter properly and false complaint was filed against the accused persons at the instance of RPF official only to implicate Accused person. He further deposed that accused Kuldeep pointed out the name of accused Samay Pal, Sushil, Prem and Ravi Pal.
9. PW-3 MS Dagar has deposed that on 27.7.2000 he was posted as Insp.
CIB, Delhi and on that day he alongwith SI Vineet Gautam, IPF B.K. Ram, SI R.A. Siddiqui and IPF R.S. Maurya were on watch of near CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 14/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:40 +0530 lable crossing gate between Palam and Bijwasan when they apprehended a four wheeler at the instance of source informer, and the said tempo was bearing No. DDL3971 which was driven by accused Kuldeep Singh and was carrying two cylinder of refrigerant cooling gas belonging to railway department. He further deposed that the same were seized and accused were arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/A and the accused Kuldeep was personally searched vide memo Ex. PW2/B and also made a disclosure statement Ex. PW2/C and also disclosed that he can point out the shop of Samaypal Singh situated in Arjun Nagar, Humaun Pur where he was going to deliver the recovered gas cylinder. He further deposed that they registered a case at RPF post Shakur Basti vide entry Ex. PW3/A and took IPF Sh. Shiv Parkash and Ramesh Kumar IPC and Naresh Kumar and reached at Arjun Nagar at the instance of accused Kuldeep who pointed out a shop where Prempal, Sushil Kumar and Ravipal were found and they searched the shop and recovered 4 cylinder of refrigeration gas belonging to the railway department from unlawful possession of the accused persons and the same were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/D, accused Sushil, Ravipal and Prem were arrested on spot and they made disclosure statement Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW-2/F respectively and at the instance of accused Prempal, Sushil and Ravipal alongwith accused Kuldeep, they searched the house of Samaypal situated in Raj Nagar and recovered 11 cylinder out of which 6 were full of gas and 5 were empty and they were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/G. He further deposed that accused Samay Pal was not present at the time of search. He further deposed that confessional statement Ex. PW3/B of accused Kuldeep was also recorded by him. He further proved the DD entry CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 15/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:46 +0530 Ex. PW3/C regarding arrest of accused Ravipal, Sushil, Prem and declaration of accused Samay Pal Singh. He further deposed that further enquiry rest of the enquiry drawn by IPF Shiv Parkash and R.S Maurya. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ramesh and Ram Kumar, he deposed that nothing was recovered in his presence from accused Ramesh and Ram Kumar. He denied the suggestion that both the said accused have been falsely implicated in this case. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused VP Singh, he deposed that the Accused VP Singh was not arrested by him nor in his presence. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Pradeep, Ram and Arun, at the post-charge evidence stage, he deposed that the accused persons were not arrested by him and no recovery was effected in his presence from the said accused persons. He further deposed that the first recovery was effect by him on 27.07.2000 from accused Kuldeep, Prem and Ravi Pal etc. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected by him.
10. PW-4 DC Singh deposed that on 13.09.2000 IPF RS Maurya called him at RPF Post Shakoor Basti and one sealed plastic sack was produced before him for examination. He further deposed that he cut the seal of the plastic sack wherein one relay, one ampere Meter and one V belt were found and after examination, he prepared the verification report Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that after preparing the verification report, he placed the examined material back into the sack and sealed the same and signed on the new seal card. He accordingly proved the verification report Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that he had 12 years' of experience in Electric engineering. He further identified the case property ampere meter Ex.P-4, V-belt Ex.P-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 16/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:52 +0530 5 and Relay Ex.P-6. During cross-examination, he admitted that the case property examined by him was bearing no railway mark. He further deposed that he had not electrically inspected the case property and had only physically inspected it. He denied the suggestion that these items were not serviceable in condition. He further deposed that after inspection of case property, it was sealed by RPF and he signed on it. He further deposed that he had not issued any shortage memo of case property. He could not say whether the case property was of express train or local train.
11. PW-5 Shiv Prakash deposed that on 27.07.2000 he was posted as Inspector Incharge, RPF/Shakoor Basti post and CIB team had apprehended the accused Kuldeep alongwith AC Gas cylinder, which was used for supplying for AC train. He further deposed that case CC No. 16/2000 was registered against the accused Kuldeep and on the pointing out of the accused Kuldeep, they reached at shop No. D 202/1, Arjun Nagar alongwith CIB team and RPF staff. He further deposed that they met Prem, Sushil and Ravipal in the shop and found that the said shop was of Samay Pal who was not found at the shop.
He further deposed that upon inquiry, they recovered 04 AC gas cylinders and accused persons told that the said shop was of Samay Pal and cylinders were kept at his house also. He further deposed that 04 AC gas cylinders were taken into the custody of RPF staff vide memo Ex.PW2/D. He further deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused Prem, Shushil and Ravipal Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. He further deposed that in Arjun Nagar itself the shop was searched. He further deposed that one of the shops was of accused Pradeep and the other shop was of Chaudhary and at the shop of CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 17/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:12:57 +0530 Chaudhary, 14 cylinders were recovered and at the shop of Pradeep 01 cylinder was recovered. He further deposed that he prepared the seizure memo Ex.PW2/G. He further deposed that thereafter, they all came at RPF post and on the basis of confessional statements of accused Prem, Shushil and Ravipal, on 29.07.2007 the house of the accused Samay Pal was searched and 11 AC gas cylinders were found and accused Samay Pal was not found at his house. He further deposed that he prepared the seizure memo of the said cylinders Ex.PW2/H and accused Hazari Lal Meena was arrested in the present case. He further deposed that the search was also conducted at the house of accused Hazari Lal Meena from where 02 gas cylinders and a Fan belt were recovered. He further deposed that accused Pradeep Kumar Gupta was arrested and one cylinder was also seized vide memo Ex.PW2/Q. He further deposed that he prepared personal search and arrest memo Ex.PW2/R. He further deposed that he recorded the confessional statement Ex.PW5/A of accused Pradeep. He further deposed that on the pointing out of accused namely Prem, Sushil and Ravipal, they went to the basement wherein 14 gas cylinders were found and the said basement was used by the accused Samay Pal. He further deposed that the said 14 gas cylinders were taken into the custody of RPF. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of accused Hazari Lal Ex.PW2/H. He further deposed that in the evening of 29.07.2000, on the pointing out of accused namely Prem and Shushil, accused Ram Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/U and his confessional statement was recorded Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of accused Ram Kumar Ex.PW2/L. He further deposed that on the pointing out of accused Ram Kumar, they reached CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 18/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:04 +0530 at his house where they found stamp and some papers which were used for preparing issue note and the same were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/X and the sample stamp Ex.PW2/Y. He further deposed that on pointing out of accused Ram Kumar, they reached at the shop situated in Lahori Gate where the accused used to make stamps of Sr. Section engineer vide Ex.PW5/B. He further deposed the accused persons were produced before the court and further investigation had been handed over to Insp. RS Maurya. He further deposed that the case property i.e. 70 AC gas Cylinders, seal, Meter and belt Ex.P1 to Ex.P-73 were being produced before the court. During cross-examination, he deposed that he does not remember the truck number. He further deposed that he does not know who drove the truck from the place of incident. He further deposed that on the pointing out of accused Kuldeep, they had gone to Arjun Nagar, but he cannot tell the departure DD entry or the time of departure. He further deposed that CIB team was along with him, including MS Dagar, RA Siddiqui, Vineet Gautam, HC Baljeet, Constable Naresh and other staff, which also included RPF and CIB staff. He further deposed that they had gone by a government vehicle, but he does not remember the name of the driver. He further deposed that they reached at around 12, but they did not obtain any search warrant from the court and they did not associate any independent witness of the search. He cannot tell the name or address of the independent witness. He further deposed that the accused Prem Sushil and Ravi Pal had produced four gas cylinders on their own. He further deposed that the proceedings were carried out outside the shop. He further deposed that he does not know out of the said four cylinders how many cylinders were proved. He further CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 19/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:11 +0530 deposed that he cannot tell the Number of the gas cylinders. He further deposed that apart from the Number, there was no mark on the gas cylinder from which it could be ascertain that the cylinders were booked for the railways. He further deposed that such cylinders can be procured from a gas agency. He further deposed that the gas agency supplies the gas cylinders to Railway as well as in open market. He further deposed that they took one hour in order to conduct the proceedings and thereafter they had gone to the house of the accused Samay Pal situated at Palam Nagar. He further deposed that they did not have a search warrant of the house of the accused Samay Pal and that they reached at the house of the accused Samay Pal at around 3 PM. He further deposed that he asked public person to join the investigation, but they refused. He further deposed that the wife of the accused Samay Pal had opened the door and had informed that the gas cylinders are kept in the courtyard of the house. He further deposed that they carried the cylinders in the same vehicle in which they had gone. He further deposed that 11 gas cylinders were taken in a truck. He further deposed that he cannot tell which truck was taken by the RPF and that he cannot tell the number of the truck or the driver of the truck. He further deposed that he cannot tell how much fare was given to the truck or that who gave the fare. He further deposed that thereafter they arrived at the RPF post at around 5:30 PM. He denied the suggestion that he knew that accused Samay Pal was the proprietor of a gas agency. He further denied the suggestion that the cylinders that were recovered from the house of accused Samay Pal were mixed with the AC gas cylinders of the railways. He further deposed that the accused Prem and Sushil were employees of accused Samay Pal and CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 20/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:17 +0530 used to visit Ravi Pal to meet him. He denied the suggestion that no AC gas cylinder belonging to the Railway was recovered at the instance of accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal. He further denied the suggestion that anyone who has a gas godown can keep the gas cylinders at his home instead of the gas godown. He further deposed that the accused Ram Kumar was arrested from Rani Bagh and he had obtained PC of the accused Ram Kumar. He further deposed that blank issue notes are kept at the DSKP Office. He further deposed that no issue note was found under hand of accused Ram Kumar. He further deposed that if he would ask his Sipahi to go and get a rubber stamp made, then he would take the authority letter. He further deposed that he does not remember the name of the shop from where the accused Ram Kumar had gotten the rubber stamp made he further deposed that on that day, the shopkeeper had not met them, and his employees were sitting on the shop, and they had informed that they do not know where was the shop owner. He further deposed that he never visited the shop again. He denied the suggestion that no gas cylinders were recovered from the accused Samay Pal and that he is deposing falsely as he is an RPF employee.
12. PW-6 Insp. M.L. Meena deposed that on 06.12.2000 he alongwith IPF RS Maurya investigated the case CC No. 16/2000 and they called Pooran Singh Negi at Store Baroge House for investigation. He further deposed that accused Pooran Singh Negi was arrested and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW2/O1. He further deposed that confessional statement of accused Pooran Singh was recorded Ex.PW2/P-1 wherein he disclosed that he used to take out the gas cylinders at the time of DSPK on the basis of vouchers. He further CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 21/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:22 +0530 deposed that he identified the accused Pooran Singh in the court and the accused Pooran was arrested in case No. 16/2000. He was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons despite being given an opportunity. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was not present at RPF Post Shakur Basti on 16.12.2000.
13. PW-7 Baljeet Singh/RPF Ambala, deposed that on 29.07.2000, he was posted as Head Constable at RPF post SSB and on that day, he alongwith Inspector and other RPF staff reached at the house of Hazari Lal Meena situated at railway colony, Kashmere Gate at the instance of three accused persons namely Prem, Sushil and Ravi Kumar. He further deposed that upon search of the house, they found two cylinders, one fan belt, one voltage and railway forms in the house of Hazari Lal Meena. He further deposed that accused Hazari Lal Meena was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW2/I. He further deposed that property was seized at the spot vide recovery memo Ex. PW2/H. During cross examination on behalf of the accused Pradeep, Arun and Ramkumar, he denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence except at the house of accused Hazai Lal Meena. He only identified the accused Prem but he was not able to identify other accused persons. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the statements of the accused persons were recorded in his presence. He further deposed that the godown of the accused Samay Pal was raided at about 10 AM. He denied the suggestion that accused Samay Pal has a gas agency and nothing was recovered from his possession and that he was lifted and implicated in the present case. He further deposed that he does not remember how many papers were prepared at the spot or that accused Samay Pal was CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 22/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:28 +0530 present at the godown. During cross-examination at the Post-Charge evidence stage, he admitted that when the material is taken out from the gate, the gate pass is necessary at that time to take out the material. He further denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence. He further deposed that the case property was seized from the railway quarter of Hazarilal Meena. He further denied the suggestion that no documentary work was done in his presence.
