Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Priti Chakravarty on 19 December, 2012
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)6,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CC No. 42/12 (Old CC No. 33/11)
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND
U/S 409 IPC and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) of PC Act
CBI vs. Priti Chakravarty
Unique ID No. : 02403R0424822009
Central Bureau of Investigation
vs.
Priti Chakravarty W/o Sh. Gautam Chakravarty,
R/o C603, Panchsheel Apartments, Plot 24, Sector 4,
Dwarka, PhaseI, New Delhi
Date of FIR : 07/11/2008
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 17/12/2009
Arguments heard on : 06/12/2012
Date of Judgment : 19/12/2012
Appearances
For prosecution : Sh Anil Tanwar, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI.
For accused : Sh Jagdish Singh,Ld. Counsel for accused
JUDGMENT
Factual matrix of the prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The case of CBI is that the accused Priti Chakravarty was posted as AccountantcumCashier in the Old External Affairs Hostel RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 1/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty (herein after referred as 'OEAH') of the Ministry of External Affairs, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, during the period March 2003 to May 2007 which hostel consisted of several residential suites having an average occupancy rate of 80% and realizing licence fees of about Rs 1,20,000/ per month. On finding discrepancies in the maintenance of cash and account records, special inspection was conducted on 14 th, 15th and 18th of June, 2007 by audit team/officers of MEA. It was revealed that there was a short fall in the deposit of cash with the concerned bank, RBI and the audit revealed that as against the amount of licence fee/rent that was collected by accused Priti Chakravarty, a sum of Rs 1,26,849/ have been allegedly criminally misappropriated by the accused Priti Chakravarty during the period 2003 to 2007. Investigation also revealed that accused being the AccountantcumCashier used to receive the rent/licence fee from the occupants in the OEAH, issue receipts, prepare bills and challans for deposit of cash and enter the cash deposits into the cash books. The accused was arraigned for commission of offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed by the investigating agency on 17/12/2009. The cognizance of the case was taken by my Ld. Predecessor on 15/01/2010 and accused was summoned. On appearance accused was enlarged on bail.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 2/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
3. Requirements under Section 207 Cr.P.C were complied with.
CHARGES
4. In terms of order of charge dated 10/05/2011 of my Ld. Predecessor, charge for offences under (1) Section 409 IPC and (2) Section 13 (1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed against accused Priti Chakravarty to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To connect the accused with the offences charged, prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses namely Sh Vinod Pandey (PW1); Sh Narender Sharma (PW2); Sh K.C. Gautam (PW3); Sh Dhyan Chand Barthwal (PW4); Sh Vijay Khanduja (PW5); Sh Sant Ram Yadav(PW6); Sh S. Satish Kumar (PW7); Sh. R.K. Tyagi (PW8); Sh Surender Nath Sharma (PW9); Sh Vinod Kumar Sharma (PW10); Sh Mahender Kumar (PW11); Sh Tapender Singh (PW12); Inspector Hitender Adlakha (PW13); Dr. S. Ahmed (PW14); Sh Devender Kumar (PW15); Sh D.K. Singh (PW16); Sh Anil Kumar Matta (PW17) and IO/Inspector Sapna Duggal (PW18).
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 3/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. Thereafter accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. All incriminating material in evidence was put to the accused. Accused pleaded innocence and false implication and further stated that only the DDO was the over all Incharge of the Hostel Affairs and she was only subordinate as AccountantcumCashier; she was never the Incharge of the Hostel. Accused Priti Chakravarty further stated that she never went to the bank for deposit of cash collected by her from the guests against receipt and the cash collected by other staff in her absence was not handed to her (accused Priti Chakravarty) but was handed over to DDO by such staff. Accused Priti Chakravarty further stated that she had received the cash from the guests, issued receipts, prepared the challans and signed on the same on behalf of the Administrative Officer / DDO under his instructions for authentication purposes. Accused further stated that cash receipts nos. 36722,36874,36875,36915, 37195, 37367, 37662, 37663, 37797, 37798, 39206, 39210, 39211, 39215 to 39220, 39222 to 39236, 39238, 39239, 39275, 39276, 39279 and 39287 were not in her writings, while rest of the stated cash receipts were in her writings. Accused also stated that all the records including Cash Receipt Books, Cash Books were maintained and kept in the custody of Administrative Officer / DDO; she never sent the challans for being deposited in the bank but it was the AO / DDO, who used to do it and had authority to do so; she never reconciled the accounts as alleged, since it was the duty of the AO / DDO to reconcile the accounts with the RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 4/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty bank statement of accounts as per Receipts and Payments Rules 1983 and to send the report to Controller of Accounts, MEA. Accused Priti Chakravarty further stated that under the rules, it was the statutory duty of the AO / DDO to check the accounts and the entries in the accounts book; she never went to the bank to deposit the cash against the challans and it was the duty of the AO / DDO to depute some messenger to deposit the cash in the bank; it was the sole duty of the AO / DDO to put the seal on the challans as the same had been always in his custody. Accused Priti Chakravarty admitted that she had issued the cash receipt in duplicate for a sum of Rs. 45,441/ after receiving cash from Sh. Dhyan Chand Barthwal in his favour and gave him the original receipt and the duplicate receipt, which is a carbon copy, is retained in the receipt book. Accused Priti Chakravarty further stated that after receiving the cash, she prepared the cash challan for aforesaid sum and handed over the cash challan to the AO / DDO for authentication and for deputing some messenger for depositing the same in the bank and also handed over the amount of Rs. 45,441/ to AO / DDO; she never made entry with regard to cheque or the bank as now appear in the duplicate receipt as alleged. Accused stated that this interpolation took place at the level of the AO / DDO, who it seems had destroyed the challan and got the entry of cheque number and bank manipulated; this forgery was done deliberately by the AO / DDO to defame accused Priti Chakravarty and to put the blame on her; specimen signatures and writings were taken from her by the IO. Accused Priti Chakravarty further stated that she RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 5/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty was victim of criminal conspiracy hatched by AO / DDO and other staff with ulterior motives.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7. Accused entered into her defence and examined herself under Section 315 Cr.P.C as DW1 and Sh B.N. Srivastava, Private Handwriting Expert as DW2.
