Patna High Court
Gyasuddin Khan & Ors vs The State Of Bihar Through C.B on 22 October, 2014
Author: Gopal Prasad
Bench: Gopal Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.642 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2000 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Sohan Lal Jain S/O Late Manohar Lal Jain Resident Of Sector 4, Hiran Magri,
Udaipur, P.S.- Hiran Magri, District- Udaipur (Rajasthan)
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through CBI.
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 685 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Kishori Lal Rajore S/O Late Jorawal Rajore R/V- Shankar Gardh (Makroniya),
P.S.- Cantt, Distt.- Sagar, State M.P.
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Union of India through C.B.I.
.... .... Respondents.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 704 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Yugal Kishore Sinha S/O Late Bindeshwari Prasad, R/O Lila Sadan, Mohalla -
Makhdumpur, Near St. Michael School, Danapur Road, P.S. Digha, District - Patna
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar ( through the Central Bureasu of Investigation )
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
2
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 706 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna in
Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2000 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
Ram Lal Sharma S/O Late Ram Prasad Sharma R/V- Maripur Tenant Of Jay
Mangal Singh, P.S.- Kaji Mohammadpur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The Union of India through C.B.I.
2. The State Of Bihar.
.... .... Respondents.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 889 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Md. Mumtaz S/O Md.Sahood Tailor M/S Rangoli Tailor , Sabjibagh, near
Dariyapur Masjid, P.S.-Pirbahore, At Present Residing Kasai Tola, Shahganj, P.O.-
Mahendru, P.S.-Sulganganj, Distt-Patna.
2. Sanjay @Sanjay Kumar S/O Laxmi Narain R/O Sheo Dayal Sao, Sudhi Tola,
P.O.-Mahendru, P.S.-Sultanganj, Distt-Patna, At Present Residing At Village-
Sabajpura, P.S.-Danapur, Distt-Patna
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through C.B.I.
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 708 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996..
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Ram Sharan Mistry, Resident of Mohalla-
Musallahpur, Patna, P.S. Sultanganj, Distt.- Patna.
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
3
1. The Union of India through C.B.I.
2. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondents.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 710 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Ram Narayan Thakur S/O Late Ram Swaroop Thakur. Resident of Village-
Chandaura, P.S- Kako, Distt- Jehanabad.
2. Kishori Thakur @ Kishore Thakur S/O Late Ram Swaroop Thakur. Resident of
Village- Chandaura, P.S- Kako, Distt- Jehanabad.
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
1. The Union of India through C.B.I.
2. The State Of Bihar
.... .... Respondents.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 646 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna in
Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
Kallu Ram Rajak @ Kalu Ram Rajak S/O Late Chote Lall. Resident of
Vivekanand Ward, P.S.- Motinagar, District- Sagar (M.P.)
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through CBI.
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 663 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Md. Mujeeb S/O Late Abdul Aziz Resident Proprietor of M/S Prince Tailors,
House Of Sri Vijay Mehta, Mussalehpur, P.O.- Mahendru , P.S.- Sultanganj,
4
District- Patna
2. Md. Khursheed Alam S/O Late Md. Ali. Resident Of 36/A Dr. Shanker Road,
P.O. - Itali Kolkata No.-14, permanrntly Resident of Burhanagar Chanmra Godam
Pokharper, P.O. and P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda.
3. Md. Salamat S/O Late Md. Akram, Tailor, Tailoring Workshop Of Sri Trilok
Singh 9/3648 Dharampura, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31, presently residing At
Burhanagar Dakhin Taraf P.S.- Islampur, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar through C.B.I.
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 698 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2000 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Dinesh Kumar Sharma S/O Late Ramanand Sharma R/O Swani Sahjanand
Colony, Rewa Road, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District- Muzaffarpur
.... .... Appellant.
Versus
The State Of Bihar through C.B.I., Patna (Bihar).
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 664 of 2012
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996..
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Md. Abbas S/O Md. Haneef. Resident of Village- Islampur Takiapar, P.S.-
Islampur, District- Nalanda. At present tesident of Mohalla- Dargah, Patna-6.
2. Md. Mustaque S/O Late Md. Musa. Resident of Village- Panhar, P.S.-
Khudaganj, District- Nalanda.
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar through C.B.I.
.... .... Respondent.
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 673 of 2012
5
Against the judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of
sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna
in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -9 Year- 1996 Thana -null District- PATNA
===========================================================
1. Gyasuddin Khan S/O Late Sajawal Khan, resident of Village - Kritpur Matia
Tola English P.O. Kritpur Matia, P.S. Harsaidhi, District - East Champaran.
2. Vishwanath Ram, son of Late Sita Ram, resident of Village - Kritpur Matia Tola
English P.O. Kritpur Matia, P.S. Harsaidhi, District - East Champaran.
3. Md. Izhar Hussain S/O Nathu Mian, resident of Village - Chhapua, P.O.
Phulwaria Ojha, P.S. Susauli, District - East Champaran.
4. Virendra Kishore Singh S/O Late Nakal Singh, resident of Village - Kritpur, P.S.
Harsidhi, District - East Champaran.
.... .... Appellants.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through C.B.I.
.... .... Respondent.
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 642 of 2012)
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate.
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC/CBI.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 685 of 2012)
For the Appellant. : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha Advocate,
Mr. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Advocate.
Mr. Satyendra Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 706 of 2012) "
For the Appellant : Mr.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 708 of 2012) "
For the Appellant : Mr.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 710 of 2012) "
For the Appellants : Mr.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 646 of 2012)
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar Advocate.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 704 of 2012) "
For the Appellant : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 698 of 2012)
For the Appellant : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate.
Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 889 of 2012)
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 663 of 2012)
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman, Advocate.
6
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 664 of 2012)
For the Appellants : Mr. Kamlendra Pd. Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 673 of 2012)
For the Appellants : Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate.
Mr. Ambika Bhagat, Advocate.
Mr. Ambika Kumar, Advocate.
Mr. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For the CBI : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC/CBI
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22. 10. 2014.
Gopal Prasad, J.1. All the appeals are being heard together and being disposed of by common judgment as all these appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction dated 19. 07. 2012 and order of sentence dated 23.07. 2012, passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. III, Patna in Special Case No. 3/2000/RC No. 9(S) of 1996.
2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Sections 467/120B of the Indian Penal Code and in default of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Sections 468/120B of the Indian Penal code and in default of fine they shall further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Sections 419/120B of the Indian Penal Code. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine 7 of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal code and in default of fine they shall further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs, 5,000/- form the offence under Sections 471/120B of the Indian Penal code and in default of fine they shall further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Further the convicts Sohan Lal Jain, Kishori Lal Rajore and Kalu Ram Rajak sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and in default of fine they shall suffer simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences have run concurrently.
3. The case proceeded on the basis of F.I.R. against unknown, on information that in between July 1993 to October, 1993, 26 PPOs (Pension Payment Order) were received in the District Treasury Office, Sagar. Out of 26 PPOs, 6 PPOs in which 2 PPOs did not bear emboss seal of the office and in 4 cases for enquiry regarding membership were sent to Defence Accounts, Pension Office, Allahabad and it was found that the said 6 PPOs were forged. After audit by the Defence Accounts Pension Office, Allahabad, it was found that 20 PPOs on which payment of Rs. 18,25,213/- made by Sagar Treasury was forged and so F.I.R. was lodged for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 419 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against unknown.
8
4. The prosecution case as per the investigation by Police is that accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma, kingpin of the occurrence got formats of pension payment orders,(PPOs) format of forwarding letters and forms of descriptive rolls printed at Patna. Dinesh Kumar Sharma employed Md. Ajaj Hussain Rizvi, (P.W. 7) typist to fill in formats of the PPOs and forwarding letters. Md. Ajajz Hussain Rizvi (P.W.7) was paid for filling the format on his typewriter. The format of PPOs and forwarding letters were filled (typed) by Ajaj Hussain Rizvi on his portable typewriter on payment made by accused Dinesh Kumar Sharma and accused Yugal Kishore Sinha. The PPOs were shown to be issued from the office of Defence Account Pension Office, Allahabad. Forwarding letters were shown to have been issued by Record Office, Army Supply Crop, Banagalore and Record Room, Army Ordinance Crop, Secundrabad. The PPOs were filled up Ajaj Hussain Rizvi (P.W.7) in the format in the fake name and fake PPOs. Numbers (Exhibit to 6 to 6/19) and fake descriptive rolls (Exhibit 7 to 7/14) proved by P.W.7 Ayaz Hussain Rizvi. Forged PPO No. and fake names mentioned in PPO.s are being (PPO No. S/02527/93 in the name of Madan Singh, PPO No. S/01914/93 in the name of Nageshwar Singh, PPO No. S/01917/93 in the name of Mahendra Singh, PPO No. S/01984/93 in the name of Mohan Singh, PPO No. S/01987/93 in the name of Ram Kumar, PPO No. S/01960/93 in the name of Shyam Singh, PPO no. S/01981/93 in 9 the name of Ram Singh, PPO No. S/02877/93 in the name of Ram Lal, PPO No. S/02875/93 in the name of Manoj Ram, PPO No. S/01870/93 in the name of Raja Ram, PPO No. S/01855/93 in the name of Sanjay Singh, PPO No. S/01921/93 in the name of Ram Singh, PPO No. S/02196/93 in the name of Mahesh Singh, PPO No. S/02194/93 in the name of Bilash Singh, PPO No. S/01992/93 in the name of Ram Kumar, PPO No. S/01857/93 in the name of Sohan Singh, PPO No. S/01862/93 in the name of Ashok Singh, PPO No. S/01902/93 in the name of Rajan Singh and PPO No. 02198 in the name of Daya Ram.)
