Delhi District Court
State vs . Baldev Singh Rana on 9 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP GARG, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH)07, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 330/1997
U/s : 409/420/468/477A IPC
PS : Mehrauli
State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 1489/1/97
b The date of commission : At unknown time between
: 25.10.1998 & 26.07.1994
c The date of Institution of the case: 17.05.1999
d The name of complainant : Jagtar Singh,
Commandant, SSB
e The name of accused : Baldev Singh Rana son of
: Shri Hari Ram,
: R/o Village Digho,
PO Chaulathra
: PS Sirkaghat, District Mandi,
: Himachal Pradesh.
f The offence complained of : 409/420/468/477A IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 09.07.2013
i The final order : Acquitted
j The date of judgment : 09.07.2013
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The accused Baldev Singh Rana has been sent for trial on the allegations of the complainant Jagtar Singh that at unknown time between 25.10.1988 to 26.07.1994, while accused Baldev Singh Rana was working as a Cashier in the Accounts Branch of Group Center, SSB, Delhi, PO Arjan Garh within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli, he (public servant) was FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 1 of 20 entrusted with benevolent fund and government cash over which he had dominion. He dishonestly misappropriated an amount of Rs. 7,34,146/. While so working, he cheated several exservicemen and the treasurer by making false entries in the accounts books and dishonestly induced them to deliver Rs. 7,34,146/. He is thus alleged to have committed offences punishable u/s 409/420/468/477A IPC. Investigation was conducted and chargesheet was filed in the court on 17.05.1999.
2. Charge u/s 409/420/468/477A IPC was framed upon the accused on 24.12.1999 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses.
4. PW1 is HC Prakash Singh, who being duty officer proved FIR, Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 is Lance Naik Hemraj. He has deposed that in May, 1991, he was attached with the Accounts branch of SSB Group Centre, Ghitorni as a Helper of the accused, who was posted as Cashier. He performed his duty there till September, 1994. During the said period, accused used to maintain cash book, acquittance roll register etc. He identified signatures and handwriting of the accused on document dated 07.04.1999. He does not know as to how the accused used to make drafts etc. He used to see the accused under the influence of liquor generally. After some days, he came to know that the accused had done falsification of accounts/manipulation of Government money. He identified the accused in the court.
During cross examination, he has deposed that the IO had met FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 2 of 20 him only once, but his statement was not recorded. He used to frequently take cash register, acquittance role to the DDO and the commandant everyday. Whenever a demand draft was prepared, DDO used to issue a cheque signed by him in the name of the particular bank and the bank used to issue a demand draft in the name of the person mentioned by the DDO in his letter addressed to the bank. All the records were kept in the safe custody of DDO which included all cash books, acquittance role, registers, dispatch registers vouchers etc. The DDO used to countersign after proper verification and checking all the cash books. He used to tally and verify the particulars of the demand draft, amount, payee, cash books and used to send them after signing the forwarding letter sent with the demand draft. He does not remember if the IO had shown him any documents. All the cash transactions were routed and channelized through the DDO and Commandant used to have full control over financial matters.
6. PW3 is HC Dev Ranjan. He has deposed that he was working at Group Center, SSB, Ghitorni during the period 19881991 as Dispatcher. In the year 1999, one police official had inquired about dispatching of drafts. Specific numbers of drafts were given to him for verification from the dispatch register. He gave reply as per the record. Those drafts were issued from the office and he gave receipts of the same to the police official. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he cannot tell the dates, particulars or numbers of the dispatch registers, drafts, cash books, acquittance roll register since he has no FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 3 of 20 knowledge about the documents. Whenever any demand draft used to be sent to any retired employee or any other person, a forwarding letter also used to be sent. He admitted that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) use to check and verify all the demand drafts, tally their numbers, amount, payees particulars with the cash books and also use to sign the forwarding letter after throughly checking it. He cannot tell as to it was whose responsibility to tally the numbers in dispatch register. The dispatch registers were not seized by the IO and they are still lying in the his custody. He cannot identify the signatures and the hand writing of any officials including the DDOs, cashiers and the accused. He had no knowledge about the accused B S Rana having committed the offence of falsification and manipulation in the cash books, acquittance roll register or any dispatch register.