ARGUMENTS
8. I have heard the arguments of Sh Anil Tanwar, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI, Sh Jagdish Singh, Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused and have perused the record including the evidence led and given my thoughts to the rival contentions put forth.
9. Ld. PP for CBI argued that accused was the sole Accountant cum Cashier in OEAH, had received the cash against receipts proved on record but did not deposit the same with the concerned bank as per her duties and instead misappropriated sum of Rs. 1,26,849/ to own use and no cogent evidence has been led in defence to prove that such amount collected was given to the DDO at any moment of time, while the prosecution witnesses have testified to the fact that the challans in question were not deposited in the accredited bank. Also was argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt for committing the criminal breach of trust as a public RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 6/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty servant and also having committed the criminal misconduct. Ld. PP for CBI has prayed for conviction of the accused for the charges framed accordingly.
10. Ld. Defence Counsel in his written arguments as well as oral arguments asserted that the accused is a simple lady with mild manners and duped by her superiors and supporting (subordinate) staff. Also has been argued that it was not part of duty of accused to go to the bank to deposit cash against cash challans, while in terms of Rule 13 of the Receipts and Payments Rules, 1983, it was ultimate responsibility of the DDO for the proper maintenance and accuracy of accounts, said DDO was required to check and initial the Rent Cash Book and Main Cash Book on daily basis as well as to authenticate the cash challans and to depute someone from the lower staff to deposit the cash amount in the accredited bank and to check the said challans after deposit of cash in the bank with the entries in the Cash Book(s). Also was argued that it was statutory duty of the DDO to reconcile the accounts as per the Bank Statement of Account with the entries in the Rent Cash Book/Main Cash Book and to record a signed and dated certificate about the correctness of the accounts. Also was argued that the accused as Accountant cum Cashier was diligent, dedicated and prepared bills, received cash payments, made entries in the Rent Cash Book/Main Cash Book, prepared challans in triplicate, submitted such challans for authentication to AO/DDO, also handed over the requisite cash amount RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 7/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty to DDO for deputing someone from the lower staff for depositing the cash in the bank, upon which the duty of accused as Accountant cum Cashier ceased and she was no more concerned with the handling of such cash further; the challans through which the cash was deposited were retained by the AO/DDO after the same were handed over to him by peon concerned and these challans were never passed on to the accused. It was also argued that accused subordinate to DDO worked under the control and according to instructions of the DDO. Also was argued that the sanction accorded by PW8 was bad in law as it was accorded as Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and PW8 was not the Central Government for the purposes of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Also was argued that the opinion/report of GEQD does not present the true and correct position and is misleading. It was also argued that the IO only referred the cash receipt no. 39259, dated 07/02/07 of Rs 45441/ issued to Sh Dhyan Chand Bharthwal to the GEQD for examination and comparison of the disputed figures and writings in the cash receipt with the admitted/specimen figures and writings but did not refer 33 challans to the GEQD for examination and comparison of the figures and writings in the Bank's Rubber Stamp/Seal affixed on the challans with the admitted figures and writings in those challans for the reasons best known to IO. Even the figures and writings in the portion within the Bank Rubber Stamp/Seals in the 33 challans were not in the writings of accused, as testified by private handwriting expert DW2 Sh B.N. Sirivastava, but were forged by RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 8/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty someone else. It was also argued that accused never went to bank to deposit cash against cash challans but one of the peons namely Om Parkash, Gurcharan Singh, Babu Lal and Rajesh was deputed by AO/DDO to deposit the cash against cash challans in the bank. It was also argued that the investigation was farce, unfair, biased, tainted and sham which was so conducted only to shield AO/DDO for entire embezzlement. Also was argued that since provisions of Special Law prevailed over the provisions of General Law, so the offence alleged under Section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would prevail over the offence alleged under Section 409 IPC and the trial held against the accused is to be deemed to have been held for offence under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act only and not under Section 409 IPC, since these two provisions are similar in nature having similar ingredients though couched in different phraseology. Ld. Counsel for accused relied upon the cases of (1) The State vs Gurcharan Singh, 1951 (Vol. LIII) PLR 198; (2) Madhusudan Singh & Anr. vs State of Bihar, AIR 1995 SC 1437; (3) Dilawar Singh vs. Parvinder Singh @ Iqbal Singh & Anr., VIII (2005) SLT 556 (SC). Ld. Counsel for accused has prayed for acquittal of the accused accordingly.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 9/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
RELEVANT LAW
11. Section 409 IPC & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides as under:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do."
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for punishment to the public servant found guilty of misconduct.
Section 409 of IPC reads as under:
"409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property,shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine"
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 10/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
12. The necessary ingredients of Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are:
1. The accused must be public servant;
2. Entrustment of property to accused; and,
3. Dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation or conversion for his own use of any such property by accused.
13. The necessary ingredients of Sec. 409 IPC are as under:
1. The accused must be a public servant;
2. He must have been entrusted in such capacity the property; and,
3. He must have committed the breach of trust in respect of such property.
14. The perusal of Sec.13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 409 IPC indicates the similarity between the two.
This question came up for discussion before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs. State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 458, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was confronted with the question that whether Sec. 409 IPC in so far as it applies to the public servant, has been impliedly repealed by the enactment of Sec. 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 equivalent to Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The Apex Court also dealt with the question assuming that there was no such implied repeal, would the application of Sec 409 IPC to a public servant infringe Article 14 of the Constitution, in view of the fact that the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and procedure laid down there under are available to deal with the breach RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 11/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty of trust by a public servant. The Supreme Court held that a clear comparison and contrast of the different elements constituting the two offences would show that an offence u/s 405 IPC is separate and distinct from the one u/s 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. In Om Prakash Gupta's case, the Constitution Bench spelled out the distinction in Section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 equivalent to Section 13(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and 405 IPC. It was noted that under Prevention of Corruption Act, the gist of the offence can also be made out if the offender allows another person to dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriate or otherwise convert for his own use any property so entrusted. Also was held that Section 5(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, equivalent to Section 13(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, creates a new offence called "criminal misconduct" and cannot by implication displace the offence under section 405 of Indian Penal Code. Also was held that the view taken by the Punjab High Court in Case of State vs. Gurcharan Singh (Supra) (relied by Ld. Defence Counsel) was not sound.