5. The further case of the prosecution that forged PPOs bear the forged sealed signature of authority without any signature in pen ink of the issuing officer. The forwarding letters and descriptive rolls bear forged seal which was signed by accused Yugal Kishore Sinha in the imaginary names of Military Officers. Appellant, Virendra Kumar Sinha and accused Vijay Kumar Chaurasia(since dead) in collusion with Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha arranged persons who is conspiracy with them acted as an impostors got their photographs snapped by local photographer, Madan Mian (P.W.5). After snapping photographs of the accused persons brought by Virendra Kumar Singh, the photographer, Madan Mian was asked to prepare pair photographs of those persons with photograph of unknown lady provided by Virendra Kumar Singh. Thereafter, 10 photographer, Madan Mian(P.W.5) prepared pair photographs of the person whose photographs were snapped by Madan Mian by joining photographs of unknown lady provided by Virendra Kumar singh. The said pair photographs prepared by Madan Mian were pasted on the descriptive rolls marked as Exhibit 4 to 4/19 series. The impostors whose photographs were pasted on the descriptive rolls in the forged names signed on the descriptive rolls in forged names. Hence forged PPOs prepared in the fake names and fake PPO numbers with corresponding forwarding letters prepared in the corresponding names and PPO numbers as mentioned in the forged PPOs as well as forwarding letters with photographs of the impostors who signed in the fake names on the descriptive rolls with forged seal of the army authorities and forged signatures in the imaginary names of Army Officers signed by Yugal Kishore Sinha and descriptive rolls duly filled up in the forged names by appellant, Yugal Kishore Sinha.
6. The said forged PPOs, forwarding letters and descriptive rolls sent to Treasury Office, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh by post. The PPOs, forwarding letters and descriptive rolls having been received in the Treasury Office, Sagar, was placed before the Treasury Officer who marked the same for processing to the concerned Upper Division Clerk, Kalu Ram Rajak, who was assigned the work to process pension matter of the Military Personnel. Kalu Ram Rajak processed the forged PPOs and put up the forged PPOs with his notes after 11 entering the same in pension register and taking signature of the impostors in the names forged PPOs were filled up in fake names for verifying their identity, signature and comparing with photographs and after verification of their identity placed the same before the Treasury Officer. The Treasury Officer, Sohan Lal Jain verified the identity about genuinity of PPOs‟ and identity of the persons in whose names PPOs, forwarding letters and descriptive rolls were prepared and after processing, ordered for preparation of the bills without taking into consideration the various infirmities in the PPOs, forward letters and descriptive rolls. Thereafter, the matter was placed before Upper Division Clerk, Kishori Lal Rajore for preparing the bill and issuing cheques. The person in whose fake name the PPOs‟ issdued submitted the bill in the names PPOs were issued , the cheque prepared and received after taking their signature on the Bill Transit Register (BTR) which was received by the impostors in fakes names in which PPOs‟ were prepared.
7. After receipt of the cheque the impostors open their account in State Bank in their fake names. While opening account they signed on the account opening form-cum-specimen signatures forms, they signed bank account opening forms, pay in slip for opening account as well as they signed on the cheques issued to them and amount in the bank was debited in their accounts. Thereafter, persons in whose names account was opened, they signed on the 12 withdrawal slip for withdrawal amount deposited in the bank on the basis of cheque issued by the Treasury Officer, Sagar on the forged PPOs and forwarding letters and descriptive rolls. To encash the cheque issued by Treasury Officer, Sagar, on the basis of forged PPOs and descriptive rolls account open in the name of Rajan singh bearing S.B. A/c No. 58301 and similarly A/c open in the name of Ashok Singh bearing S.B. A/c No. 58302, A/c open in the name of Sohan Singh bearing S.B. A/c No. 58292 on 09. 10. 2013 A/c open in the name of Madan Singh dated 28. 10. 1993 bearing S.B.A/c No. 317, A/c open in the name of Mahesh bearing A/c No. 58504 A/c open in the name of Mohan Singh bearing A/c No. 58461, A/c in the name of Ram Kumar bearing A/c No. SB 58462, dated 11.11.1993, A/c in the name of Shyam Singh, bearing S.B. A/c No. 58463, A/c in the name of Ram Singh bearing S.B. A/c No. 316 dated 11. 01. 1993, A/c open in the name of Ram Lal, bearing S.B. A/c No. 4794, dated 08. 11, A/C open in the name of Manoj Ram bearing A/c No. bearing S.B. 58453, A/c open in the name of Raja Ram bearing S.B. A/c No. 58450, dated 08. 11. 1993, A/c open in the name of Mahesh Singh bearing S.B.A/c No. 58504, dated 22.11.1993, A/c open in the name of Bilash Singh, bearing Account no. 58503 and A/c open in the name of Daya Ram bearing S.B. A/c. No. 58502 dated 22. 11. 1993 and after opening the account, the impostors withdrew the amount from that account after depositing the cheque in that account and in the process 13 they signed on cheque, the pay-in-slip, the withdrawal slip/the cheque to withdraw.
8. The I.O. P.W. 41 during investigation, apprehended the appellants, namely, Md. Salamat, Gyasuddin Khan, Virendra Kishore Singh, Md. Khursheed Alam, Md. Izhar Hussain, Vishwanath Ram, Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, Md. Mumtaz, Md. Abbas, Md. Mujeeb, Md. Khursheed Alam, Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar, Ram Narayan Thakur, Ram Lal Sharma as well as Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and get their specimen signature both in Hindi and English and gave their thumb impression. The said specimen signatures were sent to Government Examiner of question document in the office of G.E.Q.D., Chandigarh along with questioned document i.e. descriptive rolls having signature and thumb impression of the persons in fake names as well as the PPO register having signatures of the persons, who signed verified as per signature and thumb impression on descriptive roll, signature on the Bill Transit Register (BTR) while receiving the cheques issued by the Treasury Office, Sagar after verification of the identity of persons named in descriptive rolls. The signature on the Account opening form-cum-specimen signature form in the bank by the impostors in fake name and signature in the bank opening form, pay-in-slip for opening account, withdrawal slip for withdrawal of the amount from bank, signature on the cheque for depositing the same in the Account, pay-in-slip for depositing cheque, 14 withdrawal slip for withdrawal of the amount deposited by cheque issued by Treasury Office, Sahar, on the basis of the forged descriptive roll in fake names as questioned documents.
9. The report of Government Examiner revealed that that appellant Sheikh Md. Abbas was impostor in the name of Daya Ram having his signature as Daya Ram on the said descriptive roll with his photogaph who represented Daya Ram who signed the descriptive roll in changed name as well as in the P.P.O. register, BTR register, Account opening form and other documents. Similarly, the appellant Ram Narayan Thakur was impostor for Bilash Singh, PPO No. S/02194/93 in the descriptive role and correspondent letters, the appellant Kishor Thakur was impostor for Mahesh Singh, PPO No. S/02196/93, the appellant, Md. Khursid Alam was impostor for Ram Singh, PPO No. S/01921/93, the appellant Vishwanath Ram was impostor for Raja Ram, PPO No. S/01870/93, the appellant Md. Ijhar Hussain impostor for Manoj Ram, PPO No. S/02875/93, the appellant Sheikh Geyasuddin impostor for Ram Lal, PPO No. S/02877/93, the appellant Md. Mustaque impostor for Ram Singh, PPO No. 01981/93, the appellant Salamat impostor for Shyam Singh, PPO No. S/01960/93, the appellant Sh. Mohd. Mumtaz was impostor for Ram Kumar, PPO No. S/01987/93 the appellant Ram Lal Sharma was imposter for Mohan Singh, PPO No. S/01984/93, the appellant Tarkeshwar Pd. Singh was impostor of Mahendra Singh, PPO No. 15 S/01917/93, the appellant Md. Musstaque was impostor of Ram Singh, PPO No. S/01981/93, the appellant Virendra Kishore Singh was impostor for Sohan Singh,PPO No. S/01857/93, Vijay Kumar Chourasia (since deceased) was impostor of Ashok Singh, PPO No. S/01862/93 and the appellant Sanjay Singh impostor for Rajan Singh, PPO No. S/01902/93 who on the basis of forged descriptive roll, PPOs signed in forged name and withdrawn the cheque and encahsed by opening account in fake name.
10. The I.O. also took specimen signature of Sohan Lal Jain, Kallu Ram Rajak, Kishori Lal Rajore and sent their specimen signatures with questioned document the endorsement on the PPOs as well as processing of these PPOs and pension register as well as Bill Transit Register (BTR) which was duly filled by them as Upper Division Clerk and signature of the Treasury Officer on them and said questioned documents were sent to Government Examiner of the question documents with specimen signatures of the accused persons.
11. The specimen of the typing of the typewriter from which PPOs and forwarding letters were typed by Ayaz Hussain Rizvi were also taken sent to Government Examiner of the questioned document (GEQD) along with questioned document i.e. PPOs and forwarding letters to the office of GEQD, Chandigarh and report was received that the typing on the PPOs and forwarding letter were found to have been typed by the Typewriter of Ayaz Hussain Rizvi. 16
12. From the report of the Government Examiner of questioned document it transpires that appellant Sheikh Md. Abbas was impostor in the name of Daya Ram who signed as Daya Ram on the PPOs register for his identification in the name as impostor as well as signed on BTR register while receiving the cheque in the name of Daya Ram as well as his signature in the name of Daya Ram while opening account in the account opening-cum-specimen signature for opening account bearing No. S.B. A/c No.58502 and in the withdrawal of deposit in the account on the basis of cheque issued on forged descriptive roll and PPOs. It was found that PPO form was filled up by the typewriter by Ayaz Hussain Rizvi by his typewriter as the specimen letter of the typewriter tally with typing in PPO forms and forwarding letter in similar manner.