7. PW4 is Heera Singh Bisht. He has deposed that on 11.01.1995, he received a letter issued by Commandant, GC, Delhi regarding acknowledgment of cheques relating to DGS Benevolent fund. He had replied to the Commandant, Delhi on 31.01.1995 vide memo no. B11/12/F/SSB/94 (2)II being Accounts Officer. He was never interrogated by the police and his statement was never recorded by the IO.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that there is no reference of DGS benevolent fund in the aforementioned letter.
8. PW5 is Moti Lal. He has deposed that on 31.05.92, he retired from SSB Ghitorni. He was posted there as a Constable/Washerman. He had sent receipts of the payment which he had received from DDO, SSB, FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 4 of 20 Ghitorni. He does not have any records about any payment as he had not kept any record. He used to received all the payments from DDO, SSB, Ghitorni. The DDO was responsible and incharge of the entire cash. He does not remember if he had received any letter from any authority.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that the DDO was responsible for sending all the payments to all the retired personnel and family members of retired personnel who had died. The demand drafts were prepared after issuance of written instructions by the DDO to concerned branch of the Bank.
9. PW6 Chunki Devi has deposed that she had not received Rs. 21250/ from PNB, Chauntra. She had received a letter from SSB, Delhi about money and the person who came from SSB made enquiry from her.
During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, she has deposed that she was never examined by the police during investigation. She cannot tell the draft number. She had sent a legal notice to the department regarding nonpayment of Rs. 21250/, but she had not approached the SSB personally. She admitted that she had gone to SSB office, Ghitorni where she came to know that the accused had misappropriated about Rs. 7 lakhs. She denied that the accused had forged draft number MOL/A/2/146963 dated 14.08.1989.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that she does not know as to who was responsible for sending the money to them from SSB Ghitorni.
10. PW7 is S S Sejwal. He has deposed that he was posted as FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 5 of 20 branch manager of SBI, Mehrauli branch situated near Jahaj Mahal. Account no. 7162 was maintained in the name of Commandant Group Centre, SSB, Ghitorni (Battalion Fund). Shri B S Chaudhary had been operating the said account. The statement of account is mark A1 to mark A7.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge about the case. It denied that a Demand Draft used to be prepared only after a written communication was received from the DDO, SSB, Ghitorni. He does not have any knowledge about letter dated 12.05.1997.
11. PW8 is Mewa Rani. She has deposed that her husband was posted as Hawaldar, SSB and he had died. After sometime, one Constable had come to her house to confirm regarding receipt of money/compensation. She told him that some money was received by her but the balance amount was not received by her. She had never seen any draft regarding the balance amount. Later, she went to SSB and the concerned bank for inquiring about the balance amount, but no draft was found.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that her statement was recorded by the officials of SSB. She cannot say whether she had ever met any official of Delhi Police. She had received the Principal amount. She had come to Delhi only once and had visited the office only.
12. PW9 is Ajit Kumar Bhardwaj. He has deposed that between 08.01.1993 to 31.01.1993, 08.02.1993 to 02.03.1993, 27.04.1993 to 19.05.1993 and 14.06.1993 to 21.06.93, he was working as DDO at SSB FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 6 of 20 Ghitorni. During that period, there was no complaint regarding cheating.
13. PW10 is Kabul Singh. He has deposed that he had retired from SSB. He did not receive balance amount of Rs. 8801/, which was part of his pension and he did not receive the said amount till 1999.