14. PW-8 SI Vineet Gautam was examined as PW-12 in post-charge evidence inadvertently and thus, his evidence is considered as PW-12.
15. PW-9 Sh. R.A. Siddiqui, Insp./RPF/Jalandhar City, deposed that on 27.07.2000, he was posted as SI at RPF out post Patel Nagar and on that day he alongwith Insp. M.S. Dagar, Insp. R.S. Maurya, Insp. B.K. Ram, SI Vinit Gautam while on watch near lable crossing gate between Palam and Bijwasan apprehended a 4-wheeler at the instance of secret informer. He further deposed that the tempo was driven was by accused Kuldeep Singh and was carrying 2 Cylinder of refrigerant cooling gas belonging to railway department and the same was seized and accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A and the accused Kuldeep was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/B and he also made a disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C and disclosed that he can point out the shop of Samay Pal situated in Safdarjung and further stated the shop of Samay Pal is situated in Arjun Nagar where he was going to deliver the gas Cylinder. He further deposed that they registered a case at RPF post at Shakur Basti vide Ex.PW3/A and took IPF Shiv Prakash and IPF Ramesh Kumar and reached at Arjun Nagar at the instance of the accused Kuldeep Singh, who pointed out the shop of Samay Pal where Prem, Sushil and Ravipal were present in the shop.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 23/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:35 +0530 He further deposed that they searched the shop and recovered 4 cylinders of refrigeration gas belonging to the railway department from unlawful possession of the accused persons which were seized and accused Prem, Sushil, and Ravipal were arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/D which. He further proved the Disclosure statement of accused Prem Ex. PW2/E and the Disclosure statements of accused Sushil and Ravipal EX. PW2/F. He further deposed that at the instance of accused persons they reached the house of Samay Pal situated Palam and searched his house and recovered 11 cylinders which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/G. he further proved the DD entry Ex. PW3/C regarding arresting of accused Prem, Sushil, Ravipal and wanted accused Samay Pal. He further proved the Joint disclosure statements of accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal Ex.PW5/A. He further deposed that at the instance of the above said accused persons they reached the house of Hazari Lal Meena and recovered two gas cylinders, one fan belt, one ampere meter, one voltage relay belonging to the railway from the unlawful possession of the house of accused Hazari Lal Meena, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/H. He further proved the arrest and personal search Memo Ex.PW2/I. He further deposed that at the instance of accused persons Prem, Sushil, Ravipal they reached the godown of Samay Pal and recovered 14 gas cylinders belonging to railway from the basement in the godown of Samay Pal, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/K. He further deposed that at the instance of accused persons namely Prem, Sushil, Ravipal they reached the shop of Pradeep Kumar and recovered 1 gas cylinder belonging to railway which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/Q. He further deposed that the accused was arrested and CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 24/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:42 +0530 personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/R. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused persons, accused Ram Kumar and accused Ramesh were also arrested in this case vide memo Ex.PW2/U. He further proved the disclosure statements of accused Ram Kumar and accused Hazari Lal Meena Ex.PW2/V and PW2/W, respectively. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused Ram Kumar they reached the house of accused Ram Kumar and recovered some documents and rubber stamps which were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/X and the Sample memo of rubber stamps Ex.PW2/Y was also proved. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused of Ram Kumar and Hazari Lal Meena they reached at Lahori Gate. He further deposed that he does not know the name of the shop or that if he had signed any memo there. He further proved the further disclosure statement of accused Prem Ex.PW2/B1. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused Prem, they reached the shop of accused Chanan Singh and searched the abovesaid shop and recovered 20 gas cylinders belonging to railway from the unlawful possession of the accused which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A. He further deposed that accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW9/B and the disclosure statement Ex.PW9/C of accused Chanan Singh was also recorded. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused Chanan Singh they reached the house of Arun Kumar and recovered 16 gas cylinders belonging to railway from the unlawful possession of the accused which were seized vide memo Ex.PW9/D and the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW9/E. He further deposed that the detailed story of the case mentioned in daily diary Ex.PW9/F at RPF post Shakur Basti. He CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 25/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:48 +0530 further deposed that on 07.08.2000, wanted accused Samay Pal was arrested by vide memo Ex.PW9/G and his disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW9/H was recorded. He further deposed that three pointing out memos Ex.PW9/I, PW9/J, PW9/K were prepared in his presence at the pointing out by the accused Samay Pal. He further deposed that further inquiry into this case was made by Insp. R.S. Maurya. He further identified the case property cylinders Ex.P-1 to P-70, one Ampere meter Ex. P-71, one voltage relay Ex. P-72, and one fan belt Ex. P-73. During cross-examination, he deposed that he never received any secret information. He further deposed that they had gathered at the post SSB and he does not know if any theft memo had been issued from the Railway department before recovery. He further deposed that they had raided the shop of accuse Samayal on 27.07.2000, where they had found accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal. He further deposed that the time must be around 3:00-3:30 PM. He denied the suggestion that accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal were only servants of Samay Pal and were not aware of the property. He further deposed that it is correct that accused Prem was servant. He denied the suggestion that accuse Sushil and Ravi Pal were also servants. He further deposed that they were relatives of the accused Samay Pal. He further deposed that he does not remember if the numbers on the Cylinder were already printed on them at the time of recovery. He further deposed that he does not know how many cylinders of the entire recovery had been proved to be that of Railway and that EO must be aware of the same. He denied the suggestion that the cylinders belong to Samay Pal only and not to the Railways. He further deposed that the accused Samay Pal was having a gas agency. He further deposed that he does not CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 26/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:53 +0530 recall the company of the gas cylinders. He further deposed that the company sends the cylinders to someone and after use they are sent back and then again they are sent to others and that there is circulation of cylinders. He further deposed that there is proper entry of cylinders coming in or going out from the store at the gate of the SSB Station. He further deposed that he cannot say if there is no entry record at the gate, showing illegal transportation of the cylinder. He further deposed that some papers were written by him and by other officials. He further deposed that he does not recall the name of the other person. He denied the suggestion that there is no witness of the recovery and the case is based only on the disclosure statements. He further deposed that he used private vehicle to transport the recovered property, but he cannot tell the number or name of the driver. He further deposed that they used private vehicle from these places where the recovery was heavy, otherwise, they used government vehicle. He further deposed that no Railway property was recovered from accused Ramesh or Ram Kumar. He further denied the suggestion that no Railway property was recovered from the accused, Prem Sushil Ravi Pal Samayal, and that their own property was seized. He further deposed that he cannot tell as to which cylinder was recovered from which spot and he will have to see the list for that. During cross-examination at the post charge evidence stage, by the Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Kumar, Arun and Pradeep, he denied the suggestion that recovery from accused Ram Kumar, Pradeep Kumar and Arun Kumar was not effected in his presence. He further deposed that accused Ram Kumar was railway store clerk and documents were recovered from his possession, one cylinder was recovered from accused Pradeep Kumar and recovery of CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 27/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:13:58 +0530 cylinder was also effected from accused Arun Kumar. He further admitted that there was no IR or NR marka on the cylinders but cylinders were having serial numbers which were Railway Property as per documents. He further deposed that he does not remember the serial numbers of the documents. He denied the suggestion that after taking the documents from the railway office false case has been planted on accused Ram Kumar. He further deposed that he cannot say about entry at the gate regarding material ingoing outgoing material as he was not posted there. He also denied the suggest that that no railway property was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and are falsely implicated in the present case by planting recovery of the railway property.
16. PW-10 Sh. Rajesh Tiwari deposed that on 05.08.2000, he was posted as Asst. Controller of Stores at Shakur Basti Depot, Delhi and he had lodged FIR Ex. PW10/A with Inspector RPF/SSB regarding 40 numbers of gas cylinders issued to SSE/ACC/DLI which were issued on 30.05.2000 (20 cylinders) and 16.06.2000 (20 cylinders) respectively which were not received by SSE/ACC/Delhi. He further deposed that on the same day, the RPF had got some signatures identified from him. He further deposed that he had opined that the signatures were that of Sh. V.P. Singh vide opinion Ex. PW10/B and PW10/C which was based on the statement of one Chothu Ram, Senior DSKP, Section E, SSB. The FIR was lodged on the basis of an inquiry mentioned in the same. During cross-examination, he deposed that the inquiry was conducted by some independent member and he was not a party to the said inquiry. He further deposed that he was not aware of the company to which the railway property belonged.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 28/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:04 +0530 16.1 PW-10, upon being recalled for further examination, deposed that in 2000 he was posted as ACOS in Shakur Basti Depot. He further deposed that he gave a reply of letter Ex. PW-16/A to RPF in which he had mentioned that the cylinders number and company of cylinders SRF, date of receipt of cylinders in SSB depot and issued particulars.