13. After submission of the charge sheet cognizance was taken and charge framed and trial proceeded. During trial forty-two witnesses were examined which has been marked as Exhibits 1 to 55 with various series.
14. The prosecution has examined altogether 42 witnesses, they are P.W.1 Gurdar Singh Kurvedi, P.W. 2 Chandrawati Sone, P.W.3 Arun Kumar, P.W. 4, Hira Lal Thakur, P.W. 5 Madan Mian, P.W. 6 Shiv Pati Srivastava, P.W.7 Ajaj Hussain Rizvi, P.W.8 Raj Ballabh Prasad, P.W. 9 Ram Kishore Tripathi, P.W.10 B. M. Kumar, P.W.11 Prema Nand Makheja, P.W. 12 Virendra Kumar Pradhan, 17 P.W. 13 Ashok Kumar Paliwal, P.W. 14 Mohan Lal Malviya, P.W. 15 Vijay Kumar, P.W. 16 Gaj Raj Singh Thakur, P.W. 17 Lal Babu Raikwar, P.W. 18 Rajendra Kumar Suveliya, P.W. 19 Jaikrit Singh, P.W. 20 Sheo Prasad Srivastava, P.W. 21 Puran Lal Prajapati, P.W. 22 Mahesh Prasad Rathore, P.W. 23 Yamuna Prasad Bamauriya, P.W. 24 Jagdish Arora, P.W. 25 Sudhir Kumar, P.W. 26 Major V. R. K. Rao, P.W. 27 Bal Mukund Rajak, P.W.28, Sant Lal Arya, P.W. 29 Surendra Kumar, P.W. 30 Upendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 31 J. P. N. Pateriya, P.W.32 Suman Mallu, P.W. 33 Khem Raj Laria, P.W. 34 Surendra Nath Gupta, P.W. 35 S. K. Srivastava, P.W. 36 Major V. K. George, P.W. 37 K. D. Joshi, P.W. 38 T. P. Sharma, P.W.39 P. D. Panth, P.W.40 Arun Kumar Sharma, P.W. 41 Rajni Ranjan Sahay and P.W.42 Sushil Kumar Chbaddha.
15. The prosecution has produced and got exhibited Ext. 1, 1/1 Sanction Order, Ext. 2 to 2/3 writing of Chandrawati Sone on four BTR, Ext. 2/4 to 2/7 writing of Arun Kumar on four BTR, Ext.3 signature of Hira Lal Thakur on Bank accoiunt Opening Form of Sohan Singh, Ext. 4 to 4/17 Photo on application, Ext. 5 to 5/5 sinature of Amrit Lal Singh on certified copy of Centrally Controlled Register, Ext. 6 to 6/19 type on PPO‟s Forms by Ajaj Hussain Rizvi, Ext. 7 to 7/19 formats of forwarding letters, Ext. 8 to 8/4 specimen impression of type writer, Ext. 9 confidential circular dated 07.12. 1992, Ext. 9/1 specimen signature, Exts. 10 and 11 seizure memo 18 dated 17.03.1998, Ext. 12 specimen signature of Vishwanath Ram, Ext. 12/1 specimen signature of Gyasuddin, Ext. 13 to 13/16 signature of Parma Nand Makhija, Accounant, SBI on voucher, Ext. 13/17 to 13/19 signature of verifying officer on account opening form, Ext. 13/20 signature of B.R. Sheo on voucher, Ext. 13/21 signature of Sheo on withdrawal form, Ext. 13/22 to 13/35 signature on account opening forms, Ext. 13/36 to 13/49 signature of Ashok Paliwal on back portion of account opening forms, Ext. 13/50 to 13/65 signature of Ashok Paliwal on withdrawal forms, Ext. 13/66 to 13/79 initial of Birendra Kumar Pradhan on account of opening forms, Ext. 13/80 initial of Birendra Kumar Pradhan on Ext. 13/19, 13/81 to 13/104 signatures of Birendra Kumar Pradhan on credit vouchers, Ext. 13/105 to 13/117 initial of Birendra Kumar Pradhan on debit vouchers, Ext. 14 to 14/16 ledger on 23 about entries account opening form, Ext 13/118 signature of Pryag Pandey on seizure memo, Ext. 15 to 15/2 hand writing of Birendra kumar Pradhan on debit vouchers (Exts. 13/50, 13/51, 13/65), Ext. 16 Account Opening Form of Rajan Singh in the handwriting of Ashok Kumar Paliwal, Ext. 16/1 Account Opening Form of Raj kumar in the handwriting of Ashok Kumar Paliwal, Ext. 17 signature of Madan Lal Malviya on account opening form of Ram Singh, Ext. 18 signature of Madan :Lal Malviya on account opening form of Madan Singh, Ext. 19 and 19/1 signature of Madan Lal Malviya on introduction letters for opening account of Ram Nath 19 Singh and Madan Singh. Ext. 20 and 20/1 signature of G. C. jain on pay in slip of A/c 316 and 317. Ext. 20/2 to 20/3 signature of Madan Lal Malviya on cheque no. 86273 & 86131, Ext. 21 signature of S. K. Srivastava, Branch Manager of ledger of A/c No. 316, Ext. 21/1 certified copy of ledger of A/c No. 317 of Madan Singh, Ext.22 signature of Madan Lal Malviya on withdrawal form of Ram Singh, Ext. 23 DD issue Pay in Slip of Ram Singh, Ext. 13/119 signature of Purshottam Jha on account opening form of A/c No. 4794 dated 08.11.1993, Ext. 13/120 and 13/121 signature of Madan Lal Malviya and G.C. Jain on application to issue DD in the name of Ashok Singh, Ext. 24 to 24/1 demand draft in the name of Ashok Kumar each of Rs.80,000/- dated 30.10. 1993, Exts. 25 and 25/1 signatures of Madan Lal Malviya and Madan Singh on withdrawal form of Rs. 80,200/- of Madan Singh. Ext. 26 Demand Draft issue in name of Madan Singh Rs. 80,200/- dated 30. 11. 1993, Ext. 27 fixed deposit withdrawal form saving account No. 316 of Ram Sinhgh Rs. 5,000/- dated 30.10.1993, Ext. 28 fixed deposit form Rs. 5,000/- dated 30.10.1993, Ext. 29 certified copy of ledger of Central Bank of India, Gopanganj, Sadar, Ext. 30 withdrawal form A/c No. 317 fixed deposit form of Madan Singh Rs. 5,000/- dated 30.10.1993, Ext. 31 fixed deposit form of Madan Singh Rs. 5,000/- dated 30.10.1993, Ext. 31 fixed deposit form of Madan Singh Rs. 5,000/- dated 30.10.1993, Ext. 31 fixed deposit form of Madan Singh Rs. 5000/- dated 30.10.1993. Ext. 32 20 certified copy of ledger of Central Bank of India, Gopalganj, Sadar, Ext. 33 certified copy of Register Schedule supplementary of DD issue No. 009716, Ext. 34 seizure memo, Ext. 35 A/c Opening Form of A/c 4794 dated 18. 11. 1993 of Punjab & Sindh Bank, Ext. 36 Pay Slip of A/c No. 4794 dated 08. 11. 1993, Ext. 37 Cheque Deposit Slip of 09.11.1993 by which cheque No. 115274 of SBI of Rs. 87,350/- was deposited, Ext. 38 original ledger dated 11. 11. 1993 in which Rs.85,000/- payment shown, Ext. 39 cheque No. 259030 by which Rs.85,000/- withdrawn by Ram Lal Sharma, Ext. 13/122 signature of Lallobhati Rai Kuwar on account opening form of Raja Ram bearing No. 58450 dated 06. 11. 1993, Exts. 40 to 40/4 report of Postman of registered letter nos. 7401, 9513, 7224, 9583, 9584, Ext. 41 to 41/6 Entry No. 1241, 1242, 1245, 1265, 1267 and 1244 Kalu Ram Rajak on PPO Register, Ext. 42 marking endorsement of PPO‟s No. 1244 of Sohan Singh in the name of Rajak, Ext. 43 endorsement of Sundar Lal Rajouri on receipt register, Ext. 42/1 and 42/2 attested signature of Sohan Singh by Sohan Lal Jain, Ext. 41/7 endorsement of Keshri Rajauri on page 795479 of BTR Register, Ext. 41/8 S. no. 15 of Govt. Debit Scroll having payment on cheque no.114418, Ext. 41/9 handwriting of Kalu Ram Rajak on PPO of Sohan Singh, Ext. 41/10 entry of PPO of Ashok Singh by Sundar Lal Raj on Awak Register. Ext. 42/3 mark of J. P. Vermaurya, Treasury Officer to Sri Rajak after entry. Ext. 41/11 handwriting of Kalu Ram Rajak on Note Sheet, Ext. 21 41/12 Entry No. 1246 of PP regarding Ashok Singh in the handwriting of Kalu Ram Rajak, on PPO, Ext. 42/5 marking of Sri Rajak on PPO of Sanjay Singh, Ext. 42/6 attested signature of Rajak on PPO of Rajan Singh, Ext. 42/7 entry no. 1248 on PPO register in the name of Rajan Singh of Kalu Ram Rajak attested by Sohan Lal Jain. Ext. 40/13 writing of Kishori Lal Rajak on BTR Register page no. 795480, Ext. 41/14 receiving of cheque No. 114380 dated 12.10.1993 of Rs. 96,69,964/- by Ashok Singh, Ext. 41/15 Bank Scroll S. No. 21 of cheque no. 114380 of Rs. 96,699/- Ext. 41/16 entry no. 4296 on letter receiving register by Sundar Lal Raj, Ext. 42/5 marking to Sri Rajak the PPO of Sanjay Singh, Ext. 41/17 Note Sheet written by Kalu Ram Rajak for identification of Sanjay Singh, Ext. 41/18 entry of Kalu Ram Rajak on PPO register entry no. 1247, Ext. 41/19 entry of S. No. 1920821 of BTR Register regarding Sanjay Singh, Ext. 41/20 receiving of cheque along with entry of cheque No. 115/87 by Sanjay Singh on triplicate copy of BTR, Ext. 41/21 Bank Scroll S. No.7 dated 09.11.1993 of Rs. 97,977/- Ext. 41/22 Entry of PPO of Rajan Singh received through Registered Post No. 4153 dated 09.10.1993. Ext. 41/23 Note Sheet of Kalu Ram Rajak regarding identification of signature of Rajan Singh, Ext. 41/24 entry of BTR of Rajan Singh by Kishori Lal Rajak, Ext. 41/25 receiving of cheque No. 114456 dated