14. PW11 is Jagtar Singh. He has deposed that in December, 1996, he was posted as Commandant at Group Center, SSB, Delhi. An inquiry against the accused was already pending and he was directed by the Divisional Organizer, Punjab and Haryana to lodge an FIR against the accused. On the basis of documentary evidence, he lodged a complaint Ex.PW11/A for registration of an FIR in June, 1997. He had also prepared a detailed report regarding embezzlement of funds, fraud and mis appropriation by the accused. He had also produced special ITC report to the police mark B which pertains to embezzlement of Govt. cash of Rs. 3,18,778/. He collected information regarding receipt and nonreceipt of demand drafts from retired persons and widows of deceased persons. He collected replies of several persons who had not received the drafts. The replies regarding non receipt drafts are mark C to mark P. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he had never seen the accused because the accused was not posted during his tenure. Shri B S Nagar, Commandant was posted prior to him as a commandant for a period of 3 years. During his tenure, no audit of previous accounts was carried out, except verification of demand drafts, issued by SBI, Mehrauli. The IO had not seized any document in his presence. The functioning of the group center, SSB is directly under the FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 7 of 20 supervision and control of the commandant, who is the commanding officer. The commanding officer is assisted by the drawing and disbursing officer in the financial and accounts funds. The DDO is independent, but his working is being supervised by commandant. The DDO is responsible for drawing and disbursing the cash and also for all the financial transactions. The DDO is duty bound to check, verify & sign all the cash books, acquittance roll, watch register, dispatch register and other documents on a daily basis and need basis. The cheques, DDs, and other related documents are channelized through the DDO and commandant has no role, except that the commandant can conduct surprise checking, whenever, he wants. No cheques are being issued by the DDO, SSB. The case was registered after about six months of his joining. As per the records, no confirmation of receipts of DDs was received from the retirees and widows. He was questioned by the Inquiry Officer during the departmental inquiry. He admitted that after the verification from the retirees with regard to their payment, prior to registration of an FIR and after the lodging of FIR, they had received the confirmation about the receipt of payment on verification from retirees. He admitted that a proposal was sent to the competent authority for withdrawal sanction of Rs. 1,81,151/. He had met the investigating Officer. No document could be given without his approval. He does not remember as to whether I.O. prepared any document in his presence or not. He cannot say as to when his statement was recorded by the I.O. and he does not know whether he had signed it or not. All the payments and receipts in the cash book were being signed by DDO. On many occasions, when no ClassI FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 8 of 20 officer was available, then the commandant himself used to work as DDO and sign all the entries in the cash book. The case for the payment of retirees is sanctioned in the battalion and is processed by the DDO for the payment by the Pay and Accounts Office. After verification of the entries and particulars, Demand Drafts were prepared. No demand drafts were ever prepared from SBI, R K Puram branch, as per his knowledge. No monthly statement was received from the bank. He had no personal knowledge about this case except the related documents. IO had not seized any cash during the course of investigation. All records except the cash book, regarding the cash transactions upto 31.03.1990 have already been destroyed. He admitted that Shri M L Shah, Sanjiv Sharma, A K Bhardwaj, D C Tiwari, and D S Panwar have also worked as DDOs in SSB Group Center, Ghitorni, New Delhi.
15. PW12 is Pritam Singh. He has deposed that he remained posted as 2nd in Command at GC, SSB during the period between 11.07.93 to 06.11.95. One Constable Raj Pal Singh had died on 21.11.1994 and certain benefits were to be paid to his next kin. They checked his payment towards staff benefit fund for moving the proposal to SSB Headquarters. It was found that his subscription was not paid to the staff benefit fund. Upon enquiry, it was discovered that the subscription was deposited with the accused, but the same was not taken into account. A court of enquiry was held under the order of the Commandant and he presided over the said Court of Enquiry. During enquiry, it was found that Rs. 41,028/ were not refunded by the accused to SSB Account as the accused was maintaining records of Staff Benevolent FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 9 of 20 fund. On verification from Accounts officer, it was discovered that Rs. 41,028/ were not received by him. The confirmation letter is Ex.PW12/A. The amount in question was paid by accused. The account of Govt. fund was also checked by the Court of Enquiry and an amount of Rs. 22,328/ was not paid by accused to the actual payees. The accused had shown in the cash book the said amount was already paid to the payees. Accused also confessed before the Court of Enquiry vide letter Ex. PW12/B and assured that he will refund the amount which he had already pocketed.