He further deposed that Serial number 4 was issued to SSE/ACC/DLI and the particulars of serial number 1,2,3 of cylinders were not mentioned or available in record so he did not mention the same in the reply. He further deposed that reply of a letter issued by RPF to him was prepared in the continuation of report/detail Ex.PW-16/B. He further deposed that AC gas cylinders pertaining to M/S SRF bearing number E-2564, S-7392, S-7477, A-1652 and S-6962 were received in their office on 22.03.2000 instead of 22.01.2000 which were mentioned in the report issued by district store controller Sh. Mohar Singh. He further proved his clarification report Ex. PW-10/D. He further deposed that a report Ex. PW-10/E was issued to clarify that details of issue of cylinders numbers mentioned in the report were not available in depot office record and seized by vigilance department and that the details of returning of these cylinders to firms is not available and the said cylinders were not available in SSB depot at that time. He further deposed that he also provided the inventory of supply of cylinders by firms, cylinders returned to firm, cylinders available in store, cylinders available with indent and number of cylinders whose whereabout were not known vide inventory Ex.PW-10/F. He further deposed that details of shortage of AC refrigerant gas cylinders issued by him is Ex. PW 10/G which contains details at point B about cylinders that were issued to SSE/ACC/DLI but gas was not received CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 29/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:10 +0530 having details mentioned at point C, and the cylinders to whom were issued having details at point D, having issue note number at point E, and gate pass numbers F and quantity issued by DSKP V.P. Singh of product M-12 and M-22 at point X, having date of issue at point G and consignee details at point H. He further deposed that one another details shortage refrigerant gas cylinders were issued by him which is Ex. PW-15/A, the said details having the entry regarding the issue of gas cylinders at point C and the gas cylinders were not received having details at point D, to whom the cylinders were issued having details at point E vide gate pass details at point F, quantity issued by DSKP V.P. Singh of product M-12 and M-22 having details at point X with date of issue at point G with issue note number at point H with quantity demanded details at point I and consignee is having details at point J. He further deposed that he had also given a report regarding the identification of signature of accused V.P. Singh on the issue note of which list Ex. PW 10/C and one another report regarding the identification of signature of accused V.P. Singh on the issue note of which list Ex. PW 10/B. He further deposed that Theft memo/ FIR Ex.PW-10/A was issued by him to RPF/SSB as 15 cylinders of M-12 gas and 5 cylinders M-22 gas were issued to SSE/ACC/DLI vide issue note numbers 20-1350 dated 30.05.2000 but not received by the SSE/ACC/DLI, also 15 cylinders of M-12 gas and 5 cylinders M-22 gas were issued to SSE/ACC/DLI vide issue note numbers 20-1493 dated 16.06.2000 but not received by the SSE/ACC/DLI. He further deposed that concerned custodian DSKP V.P. Singh was responsible for certain procedural lapses/regularities who was suspended due to conduct. He further deposed that he also verified the signature of V.P. CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 30/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:15 +0530 Singh on the documents Ex. PW 10/I, Ex.PW10/J, Ex.PW-10/K, Ex.PW-10/L, Ex.PW-10/M, Ex.PW-10/N, Ex.PW-10/O, and on Ex.PW-13/B and Ex.PW-14/F. During cross-examination for accused Ram Kumar, Arun and Pradeep he denied the suggestion that he prepared and handed over abovesaid documents are false and fabricated and prepared at the instance of the RPF. During cross- examination for accused V.P. Singh, he deposed that he does not recollect that he had deposed during his pre charge evidence that he had verified signatures of accused V.P. Singh on Ex. PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C as his pre charge evidence recorded more 10 years ago. He further deposed that he started working at Shakurbasti stores since 26.06.2000. He further deposed that the accused V.P. Singh was suspended by the railway department. In reply to the question whether accused V.P. Singh was suspended by the railway department on 20.07.2000, he deposed that V.P. Singh was suspended by the railway department in the year 2000 but he does not recollect the date since this happened more than 20 years ago. He further deposed that he was not immediate superior officer of accused V.P. Singh and he had not seen accused V.P. Singh writing and signing in front of him during usual course of discharge of duty. In reply to the question since he had admitted that he had not seen accused V.P. Singh writing and signing in front of him during usual course discharge of duty, how come he identified his signatures on Ex.PW-10/C, Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-10/I, Ex.PW-10/J, Ex.PW-10/K, Ex.PW-10/L, Ex.PW-10/M, Ex.PW-10/N and Ex.PW-10/O, he deposed that accused V.P. Singh had been submitting various documents to him through his immediate superior Chothu Ram Sr. DSKP and such documents were signed by accused CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 31/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:20 +0530 V.P. Singh based upon the signature appended on those documents he had verified the signatures on Exhibits mentioned above. After going through the records placed on the judicial file Ex.PW-10/C, he deposed that he had merely counter-signed the signature of Sh. Chothu Ram. He admitted that it is nowhere mentioned in EX 10/C that 'Accused V.P. Singh has been submitting various documents to him through his immediate superior Chothu ram Sr. DSKP and such documents were signed by accused V.P. Singh based upon those documents.' He further deposed that it is clearly mention in Ex.PW- 10/C that signatures on various issue notes mentioned there in appear to be that of accused V.P. Singh as per handing over /taking over report and other records available in the Shakur Basti depot. He further deposed that he has no special knowledge or expertise as an hand writing. He further deposed that Ex.PW-16/A was not prepared by him but prepared by concerned which was verified by him from the available record presented to him at the time of signing of the Ex.PW- 16/A. He further deposed that as to who has prepared Ex.PW-16/A is not mentioned. He further deposed that signature of the person who prepared will be mentioned in office copy. He further deposed that the vigilance department has seized records pertaining to AC gas Cylinders but all the records were not seized by them. He further deposed that he has no information about the acknowledgment issued by vigilance department pertaining to the record seized by them. He further deposed that they used to seize the record from the concerned section directly. He further deposed that he has no details how many documents they have seized. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared Ex.PW-16/A and the same was given by him without CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 32/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:26 +0530 verifying the records or that he had signed the documents and Exhibits as mentioned in his examination-in-chief in a mechanical manner without verifying the record at the instance of the EO. He further denied the suggestion that he made material improvement in his post- charge evidence vis-a-vis his pre charge that evidence deliberately to falsely implicate the accused.
17. PW11 Yograj deposed that in the year 2000, he was working as clerk in the store at NZM and that they used to bring goods from SSB. He further deposed that after verifying the goods, the issue note used to be sent to SSB.
18. PW8/12 SI Vineet Gautam deposed that on 27.07.2000, he was posted as SI at RPF Post NDLS and was the member of Special Task Force committee to collect the clue and apprehend the accused persons who had committed theft of refrigeration and A/c gas with cylinder from SSB General store of railway. He further deposed that on that day, he along with IPF M.S Dagar, IPF R.S. Maurya, Insp. B.K. Ram, SI R.A Siddiqui by the order of senior DSC Delhi, were busy in the abovesaid task and on that day, an information was received from one informer and they went to railway gate near to Bijwasan Railway Station which is adjoining to Palam Railway Station. He further deposed that they were on ambush duty and thereafter they saw one tempo bearing no.
DDL 3971 in open body coming from Raj Nagar side and going to Palam Airport side and stopped that tempo and enquired from the person who was driving the said tempo, who disclosed that his name was Kuldeep. He further deposed that during checking of the tempo, two gas cylinders bearing some numbers which tallied with the list which they had regarding the theft material. He further deposed that CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 33/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:31 +0530 accused Kuldeep could not produce any lawful authority to retain the said two cylinders and disclosed that he took these two cylinders from the house of Samay Pal and was going to deliver them at his shop situated in Arjun Nagar, Humayupur. He further deposed that accused Kuldeep was arrested at 11.40 hours, Tempo was also seized after fixing the chit upon it. He further deposed that no public person was ready to be the part of enquiry. He further deposed that Seizure & arrest memo Ex.PW2/A was prepared on the spot and thumb impression of accused Kuldeep was taken at point A. He further deposed that personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B and thumb impression of accused Kuldeep was taken at point K and thereafter, disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/C of accused Kuldeep was recorded in which he stated that he can identify the shop of Samay Pal. He further deposed that at the instance of Kuldeep they went to the shop of Samay Pal where three persons namely Prem, Sushil, and Ravi pal were present and Samay Pal was not in his shop at that time and 4 refrigeration gas cylinders were seized from his shop which were compared with the list, in which the theft material of railway from general store of SSB was shown. He further deposed that the persons namely Sushil and Ravipal who were sitting in the shop were brothers-in-law of Samay Pal and Prem was his servant. He further deposed that they also disclosed that some other cylinders were retained in the house of Samay Pal. He further proved the Search, seizure, arrest and personal search memo Ex.PW2/D prepared at the shop. He further deposed that disclosure statement of Prem Ex. PW2/E, disclosure and statement of accused Sushil and Ravipal Ex. Pw2/F were recorded. He further deposed that thereafter, at the CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 34/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:38 +0530 instance of accused persons they went to the Raj Nagar to house of the Samay Pal and 11 gas cylinders were recovered vide memo Ex. PW2/G. He further proved the Site plan Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that the present case was registered vide DD entry Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that another DD Entry Ex. PW3/C regarding the facts of the case and accused Samay Pal was declared as wanted. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000 he alongwith other RPF official arrested accused Hazarilal Meena at the instance of accused Prem, Sushil and Ravipal and two empty A/c gas cylinder, one fan belt one low voltage relay, one ampere meter and some empty invoice note in one envelope were recovered from Hazarilal Meena. He further deposed that accused Hazarilal Meena confessed the guilt voluntarily and disclosed that he did the said activity at the instance of V.P Singh who was railway DSKP and also disclosed that he sold railway sealed cylinders to Samay Pal at the instance of V.P Singh and collected Rs. 10000/- to 13000/- per cylinder and handed over to V.P. Singh. He further proved the Seizure memo Ex. PW-2/H, Arrest and personal search memo of Hazarilal Ex.PW-2/I. He further deposed that details of old railway deposited material record Ex. Pw12/B bears signature of IPF Ramesh at point A and HC Baljeet Singh at point B. He further deposed that at the instance of Hazarilal, Premchand, Sushil Kumar and Ravipal went to the Krishna Nagar, Safdurjung Enclave where godown of Samay Pal was situated and 14 gas cylinders were seized vide memo Ex. PW2/K. He further deposed that they also arrested one accused Pradeep Kumar Gupta at the instance of Ravipal and one cylinder was seized from his unlawful possession vide memo Ex. PW2/Q and arrest and personal search memo Ex. PW2/R was CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 35/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:44 +0530 prepared. He further deposed that while they were coming from the godown of Samay Pal on the way two persons namely Ram Kumar and Ramesh were seen by Hazarilal Meena and identified that these two persons were standing to Rani Baug Bus stand were also involved with them. He further deposed that they were enquired and arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/U. he further proved the disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/V of Ram Kumar and the DD entry Ex. PW-12/C regarding the facts of the said proceeding. He further deposed that statement of Arun Kumar Ex.PW12/D was recorded by IPF Ramesh Kumar and Site plan Ex. PW12/E was prepared by IPF Sh. Radhey Shyam Maurya. He further deposed that on 03.08.2020, he alongwith RPF official who were member of task force committee searched the shop no. 32/3 community centre in East of Kailash, of Subhash Chand where they went the at the instance of Prem and another accused but nothing was recovered there vide memo Ex. PW-12/F. He further deposed that on 07.08.2000 he along with other RPF official arrested accused Samay Pal Singh from his home Raj Nagar Palam and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-9/G and his disclosure statement Ex.
PW9/H was recorded. He further deposed that pointing out memo Ex. PW9/I, Ex. PW9/J, Ex. PW9/K were prepared at the instance of Samay Pal Singh. He further deposed that on 09.08.2000 one tempo bearing no. DDL 4083 was seized at the instance of accused Samay Pal Singh which was of Harvinder Kumar who stated that driver of the said vehicle namely Gopal. He further deposed that the said vehicle was used for transportation of gas cylinders and pointing out memo Ex. PW12/G was prepared. He further proved another pointing out memo Ex. PW12/H which was prepared at the instance of accused Samay Pal CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 36/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:52 +0530 Singh who point out the Bhagwati Enterprises where he had handed over one gas cylinder to Pradeep. He further deposed that confessional statement Ex. PW-12/I of Samay Pal Singh was recorded in his presence by IPF R.S Maurya and Statement Ex. PW12/J of Chanan Singh was recorded by IPF R.S. Mauraya. He further deposed that Vehicle no. DDL 4083 was taken in RPF possession vide memo Ex. PW12/K. He further proved the statement Ex. PW12/I of Harvinder Kumar who was owner of vehicle recorded by IPF Ramesh. He further proved the DD entry Ex. PW12/M regarding the facts of the proceedings. During cross-examination for all accused persons, in reply to the question whether he can tell the documents and exhibits that were signed by him as attesting witness in the present case especially the disclosure statements of accused persons whether the same bear the complete case particulars on the top of the documents, he deposed 'as per record'. After going through the exhibited documents and especially the disclosure statements of co-accused persons, he admitted that there are no case particulars mentioned on any of the documents that were exhibited in his examination-in-chief. He deposed that the documents were prepared in continuation during inquiry. He denied the suggestion that all the documents and exhibits were manipulated subsequently or that the memos and documents were not prepared during the course of inquiry as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. He denied the suggestion that the signatures of accused persons were obtained on various blank papers and forms which were subsequently converted into incriminating documents after coercing them to sign those documents to falsely implicate them in the present case. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether the CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 37/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:14:59 +0530 inquiry officer during the course of inquiry had seized the movement register of persons and vehicles from the respective offices from where the inquiry was conducted and the same can only be told by the EO. He further deposed that he remained in inquiry in the present case from 27.07.2000 to 07.08.2000 as they had taken 2-3 days break in between. He further deposed that in the present case his statement was recorded only once but he did not remember the date when it was recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the investigation in the present inquiry and that no proceedings were conducted in his presence and that he had signed all the memos and documents subsequently at the instance of the IO to suit his case or that he has deposed falsely. He further deposed that no recovery was effected from accused Ram Kumar and Ramesh Kumar during the course of inquiry and that they were apprehended at the instance of other co-accused persons. He further deposed that the distance between place of apprehension of Ram Kumar and Ramesh Kumar and RPF Shakur Basti is approximately 1 km and it took approximately 10 minutes to reach RPF Shakur Basti from the place of apprehension. He denied the suggestion that Ram Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were not apprehended and arrested in the manner as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief or that they were falsely implicated subsequently in the present case. He denied the suggestion that the documents qua their arrest and apprehension as well as disclosure statement were/manipulated and that they forced to sign on several blank papers and forms which were subsequently converted into incriminating documents to falsely implicate them in the present case. He further deposed that the case property was brought to the malkhana CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 38/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:06 +0530 in a truck, the number of which he does not remember. He further deposed that he does not remember whether any entry was recorded in the roznamcha regarding the movement of case property in a truck. He further deposed that he cannot even tell whether the truck number and the freight charges was mentioned in the deposit register maintained in the malkhana.