14. 10. 1993 by Rajan Singh, Ext. 41/26 Bank Scroll S. No. 3 dated 15.10.1993 of cheque No. 114456 of Rs. 86,944/- Ext. 42/8 marking 22 of J. P. Verma on PPO of Raj Kumar Singh, Ext. 41/27 entry No. 5199 on PPO inward register, Ext. 42/9 attested the signature of Raj Kumar Singh by Raj Kumar Singh on PPO register, Ext. 42/10 counter signature of Sohan Lal Jain on PPO register, Ext. 41/28 entry of bill of Raj Kumar Singh dated 14. 10. 1993 by A.L. Ragauri, Ext. 41/29 entry of cheque No. 114455 dated 14. 10. 1993 on BTR, Ext. 41/30 Bank Scroll Register, Ext. 41/31 entry of TS 1250 on PPO register, Ext. 41/32 handwriting of K. K. Rajauri on entry No. 138, 139, 140 of BTR, Ext. 41/33 entry of Cheque No. 114847, Ext. 42/13 PPO No. 01871 of Raja Ram marking of Treasury Officer, Ext. 42/14 marking on PPO No. 02877 of Sri Ram Lal, Ext. 42/15 marking of PPO No. 02875 of Manoj Ram, Ext. 42/16 marking on PPO of Mohan Singh, Ext. 42/17 marking of PPO of Sri Ram Kumar, Ext. 41/18 marking of PPO of Builash Singh (TS No. 1262), Ext. 42/19 marking of PPO of Mahesh Singh (TS 1263), Ext. 42/20 marking of PPO of Daya Ram (TS No. 1264). Ext. 41/34 payment of Rs. 86,344/- through cheque No. 114847 of Bank Scroll, Exts. 41/35, 41/36 entry No. 5886, 6029, 6030, 6031 on inward register, Ext. 41/37 to 51/50 attestation of signatures of pensioners on T.S. Register by Additional T.O. Sohan Lal. Ext. 41/51 entry No. 141 on page No. 795498 of BTR Register, Ext. 41/52 entry of cheque No. 114848 of Rs. 86,485 on triplicate copy, Ext. 41/53 S. No. 7 of Bank Scroll where entry of cheque No. 114848, Ext. 41/54 entry No. 144 to 146 and entry No. 23 147 to 149 on BTR Register of pensioner of Mohan Singh and Ram Singh, Ext. 41/55 entry of cheque No. 114780 and 114781 on triplicate copy of BTR Register, Ext. 51/56 entry of cheque No. 114780 & 114781 on Bank Scroll S. No. 15 & 16, Ext. 51/57 entry No. 19 to 21 & 22 to 24 on BTR Register Page Page No. 795495, Ext. 41/58 entry of cheque No. 115188 on BTR Register page No. 792495, Ext. 41/59 entry of cheque No. 115188 on Bank Scroll S. No. 6, Ext. 41/60 to 41/61 entry No. 38 to 40 and entry No. 48 to 49 on BTR Register Page No. 795498, Exts. 41/62 & 41/63 entry of cheque Nos. 115273 & ``5280 on BTR Register, Triplicate copy page No. 795498, Ext. 41/64 entry of cheque No. 115280 on Scroll of SBI on S. No. 28. Exts. 41/65 to 41/66 entry of cheque Nos. 115273 & 115274 on S. Nos. 15 & 28 of Scroll of SBI, Ext. 41/67 entry of S. No. 50 to 555 on page No. 795499 of BTR Register, Ext. 41/68 entry of cheque Nos. 115281 & 115282 on page No. 795499 on triplicate copy of BTR Register. Exts. 41/69 to 41`/70 entry of cheque Nos. 115281 & S. Nos. 29 & 27 of Scroll of SBI, Ext. 41/71 entry of S. No. 58 to 63 on page No. 82151 of BTR Register, Ext. 41/72 entry of Cheque Nos. 115434 & 115435 on triplicate copy of BTR Register page No. 829157, Ext. 41/73 entry of cheque No. 115435 on S. No. 26 & 115434 on S. No. 26 of SBI Scroll, Ext. 41/74 entry Nos. 91 to 93 on page No. 829156 of BTR Register, Ext. 41/75 entry of cheque No. 115809 of Rs. 93,678/- and cheque Nos. 115810 & 115811 on page 24 82915 of triplicate copy of BTR register page No. 829156, Ext. 41/76 entry of cheque Nos. 115809, 115810 & 115811 on S. No. 13, 14 & 15 of Bank Scroll of SBI. Ext. 44 written report of Gopalganj District, Sagar (MP) PS Case No. 228/1994, Ext. 45 annexure of Ext. 44 in two sheets, Ext. 46 specimen writing of Sohan Lal Jain in three sheets, Ext. 46/1 specimen writing of Md. Khurshid, Ext. 13/124 signature Balmukund on account opening form of SBI of Sanjay Kumar, Ext. 46/2 to 46/8 specimen writing of accused Vijay Kumar Chaurasia, Sanjay Kumar, Kishori Thakur, Md. Abbas, Md. Mumtaj, Md. Izahar Hussain, Ram Narayan Thakur, 46/9 specimen writing of Kalu Ram Rajak, Ext. 46/10 specimen writing of Virendra Kishore Singh, Ext. 46/11 specimen writing of K. L. Rajak, Ext. 46/12 specimen writing of Ram Lal Sharma, Ext. 47 seizure memo of two drafts dated 19. 10. 1998 amounting to Rs.80,000/- each. Ext. 46/13 to 46/16 specimen writing and specimen signature of Salamat & Md. Mustaque along with finger print of Md. Salamat & Md. Mustaque, Ext. 13/124 pay in slip of SBI, Ext. 13/125 & Q862 to Q864, Ext. 48 opinion of GEQD, Ext. 48/1 reasons for opinion of GEQD, Ext. 48/2 signature of R. K. Jain on Ext. 48, Ext.1/2 Sanction for prosecution against accused Sohan Lal Jain, Ext. 49 & 49/1 Formal FIR. Ext. 50 to 50/3 signature on FIR, Ext. 51 Notification No. 228/60/95 AVPII dated 12. 07. 1996, Ext. 52 FIR, Ext. 53 letter dated 23.08.1999, Ext. 54 CFSL report, Ext. 47/1 to 47/2 seizure memo, Ext. 46/19 specimen writing of 25 Mahendra Poddar, Ext. 46/11 Finger Print of Mahendra Poddar, Ext. 46/20 specimen writing of Tarkeshwar Prasad, Ext. 46/21 finger print of left hand & right hand of Tarkeshwar Prasad, Ext. 46/22 specimen writing of Md. Mujib, Ext. 23 Finger print of Md. Mujib, Ext. 46/24 specimen writing of Yugal Kishore, Ext. 46/25 specimen writing of Sohan Lal Jain, Ext. 46/26 specimen handwriting of Ram Narayan Thakur, Ext. 46/27 finger print of Ram Narayan Thakur. Ext. 46/28 finger print of left and right hand of Virendra Kishore Singh, Ext. 46/29 finger print of Sanjay Kumar, Ext. 46/30 finger print of Sanjay Kumar, Ext. 46/30 finger print of Md. Mumtaj, Ext. 46/31 finger print of Md. Izhar, Ext. 46/32 finger print of Kishori Thakur, Ext. 46/33 finger print of Md. Abbas, Ext. 46/34 finger print of Vishwanath Ram, Ext. 46/35 finger print of Gyasuddin, Ext. 46/36 finger print of Ram Lal Sharma, Ext. 46/37 finger print of Khurshid Alam, Ext. 46/38 finger print of Vijay Kumar Chaurasia, Ext. 55 letter No. 5651/3/9(S)96 SIV VIII of 23. 08.1999. Marked X, XI two photographs not prepared by Madan Mian (for identification), marked X2 to X/21 20 PPO (for identification).
16. The defence has examined altogether ten witnesses, they are DW 1 Jai Narain Singh, DW 2 Sunil Kumar Srivastava, DW 3 Md. Jafit Alam, DW 4 Basir Alam, DW 5 Md. Islam, DW 6 Ashok Kumar, DW 7 Sachita Nand Jha, DW 8 Sohan Lal Jain (accused), DW. 9 Kalu Ram Rajak (accused) DW 10 Kishori Lal Rajauri 26 (accused).