15. Similarly, in State of MP vs. Veereshwar Rao Agnihotri, AIR 1957 SC 592, the Supreme Court held that the offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is not identical in essence, import and content with an offence u/s 409 of the Penal Code. If we read Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 12/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty 1988 and Sec. 409 of IPC, it would indicate that the concept of mensrea is enlarged for the purpose of Sec.13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under section 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the omission may be dishonest or fraudulent. The word "fraudulent" does not find place in Sec. 405 of IPC. The words "dishonest and fraudulently" connote two different things. The elements which make an act fraudulent are deceit or intention to deceit and in some cases mere secrecy. In case intention to deceive and secrecy are missing, the act may be dishonest but may not come within the purview of fraudulent. Thus, Sec.409 of IPC and Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 are distinct offences. Perusal of Sec. 13(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 would indicate that the offence laid down therein is equivalent to embezzlement. In English law, the embezzlement is complete if the property has been received by the accused for or in the name or on account of the master or employer and the accused fraudulently misappropriates that property. The essence of the offence of criminal misappropriation is that the property of another person comes into the possession of the accused in some neutral manner and has been misappropriated or converted to his own use by the accused. The offence consists dishonest misappropriation or conversion.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
16. PW17 Anil Kumar Matta deposed that he was posted as RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 13/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Administrative Officer at Old External Affairs Hostel (OEAH), K.G. Marg, New Delhi since 28.04.2003 till 29.03.04, wherein his duties were inter alia for management of establishment of said hostel as DDO. PW17 further stated that he used to inter alia check the Cash Book and Rent Cash Book and counter sign them after the entries were made therein by the accountant. PW17 further stated that when, he (PW17) had joined the aforesaid office, accused Priti Chakraworty was an accountant in their office and he (PW17) was conversant with the writing and signatures of accused Priti Chakraworty as he had seen accused writing and signing in the course of his duties.
17. PW2 Sh Narender Sharma deposed that he was posted as Administrative Officer in Old External Affairs Hostel (OEAH) at Curzon Road, New Delhi, also designated as a DDO for the same with effect from 27/08/2007 till 06/01/2009. PW2 further stated that Ministry of External Affairs had been running two hostels one at R.K Ashram Marg, Gole Market in the name of New External Affairs Hostel (NEAH) and other one in the name of Old External Affairs Hostel (OEAH) at Curzon Road, New Delhi and there were about 90 rooms in the OEAH at Curzon Road, New Delhi and these used to be allotted to the officers of the rank of Deputy Secretary and above working in the Ministry of External Affairs; the allotment orders used to be received from the Housing Section MEA, Akbar Road, New Delhi; on receipt of allotment order, the concerned officer/ guest was supposed to make any entry in RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 14/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty the guest register maintained at the hostel and occupy the room allotted; on checking out, the guest/officer was supposed to make an entry in the guest register and make payment of rental/licence charges by cheque; the rental/licence charges used to be paid in cash also prior to June 2007 i.e before joining of Sh Narender Sharma (PW2); the necessary entries used to be made in the cash book by the cashier concerned; in case of default by any officer in making payment of rental/licence charges by cash or cheque, the matter was then taken up with the Administration Department of MEA as well as with the Joint Secretary (Establishment) MEA.
18. PW10 Sh Vinod Kumar Sharma deposed that during the period 200405, he (PW10) was posted as Administrative Officer at OEAH, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi and was also Incharge of the administrative affairs for the Old Hostel as well as the New External Affairs Hostel at R.K Ashram Marg, New Delhi. PW10 further stated that regarding cash matter received from the guests/occupants, accused Priti Chakravarty posted as Cashier/Accountant was over all responsible; generally speaking, at the time of vacation of hostel, the guests/occupants were supposed to deposit the rent and other miscellaneous charges with the reception and during the office hours from 9 am to 5.30 pm accused Priti Chakravarty was responsible to receive the cash and in token of acknowledgment of the amount to issue the receipts. PW10 further stated that if any guest was vacating RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 15/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty beyond office hours, then such guest was supposed to make the payment of rent/licence charges etc. to whomsoever present at the reception counter and accordingly the official receiving the cash was supposed to issue the receipts. PW10 further stated that similarly in the absence of accused Priti Chakravarty on account of leave or being busy in some other work in the department or in her absence during the time accused was visiting the bank, some assigning clerk with accused or whosoever was on duty at the reception was supposed to receive the cash and issue receipts; many times due to shortage of staff, even ClassIII or ClassIV employees used to receive the cheques/cash and issue receipts in the absence of accused Priti Chakravarty; however, the entries in regard to receipt of cash or cheque from the guests by whomsoever collected in presence of accused or in the absence of accused, was mandated to be written by accused; accused was supposed to deposit the cash so collected from the guests on regular basis with the bank concerned i.e RBI. PW10 also stated that ordinarily somebody or the other used to accompany the accused for deposit of cash with the RBI and even Class IV employee used to be sent. PW10 also stated that as per him (PW10), Rule 13 (v) of Receipts and Payments Rules, 1983 provides that the authentication of the accounts had to be done by the DDO.