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he remained the DDO at SSB, Ghitorni from 11.07.1993 to 06.11.1995. Shri B S Nagar was the commandant during his tenure as a DDO. No demand drafts were prepared from SBI, R K Puram, as far as he remember. All the demand drafts were being prepared from SBI, Mehrauli. IO had not recorded his statement. The IO had never met him. He had not signed any document during the course of investigation by the police. The DDO is responsible for drawing and other financial transactions through cashier. The DDO has direct supervision on the financial transaction and also on the cash books, acquittance being signed by the DDOs. The DDO is supposed to verify all the entries in the case book, acquittance roll register and then sign these documents. The dispatch register is being maintained by the establishment. He used to sign the documents, cash book etc. and the forwarding letter for sending the DDs to the actual payees, duly filed by the cashier and after properly verifying the DDs and the bankers cheques. He does not remember as to whether all the records pertaining to cash FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 10 of 20 transactions upto 31.3.90 had been destroyed. He cannot comment on the working of other DDOs. He do not remember as to whether Shri M.L.Shah, Sanjiv Sharma, A.K.Bhardwaj. D.C.Tiwari, had also worked as DDO. He denied that the entry at page no.75 in the cash book for an amount of Rs. 11,346 for the month of November 91, at page no.79 of the same cash book of Rs.18, 082/, for Rs.1656/ and also at page no 91 for an amount of Rs. 9144/, totaling at Rs. 41,028/ has been entered in the cash book, signed by the DDOs. These entries were signed by other DDOs, as per cash book, which is Ex. PW12/D1 to D4. This amount has also been shown paid to the accounts officer of staff benevolent fund by the fake banker cheques under the signature and seal of the then DDOs. He does not remember as to how many hearings were conducted during the court of inquiry. He had not tendered any statement of any of the inquiry witnesses to the IO, but he had submitted all relevant documents to his commandant. He does not know as to whether his commandant had used them as exhibits or not with the complaint. He denied that the finding of his court of inquiry was given under the influence from the higher officials with the intention to save the DDOs or that the accused was pressurized to deposit the amount with which, he had not connection. He denied that he was deposing falsely in support of this case due to the support of higher officials and with a view to save his other colleague DDOs.
16. PW13 is Sanjeev Sharma. He has deposed that he was posted as GC, SSB, Delhi during the period January 1993 to January, 1997. He was a member of Court of Enquiry during the period between February, 1995 to FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 11 of 20 April, 1995 which was set up for enquiring into the irregularities in maintenance of DGS benevolent fund. He was working as Quarter Master while DDO was on leave/tour. The additional charge of DDO was given to him. While being member of Court of Enquiry, they noticed certain irregularities in the maintenance of DGS Benevolent fund. Recommendation of Court of Enquiry was given to Commandant which is Ex.PW13/A. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that his statement was not recorded by the IO of Delhi Police. The COI had not recorded his statement being member of the COI. During his tenure as DDO, no embezzlement had taken place. The DDO used to check, verify and then affix his signature on the cash book, acquittance roll register. The financial affairs of Group Center SSB were under the direct supervision of the DDO. He cannot tell as to how many hearings had taken place in the court of inquiry. There must have been certain DDs prepared during his tenure for the remittance to the beneficiary. After the verification, by the DDO of the DDs prepared, the demand drafts are sent to the beneficiaries. No records were sealed during the COI and all the records have been brought in the court in unsealed condition. The commandant is the over all incharge of all the affairs of the battalion including financial affairs. He took and released the charge to Shri A K Bhardwaj, D S Panwar and Preetam Singh on 2 or 3 occasions. Cheques as well as cash were remitted to the banks for preparing are signed by the DDOs. He has no personal knowledge of this case except for the documents. He denied that he was deposing falsely in support of false case or that court of inquiry was based in favour of the senior FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 12 of 20 officials or that accused has been falsely implicated in this case so as to save the higher officers under whose direct supervision, all the financial transactions were carried out. He denied that due to pressure from higher officers, the court of inquiry had conducted one sided inquiry and had falsely implicated the accused in this case. He was satisfied with the working of the accused. He had checked the summary of pending acquittance roll watch register in which, the paid receipts were shown as pending in the end of month with the retires deceased and next of Kin. He used to personally supervise and check all the records.
17. PW14 is N S Thakur. He has deposed that he was posted at Group Centre, SSB, Ghitorni. He was assigned the duties of adjutant of the Group Centre. During this period, K C Kurian was holding charge of DDO. When Shri Kurian was posted out, the charge of DDO remained with him in between 04.02.89 and 19.05.90 on several occasions. The accused was posted as cashier and as per the charter of duties, accused was responsible for proper accounting and entries in the cash book. The accused was also responsible for preparing and delivering the demand drafts of the group centre. He has deposed that accused used to prepare the required drafts as and when the payments were to be sent to the payees and the drafts used to put up before DDO for attestation. The demand drafts prepared by the accused were attested by DDO as per the entry made by him in the cash book and after attestation or the cash book, the demand drafts were returned to the accused for dispatch and accounting in the disbursement register. He proved copy of compendium issued by Directorate, SSB, Mark A1.
FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 13 of 20
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that the IO had never met him nor any police official had made any investigation/interrogation from him regarding this case. The commandant is the overall head of Group Centre and all the branches are under his direct supervision. No investigation or interrogation was carried out with any other officer of Group Centre, Ghitorni, in his presence. The DDO is in turn reporting and is responsible to the commandant. He used to check, verify the draft numbers and the entries and then sign after the satisfaction. The DDs were prepared from SBI, Mehrauli but in certain cases, the DDs of retirees were also prepared from other banks and branches. All the entries in the cash books were signed by the DDO. He has no personal knowledge about this case. The accountant is directly responsible for the account branch, was also functioning in the hierarchy between the DDO and the cashier. The accountant was also responsible for the correct totaling and verification of the accounts, which he was responsible for getting verified and checked from some other officers/subordinate officers. The cash book, as per procedure, is checked by the commandant, being head of the group center, besides, internal audit and the audit by accounts officer of Divisional Head Quarter also took place during proper intervals of the group center. But no omission/commission was ever detected by the specialized or professional audit team.
18. PW15 is D C Tiwari. He has deposed that he was posted as DDO with additional charge of Commandant from 22.05.90 to 11.03.91. The accused was working as a cashier. After he got posted out, he came to know FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 14 of 20 that some embezzlement took place during his tenure at Delhi.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has admitted that mostly the cheques were issued for getting the demand draft prepared in the name of retirees and others. Physical verification is carried out of the demand drafts, acquittance roll/watch register, cash books, dispatch register by the respective supervising officers. The following letters for the dispatch of the DDs were signed by the supervising officers. Periodical audit is carried out every year and all the cash books and registers connecting the financial transactions are tendered to the auditors for the purpose of audit. All the administration and financial affairs in the group center, SSB, Ghitorni were under the direct supervision of the commandant of the center.
19. PW16 is ASI Prakash Singh. He has deposed that on 14.06.97, he was posted as Duty officer at PS Mehrauli and after receipt of written complaint from SI Naresh Solanki, he registered FIR Ex.PW16/A. During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he had only received the complaint and there was no document, enclosed with the complaint.
20. PW17 is Suresh Kumar. He has deposed that he took charge as cashier, SSB, Ghitorni and dealt with communication and correspondence pertaining to this case. The record is lying with Enquiry officer.
21. PW18 is Gorakh Dayal. He has deposed that on 13.02.96, he wrote a letter to Commandant, SSB, Ghitorni regarding nonreceipt of draft.
The letter is mark "L". He did not receive the draft of Rs. 1497/ and FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 15 of 20
therefore, he had written a letter to the Commandant.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness has stated that he had received the other draft regarding the same money later on. The letter mark L is a Photostat copy.
22. PW19 is IO SI Naresh Solanki. He has deposed that on 17.06.97, the complaint of Jagtar Singh Ex.PW11/A was marked to him on which he made an endorsement, Ex.PW19/A and got the FIR registered. He got transferred from PS Mehrauli thereafter.
23. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused and his statement U/s 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded to which he denied his involvement in the offence. He asserted that he was forcibly made to write a confessional statement. He preferred to adduce defence evidence.
24. DW1 is accused Baldev Singh. He has deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. All the allegations leveled by the prosecution in the present case against him are false. He used to fill up the cash book and get the vouchers signed from DDO. The cash used to be handled by DDO. One key of the cash used to remain with the DDO and the another key of the cash used to remain with the cashier. The DDO used to sign the cash book also after tallying it with the vouchers. An annual audit of the accounts is conducted by the audit department. He remained posted as Cashier at Group Centre, SSB, Ghitorni, New Delhi30 during the period September, 1988 to August, 1994. During his tenure as cashier at the above mentioned place, there was not even a single audit report reflecting that there were any irregularities in the maintenance of the accounts books or that no FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 16 of 20 payment/s were made which were mentioned in the accounts books. The DDO has not been prosecuted and he has been made a scapegoat. The allegations in FIR against me are regarding embezzlement of Rs. 7,34,144/, but no proper figure was ever arrived at by his department. He has brought a memo dated 05.11.1996, issued by second in command, G.C., SSB, Delhi47 which was issued to him and as per the said memo, the department had alleged that he has embezzled/misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,18,778/. The memo is Ex. DW1/A. Another memo dated 25.09.2001 was issued to him by Sh. D.C. Patni, Second in Command/Enquiry Officer which is Ex. DW1/B. A chargesheet was served upon him which is dated 10.02.2006 as per which the department has alleged that he has embezzled/misappropriated Rs. 1,53,411/ and the said memo is Ex. DW1/C. The department had conducted a departmental enquiry against him in which he was held guilty of misconduct and he was removed from the service whereas the present case is still pending trial and the allegations against him have not been substantiated before this court. A special audit was conducted by his department in which he was never called upon to join the same. The DE against him remained pending for 18 years and when he was about to superannuate, the department hastily concluded the DE and held him guilty of misconduct without awaiting for decision of this court in the present case.