19. PW-13 Rahisuddin deposed that on 10.03.1998 he was posted as Officer Superintendent Grade-II SSE/ACC/Delhi. He further deposed that on 09.08.2000 Inspector RPF produced 2 issue note before him Ex.PW-13/A & Ex.PW-13/B and he verified that after seeing these issue notes that these notes were not prepared in his office and even no AC gas was received in his office due to these issue notes. He further verified that the stamps bear on these issues notes does not belong to the senior section engineer electrical department which are at Point-X. He further verified that the signature bears on these stamps does not belong to their officer or staff. He further deposed that for requirement of refrigeration gas, Form S1830 is required which is prepared in 5 copies which were signed by in-charge officers Senior SE/DLI. He further deposed that he also checked the record of 1997 Ex.PW-13/C of which letter is Ex.PW-13/D and verified that their office has not made demand for more than 5 AC Gas cylinder. He further deposed that their required quota is for 3 month is 365 Kg or 5 Gas Cylinder M12 and it reach 20 gas cylinder per year and M22 4 or 5 Gas cylinders were not fixed required. He further deposed that they demand M22 gas cylinders as per requirement and send the demand to Shakoor Basti Store and sometimes store refused their demands as no material is available at that time and they retained the demand letter CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 39/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:19 +0530 themselves and ask them when the Gas will be available, it will be given to them. He further deposed that sometimes they also ask them that their demand letter is missing and provide new demand letter and then they prepare new demand and send to the store. He further deposed that Ramesh Chand Khalashi who belongs to their office who went often to SSB Store to procure material because he has green card due to which he can procure gas or other material from SSB store. During cross-examination on behalf of the accused Pradeep Kumar, Arun Kumar and Ram Kumar, he denied the suggestion that the issue notes were not prepared in his presence and nor were signed by him. He further denied that the notes were not in his handwriting nor he had any knowledge whether gas cylinders were issued on these issue notes or not. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused VP Singh, he deposed that five copies of requisition were prepared for requirement of material from store. He further deposed that all the five copies were sent to store. He further deposed that when the material issued by the store, then two copies of the said requisition came into his office as an issue-note. He further deposed that he does not know whether two copies of said requisitions sent to Account Office or not. He further deposed that when the material issued by the store to his office then one copy of the said issue-note sent back to the store. He deposed that it is his duty to prepare all the five copies of requisitions or indent (No. S1830). He further deposed that a person who is Railway employee having green I-Card having authority letter signed by In-charge SSE (Senior Section Engineer) receive material from store. He further deposed that he was not confirmed whether the authority letter which was signed by the SSE was counter signed by CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 40/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:25 +0530 Assistant Engineer or not. He further deposed that he had not made any complaint/FIR for missing or untraceable demand letter/ demand order/ imprest. He deposed that if any demand letter not traceable then they do not maintain any record of it. He further deposed that they also do not maintain any Register regarding the demand letter/ imprest schedule/ requisition. He further deposed that they send all five copies to as the store from the issue-note copy and receive acknowledgment on the covering letter attached with the above said requisition/ demand letter.
20. PW-14 Sh. Narendra Kumar deposed that from 25.01.2000 to 26.06.2000, he was posted as Asstt. Controller of Store-1, General Store Depot, Shakur Basti. He further deposed that dispatch rule of material from general store depot to Imprest Store are as per store code para no. 1843 material from general store to Imprest holder sent through dispatch section by Railway vehicle as per Imprest schedule.
He further deposed that dispatch section issues gate pass with vehicle and person for taking the material. He further deposed that Gate pass is prepared in two copies, one for RPF gate for passing the vehicle and person and the second gate pass is office copy which remains in the dispatch section. He further deposed that generally, no material is issued by hand to demand/imprest holder except in emergency. He further deposed that in emergency, material will be issued to Imprest holder with the authority letter of Gazetted officer of Imprest Holder and the person through whom the material will be sent should have green card holder and authority letter will be addressed to Gazetted Store Depot Officer. He further deposed that the material which was issued on emergent basis, the letter will be approved by Gazetted CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 41/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:30 +0530 Officer store depot. He further deposed that the material issued by hand as per store code rules para 1843 having relevant entry at point A on Ex.PW-14/A on the Indian Railway Code for the Stores Department, Vol. II. and the two letters regarding issuance of material on store are handed over to RPF Ex. PW-14/B to Ex. PW-14/C (objected by the Ld. Counsel for accused on the ground of mode of proof). He further deposed that he checked the issue notes and gate pass and found that the material was issued by V.P. Singh against the rules as these were not approved by Gazetted officer having no I-Card to whom the material should be handed over. He further proved the Gate pass Ex. PW-14/D, issue note Ex. PW-13/A, Gate pass Ex. PW-
14/E, gate pass Ex. PW-14/F, Issue note Ex. PW-14/G, Gate pass Ex. PW-14/H, Issue notice Ex. PW-13/B, gate pass Ex. PW-14/I, issue note Ex. PW-14/J, Gate pass Ex. PW-15/B, issue note Ex. PW-14/A and gate pass Ex. PW-15/C. He further deposed that he had given his observation that the material was not issued as per rule by Accused V.P. Singh. He further deposed that after observing Issue note Ex. PW- 14/K, gate pass Ex. PW-15/D, issue notice Ex. PW-14/L, gate pass Ex. PW-15/G, issue note Ex. PW-14/M, gate pass Ex.PW-15/E, issue notes Ex. PW-14/N and gate pass Ex. PW-15/F and issue notice Ex. PW-14/O & Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2, he came to the conclusion that the material which was issued by accused V.P. Singh not according to the para 1843 of Store code (all the gate passes & issue notes objected by the Ld. Counsel for accused on the ground of mode of proof). He further deposed that the material was AC refrigerator gas cylinder. He further deposed that Issue and gate pass attested by him and other railway Gazetted officer. During cross-examination by Ld. CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 42/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:35 +0530 Counsel for accused V. P. Singh, he deposed that his statement Ex. PW-14/B is not attested by the IO. He further deposed that he had not himself indexed and paginated the documents that were perused checked by him before giving his opinion. He further deposed that he himself attested the said issue notes and gate pass after the checking the same as a gazetted officer. He further deposed that in Q. No.4 in his statement Ex. PW-14/P it is not clear as to what was asked from him in the said question. He further deposed that he gave the answer in Q.No.4 in the continuation of Q.No.3. He denied the suggestion that he had answered question No.4 merely on the basis of assumption and presumptions. He further deposed that any person/employee of railways who comes to the store for getting issued any article come to the store/depot section with five copies of requisition cum issue notes and then the store/depot section marks the same to the concerned section. He denied the suggestion that Daftri posted in the concerned Section firstly verifies and makes entry an issue notice register and then issue the material accordingly. He also denied the suggestion that it is the duty of the stores/depot section to first verify whether the requisition cum issue notes are duly signed and attested by the concerned Gazetted officer of the department for which material is being taken. He further deposed that the suggested procedure is followed in general material issue but the concerned material in the present case is special emergency case. He further deposed that on the issue notes and gate pass which are exhibited, it is not mentioned that they are issued in special or emergency case. He denied the suggestion that the accused VP Singh had signed requisition cum issue notes after the goods/material was issued to the concerned person satisfactorily as CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 43/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:40 +0530 a token of acknowledgment. He further deposed that even though the material issued by subordinate official even then the responsibility rests with the concerned DSKP but he cannot say if the refrigerant gas/AC gas kept in the section supervised by accused V.P. Singh was duly audited by the railway department every six months. He further deposed that the categorization of articles for audit purpose changes every year on the basis of value of annual consumption basis and responsibility of audit lies with concerned DSKP. He denied the suggestion that the mandatory audit was conducted by the railway department itself and not by the concerned DSKP, however, DSKP is duty bound to assist in the audit. He further deposed that he cannot say if accused V.P Singh was union leader in the stores department, Shakur Basti. He denied the suggestion that being union leader many senior officer inimical towards him and keeping grudge against him, because of the said reason, he has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false and fabricated charges. He denied the suggestion that he had not verified and checked the records as deposed by him in his examination in chief or that he had given the answers in his statement at the instance of IO to suit his case. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately not told the truth about the procedure adopted in practice. He denied the suggestion that the record which was supposed to be maintained by accused V. P. Singh were in order and he had acted after the requisition cum issue notes were marked to his section for further action. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for other accused persons, he has denied the suggestion that he had not verified and checked the records as deposed by him in his examination in chief or that he had given the answers in his statement at the instance of EO to CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 44/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:46 +0530 suit his case. He further denied the suggestion that he deliberately not told the truth about the procedure adopted in practice.
21. PW-15 Sh. Ram Babu Lal Maurya, deposed that on 09.08.2000, he was posted as SSE, Electric Coaching at Railway Station Nizamuddin and he issued a detailed summary from 01.01.1997, regarding the receiving of Gas against issue note Ex. PW-13/C. He further deposed that he also issued a summary shortage of AC refrigerant gas cylinders as gas was not received against issued notes which was six in number and the summary is Ex. PW-15/A. He further proved the Issue notes gate pass Ex. PW-15/B to Ex. PW-15/G against which no gas was received (objected by the Ld. Counsel for accused on the ground of mode of proof). During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused V.P. Singh, he deposed that Ex. PW-15/A is not in his handwriting and the same has not been prepared by him. He further deposed that he had signed the same being Incharge and that he has not himself verified the issue notes and gate pass Ex. PW-15/B to Ex.
PW-15/G. He further deposed that the same were verified by his clerk. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the name of the concerned Clerk who has verified and checked the Ex. PW-15/B to Ex. PW-15/G is mentioned on these exhibits. He denied the suggestion that he had himself not verified and checked any documents and reports as deposed by him in examination in chief, Ex. PW-15/A and Ex. PW-15/ B to Ex. PW-15/G or that he had signed the documents in a mechanical manner on the asking of the IO to suit his case. He denied the suggestion that he was not holding the position as deposed or that he is deposing falsely. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for other accused persons, the witness has denied the suggestion that CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 45/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:52 +0530 he had issued false summary report or that he was not on duty when he had issued those reports or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of RPF.