17. The defence has got exhibited Ext. A photocopy of letter No. account/22/5/95-96/1449 Bhopal dated 23. 09. 1992 & Ext. B to B/2 order dated 10.12. 1990, order dated 29. 09. 1992 & order dated
21. 01. 1993 of Treasury Office, Sagar, marked Y to Y/11 some letters list of Indian Military Pensioners brought on the cheque register (for identification), mark Y/12 to Y/17 (for identification), certificate of Collector, Commissioner, District Election Officer in favour of accused Sohan Lal Jain for commandable work. Deposition of witness of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 104/94 marked as Z/1 Charge Sheet of Gandhi Maidan P.S. 104/94 marked as Z/2, order dated 30. 06. 2010 passed by Hon‟ble Court in connection with Criminal Revision No. 608/2010 marked as Z/3.
18. Hence taking into consideration the entire evidence, the trial court convicted the appellants as mentioned above taking into consideration the fact that each individual indulges in their role form individual act commission and omission form chain of circumstance not only indicate their individual act in forging documents but also using them and deriving benefit due deception and description used of the forged document and also indicate their participation in crime to derive illegal gain by withdrawing the amount from the treasury on the basis of the forged document and hence convicted the appellants and sentence as mentioned above.
27
19. However, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court having been challenged by the appellants in different appeals and all appeals directed against the same judgment and hence are being heard together and disposed of by the common judgment. However, the appellants are challenging the order on different grounds in different appeals filed by them as mentioned above.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, in Cr. Appeal No. 698 of 2012, submits that there is documentary evidence against the appellant to show his participation in the occurrence and appellant has been falsely implicated out of animosity and witnesses have falsely implicated him for the business rivalry.
21. Learned counsel for the appellant, Yugal Kishore Sinha in Cr. Appeal No. 706 of 2012 submits that there is nothing in evidence to indicate that he derive any financial benefit out of alleged conspiracy for his act of commission and omission and there is nothing to indicate that act alleged against the appellant has been done in agreement with other accused and appellant cannot be asserted for the individual act when no evidence of agreement in between the parties and there is no evidence that appellant has derive benefit or get any economical gain.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants, Md. Mumtaz and Sanjay @ Sanjay Kumar in Cr. Appeal No. 889 of 2012, the appellants Md. Mujeeb, Md. Khursheed Alam and Md. Salamat in Cr. 28 Appeal No. 663 of 2012, appellants Gyasuddin Khan, Vishwanath Ram, Md. Izhar Hussain and Virendra Kishore Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 673 of 2012, appellants, Md. Abbas and Md. Mustaque in Cr. Appeal No. 664 of 2012 and appellants Ram Narayan Thakur and Kishori Thakur in Cr. Appeal No. 710 of 2012, Ram Lal Sharma in Cr. Appeal No. 706 of 2012 and Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 708 of 2012 submits they have not been identified during trial in the dock nor photographer who has snapped photographs of the appellants have identified the appellants in dock nor has identified the photographs of the appellants with their names and hence their identification by virtue of the expert opinion without corroboration neither sustainable nor acceptable and has placed reliance upon decision reported in 1980 Cr. Law Journal 396. It has further been contended that they are poor persons and in the evidence of I.O. it has also come that they are poor illiterate persons and they have been made escape goat as their photographs have been pasted with their signatures in fake name as impostor was taken but were provided only part of the amount and major amount grabbed by the main accused conspired and their cases may be leniently considered and they were not aware of the conspiracy. It has further been asserted that in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the trial court did not properly put the questions as required to be took into consideration the evidence without giving them opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 29 properly which has caused prejudice to the accused and has placed reliance on AIR 1984 SC 1622, 2011 Cr. Law Journal 3931, 1985 Suppl, SCC page 80, 2004 SCC 4421.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants Sohan Lal Jain submitted that Secretary, Law Department is not proper authority to grant prosecution sanction to prosecute the appellant, Sohan Lal Jain as Officer in Revenue Department and hence sanction given by the Law Department, is not valid as the Law Department was not competent authority in that regard has relied upon decision reported 2012 (3) PLJR 424 and decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC page 170, 2005 (8) SCC 370 and submitted that prosecution sanction by proper authority is sine qua non for prosecution. It has further been contended that appellants Sohan Lal Jain, Kalu Ram Rajak and Kishori Lal Rajore on receipt of PPOs and relevant documents acted honestly in discharge of their official duty and there is nothing to indicate that they acted fraudulently in agreement or in conspiracy with other accused or to have committed an offence and further there is no evidence that they have derived economical benefit and whatever they have done, they have done in discharge of their official duty and hence there is no mens rea having been proved when they acted bonafidely in discharge of their official duty, to pay pension as soon as pension payment order received. It is also contended that there is no sufficient compliance under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 30
24. Learned counsel for the State however contended that there are sufficient evidence in the prosecution evidence to show implication of the appellants in the crime, both for their individual participation itself indicates their indulgence in crime by forging false documents as well as liable not only of conspiracy but also forging documents. It is further submitted that it is true that there is no direct evidence regarding agreement amongst the appellants for conspiracy but offence of conspiracy can well be proved by inference draw by taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence. The evidence collected suggests act alleged to prove the offence and also creating chain of circumstance indicating the guilt of the accused and evidence is sufficient enough to draw inference to believe that appellants have committed the offence exclusively any other hypothesis of their innocence and has place reliance upon decision reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 287. It has further been contended mere defect in drawing the attention of accused on the part of evidence to the fact on which prosecution relies and on the circumstance proved under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by itself is no ground to reject the prosecution case, but the accused must show that for non-compliance of the said provision under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the prejudice has been caused to him and mere omission does not vitiate the proceeding. It is also open to appellate court to call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards circumstances established 31 against him in evidence but not put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain and if accused is unable to offer the appellate court any plausible or reasonable explanation of such circumstances, the court may assume that such evidence or fact exists and that even if accused had been questioned at the proper time in the trial court, he would not have been able to furnish any good ground and has placed reliance upon decision reported in 2011 SC page 1748 Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. State through C.B.I.
25. Learned counsel for the State further contended that prosecution has established the implication of the appellants in crime and there is sufficient evidence of their implication to have acted in crime in derogation of their duty and further, though, sanction has been against two upper division clerks Kallu Ram Rajak and Kishori Lal Rojore by competent authority and sanction against Sohan Lal Jain by Law Secretary. So far argument that sanction for prosecution has not been taken by proper authority and is defective and so prosecution of Sohan Lal Jain is without sanction. However, it is submitted that any error or irregularity in sanction for prosecution is no ground. to reverse the finding of the sentence passed by the Special Judge unless in the opinion of the court failure of justice shown to have been occasioned and for the submission placed reliance on Sub- Section 3, 4 of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as decision reported in AIR 2014 (SC) 1674.
32
26. However, taking into consideration the respective submission, I proceed to consider the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It has been asserted that against appellant, Dinesh Kumar Sharma, there is no documentary evidence against him. However, the case of the prosecution that Dinesh Kumar Kumar who is kingpin of the entire episode and he is person who procure format of the PPOs, forwarding letters and format of descriptive role and got it printed. P.W. 8 has deposed that accused Dinesh Kumar Sharmahad came to get the forms printed, though, has been declared hostile by prosecution on the point P.W. 8 got the format printed the format from his press. However, P.W. 7 is typist who claimed to have typed PPOs and forwarding letters at the instruction of Dinesh Kumar Sharma and has also deposed to the effect that Dinesh Kumar Sharma used to pay him for the work for typing formats in PPOs which was used for withdrawing the amount fraudulently. P.W. 7 has also stated that said PPOs were typed at the instruction of Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha and payment of the same was also provided by both Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha. Hence from the evidence of P.W. 7 that appellants Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha were main persons and on their direction said PPOs were filled up with corresponding letters and descriptive rolls. P.W. 6 is the Clerk/Peon, CDA, Allahabad. He has proved Exhibit Exhibits 5 to 5/9, the copy from PPO register with red mark the PPO 33 number which corresponds to the PPO number against which the forged PPOs have been prepared to show that these PPOs‟ have been issued in original in different name. From his evidence and Exhibit 5 to 5/9, it is apparent that the PPO number issued in forged name. Further evidence of P.W. 40, it has come that Dinesh Kumar Sharma was a Film Distributor and Yugal Kishore Sinha was his manager, and has stated that Yugal Kishore Sinha has signed the descriptive rolls as Mr. R. S. Choudhary and has stated that the signature of Army Officer in the name of R. S. Chaudhary on Exhibit 7 series has been done by Yugal Kishore Sinha and has proved writing or signature in the name of R. S. Chaudhary on descriptive roll, Exhibit- 7 series in the writing of Yugal Kishore Sinha. He has identified the photographs of Virendra Kishore Singh and photograph of Vijay Kumar Chaurasia which has been marked as Exhibits 4-4/1 which is pasted on descriptive rolls marked as Exhibit 7-7/1. Hence from the evidence of these witnesses, it is apparent that implication of Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha got the format printed and false document prepared with forged signature with seal of the Military Officer and forged signature. P.W. 5 is photographer, Madan Mian and he has stated that Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and Virendra Kishore Singh used to brought the persons whose photographs were snapped by him and he prepared pair photographs by joining the photograph of lady provided by Vijay Kumar Chaurasia with 34 photographs of persons snapped by him. The said photographs were pested on the descriptive rolls filled by Yugal Kishore Sinha in forged name and address giving forged seal and forged signature of the Military persons in imaginary names, though, letters and descriptive roles purported to have been issued from ASC Army Supply Crop, Bangalore and Army Ordinance Crop, Secundrabad.
27. P.W. 6 and 9 have come to prove the said PPOs, were not issued from the Defence Pension Account Office, Allahabad and were forged and seal on the said PPOs were also forged having not been issued from the office.