During the cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the accused has stated that he was posted at SSB department and worked in the said organization between 20.10.1969 to 10.02.2006. He remained posted in Delhi at the office situated at Village Ghitorni during the period September, FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 17 of 20 1988 to August 1994 as ASI, Cashier. During his posting as cashier, his duties included writing/updating cash book, bring cash from bank alongwith DDO under the signature of DDO and getting the payments vouchers signed from DDO. During his posting as cashier at Delhi, Shri N S Thakur, Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Shri A K Bhardwaj, Shri M K Shah, Shri K C Kurien, Shri Pritam Singh and other officers remained posted as DDO. Shri K C Kurien remained posted as DDO and he was posted as cashier on 14.08.1989. The money use to be send to the relative of the deceased under the signature by way of bank demand draft. He did not used to receive the demand drafts after the same were signed by the DDO and the demand drafts used to go to the dispatcher through him after the same were signed by the DDO. His role was confined to putting up the file before the DDO for his signatures. Smt. Chukki Devi was a claimant being widow of an employee. He does not remember as to how much money used to be sent to Smt. Chukki Devi. He denied that Rs. 21,250/, which was payable to Smt. Chukki Devi was withdrawn and never received by her as it was embezzled by him. He denied that he had also embezzled the money of Smt. Mewa Devi by adopting a similar modus operandi. He also denied that a total sum of Rs. 7, 34,146/ was embezzled by him.
25. The court has heard the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state as well as the Ld. defence counsel.
Ld. APP for the state submits that the accused is liable to be convicted for offences charged as the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused.
FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 18 of 20
26. On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has not proved any original record before the court. Xerox copies of only certain documents have been filed which cannot be read into evidence. Moreover, it is admitted by PW11 Jagtar Singh during his cross examination that all the original record regarding cash upto 31.03.1990 had already been destroyed. In the absence of proof of the original record, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case.
27. Secondly, it is contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the accused was entrusted to him. There is no even an iota of evidence to establish entrustment of the entire money in the question to the accused. In the absence of the same, prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate its case.
28. Thirdly, it is contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that it is the case of prosecution that the accused mentioned details of fake demand drafts/banker's cheques in the account books. However, it is admitted during cross examination of PW11 Jagtar Singh, PW12 Pritam Singh, PW13 Sanjeev Sharma and PW14 N S Thakur that the DDO concerned used to verify all the entries in the cash book, acquittance roll register, forwarding letters for sending the demand drafts to actual payees after verifying the demand drafts and the banker's cheques and therefore, the accused had got no role to play in the same.
29. The court has perused the record with the assistance of Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Defence Counsel.
FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 19 of 20
30. There is merit in the submissions made by Ld. Defence Counsel. There is no evidence regarding entrustment of the money, allegedly misappropriated, to the accused. No original records have been filed or proved. It has been admitted by PW11 Jagtar Singh, PW12 Pritam Singh, PW13 Sanjeev Sharma and PW14 N S Thakur during their cross examination that the DDO concerned used to verify all the entries in the cash book, acquittance roll register, forwarding letters for sending the demand drafts to actual payees after verifying the demand drafts and the banker's cheques. Therefore, the court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Baldev Singh Rana is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Sandeep Garg)
Court on 09.07.2013 MM(South)07,
New Delhi.
FIR No. 330/1997 PS: Mehrauli
State Vs. Baldev Singh Rana 20 of 20