19. PW9 Sh Surender Nath Sharma deposed that during May, 2009 he (PW9) was posted and functioning as Administrative Officer, Old External Affairs Hostel, K.G Marg, New Delhi and during his (PW9) RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 16/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty tenure one Rajesh Sharma was also posted as UDCcumAccountant and he (PW9) had asked said Sh Rajesh Sharma to submit to him (PW9) a report regarding irregularities committed with reference to cash matter and in compliance thereof said Rajesh Sharma had submitted to him (PW9) a copy of the report Ex PW9/B which was earlier prepared by him on 29/05/2007 with forwarding letter Ex PW9/A of said Sh Rajesh Sharma; which documents were forwarded by him (PW9) to CBI, ACB, New Delhi on 11/05/2009 by letter Ex PW9/C.
20. PW17 Sh Anil Kumar Matta also deposed that Rent Cash Book (D25), Ex X/13 for the period 07/05/2003 to 05/01/2004 of OEAH, K.G Marg, on majority of pages bear his (PW17) initials and signatures of accused Priti Chakravarty at point B which accused had signed in his presence. PW17 further stated that Rent Cash Book (D
26), Ex X/14 for the period 05/01/2004 to 17/09/2004 of OEAH, K.G. Marg on pages 1 to 35 till date 29/03/2004 bear his initials at point A and the entries therein were written by accused Priti Chakravarty. PW17 also stated that he had identified writings of accused on Rent Cash Book (D27), Ex X/15 for the period 17/09/2004 to 09/06/2006. PW17 further stated that in Rent Cash Books Ex X13 to Ex X15 (D25 to D27) the rent collected by the Cashier was accounted/entered for the purpose of book keeping in the ordinary course of business by the one who used to collect cash / cheque from the guest in the hostel.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 17/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
21. PW17 further stated that the Challans (D11) Ex PW17/A1 to Ex PW17/A33 (also Mark X1 to X33) bear signatures of accused at point A which were identified by him (PW17); which signatures were done by accused for and on behalf of Administrative Officer. PW17 also stated that Cash Receipt Books i.e., (1) (D14) Ex PW17/B1 (Mark X/1) of OEAH contained cash receipts issued by accused Priti Chakravarty excepting receipts nos. 36431, 36461, 36462, 36463, 36471, 36478 to 36500; (2) (D15) Ex PW17/B2 (Mark X/2) of OEAH contained cash receipts nos. 36538 to 36546, 36553 to 36586 issued by accused; (3) (D16) Ex PW17/B3 (Mark X/3) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 36602, 36603, 36615, 36629, 36630, 36632, 36639 to 36653, 36680 to 36684, 36691 to 36694 and 36700; (4) (D17) Ex PW17/B4 (Mark X/4) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 36709, 36720, 36723 to 36731, 36740 to 36752, 36775, 36779, 36797 to 36800; (5) (D18) Ex PW17/B5 (Mark X/5) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 36818, 36819, 36832, 36847 to 36858, 36889; (6) (D19) Ex PW17/B6 (Mark X/6) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 36905, 36924 to 36928, 36940 to 36944, 36951, 36954 to 36968, 36984, 36988, 36997; (7) (D
20) Ex PW17/B7 (Mark X/7) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 37101 to 37104, 37123 to 37137, 37139 to 37148, 37188; (8) (D21) Ex PW17/B8 ( Mark X/8) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 37208, RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 18/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty 37224, 37235, 37264 to 37267, 37274, 37275, 37287 to 37290; (9) (D
22) Ex PW17/B9 (Mark X/9) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 37324, 37325, 37328, 37377, 37378, 37399; (10) (D23) Ex PW17/B10 (Mark X/10) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos.37640 to 37651, 37666 to 37670, 37675; (11) (D24) Ex PW17/B11 (Mark X/11) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 37708, 37724, 37725, 37734 to 37739, 37754, 37755, 37783, 37791 and (12) (D29) Ex PW17/B12 ( Mark X/12) of OEAH contained the cash receipts issued by accused except receipt nos. 39201 to 39203, 39207 to 39209, 39212 to 39214, 39221, 39237, 39240 to 39256, 39263 to 39268, 39270 to 39274, 39277, 39278, 39288 to 39291, 39298 to 39300. PW 17 identified the writings and signatures of accused on the aforesaid receipts issued by accused.
22. The accused admitted that the receipts in Cash Receipt Books Ex PW17/B1 to B12 (Mark X1 to X12) (D14 to D24 and D29) were in regard to the rental / licence charges received from the guests /officers in the ordinary course of business and maintained accordingly.
23. PW17 also stated that the Cash Receipt Books were maintained and kept in the custody of accused Priti Chakravarty.
24. PW10 deposed that the Challans (D11) Mark X1 to X33 RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 19/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty (later Ex PW17/A1 to PW17/A33) were submitted with the bank for deposit of cash from time to time. PW10 deposed that Challans Mark X1 to X10 (later Ex PW17/A1 to A10) were bearing stamp impression of PW10 but were not bearing signatures of PW10; Challan Mark X11 (later Ex PW17/A11) was not bearing any stamp impression and signatures of PW10; Challans Mark X12 to X15 (later Ex PW17/A12 to A15) were bearing stamp of PW10 and appeared to be bearing his (PW10) signatures/initials but PW10 did not sign the same; Challan Mark X16 (later Ex PW17/A16) was bearing seal impression of PW10 which was super imposed with the seal of PW17 and appeared to have been signed by him (PW17) but PW10 could not identify the purported signatures of him (PW17); Challans Mark X17 (later Ex PW17/A17), Mark X18 (later Ex PW17/A18), Mark X29 (later Ex PW17/A29) and Mark X30 (later Ex PW17/A30) were bearing the stamp impression of Administrative officer and also bearing the initials which PW10 could not identify; Challans Mark X19 (later Ex PW17/A19) and Mark X28 (later Ex PW17/A28) were bearing the seal impression of PW17; Challans Mark X20 (later Ex PW17/A20), Mark X25 to X27 (later Ex PW17/A25 to A27) were not bearing any seal impression but the last three were initialed by some, which PW10 could not identify; Challans Mark X21 to X24 (later Ex PW17/A21 to A24), Mark X31 to X33 (later Ex PW17/A31 to A33) were bearing the seal impression of PW17 and appeared to have been initialed of someone but PW10 could not identify the said initials; Challans Mark X1 to X10 (later Ex PW17/A1 to A10) RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 20/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty appeared to have been made during tenure of PW10 and during which time accused Priti Chakravarty was also posted in the same office. PW17 also stated that the entries in the Rent Cash Book Mark X13 for the period 07/05/2003 to 02/01/04 and entries in the Rent Cash Book Mark X14 for the period 05/01/2004 to 17/09/2004 were used to be done by the one who used to collect the cash /cheque from the guests in the hostel.