22. PW 16, Sh. Mahesh Kumar, deposed that he was posted as a Khalsi since 1981 in General Store section E, Shakoor Basti and in 1999 he was promoted as a clerk. He further deposed that during his duty, his work was to supply cleaning material to the stations. He further deposed that quota of the stations were fixed and supply to the railway stations of Northern railway. He further deposed that AC gas cylinders Quota was looked after by V. P. Singh who received demand of AC gas cylinders from the stations. He further deposed that 05 copies were prepared for the supply of AC gas cylinders and VP. Singh issue AC gas cylinders on demand. He further deposed that he had not issued AC gas cylinders to anybody as said work was of V.P. Singh. He further deposed that he has no knowledge from where these cylinders came and where to supplied. He further deposed that Clerk Ramkumar used assist to V.P. Singh in his work. He further deposed that in October 2000 Sr. DSKP Sh. Dayanand Jain handed over to him the work of making the rent of AC gas cylinders. He further deposed that report of cylinders regarding the receipt of cylinders in SSB depot and issued particulars were prepared by him which are EX PW 16/A and EX PW 16/B was prepared by him in which all details were proper except the cylinder number S-8982 was shown as received on 31.03.1997 whereas actual date was 31.03.1999 which has to be corrected. He further deposed that Record of AC gas cylinders number S-4103, R-7059 and S-8292 was not received by him and regarding which investigation continued regarding which the report is Ex. PW CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 46/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:15:57 +0530 16/A. He further deposed that record of 34 cylinders was also not received as not traceable, number of cylinders should be mentioned on office copy and number should be mentioned in issue note register but were not mentioned and the record was not prepared by V.P. Singh and he is responsible for the mismanage. He further deposed that Issue note register maintained by V.P. Singh and by clerk Ramkumar and was not handed over to vigilance department. He further deposed that he also checked the record of 34 AC gas cylinders which Ex. PW 16/B is not available with the railway department, railway store and any railway station. He further deposed that the record was missed by V.P. Singh or AC gas cylinders were supplied had not mentioned cylinders numbers. During cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Kumar, Arun and Pradeep Kumar, he has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of RPF. During cross- examination by Ld. Counsel for accused V.P. Singh, he deposed that as per procedure, whenever any person from the department come to the store/depot section with requisition to supply a particular article he places the requisition slip (5 in numbers) before the assistant controller of store who after verifying the requisition marks person to the concerned section. He further deposed that it is also correct that three copies of requisition slip retained with assistant controller and two copies remain with person by whom these requisition slip produced. He further deposed that one copy out of three which remain with section in-charge/ DSKP and two copies are sent to accounts office. He further deposed that one copy which remain section in-charge/DSKP sent to the Sr. DSKP who enter the same in the issue note file. He further deposed that in 2000, Prabhu Dayal Kakkar (since deceased) CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 47/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:02 +0530 was working as Sr. DSKP. He has further deposed that the RPF Officials deployed at the out gate always check the articles as mentioned in the requisition slip with the articles and gate pass and only then a person allowed to take those articles. He deposed that the relevant time i.e. in the year 2000, AC Gas Cylinders were not issued through dispatch section and no inquiries were made from him by RPF official in the present case, especially on 18.11.2011. He further deposed that after this case came to light all the documents were seized by the vigilance department of railways. He further deposed that he cannot tell if the vigilance officials had issued any acknowledgment to the stores regarding the documents seized by them. He further deposed that he had not signed Ex. PW 16/A and Ex. PW 16/B i.e. record of cylinders. He denied the suggestion that since all the relevant record of the AC Gases Cylinders were already seized by the vigilance department and there was no record available, he prepared Ex. 16/A and Ex. PW 16/B regarding the details of cylinders on the asking of the E.O. without verifying the records to suit his case. He denied the suggestion that he had not joined the enquiry or that he is deposing falsely.
23. PW-17 Vipin Sisodia deposed that on 29.07.2000, he was posted as SI at RPF/NDLS and on that day, he along with IPF Shiv Prakash and other members of the team along with arrested accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi Pal reached in Railway Colony, Kashmere Gate at the instance of accused persons who pointed out the house no. 107/2, Railway Colony, Kashmere Gate and disclosed that in the said house Hazari Lal Meena is residing. He further deposed that thereafter, one person came out from the house at our call, who disclosed his name as CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 48/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:07 +0530 Hazari Lal Meena. He further deposed that during search of his house, 2 empty AC gas cylinders, one fan belt, one low voltage relay, one Ampere meter and some advice notes were also found regarding which he could not produce any lawful authority to retain. He further deposed that during inquiry Hazari Lal Meena disclosed that he had prepared false documents at the instance of DSKP V.P. Singh and took the filled AC gas cylinders from Railway General Store, Shakur Basti and sold the same cylinders to accused Samay Pal at Rs. 10000-
13000/- per cylinder. He further deposed that the accused Hazari Lal also disclosed that he gave some money to V.P. Singh per cylinder. He further deposed that Search & seizure memo Ex.PW-2/H was prepared with signatures of Hazari Lal Meena at Point H and signatures of accused Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar and Ravi Pal at Point A, B & C. He further proved the Arrest and personal search memo of Hazari Lal Meena Ex. PW2/I. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000, they along with arrested accused went at the godown of accused Samay Pal at C- 20, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, from where they recovered 14 AC gas cylinders vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that, at the instance of these accused they went Bhagwati Enterprises at 271, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung whose owner was Pradeep Kumar from where they recovered one AC gas cylinder which was seized and accused Pradeep Kumar was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/Q as Pradeep Kumar could not produce any lawful authority to retain the Ac gas cylinder which was supplied to railway department. He further proved the Arrest and personal search memo of Pradeep Kumar Ex. PW2/R. He further deposed that after arresting accused Pradeep, they reached at Bus Stand, Rani Bagh at about 18:00 hrs where accused CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 49/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:14 +0530 Hazari Lal Meena pointed out two persons and disclosed that these two persons were also involved in the theft of railway AC Gas Cylinders whose name were disclosed as Ram Kumar (Clerk) and Ramesh (Khalasi) who worked in General Store, Shakur Basti. He further deposed that the accused Ram Kumar and Ramesh were inquired and they confessed their guilt regarding the involvement of theft of Ac gas cylinders supplied to railway. He further proved the arrest and personal search memo of Ram Kumar and Ramesh Ex.PW2/U which was also signed by accused Prem Chand, Sushil Kumar, Ravi Pal, Hazari Lal Meena and Pradeep Kumar. He further deposed that the facts of the above proceeding were mentioned in roznamcha and accused VP. Singh as declared as wanted. He further deposed that thereafter on 31.07.2000, disclosure statement Ex. PW2/W of Hazari Lal Meena was recorded in which he disclosed that a letter was handed over by Ram Kumar for making stamp. He further deposed that at the instance of Hazari Lal Meena, rubber stamp and some railway documents were recovered from the house of Ram Kumar vide pointing out seizure and seizure memo Ex. PW2/X and rubber stamp sample Ex. PW2/Y was also taken. He further deposed that accused Ram Kumar also disclosed that forms which have been recovered from his possession were falsely and fabricated prepared for as a demand and false and fabricated signatures put on the such forms with stamp and taken out Ac gas cylinder from SSB Store with the help of his co-accused. He further deposed that some empty forms were also recovered from the unlawful possession of Ram Kumar. He further deposed that on 30.07.2000, disclosure statement of Prem was recorded in which he disclosed that one shop by the name of North CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 50/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:21 +0530 Land Refrigeration Company is situated in Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, Delhi whose owner is Thakur Chanan Singh and that sometimes ago, Samay Pal had supplied some Ac gas cylinder to Chanan Singh which can be recovered. He further deposed that accused Prem also disclosed vide disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/B1 that owner of advance refrigeration is Subhas from where Ac gas cylinders can be recovered. He further deposed that on 01.08.2000, he along with other RPF officials reached at North Land Refrigeration Company at the instance of accused Prem where one person Chanan Singh came out and 20 empty Ac gas cylinders were recovered from his unlawful possession which were compared with the list of supplied Ac gas cylinder from Store Railway and accused Chanan Singh could not produce any lawful authority to retain the said cylinders and the said cylinder were seized vide search and seizure memo Ex. PW9/A and accused Chanan Singh was arrested and personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that accused Chanan Singh disclosed that he had purchased 20 cylinders from Samay Pal whose shop is situated at Arjun Nagar. He further deposed that Confessional statement Ex. PW17/A of accused Chanan Singh was recorded by IPF B.K. Ram. He further proved the Disclosure statement of Chanan Singh Ex. PW9/C in which he disclosed that some time ago, Samay Pal to whom he knows very well had stocked some cylinders at his shop and some cylinders with Arun Kumar and can be recovered these cylinders. He further deposed that they reached at the house of Arun Kumar from where 16 Ac gas cylinders were recovered vide seizure memo Ex. PW9/D. He further proved the Arrest and personal search memo of accused Arun Ex. PW9/E. He further deposed that accused Arun CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 51/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:27 +0530 Kumar could not produce any lawful authority to retain the Ac gas cylinder. He further deposed that accused Arun Kumar also disclosed that he had received these cylinders from Samay Pal. He further deposed that they checked the number of cylinders which matched with the list of railway supplied cylinders. He further deposed that from 02.08.2000 to 08.08.2000, they tried the trace out the wanted accused. He further deposed that on 09.08.2000, they went at tempo stand at the instance of arrested accused Samay Pal from where they seized the tempo no. 4083 in green color which was used to transport the stolen railway Ac gas cylinders and pointing out memo Ex. PW- 12/G was prepared. He further deposed that tempo bearing No. DDL- 4083 was seized by vide memo Ex. PW12/A. He further deposed that the driver Gopal was not present there who was declared as wanted in this case. He further deposed that on 09.08.2000, pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of Samay Pal of the shop Bhagwati Enterprise, Arjun Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave from where 01 cylinder was seized on 29.07.2000, pointing out memo Ex. PW-12/I was prepared. He further correctly identified the accused Ram Kumar, Pradeep and Arun Kumar. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ramkumar, Arun and Pradeep, he deposed that he was posted as SI at RPF Post NDLS on 29.07.2000 and he joined the team as per order of his superior officer. He further deposed that on 29.07.2000, he raided the house of Hazari Lal Meena Railway Colony at Kashmere Gate, Delhi and 02 cylinders were recovered from Hazari Lal Meena. He further deposed that these cylinders do not have any mark of IR but these cylinders had numbers which were matched with the list provided by railway department of railway supplied gas CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 52/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:33 +0530 cylinder. He further deposed that he recovered 14 gas cylinders from godown of Samaypal, 01 cylinder was recovered from accused Pradeep. 20 cylinders were recovered from accused Chanan Singh, 16 cylinders were recovered from Arun Kumar. He further deposed that he was the member of team formed by his superior officers comprising of IPF Shiv Prakash, IPF Rahdey Shyam Maurya, IPF Ramesh Kumar, IPF B.K. Ram, SI Vineet Gautam, SI R.S. Siddiqui, himself and other RPF staff on government vehicle however, he does not remember the registration number of the said vehicle. He further deposed that recovered cylinders were taken by them to RPF Post on private tempo whose number he does not remember as the matter is very old. He further deposed that Ac gas cylinders were misappropriated from SSB Store/Depot and more information may be provided by inquiry officer Sh. Radhey Shaym Maurya as he was involved in the recovery of cylinders only. He further deposed that 16 cylinders were recovered from accused Ram Kumar. He further deposed that no cylinder was recovered from Ram Kumar except one rubber stamp of railway and some railway documents. He denied the suggestion that no rubber stamp or railway documents were recovered from Ram Kumar. He further deposed that he cannot say these cylinders were of which company. He denied the suggestion that no railway material was recovered from possession of Ram Kumar and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that no Ac gas cylinder pertaining to railway were recovered from unlawful possession of accused Pradeep and Ram Kumar. He further deposed that he cannot say whether company sold such type of cylinders in the open market. During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 53/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:39 +0530 V.P. Singh, he deposed that accused Hazari Lal Meena had not given any disclosure statement as deposed by him in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that he had manipulated and concocted the documents to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. He denied the suggestion that signatures of accused persons were obtained on various blank papers and forms which were subsequently converted in to incriminating documents falsely implicate them in the present case.