28. P.W. 15 and P.W. 36 are record officer from ASC Centre, South ASC Record Army Supply Crop Secundrabad have deposed that forwarding letters have not been issued by A.S.C. Centre, South, Bangalore and ASC. Record Army Supply Crop, Secundrabad and has stated that there is no Army Supply Crop, but there is Army Service Record Office, Army Service, Bangalore and there is only Army Service Core Record Supply and has stated that forwarding letters and descriptive roles are forged and fabricated not issued from ASC Centre, Bangalore or ASC Record Army Supply Crop, Secundrabad. He has also deposed that the seal and signature on the descriptive role and forwarding letters are also forged. Hence from their evidence, it is apparent that PPOs, descriptive rolls and forwarding letters are all forged and fabricated. However, these 35 forged letters were received in the Treasury Office, Sagar and Treasury Office, Sagar, processed the forged PPOs.
29. P.W. 18 is the Upper Division Clerk, Sagar Treasury and he was treasurer in Sagar Treasury Office and from his evidence it is apparent that forged PPOs, descriptive rolls and forwarding letters processed by two Upper Division Clerk, Kallu Ram Rajak and Kishori Lal Rahore and after processing those documents, the same was placed before Treasury Office for verification of the PPOs to the Treasury Officer, Sohan Lal Jain and he has stated in his evidence in paragraph 98 that there was guideline for measuring for verifying the genuineness of the PPOs sent to Additional Treasury Officer and has submitted guidelines issued even prior to the occurrence and has stated that before making payment of Military pensioner, there is identification of the pensioner on the basis of signature and photographs and for identification of pensioner reputed person who known pensioner is required and the verification of pensioner after taking guarantee but payment was made without proper verification and guarantee by recognised ex-pensioner. He has further stated in paragraph 102 that in the sanction Kallu Ram Rajak was dealing clerk and Kishori Lal Rajore check genuineness of PPO and he has prepared genuineness notes of PPOs was sent to Additional Treasury Officer for verification of its genuineness. The Additional Treasury Officer takes guarantee for his satisfaction and takes signature of the 36 guarantor and order for payment and then bills goes for calculation to the dealing clerk then only payment order was made, bill is prepared and bills goes to Dealing Clerk. The Dealing Clerk preparation of cheque entered it into BTR register and BTR register is tally with by another clerk and thereafter processing Account payee cheque.
30. Exhibit 9 and 9/1 is the document notification which itself mentioned that those documents are sent each year with specimen signature of the person in whose signature PPO is issued to all the Treasury Officer for their verification of the signature of those authority who issues pension and the said document has sent by CDA Office and document shown to have been issued in the December, 1992 for having been valid for the period January to December, 1993 in supersession of the earlier specimen signature sent previously. Hence nature of this document, it is apparent that letters or notification issued every year followed with signature of the authorities who issued PPO for verification of their signatures, but the PPO‟s were inspected without verification or comparing the signature by clerk and Treasury Officer. However, the investigation has been made as appear from those documents that this type of letter issued each and every year to be sent with specimen signature it was incumbent on the on the official of Treasury office and the Upper Division Clerk to compare the signature to verify the PPOs receipt with signature of the Officer who issued the PPO, specimen copy or forwarding letter. 37
31. However, submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no such letter with specimen signature was received is not acceptable in view of Exhibit 9-9/1 proved by P.W.9 who has proved memo dated 17. 12. 1992 with specimen signature which has been marked as Exhibit-10 and has stated in paragraph 9 that Treasury Officer is required to look into PPO before passing payment order, copy with pension distributor officer and the Treasury Officer while checking derogated the provision that pension was released on the pension certified copy instead of PPO, and deposed that the seal on the PPO is different from that use in it. It is further pointed out that PPO did not bear any signature of authority in pen and ink which is most glaring picture.
32. PPOs were forged in the names Madan Singh, Nageshwar Singh, Mohan Singh, Ram Kumar, Shyam Singh, Ram Singh, Ram Lal, Manoj Ram, Bilash Singh, Ram Kumar, Mahesh Singh, Sohan Singh, Rajesh Kumar and said PPOs order have been processed in Treasury Office, Sagar and on the basis of forged PPOs, the Treasury Officer and Upper Division Clerk in conspiracy, issued the cheque in the forged names and impostors received cheques after their signatures in the forged names for verification and in the process they signed on the PPO register at the time of their verification and identification in the Treasury Office as well as at the time of receipt of cheque signed in forged names in BTR Register and after receiving of 38 the cheque, the impostors opened their respective account in Bank in forged names of Sanjay Singh bearing S.B. A/C No. 58301, Ashok Kumar opened Account bearing S.B. A/c No. 58292, Rajesh Singh opened account, S.B. A/c No. 58301, Madan Singh S.B. A/c No. 317, Mahendra Singh, S.B. A/c No. 58461, Ram Kumar, S.B. A/c No. 58462, Shyam Singh, S.B. A/c No. 58465, Ram Lal, S.B. A/c No. 4794, Manoj Ram, S.B.A/c No. 58453, Raja Ram S.B. A/c No. 58450, Ram Singh, S.B. A/c No. 316, Bilash Singh, S.B. A/c no. 58503, Ram Kumar S.B. A/c No. 58465, Daya Ram S.B. A/c No. 58502 and account opened with signature on A/c opening form-cum-specimen signature form, pay slip and withdrawal form.
33. Hence from the evidence it is apparent that the following circumstances emerged;
(a) that Dinesh Kumar Sharma got the format, forged PPOs, forwarding letters and descriptive rolls printed;
(b) He got the same to be filled up by Ayaz Hussain Rizvi with forged PPO numbers and name. He paid for the filling up the PPO numbers and names in the PPOs;
(c) The corresponding forwarding letters were typed by Ayaz Hussain Rizvi at the instance of Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Yugal Kishore Sinha on payment to Ayaz Hussain Rizvi to defraud the Government;
(d) The descriptive roll was filled up in the 39 corresponding name and the same was filled up by Yugal Kishore Sinha;
(e) The descriptive roll was forged by forging the seal on it and the same was signed by accused Yugal Kishore Sinha in the fake imaginary name of Military Officer;
(f) The descriptive roll bear the pair photograph of the person in whose name the document forged;
(g) The photographs were snapped by P.W. 5, Madan Mian. The photograph snapped was used for preparing pair photograph with unknown lady provided by Virendra Kumar Singh and Vijay Kumar Chaurasia and the same was pasted on the descriptive roll which is Exhibit 4 series. However the bare perusal of the photograph, it is apparent that the same prepared by joining two photograph but no objection raised by the authority while verifying their identity at Treasury Office, Sagar;
(h) The PPOs did not bear signature of any person in pen and ink on it, it only contained sealed signature but was ignored by the appellants, the U.D.C. Clerk and Treasury Officer of Sagar Treasury.
The Exhibit 9 and 9/1 is the letter address to Treasury Officer with specimen signature of the officer authorised to issue the PPOs for verification of their signature on PPOs but the same was ignored and not verified. The letter indicated that the letter used to be sent each year with specimen signature and hence Kallu 40 Ram Rajak, Kishori Lal Rajore and Sohan Lal Jain issued the cheque on the basis of forged PPO without proper verification of the PPOs‟ and the identification of appellants who were impostors to forge name in which PPO issued in defiance of the instruction in a manner indicative to the fact that they acted in collusion and in agreement with the impostor and the kingpin in defiance of the guideline for the verification and identification;
(i) The guideline that the identification of the person in whose name PPO received is required to be identified by a reputed ex-pensioner well known to the person in whose name PPO is received has been flauted.
(j) The specimen signature of the appellant tally with the corresponding signature on the descriptive roll in fake changed name as well as their signatures on the PPO register in changed name while they signed at the time of verification of their identification, signature on BTR register while they receipt the cheque. Their signature on the Account opening form-cum-specimen signature for opening the account on the basis of which account was opened, indicates that appellants signed the document as impostors.
34. Further taking into consideration the evidence it is apparent that each appellant contributed for the sole purpose of deceiving Government of its money on the basis of forged PPOs, 41 forged descriptive rolls and forwarding letters. The Dinesh Kumar Sharma got PPOs, forwarding letter and descriptive rolls printed and got it filled up in the forged names and forged PPOs by Ajaj Hussain Rizvi on payment itself amounts to participation in making forged documents. Further, Yugal Kishore Sinha having filled up and signed descriptive roles and forwarding letters in the imaginary names of Military Officers by putting forged seal itself amount to forging false documents and then same documents have been processed in the Treasury Office and same having been processed in derive of the instruction issued by the Treasury Officer and Upper Division Clerk and cheques have been issued under fake names having been received by the appellants with signature in change names for concealing their identity and getting said cheques encashed by opening account in the forged names concealing their identity and withdrawing the amount, these evidences are taken together it is apparent that all the appellants are guilty for forging documents.
35. Hence from the act alleged, evidence adduced by the prosecution it is manifest that all the appellants by their act of commission and omission acted in manner contributing to achieve one goal, though, their act may vary but indicating the achievement of same goal indicate their agreement and the meeting of mind of all appellants in doing illegal act and this illegal acts itself apparent have form a chain of circumstance which has one and only conclusion 42 indicating their agreement between them with only conclusion of their guilt in total exclusion to any other theory of their having been innocence. It is true that there is no direct evidence regarding meeting of mind, but circumstance proved is sufficient enough to draw inference that chain of circumstance have been proved beyond reasonable doubt regarding implication of the appellants leaving any doubt or any theory except their guilt and from the circumstance, it can well be inferred that the act was done in agreement of the appellants which has one goal.