25. PW10 deposed that the entries at points A to A at pages no. 56,57,58 (half portion), 92,97,98,100 and the last page Mark Y, collectively Ex PW10/A (colly) in the Rent Cash Register (Mark X14) had been made by accused Priti Chakravarty while he (PW10) was not sure about other entries in the register whether they were in the writing of accused or someone else. PW10 also deposed that the entries at point A to A at page no. 9 (half portion), 12 (from serial no. 943) to page no 22,67,72,73,79 (2/3rd portion), 80, 81 (one page), 82, 83, 87, 88, 89 (first page), 92, 93, 94, 95 Ex PW10/B (colly) in Rent Cash Book Mark X13 were made by accused Priti Chakravarty while he (PW10) was not sure about the other entries in the register if they were in the writing of accused or someone else; pages nos. 68 and 69 were missing from the register X13. PW10 also deposed that both the registers were supposed to be signed by the Administrative officer or the Manager (Hostel) on each page under the column "initial" but the same have not been signed by him (PW10) or his predecessor; there was no one permanently RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 21/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty posted as Manager (Hostel) during the relevant time. Also PW10 stated that some of the columns were initialed in registers Mark X13 and X14 but he (PW10) could not identify the same initials. PW10 also deposed that the accounts used to be reconciled with the statement of RBI every month in regard to collections/deposits of cash and this task used to be performed by the CashiercumAccountant; the main source of authentication of the accounts used to be the entries in the books, prepared by his subordinates and other DDOs in the ordinary course of business; after authentication on reconciling the accounts, the DDO was supposed to send a report to the Controller of Accounts of MEA.
26. PW10 also deposed that during the relevant time, the system that must have been traced was that entries in the cash book and another book were to be recorded by accused Priti Chakravarty and then to be checked by the Manager (Hostel) and thereafter put up before him (PW10) for final authentication; however, this system was never put in place since the Manager (Hostel) was deployed in the Ministry and not in the Hostel. PW10 also deposed that after making entries in the cash book and the rent book, the challans used to be prepared in triplicate by the Accountant or the person receiving the cash/cheque; thereafter these challans in triplicate were required to be put before the DDO for his authentication for such deposit by way of putting his seal and signatures/initials.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 22/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
27. PW10 deposed that only two officials were authorized to use the seal i.e the CashiercumAccountant and the Office Assistant and it was impossible for him (PW10) to supervise the application of seal stamp all the times.
28. PW1 Sh Vinod Pandey, Deputy General Manager in State Bank of India issued letter dated 09/07/2009 (D7), Ex PW1/A forwarding details Ex PW1/B (colly) of statement of account for the period 17/04/2006 to 30/06/2007 showing the details regarding the amount deposited, the date of challan, number of challan and date of deposit in the account.
29. PW1 Sh Vinod Pandey also deposed that the entire amount in Ex PW1/B (colly) showed regarding deposit in the account of OEAH and account was maintained at main branch of SBI; from serial nos. 1 to 74 and 431 to 461, the challan number had not been mentioned which may be due to mechanical fault or clerical error. PW1 further stated that the words "entry not located" mentioned in computer generated detail Ex PW1/B (colly) meant the entry/amount is not entered/credited in the system. PW1 also stated that Ex PW1/B (colly) was prepared under the guidance of Sh Malhotra, the then Manager, Government Business, Main Branch SBI, New Delhi; regarding which said Sh Malhotra had given certificate Ex PW1/C regarding genuineness of the computer entries.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 23/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
30. PW3 Sh K.C. Gautam deposed that while posted in the office of Controller of Accounts, it was inter alia his duty to check the receipts and payments scrolls/challans received from the banks with the annexures; the challans used to be received manually and the data used to be fed in the computer. PW3 also deposed that on being asked by CBI, he (PW3) had examined the documents and found that the details of the challans in regard to deposit of cash amount to the bank did not tally with the challans available in their section; inspection report including list Ex PW3/A (D10) was prepared and as per his (PW3) remarks, challans from September 2003 to May 2007 were not deposited and received in the PAO, MEA's Account.
31. PW4 Sh Dhyan Chand Barthwal deposed that he retired in June 2007 as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs. PW4 also stated that he (PW4) had stayed for sometime in OEAH; after retirement NOC was required for settlement of retirement benefits and pension; on being approached for obtaining NOC, the concerned department told him (PW4) to make an application and submit the receipts in regard to his (PW4) stay at Old External Affairs Hostel, K.G. Marg, New Delhi and accordingly he (PW4) complied with; receipt for Rs 45,441/, dated 07/02/2007, copy (D5), Ex PW4/A, was prepared by accused Priti Chakravarty in his (PW4) presence for the charges paid by him (PW4) in cash to accused and whose signatures were at point A there. Vide seizure memo (D4) Ex PW4/B, copy of said receipt was seized by RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 24/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty IO/Inspector Sapna Duggal (PW18).
32. PW5 Sh Vijay Khanduja deposed that while working as Under Secretary (Vigilance) in the Ministry of External Affairs he had preferred complaint (D1) Ex PW5/A regarding misappropriation of cash received from various offices at Old External Affairs Hostel, K.G Marg, New Delhi with effect from March 2003 to May 2007; the vigilance unit of MEA had got special investigation of the records of the hostels done which revealed irregularities in collection and deposits of the amounts received by way of rental charges, electricity and water charges from the guests staying in the hostels; the audit inspection was done in respect of New External Affairs Hostel (NEAH) at RK Ashram Marg as well as Old External Affairs Hostel (OEAH) at KG Marg, New Delhi PW5 further stated that he (PW5) had perused the audit report submitted to the Head of Communication NGO and Vigilance Division (CNV), on the basis of which he (PW5) had lodged complaint Ex PW5/A.