24. PW-18 Retd. Deputy Chief Material Manager Sh. Mohan Singh deposed that so far as he remembers, he was posted as District Controller of Stores at Shakoor Basti from 1999 for about 2 and half years. He further deposed that a detail of AC gas cylinders was given by him to RPF official in which he mentioned the numbers of cylinders which were received from GLF and SRF company in railway stores. He further deposed that cylinders which were issued from company and received in our store and thereafter when the railway issued same cylinders then railway store mentioned the issued note number, date and indentor, but the detail which he provided had only cylinder numbers but issue note and other details were not mentioned as the record does not have such details. He further proved the Detail record Ex.PW-16/B having details of 17 Cylinders received from GLF company and 17 Cylinders from SRF Company. He further deposed that in the details record of cylinders received from GLF company, it had dates of receiving the said cylinders in store but issue note number, date and indenter column were unfilled. He further deposed that in the details record of cylinders received from SRF company, it had dates of receiving the said cylinders in store but issue note CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 54/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:46 +0530 number, date and indenter column were unfilled as record was not having such details to whom these cylinders were issued. He further deposed that three cylinders (marked at point B, C and D), out of seventeen, which were received from SRF of which record was not found at the time of preparation of detail. He further deposed that the received cylinder in store did not having any entry regarding the issue of outsider consumer, even no details of issue of the cylinders were available in record. He further deposed that Sh. VP. Singh, Depot Store Keeper Second Section E. Shakur Basti, had the work of receiving and issuing AC Gas Cylinders from 1997 to May 2000 and information regarding the issue of the AC Gas Cylinders has to be provided by him. He further proved Receiving of cylinders from GLF Company Ex.PW-18/A and receiving of cylinders from SRF company Ex.PW- 1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for the accused V.P. Singh, he deposed that he had not prepared Ex. PW-16/B, the same was prepared by his staff. He further deposed that the name of the official who has prepared the document Ex.PW16/B is not mentioned on the said document. He further deposed that he merely appended his signatures on the document which was prepared by his subordinate. He further deposed that his statement was not recorded by the enquiry officer. He further deposed that he does not remember whether any statement was recorded. He further deposed that his initials are not there on Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-1/B and Ex. PW-18/A. He further deposed that he had not appended his initials on aforesaid Ex.s as these documents were with different Sections and under the control of some other officer and he had no control over the same. He further deposed that whoever from the Railway Department intends to get CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 55/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:52 +0530 something issued from the stores, he first submits five copies of the indent forms at the Depot Section (like reception); From there, the said person is directed to the concerned custodian/section of store after making the entry in the register. He denied the suggestion that the Depot (reception area) keeps two copies of the indent form. He deposed that all the five copies are sent to the respective section. He further deposed that a person cannot come out of the stores without showing and submitting the gate pass to the RPF officials deployed on the out gate of the store. He further deposed that the RPF officials match the details of articles mentioned in the indent form as well as in the gate pass, only then authorized person is allowed to take out the respective articles. He further deposed that it is nowhere mentioned in Ex.PW-16/B that the record of gate passes were also verified regarding the articles/cylinders mentioned in the documents. He further deposed that since the issue notes were not mentioned or issued of the articles, thus there was no question to verify the gate pass. He further deposed that there is no mention of Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-18/A in the document Ex.PW-16/B. He further volunteered but the details of the cylinders received in Railway mentioned in these documents which were mentioned by him in Ex. PW16/B as per record. He further deposed that whatever articles or cylinders are received in the store, the entry of the same is maintained in Receipt Section in registers and ledgers. He further deposed that the articles which were found to be in fit condition and were declared so are accepted and are transferred to the respective custodian and the defective items are rejected and returned back to the Firm. He further deposed that there is no mention that the ledgers/records of the Receipt Section were checked and CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 56/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:16:57 +0530 verified when Ex.PW16-/B prepared. He further deposed that he prepared Ex. PW-16/B as per the record available in store. He deposed that the internal verification of the stocks of articles in the Stores was conducted every six months, however, the same was not in practice at the relevant time, when he was officiating at Shakur Basti Store. He further deposed that the said verification of stocks of articles was conducted by Accounts Department as per category A, B and C, which were conducted on half yearly basis, yearly basis and two yearly basis, respectively. He further deposed that AC Gas Cylinders falls in A Category. He denied the suggestion that he had not prepared the report/document Ex.PW-16/B properly after going through the records or that he had merely signed the same in a mechanical manner and submitted it to the inquiry officer to suit his case. During cross- examination by Ld. counsel for the accused Pradeep, Arun Kumar and Ram Kumar, he deposed that he does not remember by whom he was summoned in this case. He further deposed that IPF/CIB/RPF summoned him in this regard, to whom he handed over his detail Ex.PW16-/B. He further deposed that he cannot tell how many cylinders were stolen and on which date. He further deposed that cylinders do not bear any IR or NR Mark. He denied the suggestion that no cylinders were stolen or misappropriated from SSB Store and the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. He further deposed that he does not know whether such type of cylinders are available in open market or not.
25. PW-19 Sanjay Walia deposed that he is doing the business of refrigeration spare parts by the name Walia Refrigeration Co. at Darya Ganj, New Delhi. He further deposed that he is a dealer of SRF CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 57/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:06 +0530 company A/C gas cylinders since 1989. He further deposed that in the last week of June 2000, two or three boys arrived at his shop for selling of two AC gas cylinders of SRF company and offered him to purchase AC gas cylinder at the cost of Rs.280/- per Kg whereas the company were selling to him at the cost of Rs.297/- per Kg. He further deposed that he asked those boys that from where they had brought the said cylinders and in reply, they disclosed that they had brought from transport auction. He further deposed that he informed to Sheelam Seth, representative of SRF company regarding the less price of AC gas cylinders. He further deposed that he checked the number of one cylinder which was 4103. He further deposed that while he was in conversation with Sheelam Seth the above said boys having AC Gas Cylinders went away. He further proved his statement Ex.PW-2/B. During cross examination Ld. Counsel for all accused, he deposed that he signed his statement at RPF Post. He further deposed that he had not handed over any document regarding his dealership with SRF company to the RPF voluntarily and RPF had not sought these documents. He further deposed that SRF company cylinders are easily available in the local market. He further deposed that besides himself there were 4-5 other dealers of SRF gas cylinders. He denied the suggestion that he has been planted as a witness in the present case subsequently by the enquiry officer to falsely implicate the accused persons and to create a false narrative.
26. PW-20 Gaurav Arora deposed that his father Sh. Harish Chand has been summoned as a witness in the present case. He further deposed that his father is confined to bed due to ailment and he has brought the necessary medical records of ailment of his father. He further deposed CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 58/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:11 +0530 that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of his father, as he has seen him writing and signing in the normal course. Upon his attention being drawn at point A in Ex. PW-2/A1 and after seeing the signatures he deposed that the same were appended by his father "Shri Harish Chand". He further deposed that his father was engaged in the work of making of rubber stamps at Shop No.5172, Lahori Gate, Delhi. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused V.P. Singh, he deposed that he does not know anything about the present case. During cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused Ram Kumar, Arun and Pradeep, he deposed that he had not seen accused Ram Kumar at the shop of his father.
27. After the examination of total 20 witnesses, individual statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the accused stated that they have been falsely implicated, and that the enquiry was done in a biased manner, and the recovery from them was planted. Accused persons have pleaded innocence, however, they have not led any defence evidence.
28. During the final arguments, the learned PP for RPF reiterated the entire evidence and pleaded that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under section 3 of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
29. Per Contra, Ld. Counsels for the accused has argued that the recovery from the accused was a planted recovery and no actual recovery was made. He has further argued that no public witness has been examined and thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
30. The locus classicus for appreciating the ingredients of the offence u/S CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 59/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:16 +0530 3 of RP (UP) Act is State of Maharashtra vs Vishwanath Tukaram (1979) 4 SCC 23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that essential requirements of Section 3 of RP (UP) Act are as follows:
a. The property in question should be railway property; b. It should reasonably be suspected of having been stolen or unlawfully obtained; and c. It should be found or proved that the accused was or had been in possession of that property.
31. In The Public Prosecutor vs Shaik Galib & Ors. 1975 Cri LJ 952, Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the once it is established that the property in question is railway property and it is reasonably suspected to have been stolen, the burden shifts upon the accused to show as to how he came into lawful possession of the same.
It was further held that it is not necessary that there should be a report of the theft of the railway property. It is sufficient if the facts and circumstances disclose that the property is reasonably suspected of having been stolen.
32. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also laid down the following parameters to deal with cases u/S 3 of the RP (UP) Act:
i. "20. The above provisions abundantly make it clear that the actions taken by the RPF have to be strictly in terms of the procedure outlined under the RPF Rules 1987, and any infraction of the said Rules would invalidate such action. There can be no doubt that as far as the present case is concerned, RPF failed to demonstrate before the learned MM that the various theft memos and seizures memos, copies of CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 60/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:23 +0530 which were produced before the Court, actually formed part of the original railway record maintained in terms of the aforementioned Rules. The learned MM cannot be faulted for discarding the above evidence since the original registers were not produced.
ii. 22. The Court accordingly holds that the procedures outlined under the RPF Rules 1987, and, in particular, those regarding entries to be made in the crime registers, both as regards the theft of railway property as well as the apprehension of a suspect and recovery of the stolen railway property from him, are mandatory.
iii. 23. Under the RPF Regulations 1966, there was a requirement for the RPF to maintain registers which would show the movement of the Railway staff on patrolling duty. Although the said Regulations stand repealed, it is not known whether under Rule 268 of the RPF Rules 1987, the proforma of the records and registers for maintaining the entries of such movement have been prescribed. In any event, when the question arises whether an RPF officer was on patrolling duty at a particular point in time when the suspect was apprehended, the burden would be on the RPF to prove before the Court by producing such records and registers in original that the movement of the RPF officers involved in the arrest is reflected CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 61/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:37 +0530 in the register maintained for that purpose. iv. 26.In many of these cases, it may not be possible for the RPF to associate public witnesses at the time of apprehension of the accused, given the hour of the day when such arrest takes place. Nevertheless, there must be contemporaneous entries made in the records maintained by the RPF to indicate that an attempt was made to associate public witnesses. In other words, the requirement of associating public witnesses must not be treated as a mere formality. It must not be presumed by the RPF in every case that the requirement can be dispensed with.
v. 27.Where there are no public witnesses involved, a trial Court is bound to view with suspicion the confessional statement made by an accused in the presence of the RPF officers. It has been held in Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 62 that the statement made to an RPF officer will not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In Babu Lal v. State [1977 SCC OnLine All 95 : 1977 Cri LJ 2008 (All)] , it was held that the statements recorded by the officers of the RPF during the investigation do not attract the provisions of Section 162 CrPC. In Chinna v. State [1976 SCC OnLine Kar 145 :(1977) 2 Kant LJ 480], it was held that the statements recorded by an officer of the RPF in the course of CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 62/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:43 +0530 inquiry can be read in evidence. This makes it all the more necessary for the Court to cautiously evaluate the confessional statement purportedly made by an accused to an officer of the RPF soon after his arrest. The Court will have to be satisfied that the statement was voluntary. Otherwise, it will be a denial of a just, fair and reasonable procedure and constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as well. The voluntariness of the statement will have to be tested on a case by case basis and evaluated in light of the attendant circumstances of each case. Where there are no public witnesses associated, or where, as in the present case, all the RPF officers stated to have been present at the time of the arrest do not sign the confessional statement, or where, as in the present case, the entries mandatorily required to be made in the registers maintained under the RPF Rules as regards the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the railway property are not proved by producing the original registers, it would be unsafe for the Court to proceed to convict the Respondent only on the basis of his confessional statement."
33. The chain of events in the present case is that on 27.07.2000, acting upon secret information, the RPF team comprising Inspector R.S. Maurya (PW-2), Inspector M.S. Dagar (PW-3), Inspector R.A. Sid- diqui (PW-9), SI Vineet Gautam (PW-12), IPF BK Ram and other offi- cials intercepted a tempo bearing registration No. DDL-3971 near CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 63/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:49 +0530 Palam/Bijwasan Railway Gate and apprehended its driver Kuldeep Singh, from whose possession 2 AC refrigerant gas cylinders were re- covered, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/A, and Kuldeep Singh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/B; his disclo- sure statement was recorded as Ex. PW-2/C, wherein he disclosed that the cylinders had been taken from accused Samay Pal and were being transported for delivery to his shop at Arjun Nagar, pursuant to which the RPF team, on the same day, raided the said shop and recovered 4 AC gas cylinders from the possession of Prem Chand, Sushil and Ravi Pal, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/D, and the said accused were arrested, while accused Samay Pal was not found present; there- after, on the disclosures of the said accused persons, the RPF team conducted a search of the residential premises of Samay Pal at Raj Na- gar/Palam and recovered 11 AC gas cylinders, seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/G, followed by a search of his godown/basement at Safdarjung/Krishna Nagar, from where 14 AC gas cylinders were re- covered and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/K.