36. Taking into consideration the chain circumstances proved that the format of PPO, descriptive roll printed. It was printed by forged name, the seal on the document is forged, the signature on document forged. The photograph pasted in forged name and forged signature with changed identification signature made and then the same got process to get the cheque issued and the cheque received by impostors in changed name and was encahsed by opening account in changed name, so it is apparent that each of the circumstances pointed out has been established by cogent reliable and unimpeachable evidence. Each circumstance points to the guilt of the accused. The circumstance shows that the PPOs, descriptive rolls and forwarding letters were forged by all the appellants in collusion and conspiracy in agreement between the appellants except Kalu Ram Rajak, Kishori Lal Rajore and Sohan Lal Jain who after process got the said forged 43 PPOs, descriptive rolls procured successfully in collusion with other appellants without properly verification and finally got cheque on the basis of forged document in forged names, and giving their identification approved, contributed in opening account in forged names and U.D.C. Clerk, Kallu Ram Rajak and Sohan Lal Jain, Treasury Officer got account open in their forged names with their signatures in forged names and hence they have contributed in committed forgery by opening account in forged name and on the basis of forged document induced the Bank and Government to withdraw amount to cheat to attract under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 419 I.P.C. and further the chain of circumstance proved that chain of circumstance points to the guilt of the accused leaving behind any hypothesis of the innocence of the appellants. The evidence against Dinesh Kumar Sharma to he kingpin having got the forged document filled by him and Yugal Kishore Sinha forged the PPO in the imaginary name of Military Officer. It has well settled in decision reported in 2011(4) PLJR (SC) 287 where it has been held that where there is enough evidence to furnish reasonable ground to believe that appellants have conspired together for committing offence relying upon decision reported in 2011 PLJR (SC) page 287 and when exception has been covered under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
37. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the agreement between the parties to do the offence is sine qua non for 44 prosecution and the prosecution must prove that there was agreement between the party and has relied upon the decision reported in 2008 (10) SCC 397 and 2007(3) SCC 334 for the said proposition. However, it is true that agreement to commit offence is sine quo non to prove conspiracy. However, it is matter of common experience and well settle that the conspiracy is an act of privacy and secrecy and are not hatched up in open. So direct evidences are seldom available and it is not possible to give affirmative evidence. Hence the circumstances proved can be taken into consideration. In decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants reported in 2011 (4) PLJR (SC) 287 did take into consideration the decision reported in 2001 (1) SCC 378 Saju V State of Kerala held exception has been carved out under Section 10 of the Evidence Act in case of conspiracy holding attract the applicability of Section 10 i.e. action of one used against other, the Court must have reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons contributed together for committing offence. The decision reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 287 take into consideration the decision relied upon by the appellants reported in 2008 (10) SCC 397 and 2007(3) SCC 334 and hence there is no merit in the submission. However, Section 3 of the Evidence Act define proof as the bundle of fact proved on the basis of which a logical conclusion can be drawn about the guilt. From the evidence adduced, it can well be inferred that the appellants in collusion forged the PPO, descriptive 45 Roll and forwarding letter on the basis of which the accused in Treasury office processed and issued cheque without properly verification in defiance of rule identified them and cheque issued were encashed by opening account in forged name established the offence and on those evidence a logical conclusion can well be drawn. Hence taking into consideration the evidence and circumstance, it is established that there is sufficient evidence that appellants manufactured forged document by forged signature in forged names and produced to withdraw the cheque on the basis of the those documents and encahsed the cheque by opening account in forged names, in the act the appellants play different role with one intention to illegal gain to the appellants and illegal loss to State and hence can well be concluded that appellants acted in agreement between them to commit offence.
38. Learned counsel for the appellants however contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove charges has not been properly asked, hence non-compliance of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has been asserted that accused was not given opportunity to explain and so whole trial is vitiated as the appellants did not get any chance to explain the circumstance and has relied upon decision reported in 2011(2) (SCC) 206/ 2011, Cr. Law Journal 3931. Though, objection has been raised at this stage that question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been properly asked and some of the 46 circumstances relied upon brought in evidence has not been put in examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hence that part be not taken for consideration. From perusal of the lower court record it is apparent that on behalf of accused persons no objection was raised at the stage of examination in trial court. Further during argument also no explanation has been given about the accused as regard circumstance which has been established against them even when during the argument nothing indicate as what prejudice has been caused to them in the entire argument and they raise the issue for non- examination of the accused, but even not provided any explanation as to what prejudice has been caused to them and what explanation they have in regard to those part of the evidence which was not brought to their notice for explanation and the prejudice so caused to them. It is relevant to quote part of a passage quoted reported in A.I.R. 1973 SC 2262 2011 SC 1769 (Satyavir Singh Rathi V State through C.B.I. "It is trite law, nevertheless fundamental, that the prisoner‟s attention should be drawn to every inculpatory material so as to enable him to explain it. This is the basis fairness of a criminal trial and failures in this area may gravely imperil the validity of the trial itself, if consequential miscarriage of justice has flowed. However, where such an omission has occurred it does not ipso facto vitiate the proceedings and prejudice occasioned by such defect must be 47 established by the accused. In the event of an evidentiary material not being put to the accused, the court must ordinarily exchew such material from consideration.
It is also open to the appellate court to call upon the counsel for the accused to show what explanation the accused has as regards the circumstances established against him but not put to him and if the accused is unable to offer the appellate court any plausible or reasonable explanation of such circumstances, the court may assure that no acceptable answer exists and that even if the accused had been questioned at the proper time in the trial court he would not have been able to furnished any ground"
39. However the circumstance that P.W.5 gave in evidence that he snapped the photograph of each appellant whose pair photograph has been pasted on descriptive rolls and has proved the photograph snapped by him and there is no cross-examination to challenge the same identifying this identification by photograph and implication by committing the act of caesarian the document in the name of other persons with their photographs itself established their guilt when the specimen signature tally with their signatures in forged names with their photograph on the document.
40. Learned counsel for the appellants has further raised 48 issue that conviction on the basis of this identification on expert opinion about the signature on questioned document and specimen signature taken by Investigating Officer is not proper. However, it is pertinent to mention that facts and circumstances of the case the documents were typed by typewriter of P.W. 7. The implication of Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the kingpin, Yugal Kishore Sinha, Virendra Kishore Singh has been established by the evidence of P.W. 7, P.W. 40 who have identified Yugal Kishore Sinha mand Virendra Kishore Singh, though, identification by P.W. 40 of Virendra Kishore Singh is on the basis of photograph. Moreover, P.W. 5 Madan Mian has stated that he snapped photographs of the appellants brought by Virendra Kishore Singh and after taking photographs with photograph of unknown lady he prepared pair photographs and same was pasted on the descriptive rolls which has been proved as Exhibit-4 series. In his evidence P.W. 5, has specifically asserted that he snapped photographs of the appellants and has proved photographs of the appellants which have been marked as Exhibits 4 series, the signature of the appellants have been taken on the descriptive roles and their signatures stand tally with the specimen signature taken by Investigating Officer. The Signature taken also tally with their signature on descriptive roll as well as on the account opening form and other relevant documents to encash the cheque issued on the basis of forged document and withdrawal of the amount by signature in 49 forged document.
41. Further signature of the persons on the descriptive roles, signature of the persons on pension register as well as on corresponding BTR register and thereafter, cheque issued having been received having registered in the BTR and their signature while opening account in account opening form and specimen signature form as well as withdrawal form having been tallied with their specimen signature. Hence fact of identification is followed with their signature on the descriptive roles, pension register, BTR register, account opening form and withdrawal form itself indicates their identity.
42. However, typing alleged to have been made on the descriptive rolls and forwarding letters on the typewriter of P.W.7. However, specimen signature on the typewriter was taken and same was sent to the expert for verification of the typing on the PPOs and forwarding letters and was found to be tallied with the report of GEQD that specimen typing of typewriter of P.W. 7, typing on the PPOs and forwarding letters was found to be of same typewriter.
43. In the decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 336 the Constitution Bench considered the decision reported in AIR 1952 SC 343 when question rose that letter not typed by typewriter, he held expert opinion not admissible in evidence and the Constitution Bench overruled the decision report in AIR 1952 SC 343 holding that; 50
" There cannot be any doubt that the opinion of an expert in typewritings about the questioned typed document being typed on a particular typewriter is based on a scientific study of the typewriting with reference to the significant peculiar features of a particular typewriter and the ultimate opinion of the expert is based on scientific grounds. The opinion of a typewriter expert in an opinion of a person specially skilled in that branch of the science with reference to which the court has to form an opinion on the point involved for decision in the case. In our opinion, on a plain construction of Section 45 giving to the word „science‟ used therein its natural meaning, this conclusion is inevitable; and for supporting that conclusion, it is not necessary to rely on the further reason that the word „handwriting‟ in Section 45 would also include typewriting".
44. Though, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decision reported in 1980 Cr. Law Journal 396 for the assertion that it is not proper to relying on the expert opinion as sole basis for conviction instead of helping the appellants are against them and it relevant to quote part of conclusion 51 paragraph 4 and 6........
"4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is reliable witnesses---the equality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses---- but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, take of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science 52 of identification of finger prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence.
6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person „specially skilled‟ in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitle the court to 53 presume that an accomplice, is unworthy for credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert‟s opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells up that „ a fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon supposition that it exists‟. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the Evidence Act lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an 54 handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a hand writing expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it."
45. Hence the decision reported and relied by the appellants is not in term that expert opinion invariably cannot be relied unless corroborated in material particular but it depends upon fact of the case to insist on corroboration expert opinion or not. The expression proof under Section 3 of the Evidence Act is only to the extent if on the evidence adduced a conclusion of the fact earn reasonably so taken if can be sent to have been proved.