33. PW6 Sh Sant Ram Yadav deposed that while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in MEA, he was instructed by Sh DDKT Dasan, Senior Accounts officer, MEA to carry out inspection and audit of accounts of New External Affairs Hostel at RK Ashram, New Delhi and Old External Affairs Hostel (OEAH) at Curzon Road, New Delhi; as per instructions, the team was constituted comprising of him (PW6), Sh RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 25/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Dheeraj Kumar and Sh Deepak Kumar, both Accountants and said team conducted the inspection and audit separately in regard to two hostels; Sh Deepak Kumar, Accountant was associated with inspection of New External Affairs Hostel while Sh Dheeraj Kumar was associated with inspection of Old External Affairs Hostel; the inspection of accounts of the Old External Affairs Hostel at Curzon Road for the period March 2003 to May 2007 was conducted and whatever status and irregularities were found were detailed in report Ex PW6/A (D29) prepared by said team inter alia consisting of him (PW6), signed by Sh Rishi Ram, Senior Accounts Officer and aforesaid report was submitted with Pay & Accounts Officer.
34. PW7 Sh S. Satish Kumar deposed that while working as Assistant General Manager, RBI had furnished the information with letter dated 19/11/2009, (D9) which were collectively Ex PW7/A (running into 11 sheets besides said letter) to Inspector CBI, ACB during the investigation which was pertaining to allocation of work amongst the cashiers/tellers of the RBI posted at different counters on different dates besides the report on the genuineness of the seals of the RBI on certain treasury challans.
35. PW11 Sh Mahendra Kumar (PW11) deposed that while functioning as Administrative Officer in MEA Hostel (Old), situated at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi one Rajesh Sharma worked as UDC RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 26/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty on transfer thereon and joined as a CashiercumAccountant and said Rajesh Sharma informed in writing to Sh Mahendra Kumar (PW11) that some pages of cash book, rent register, two receipts and some of the bank challans from 2003 till the date of his joining were missing; said information was forwarded by him (PW11) to his Under Secretary for necessary action. PW11 also deposed that accused Priti Chakravarty used to collect rental charges from the guests in cash or cheque and then used to issue the receipt and thereafter accused used to deposit the cash/cheque in the bank by signing on the bank challans as deposit on behalf or for the Administrative Officer; the bank challans were not used to be initialed by him (PW11) who was also the then Drawing & Disbursing Officer; accused was having the stamp with her, which accused used to affix/stamp on the bank challans in the ordinary course of business; accused used to deposit the cash/cheque in the bank by signing on the bank challans as deposit on behalf or for the Administrative Officer. PW11 also stated that special inspection was conducted on 14th, 15th and 18th of June, 2007 in which he (PW11) participated to the extent that he (PW11) provided the documents to the inspecting team while accused was not associated during the inspection since by that time accused had been transferred.
36. PW12 Sh Tapender Singh deposed that on directions of his senior, visited CBI office and alongwith CBI officials, he (PW12) visited MEA Guest House, near Connaught Place.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 27/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
37. On 12/11/2008, a search was conducted at Old External
Affairs Hostel (OEAH) by CBI team including Inspector Hitender
Adlakha (PW13) alongwith Narender Sharma (PW2), Tapender Singh (PW12); during said search the articles were seized therefrom and detailed in searchcumseizure memo Ex PW2/A (D3) including receipt books Ex PW17/B1 to B12 (previously Mark X1 to X12) (D14 to D 24 and D29), Rent Cash Books Ex X13 to X15 (D25 to D27).
38. PW14 Dr. S. Ahmed, AGEQD, Central Forensic Institute, Bhopal deposed that he had examined Ex PW14/B (Q1) i.e questioned document; Ex PW14/D1 to Ex PW14/D6 (S1 to S6) i.e., specimen writings and signatures of accused and Ex PW14/C (A1) i.e., admitted document and opined that Q1, S1 to S6 and A1 were written by same person regarding which report Ex PW14/A was given by him (PW14); said documents were also independently examined by Dr. B.A. Vaid who also reached the same conclusion in token of which he (Dr. B.A. Vaid) signed at point B on report Ex PW14/A.
39. PW15 Sh Devender Kumar, Assistant Manager in RBI, deposed that the challans Ex PW17/A1 to Ex. PW17/A33 (Mark X1 to X33) were having the stamp impression of "Bhartiya Reserve Bank" (in Hindi), which stamp impression was not of the RBI since the actual stamp impression of Reserve Bank of India has straight boundary lines and the counter number is embossed inside the stamp and was not to be RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 28/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty mentioned in handwriting; the border line of the stamp impression of "Bhartiya Reserve Bank" in Mark X1 to X33 was zigzag and bearing counter number mentioned in handwriting. PW15 also stated that he (PW15) had provided the specimen seal Ex PW15/A of RBI to IO/Inspector Sapna Duggal (PW18) and the boundary lines of stamp impression therein were straight. PW15 also stated that during his service tenure in RBI, he (PW15) always saw the stamp impression of RBI as they were in Ex PW15/A and no stamp impression like as they are in Ex PW17/A1 to A33 were ever in use. PW15 also stated that counter numbers dealing in cash receipts were 30 to 37 excepting 36.
40. PW16 Sh D.K. Singh, Assistant General Manager in Public Accounts Department of Reserve Bank of India at Parliament Street, New Delhi had deposed that he (PW16) had given the documents detailed in handing over letter (D8), dated 09/07/2009 including 53 sheets of receipt certificate which individually were called receipt scrolls, all collectively Ex PW16/A (colly). PW16 also stated that on scrutiny of documents in the bank, they had found 16 entries of the deposits by External Affairs Hostel in RBI.