34. Further, on 29.07.2000, during further inquiry, the RPF team searched Bhagwati Enterprises at Arjun Nagar and recovered 1 AC gas cylinder from the possession of accused Pradeep Kumar, which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/Q, and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/ R; during the same period, the premises of accused Chanan Singh at Northland Refrigeration were searched, resulting in the recovery of 20 AC gas cylinders, seized vide memo Ex. PW-9/A, and his arrest vide memo Ex. PW-9/B, and on his disclosure statement Ex. PW-9/C, the premises of accused Arun Kumar were searched, from where 16 AC gas cylinders were recovered and seized vide memo Ex. PW-9/D, lead-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 64/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:54 +0530 ing to his arrest vide memo Ex. PW-9/E; further, on the disclosures of Prem Chand, Sushil and Ravi Pal, the RPF team searched the railway quarter of accused Hazari Lal Meena at Railway Colony, Kashmere Gate, and recovered 2 empty AC gas cylinders, one fan belt, one low voltage relay and one ampere meter, which were seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/H, followed by his arrest vide memo Ex. PW-2/I; subsequently, on the basis of disclosures attributed to Hazari Lal Meena, accused Ram Kumar, a clerk at Shakur Basti Store, was apprehended from Rani Bagh Bus Stand and rubber stamps and blank railway forms were recovered from his house and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/X, with sample seal taken vide Ex. PW-2/Y, and he was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-2/U; thereafter, accused Samay Pal was arrested on 07.08.2000 vide memo Ex. PW-9/G.
35. As regards the surviving accused, Pradeep Kumar, the prosecution story is that on the basis of the disclosures of the accused Prem, Sushil and Ravi and on the pointing out of the these accused, the RPF team had reached at Bhagwati Enterprises at Shop No. 271, Arjun Nagar near Safdarjung Enclave and recovered one AC Gas Cylinder from the said shop vide Search Recovery & Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/Q and the accused Pradeep Kumar, who was present at the shop at that time was arrested & personally searched vide Memo Ex. PW-2/R and his Con- fessional Statement Ex. PW-5/A was recorded. Further, the statement Ex. PW-2/T of Ashok Kumar that Sh. Ved Kumar Sharma has rented the shop to the accused Pradeep Kumar who is running a business of refrigeration/air conditions in the name of M/s Bhagwati Enterprises at 271, Arjun Nagar. The shop of the accused Pradeep Kumar has also been identified vide pointing out memo Ex. PW12/H prepared at the CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 65/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:17:59 +0530 instance of accused Samay Pal Singh who pointed out the said shop where he had handed over one gas cylinder to Pradeep.
36. As regards the surviving accused, Arun Kumar, the prosecution story is that on the basis of the disclosure of the accused Chanan Singh and at the pointing out of the said accused, the RPF team reached at the house of accused Arun Kumar where the accused Samay Pal had kept certain AC Gas Cylinders, a few days ago. Upon the search of the said house, 16 AC Gas Cylinders were recovered, which were seized vide Memo Ex. PW-9/D. Accused Arun Kumar was arrested & personally searched vide Memo Ex. PW-9/E and his confessional statement Ex. PW-12/D was recorded.
37. As regards the surviving accused, Ram Kumar, the prosecution story is that he was arrested from the Rani Bag Bus Stand at the instance of the accused Hazari Lal Meena vide Arrest & Personal Search memo Ex. PW-2/U and his confessional statement Ex. PW-2/V was recorded. Further, vide Pointing Out, recovery & Seizure Memo Ex. PW-2/X, one rubber seal, 20 blank issue notes and imprest schedule were recov- ered from the house of the accused Ram Kumar and the sample seal Ex. PW-2/Y was prepared. Vide Pointing Out Memo Ex. PW-5/B, the shop in Lahori Gate, from where the rubber seal was made.
38. Before embarking upon the evaluation of the evidence available on record, it would be appropriate to discuss the Order No. 73 SPL/ REGN/CH.XXV dated 09.07.1975 issued by the Railway Board in or- der to regulate the powers of RPF, where under all the procedures to be followed from the moment of arrest of an offender under the RP (UP) Act till the forwarding of the complaint for trial have been laid down.
39. Rule 7 of the aforesaid Order dated 09.07.1975 is as follows:
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 66/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:04 +0530 "7. Action taken on apprehending an accused- When a person is arrested for an offence punishable under the Act by a superior officer/member of the force, he shall prepare a recovery memo, cause this information to be brought to the notice of the officer in charge of the post having jurisdiction and handover the accused along with the property recovered and the relevant memo to the latter."
40. Perusal of the evidence on record reveals that the entire proceedings were carried out PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-9, PW-12 and PW-17 reveals that the entire raiding team had apprehended the accused persons and arrest, personal search and Seizure Memos were prepared by them. Further, the disclosure statements and confessional statements of the accused were recorded invariably by the apprehending officer himself.
41. This conduct of the said RPF official is in direct violation of Rule 7 of the Railway Board's order dated 09.07.1975. As per law, the appre- hending RPF official was required to prepare only a recovery memo and then bring the entire facts and circumstances into the notice of the officer In-charge of the RPF post. Thereafter, the said apprehending RPF officials ought to have handed over the accused, alongwith case property recovered and the recovery memo to the officer In-charge of the concerned RPF post. The officer In-charge concerned should have then directed the inquiry as enshrined u/s 8 of the Act.
42. In this case, a substantial part of inquiry was conducted by the RPF of-
ficial who apprehended the accused. PW-2 is the Enquiry Officer who has himself apprehended the accused persons and conducted the entire enquiry against them. While this by itself may not render the proceed- ings illegal, it is a circumstance that calls for greater scrutiny of the ev- idence collected, particularly when the alleged property is commercial in nature and susceptible to circulation.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 67/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:09 +0530
43. The prosecution has also failed to bring on record the entries in the Lo-
calized Crime Register or the Unlocalized Crime Register that are re- quired to be maintained under the mandate of rules 222 and 223 of RPF Rules 1987. PW-10 Sh. Rajesh Tiwari has deposed that on 05.08.2000, he was posted as Asst. Controller of Stores at Shakur Basti Depot, Delhi and he had lodged FIR Ex. PW10/A with Inspector RPF/SSB regarding 40 numbers of gas cylinders issued to SSE/ ACC/DLI which were issued on 30.05.2000 (20 cylinders) and 16.06.2000 (20 cylinders) respectively which were not received by SSE/ACC/Delhi. It is pertinent to note that the arrests in the present matter were made from 27.07.2000 to 01.08.2000 and thereafter re- questing the lodging of FIR regarding missing gas cylinders on 05.08.2000, raises a legitimate question regarding the sequence of de- tection and documentation. Further, although a roznamcha entry was made after the apprehension of the accused persons and the recovery of railway property, however the same does not appear to be a suffi- cient compliance of the procedural rules.
44. As per Rule 8 of the Railway Board order dated 09.07.1975, the en-
quiry against the accused is to be conducted subsequent to the registra- tion of case in the concerned Crime Register and the same cannot be proceeded without any entry in the Localized Crime Register or Unlo- calized Crime Register.
45. In the present case, the inquiry was initiated on the basis of roznamcha entry after ignoring the mandatory procedural rules. The entry in Lo- calized/Unlocalized Crime Register is the foundation of the inquiry an- ticipated u/S 8 of the Act. However, the prosecution has not proved the entries made in the Localized/Unlocalized Crime Register during trial.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 68/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:15 +0530
46. Another factor that renders the prosecution story doubtful is that the RPF failed to associate any public person at any stage of inquiry be- fore the filing of present complaint. It is not disputed that the place of alleged arrest of the accused is a place frequented by public persons inasmuch as the place of arrest as well as recovery are either commer- cial areas such as shops or residential areas and bus stands. It could not be imagined that the presence of even an independent witness could not be ensured by the RPF while the arrests and recoveries took place over 06 days from 27.07.2000 till 01.08.2000. In view of the above, the recovery of the case property from the accused persons cannot be relied upon.
47. Lastly, the only material that is left on record against the accused are their confessional statement. The law as regards a confessional state- ment to an RPF Officer is clear that such a statement is not hit by Sec- tion 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the court is not pre- cluded this court from assessing the attending circumstances to ensure that the confessional statement was voluntary in nature or not.
48. It is not disputed that the accused were apprehended by the RPF Offi-
cials who are presumed to have been uniformed and probably armed at the relevant time. It is incomprehensible as to how a person allegedly apprehended by uniformed and armed RPF Officials (whose uniform is identical to the one worn by State police) could be free from any fear, mental pressure at the time of making the alleged confessional statement or could confide in the RPF officials who were admittedly unknown to him. In the totality of the circumstances, this court could not reasonably believe the absence of any pressure upon the accused persons at the relevant time.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 69/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:21 +0530
49. It is pertinent to reproduce Rule 14 of the aforesaid Order dated 09.07.1975 which is as follows:
14. Record of oral examination and statements of witnesses- (1) If the accused wants to make a confessional statement, the same should be recorded in the presence of two respectable and independent witnesses who should be required to affix their signatures thereon. He should also be produced before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and the confession shall be recorded by such Magistrate as required by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 164 and 281).
50. This court has already held in the preceding paragraphs that the docu-
mentation done at the spot by the RPF officials is not entirely free of doubts. The Court is conscious that non-compliance with Rule 14 does not automatically render the confession inadmissible; however, the ex- tra judicial confessions like the one in hand are always considered to be a weak piece of evidence. In the absence of any corroborative mate- rial and the absence of any public/independent witness who could de- pose about the sanctity of the confessional statement and independent assurance of voluntariness, this court is not inclined to act upon the same and convict the accused as, reliance on such confessional state- ments would be unsafe.
51. There is yet another aspect of the matter that ought to be examined.
The case property in this matter is AC Gas Cylinders. However, it is an admitted position that none of the recovered cylinders bore any Indian Railway or Northern Railway Mark. In fact the identification of the AC gas cylinders was based only on serial numbers which were being matched with a list. It is pertinent to note that such list has not been placed on record. It is also clear that the AC gas cylinders were sup- plied to the Railways as well as in the open market by the supplier companies and these cylinders were circulated in the markets. Further, CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 70/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:26 +0530 the raiding teams had also failed to seize the receipt registers, Ledger Books and Audit reports pertaining to the AC gas cylinders. Thus, the prosecution has also failed to establish that all the AC Gas cylinders that were recovered were railway property within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(d) of the RP (UP) Act.
52. As regards the recovery of the rubber stamp and blank issue notes from the accused Ram Kumar, it is noteworthy that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any complaint or DD Entry or theft memo re- garding the missing 20 blank issue notes. Further, the prosecution has also failed to examine the owner of the shop from where the accused Ram Kumar had allegedly gotten made the rubber stamp. Further, it is not the case of the prosecution that the recovered rubber stamp was railway property.
53. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the accused Pradeep, Ram Kumar and Arun Kumar beyond any reasonable doubt as not only the recovery of the alleged railway property is clouded with doubts, even the procedural requirements have not been complied with by RPF without any justification as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. It is a settled legal preposition that in case of doubt, benefit shall be given to the accused.
54. As regards the surviving accused, V P Singh, the prosecution story is that the accused VP Singh was posted as DSKP at Shakur Basti Store and had forged issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/ B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW- 14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 71/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:32 +0530 14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW-15/G) and had pilfered 186 ac gas cylinders from the Store at Shakur Basti.
55. PW-10 has proved the letter written by him seeking registration of FIR Ex.PW10/A with Inspector RPF/SSB regarding 40 numbers of gas cylinders issued to SSE/ACC/DLI which were issued on 30.05.2000 (20 cylinders) and 16.06.2000 (20 cylinders) respectively which were not received by SSE/ACC/Delhi. Further, PW-10 has further proved the report Ex. PW-10/E clarifying the details of issue of cylinders numbers mentioned in the report were not available in depot office record and seized by vigilance department and that the details of re- turning of these cylinders to firms is not available and the said cylin- ders were not available in SSB depot at that time. Further, vide inven- tory details Ex. PW-10/F, the details of supply of cylinders by firms, cylinders returned to firm, cylinders available in store, cylinders avail- able with indent ors and number of cylinders whose whereabout were not known, was furnished. Further vide Ex. PW-10/G, the details of shortage of AC refrigerant gas cylinders issued were proved. It is perti- nent to note that Ex. PW-10/A is dated 05.08.2000, Ex. PW-10/D is dated 11.12.2000, Ex. PW-10/E is dated 11.12.2000, Ex. PW-10/F is dated 14.12.2000, Ex. PW-10/G is dated 25.08.2000. Thus, it is signifi- cant to note that all documents relied upon and proved through PW-10 are dated after 01.08.2000, i.e., after the recoveries had already been effected by the RPF. These documents are admittedly based on post-in- quiry assessment of records and do not constitute contemporaneous proof of theft or unlawful removal of railway property. Since PW-10 was not a witness to any recovery and his role was confined to prepa-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 72/82
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:18:37
+0530
ration of internal store records after the RPF inquiry had commenced, in absence of primary receipt-section records, contemporaneous short- age memos or ledger entries, the documents proved by PW-10 are of limited probative value and can at best be treated as administrative or corroborative in nature. The absence of any contemporaneous railway record showing shortage prior to 27.07.2000 assumes significance, particularly when the alleged property is commercial in nature and its identification rests solely on serial numbers.