46. However, taking into consideration the fact that identification of the appellants are on the basis of their identification by photographer P.W. 5 who have stated that he snapped photographs of the appellants has proved photographs of the persons to whom he snapped and signatures of these appellants on the question document 55 which has been forged in their false names and the specimen signature tally with signatures on those documents in their false names as stated above signed at different stage as in descriptive roll, PPO Register, BTR Register, Account opening form and other documents in bank etc. and hence identification of the appellants can well be said to have been proved to have been identified. The identification of the photographs, Exhibit- 4 series by P.W. 5 and their specimen signatures having tallied with the signatures on the said document and corresponding signatures on PPO Register, BTR Register and Accounting Opening Form for which cheque issued, a logical conclusion can well be drawn for the implication on the logical basis to prove the guilt and the participation in crime.
47. The next question raised that prosecution sanction against Sohan Lal Jain has not been proved by proper authority as the Law Department is not proper authority to give prosecution sanction and has been placed reliance on decision reported in 2012(3) PLJR, 424, the decision of this Hon‟ble Court in which it has been held that sanction issued by the Law Department with respect to person was an employee of the Social Welfare Department and since sanction is not by departmental who is appropriate authority sanction is not valid as the Law Department was not competent authority in that regard. It has further been contended that grant of proper sanction by competent authority is sine qua non for taking cognizance and reliance placed on 56 decision reported in 2006 (7) SCC 172 and 2005 (8) SCC 370.
48. However, learned counsel for the State relied upon decision reported in 2014 AIR (SC) 1674 where it has been held that when sanction for prosecution granted by the Law Department of the State and not by parent department even then assuming Law Department was not competent and sanction order invalid, even then criminal trial and the judgment, order and conviction is not vitiated in view of provision contained in sub-section 3 and 4 of Section 19 of PC Act and Section 465 of Cr.P.C. where it has been held that until prejudice has been shown to have caused to the appellants, order passed by the Special Judge shall not be reversed or altered. Reliance has been placed upon decision reported in 2014 (SC 1674). Reliance has also been paced on the decision reported in 2006(7) SCC page 172 where it has been held the sanction for prosecution granted by a person not authorised by law is without jurisdiction would be a nullity when there is nothing to show he was delegated with the power of sanction, the power to grant of sanction was vitiated in law. However, from the said decision it is proper to quote paragraph 20 and 21 where it has been taken into consideration and held that;
" 20. The courts are obliged to go into the question of prejudice of the accused when the main investigation is concluded without a valid sanction.
21. It is true that only on the basis of the illegal 57 investigation a proceeding may not be quashed unless miscarriage of justice is shown and upheld that noticed that respondent had suffered miscarriage of justice as the investigation made as the investigation was not fair."
49. Hence decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants also take notice of the fact that question of prejudice is required to be looked into while considering the quashing of prosecution on the ground of sanction not granted by authorised person.
50. The decision reported in 2014 (SC) page 1674 and decision reported in 2009 (15) page 533 decision reported in 2006 PLJR SC. 73 hold that order of conviction and sentence cannot be quashed merely on the ground that sanction has not been properly taken but the question required to be taken into consideration whether it has caused prejudice to the accused persons. However the appellants have not shown that prejudice has been caused.
51. However, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that had the department considered the sanction may in its wisdom had exonerated and may not have granted sanction. However, the submission made is only on supposition, though, in same matter the Joint Secretary lent the sanction for prosecution granted.
52. The learned counsel for the appellant Sohan Lal Jain, 58 Kallu Ram Rajak and Kishori Lal Rajori submitted that the these appellants did whatever has been done in discharge of official duty and there is no evidence either they were in agreement with the other accused nor there is any evidence that they did any act to constitute a crime. The signing on the PPOs and processing the PPOs, forwarding letter and descriptive roll were part of their official duty. They had only to verify whether the signature made on the descriptive roll were the signature of the person whose pair photographs was pasted on it. Since the photograph of the appellants on descriptive roll tallied with the person present for verification of whose signatures were verified after taking their signature in PPO Register and BTR Register. Since the name mentioned in the descriptive roll having their photograph and signature on it then their photograph and signature tallied with the person present and his signature in changed name verified and so it was ordered to prepare bill and issue cheque. Hence there is no evidence either of committing any crime nor to have this appellant in agreement with other accused persons.
53. The learned counsel for Kishori lal Rajori submits that his duty was to issue cheque after order passed by Treasury Officer verifying the person to issue cheque to person in whose name PPOs received ordered by Treasury Officer after verification of the signature of appellant on descriptive roll. It has further been contended that P.W.6 in his evidence has stated that all the 20 PPOs have been issued 59 from his office and the PPOs of these number has mechanically been prepared from CDA office. Hence submitted that when PPOs were issued by CDA office then if the same processed in Sagar Treasury, there is nothing wrong that authority issued cheque on the basis of forged PPO sent by CDA office. It is further submitted in paragraph 24 of evidence of P.W. 14, it is stated that the letter dated 08. 12. 1993 marked Y has been shown for the first time was sent from CDA, Allahabad to Sagar Treasury by which T.O. was asked to take precaution and the said letter is of a subsequent date to the date of occurrence.
54. However, the submission made by the learned counsel is without on merit. The submissions made are in two parts. Firstly, the work was done in discharge of official duty and they verified only the sign with the photograph of person whose photograph pasted on it and if the appellant had his photograph in change name and signature made in changed name it could not be ascertain they are not at fault. However, the argument made appear to be lucrative and acceptable in its first instance. But going into the document, it is apparent that photographs pasted on the descriptive roll Exhibit- 4 series of all the appellants are apparently appears to have been photograph by joining the two photograph and on face of it appears to be objectionable and require to have been objected at the time of verification and proper strict verification required to be held. The PPOs received were not 60 signed in pen and only seal of signature was not objected. The PPO received in the name of person was required to have been identified by a pensioner who is well known to the person in whose name PPO was issued but the same was not observed while verifying the identification. The PPOs apparently signed in seal without any signature of any authority in pen and ink. The cheques were ordered to be issued in heavy haste without proper verification and proper identification and verifying the signature of the authority require to issue the PPOs.
55. The name of office from which descriptive roll and forwarding letter issued as Army Supply Corps, Bangalore, but no Crops like Army Supply Corps, Bangalore, but it is Army Service Corp Supply and various inherent infirmity in the two forged documents were overlooked at the time of verification of the documents. The P.W.9 has specifically has deposed that the Treasury office require to see the format of PPOs and see whether signed in pen and ink by the authorities and Treasury Officer has overlooked the inherent infirmities focused in it. The payment was made on the basis of Pension Certificate Copy instead of Pension Disbursing Officer (PDO) copy instead of signature in pen it is only signature in stamp pad. The seal are different. The expenses of pension payment civil estimate require to be deleted, where as it shown as service estimate and the Pension Payment Officer has not mentioned the proof of his 61 identification before person who is well known. He has prove the notification dated 17.12.1992 marked as Exhibit-9 the specimen signature of the authority issuing PPOs for verification of the signature marked as Exhibit 9/1, but the signature was never verified and further from perusal of the descriptive roll and the payment, it is apparent that said PPO and related document processed in heavy haste in some case within a day or within a couple of days. Hence from the evidence, it is apparent that while processing the PPO, the Upper Division Clerk and Treasury Officer ignored to observe the document properly. It is true there is no direct evidence of agreement to do illegal act, but the manner in which the duties ignored a reasonable conclusion be drawn regarding their implication in permeating their laches to the success of the end design to be in agreement with the other accused persons. However, the submission that paragraph 3 of P.W.6 that the PPO issued from CDA Office, Allahabad, is only reading a line in evidence in isolation. The P.W. 6 itself has stated in his evidence in same paragraph that 26 PPOs were forged. He is Accountant in CDA Office and has stated that he has not sent these 20 forged PPOs. He has further stated that he did not enquire that these PPOs were dispatched from Dispatch Section, there is no infirmity in Dispatch Section of CDA and further P.W.9 is the Upper Division Clerk of CDA Office, Allahabad, has stated that these 20 PPOs are forged which have not been issued from his office and it requires to be 62 signed in pen and ink by Issuing Officer and hence the submission that the PPOs issued from PPO Office is devoid of any merit.
56. It is true that there is no direct evidence of conspiracy but going to the act and infirmities found in the PPO, descriptive roll on face of it was processed without objection and process adopted in verification of signature and photograph attached verified in heavy haste giving the certificate of identification promoting them in their illegal act ignoring the inherent defect in PPOs, Descriptive roll that a reasonable conclusion be drawn of their agreement and nexus in crime. There is no doubt about the lapse on the part of the authorities in their duty for identification that requires to be identification by person who is known to them since long has also been ignored. This indicates nexus between the prime accused and the Treasury Officer and their Upper Division Clerk. The requirement to proof for criminal charge is proof beyond reasonable doubt and the mens rea. It is submitted that lapse on the part of accused Sohan Lal Jain, Kishori Lal Rajori and Kallu Ram Rajak is only lapse on their part not properly scanning the same which can be a dereliction of duty. However, if the entire fact taken into consideration is one whole that manner in which PPOs processed indicates the hands of Sohan Lal Jain, Kishori Lal Rajori and Kallu Ram Rajak in agreement with other accused in verifying the identity of the appellants in fake names and opening the account on the basis of identification by Treasury Officer. 63
57. However, from the entire evidence there is nothing has been shown that appellants have got any prejudice in the matter. Taking into consideration the entire evidence nothing has been brought to the notice of the Court that what prejudice has been caused to the appellants for irregularities in obtain sanction and prejudice for defect in recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
58 . Hence I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in appeals. Hence all the appeals are dismissed.
(Gopal Prasad, J) Patna High Court.
The.22 October,2014 NAFR/m.p.
U T