56. As regards, the opinion Ex. PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C on the signa-
tures of the accused VP Singh on the issue notes and gate passes, PW- 10 during his cross-examination has deposed that he was not immedi- ate superior officer of accused V.P. Singh and he had not seen accused V.P. Singh writing and signing in front of him during usual course of discharge of duty. He further deposed that accused V.P. Singh had been submitting various documents to him through his immediate superior Chothu Ram Sr. DSKP and such documents were signed by accused V.P. Singh based upon the signature appended on those documents he had verified the signatures on Exhibits. He further deposed that he had merely counter-signed the signature of Sh. Chothu Ram.
57. It is clear from the above discussion that PW-10 had only counter signed the opinion on the signatures of the accused VP Singh Ex. PW- 10/B and Ex.PW-10/C and he had himself not examined the signatures of the accused VP Singh. Further, he has also admitted that he is not a handwriting expert. It is also clear that Accused VP Singh was not im- mediate subordinate to PW-10 and thus there was no occasion for PW- 10 to have seen the accused VP Singh signing or any document signed by accused VP Singh to have been submitted to PW-10. It is also note-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 73/82
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:18:43
+0530
worthy that PW-10 had counter-signed the signatures of Chothu Ram on Ex. PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C and that Chothu Ram himself was an accused in this matter. In this light, the value of the Ex. PW-10/B and Ex.PW-10/C can only be seen as a statement of co-accused and thus probative value to be attached to such exhibits is very limited.
58. Further, PW-10 has further identified the signatures of accused V.P. Singh on the documents Ex. PW 10/I, Ex.PW10/J, Ex.PW-10/K, Ex.PW-10/L, Ex.PW-10/M, Ex.PW-10/N, Ex.PW-10/O. It is pertinent to note that these documents are leave applications etc. signed by the accused V P Singh at around the time of the alleged scam, however, such signatures have not been sent to FSL for comparison with the al- leged forged issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW- 14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW- 14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW-15/G). Thus, the identification of sig- natures of the accused on the documents Ex. PW 10/I, Ex.PW10/J, Ex.PW-10/K, Ex.PW-10/L, Ex.PW-10/M, Ex.PW-10/N, Ex.PW-10/O is of no consequence.
59. PW-13 has deposed that issue notes Ex. PW-13/A and Ex. PW-13/B were not issued by his office and do not bear the seal of his office. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had not made any com- plaint/FIR of missing or untraceable demand letter/ demand order/ im- prest. He deposed that if any demand letter not traceable then they do not maintain any record of it. He further deposed that they also do not maintain any Register regarding the demand letter/ imprest schedule/ CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 74/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:48 +0530 requisition. It is thus pertinent to note that PW-13 has not deposed any- thing against the accused V P Singh.
60. PW-16 has deposed that he was working as a clerk in the Section E of the Shakur Basti Store and he had prepared the report Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B regarding receipt of cylinders in SSB depot and is- sued particulars were prepared by him. During cross-examination, he deposed that he had not signed the Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B. He further deposed that after this case came to light, all the documents were seized by the vigilance department of the railways and he does not know if the vigilance officials had issued any acknowledgment of the seized documents. He denied the suggestion that since all the rele- vant record of the AC Gases Cylinders were already seized by the vigi- lance department and there was no record available, he prepared Ex. 16/A and Ex. PW 16/B without verifying the records, at the instance of the EO.
61. Ex PW-16/A has been proved by PW-10 as he had signed the same.
During cross-examination, PW-10 had deposed that Ex.PW-16/A was not prepared by him but prepared by concerned which was verified by him from the available record presented to him at the time of signing of the Ex.PW-16/A. He further deposed that the vigilance department has seized records pertaining to AC gas Cylinders but all the records were not seized by them. He further deposed that he has no informa- tion about the acknowledgment issued by vigilance department per- taining to the record seized by them. He further deposed that they used to seize the record from the concerned section directly. He further de- posed that he has no details how many documents they have seized.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 75/82
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:18:53
+0530
62. Ex.PW-16/B has been proved by PW-18 who has signed the same.
During cross-examination he deposed that he had not prepared the Ex. PW-16/B and that he had merely appended his signatures on the docu- ment which was prepared by his subordinate. He further deposed that it is nowhere mentioned in Ex.PW-16/B that the record of gate passes were also verified regarding the articles/cylinders mentioned in the documents. He further deposed that since the issue notes were not mentioned or issued of the articles, thus there was no question to ver- ify the gate pass. He further deposed that there is no mention that the ledgers/records of the Receipt Section were checked and verified when Ex.PW16-/B prepared.
63. These admissions assume significance, as they indicate that the wit-
ness neither authenticated the documents by signature nor could con- firm the completeness or availability of the primary records on the ba- sis of which the reports were allegedly prepared.
64. Since the witnesses have deposed that the records pertaining to the present case were seized by the vigilance department of the railways, it is improbable as to how the Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B came to be prepared. In view of the above, Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B emerge as secondary, post-facto compilations, prepared by one witness who did not sign them and proved by another who did not prepare them. The prosecution has not produced the primary receipt registers, ledgers, or issue registers forming the basis of these reports, nor any seizure memo or acknowledgment showing which original records were taken into custody by the vigilance department. The absence of such foundational material prevents the Court from verifying the accu-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 76/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:18:59 +0530 racy, completeness, or contemporaneity of the data reflected in Ex. PW-16/A and Ex. PW-16/B.
65. PW-14 has deposed that he had examined the issue notes (Ex. PW-
13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW-14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW- 15/G) and found that the material was issued by the accused VP Singh against the rules as these were not approved by the Gazetted Officer having no I-card to whom the should have been handed over.
66. PW-15 has proved Ex. PW-15/A regarding summary of shortage of AC refrigerant gas cylinders as gas was not received against the issue notes. It is pertinent to note that this document is based on the issue notes starting from 12.09.1999 till 15.03.2000 and it has been reported that the gas was not received on 24.08.2000.
67. The temporal gap assumes significance, as the prosecution has not placed on record any contemporaneous acknowledgment, complaint, shortage memo, or correspondence from the office of SSE/ACC show- ing that the gas was reported as not received at or around the time when the issue notes were allegedly acted upon. The summary Ex. PW-15/A, therefore, is not a contemporaneous record of shortage but a post-facto compilation prepared after the RPF action had already com- menced in July 2000. Further, PW-15 has admitted in his cross-exami- nation that Ex. PW-15/A is not in his handwriting and that he had him- self not verified the issue notes and gate passes and that the same were CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 77/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:19:03 +0530 verified by his clerk, and that he signed the document in his official ca- pacity.
68. The prosecution has placed heavy reliance on the testimonies of PW-
14 and PW-15 inasmuch as they have brought on record the allegedly forged issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW-14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW-15/G). It is pertinent to mention that none of the original issue notes or gate passes have been produced by the prosecu- tion before the Court. Though these issue notes and gate passes are ei- ther attested, or photocopy attested or attested with true copy, none of the original document has been produced before the Court.
69. Section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requires documents to be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in the Act of 1872. Section 65 of the Act of 1872 specifies the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.
70. The prosecution did not lead any evidence at the trial to establish any of the circumstances enumerated under Section 65 of the Indian Evi- dence Act to be attracted so as to allow the prosecution to tender issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW-14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW- 15/F, Ex. PW-15/G).
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 78/82
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:19:08
+0530
71. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752 deals with Section 65 of the Indian Evi- dence Act, 1872 and secondary evidence. It is of the following view:
"20. The learned counsel for the defendants-respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do no have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, in the present one is a case which called for the correct proposition of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes : (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging document has been marked as "an exhibit", an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enable the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitle to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act as an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons : firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the parity tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objection, referred to CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 79/82 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV GARG GARG Date:
2025.12.09 17:19:15 +0530 hereinabove, in the latter case failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court."
72. Thus, as regards secondary evidence, it is clear that mere admission of a document in evidence does not amount to its proof.
73. All the issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex.
PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW-14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW-15/G) on the basis of which the involvement of the accused VP Singh was sought to be proved by the prosecution are secondary evidence. The prosecution did not lead any evidence at the trial to establish the factual foundational basis as why the primary evi- dence was not being produced and why secondary evidence should be admitted at the trial. It is settled law that until the prosecution estab- lishes the photocopies of primary documents to be within Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence cannot be looked into. In the facts of the present, given the nature of the documents of which secondary evidence was sought to be adduced, until the prosecution accounts for the non-production of the original documents, photo- copies thereof cannot be admitted into evidence as exhibits.
74. Thus, in absence of the prosecution leading any evidence to account for the absence of primary evidence so as to lead secondary evidence thereon, the documents issue notes (Ex. PW-13/A, Ex. PW-14/G, Ex. PW-13/B, Ex. PW-14/J, Ex. PW-15/A, Ex. PW-14/K, Ex. PW-14/L, Ex. PW-14/M Ex. PW-14/N, Ex. PW-14/O, Ex. PW-14/O1, Ex. PW-
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 80/82
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV GARG
GARG Date:
2025.12.09
17:19:22
+0530
14/O2 ) and gate passes (Ex. PW-14/D, Ex. PW-14/, E Ex. PW-14/F, Ex. PW-14/H, Ex. PW-14/I, Ex. PW-15/B, Ex. PW-15/C, Ex. PW-15/ D, Ex. PW-15/E, Ex. PW-15/F, Ex. PW-15/G) cannot be treated as be- ing validly exhibited at the trial. Therefore, they cannot be accorded evidentiary weight and consequently cannot be relied upon for record- ing a finding of guilt.
75. Now the only evidence that remains against the accused VP Singh, is his confessional statement Ex. PW-2/F1, Ex. PW-2/G1 and Ex. PW- 2/H1. The law as regards a confessional statement to an RPF Officer is clear that such a statement is not hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evi- dence Act. However, the court is not precluded this court from assess- ing the attending circumstances to ensure that the confessional state- ment was voluntary in nature or not.
76. This court has already held in the preceding paragraphs that the docu-
mentation done at the spot by the RPF officials is not entirely free of doubts. Further the extra judicial confessions like the one in hand are always considered to be a weak piece of evidence. In the absence of any corroborative material and the absence of any public/independent witness who could depose about the sanctity of the confessional state- ment available on record, this court is not inclined to act upon the same and convict the accused.
77. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charges against the ac- cused VP Singh beyond any reasonable doubt.
78. Accordingly, all the accused persons Arun Kumar s/o Sh. Yashpal Singh, Pradeep Kumar s/o Sh. Shyam Lal Gupta, Ram Kumar s/o Sh.
CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 81/82 Ram Chander and Virender Pratap Singh s/o Late Sh. Balbhadra Singh are acquitted of the offence punishable u/S 3 of the RP (UP) Act.
Digitally signed
VAIBHAV by VAIBHAV
GARG
GARG Date: 2025.12.09
17:19:29 +0530
Announced in the open court (VAIBHAV GARG)
today. Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/
Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi 09.12.2025 [This judgment contains 82 pages and each page bearsDigitally the signed signature of undersigned ] VAIBHAV GARG by VAIBHAV GARG Date: 2025.12.09 17:19:34 +0530 (VAIBHAV GARG) Judicial Magistrate First Class-11/ Central District/Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi 09.12.2025 CC No.16/2000 PS. RPF/SSB State Vs. Virender Pratap &Ors. 82/82