41. PW18 IO/Inspector Sapna Duggal deposed that on 07/11/2008 pursuant to registration of case RC 46A/2008, dated 07/11/2008 she (PW18) was assigned with the investigation of the present case whose FIR Ex PW18/A (D2) was recorded by SP Sumit RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 29/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Sharan. PW18 further stated that during the investigation she (PW18) had collected the aforesaid various documents, recorded statement of witnesses, obtained the specimen signatures and writings of accused Priti Chakravarty Ex PW14/D1 to D6 (S1 to S6), sent the questioned documents with specimen and admitted writings of accused to GEQD Shimla for comparison; IO/Inspector Sapna Duggal (PW18) was also assisted by Inspector Hitender Adlakha (PW13) and other supporting staff in investigation of the case. PW18 also stated that specimen signatures Ex PW14/D1 to D6 (also S1 to S6) of accused were taken by her (PW18) in the presence of independent witness Sh Suresh Kumar whose signatures were at point B thereon, also admitted writing of accused Ex PW14/C (D30) was also collected by her (PW18) during investigation.
42. In terms of searchcumseizure memo, D3, Ex PW2/A, (1) 32 receipt books; (2) 5 rent cash books; (3) 4 deposit challan file folders; (4) 41 bill books, all detailed therein were seized on the search of OEAH from 10 am to 2 pm on 12/11/2008. Inter alia from aforesaid articles seized, (1) 20 receipt books; (2) 41 bill books; (3) 2 rent cash books were neither relied in the list of documents with the chargesheet nor filed in Court by the investigating agency. From amongst the receipt books filed on record as D14 to D24 and D29, Ex PW17/B1 to B12, following are the cash receipts for which no cash receipt challan was received in PAO, MEA's account detailed in remarks portion X to X at the bottom of the RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 30/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty list, part of document D10 Special Inspection Report on audit, Ex PW3/A (copy also Ex PW6/A), as was checked as well as deposed by PW3.
Sl. Document exhibited in Receipt No. Date Amount No. receipt book (Rs.) 1. Ex PW17/B4 36701 03/09/03 437 2. Ex PW17/B4 36704 11/09/03 737 3. Ex PW17/B4 36768 07/10/03 437 4. Ex PW17/B4 36785 15/10/03 1599 5. Ex PW17/B4 36797 22/10/03 376 6. Ex PW17/B5 36819 12/11/03 96 7. Ex PW17/B5 36826 12/11/03 533 8. Ex PW17/B5 36827 12/11/03 349 9. Ex PW17/B5 36832 13/11/03 283 10. Ex PW17/B5 36833 13/11/03 437 11. Ex PW17/B5 36859 25/11/03 1169 12. Ex PW17/B5 36877 04/12/03 437 13. Ex PW17/B6 36902 08/12/03 108 14. Ex PW17/B6 36914 10/12/03 537 15. Ex PW17/B6 36944 02/01/04 153 16. Ex PW17/B6 36945 02/01/04 437 17. Ex PW17/B6 36946 02/01/04 283 18. Ex PW17/B6 36988 16/01/04 305 19. Ex PW17/B6 36989 19/01/04 32 20. Ex PW17/B6 37000 22/01/04 764 21. Ex PW17/B7 37121 19/03/04 437 22. Ex PW17/B7 37137 02/04/04 1021 23. Ex PW17/B7 37138 02/04/04 99 24. Ex PW17/B7 37167 08/04/04 2808 RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 31/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty 25. Ex PW17/B7 37179 13/04/04 437 26. Ex PW17/B8 37208 28/04/04 587 27. Ex PW17/B8 37212 06/05/04 71 28. Ex PW17/B8 37213 07/05/04 437 29. Ex PW17/B8 37231 18/05/04 2498 30. Ex PW17/B8 37236 19/05/04 1203 31. Ex PW17/B8 37271 07/06/04 437 32. Ex PW17/B8 37272 08/06/04 59 33. Ex PW17/B9 37306 16/06/04 1767 34. Ex PW17/B9 37327 29/06/04 106 35. Ex PW17/B9 37328 29/06/04 598 36. Ex PW17/B9 37335 08/07/04 305 37. Ex PW17/B9 37352 12/07/04 7108 38. Ex PW17/B9 37358 12/07/04 437 39. Ex PW17/B9 37359 13/07/04 951 40. Ex PW17/B9 37394 30/07/04 136 41. Ex PW17/B10 37607 08/11/04 371 42. Ex PW17/B10 37619 08/11/04 749 43. Ex PW17/B10 37635 16/11/04 572 44. Ex PW17/B10 37650 20/11/04 38 45. Ex PW17/B10 37688 07/12/04 35 46. Ex PW17/B11 37726 20/12/04 32 47. Ex PW17/B11 37747 03/01/05 799 48. Ex PW17/B11 37757 07/01/05 130 49. Ex PW17/B11 37765 11/01/05 73 50. Ex PW17/B11 37774 13/01/05 240 51. Ex PW17/B11 37775 13/01/05 437 52. Ex PW17/B11 37790 21/01/05 146 53. Ex PW17/B11 37797 24/01/05 328 54. Ex PW17/B11 37798 24/01/05 109 RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 32/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty 55. Ex PW17/B12 39202 20/12/06 1526 56. Ex PW17/B12 39206 26/12/06 36 57. Ex PW17/B12 39210 27/12/06 58 58. Ex PW17/B12 39211 27/12/06 191 59. Ex PW17/B12 39237 17/01/07 101 60. Ex PW17/B12 39247 24/01/07 724 61. Ex PW17/B12 39257 06/02/07 5000 62. Ex PW17/B12 39269 09/02/07 659 63. Ex PW17/B12 39275 12/02/07 597 64. Ex PW17/B12 39276 12/02/07 434 65. Ex PW17/B12 39279 13/02/07 499 66. Ex PW17/B12 39283 14/02/07 383 67. Ex PW17/B12 39284 15/02/07 434 68. Ex PW17/B12 39287 17/02/07 622 69. Ex PW17/B12 39292 19/02/07 418 70. Ex PW17/B12 39293 19/02/07 166 71. Ex PW17/B12 39297 19/02/07 434 Total 47352
43. Receipt books which were seized, but other than Ex PW17/B1 to B12 (D14 to D24 and D29), 20 in number as detailed in Ex.PW2/A (D3), containing the cash receipts; for which no cash receipt challan was received in PAO, MEA's account detailed in remarks portion X to X at the bottom of the list, part of document D10 Special Inspection Report on audit, Ex PW3/A (copy also Ex PW6/A), as was checked as well as deposed by PW3; have not been relied in the list of documents with chargesheet nor have been filed nor proved in trial. Had RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 33/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty these cash receipts, in 20 receipt books not produced, contained any writings of accused, then there was no impediment for investigating agency to file them and for the prosecution to prove them in trial. For non production of these cash receipts in said 20 receipt books, there is no option but to draw adverse inference against the prosecution and in favour of accused. In the course of his testimony, PW17 deposed that he could not identify the writings and signatures as that of accused in the receipts mentioned at serial nos. 5,6,9,15,18,26,35,44,55,59,60 in above table, which on totaling are of Rs 4,787/, while the remaining receipts shown in the above table were in the writings of accused bearing her signatures. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, even accused stated that the receipts at serial nos. 53,54,56,57,58,63,64,65,68 of above table were not in her writings, while the accused admitted the remaining receipts of above table, as deposed by PW17 to be in her (accused) writing, were in her writing and issued after receiving of the cash detailed therein in course of her duties at OEAH. In the course of investigation, the aforesaid receipts were not sent to GEQD to be compared with admitted or specimen writings of the accused for giving any expert opinion. Even when compared by naked eye on examination by this Court, with the aid of Section 73 of the Evidence Act as well as law laid by Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs Vinaya Chandra, AIR 1967 SC 778, it is observed that the writings in receipts at serial nos. 53,54,57,58,63,64,65 and 68 of above table were not similar to the admitted writings of the accused on other receipts, while receipts RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 34/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty at serial nos. 63,64 of above table were bearing signatures of accused with the date 13/2 on each of them and the receipt at serial no. 65 of above table was bearing signatures of accused with date 14/2 and receipt at serial no.68 of above table was bearing signatures of the accused with the date 19/2. The signatures of accused on the receipts at serial nos. 63,64,65 and 68 of above table appear to be similar to her admitted signatures on the other receipts. Accordingly, in terms of testimony of PW3, PW17 and the above observations, discussions it is proved on record that sum of Rs 41,879/ [Rs 47,352/ minus Rs 4,787/(sum of receipts wherein writings were not of accused as per PW17, as aforesaid) minus Rs.686/(sum of receipts at serial nos. 53,54,57,58 of above table observed to be not in writings of accused,as aforesaid)] (herein after referred as cash in question) was received by the accused against the above said receipts, which was ascertained as not deposited in accredited bank.
44. The onus to prove the fact is always on the prosecution. In the criminal trial, the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. This onus to prove never shifts. The prosecution can also not take benefit of the weakness of the defence of the accused. However, this proposition is subject to certain exceptions. For example, if the accused has taken the plea of alibi, this has to be proved by the accused. Similarly, if the accused takes the plea that his case falls within the general exceptions of Penal Code, the onus is upon the accused to RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 35/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty prove the same. In the similar fashion, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that if the act done is within the special knowledge of the accused, it is for him to prove the same. However, the rule of caution is that even in these cases, the prosecution is required to prove its case prima facie and therefore, if there are certain circumstances which were in the special knowledge of the accused, then it is for the accused to come out and spell out those circumstances.
45. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Sections 101 to 104 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) lay down the general principles as to onus to prove. Section 106 of IEA provides asunder :
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
46. However, section 106 IEA comes into play only after the prosecution has been able to prove prima facie case. If the prosecution has not been able to make out a prima facie case, accused cannot be asked to prove any particular fact which is within his knowledge. The principles underling section 106 can be summed up that initially the burden to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt always remain upon prosecution. If the prosecution has been successful in proving the fact from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain facts, then the accused is required to offer an explanation RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 36/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty regarding such fact so as to set aside the reasonable inference being presented by the prosecution. The accused must offer an explanation which should be probable and satisfactory.
47. In Shambhu Nath Mehra Vs. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404, the scope of section 106 of IEA was held as under :
"This is a section which must be considered in a common sense way; and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the ease with which the accused could prove them are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts."
48. Perusal of the above said judgment makes it clear that the prosecution has to lead evidence to substantiate its accusations, but if facts within the special knowledge of accused are not satisfactorily explained, it is a factor against the accused.
49. It is a settled proposition that the concept "beyond reasonable doubt" cannot be stretched too far. The whims and fancies of the accused cannot displace the facts proved by the prosecution in accordance with the provisions of IEA. The prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical questions raised by the defence, if it is presumed to be so, it would amount to deflecting the course of justice.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 37/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
50. True that in terms of Rule 13 of the Receipts and Payments Rules, 1983, it was ultimate responsibility of the DDO for the proper maintenance and accuracy of accounts; to check and initial the Rent Cash Book and Main Cash Book on daily basis as well as to authenticate the cash challans; to check the said challans after deposit of cash in the bank with the entries in the Cash Book(s); to reconcile the accounts as per the Bank Statement of Account with the entries in the Rent Cash Book/Main Cash Book and to record a signed and dated certificate about the correctness of the accounts. Yet, failure of DDO to discharge such responsibility in itself would not suffice for accused to furnish grounds for acquittal on charges framed. Rule 13 of the Receipts and Payments Rules, 1983 nowhere provides it being responsibility of the DDO to depute someone from the lower staff to deposit the cash amount in the accredited bank. Infact sub rule (viii) of Rule 13 of the Receipts and Payments Rules, 1983 provides that "the employment of Peons to fetch or carry money should be discouraged. When it is absolutely necessary to employ one for this purpose, a man of some length of service and proved trustworthiness should only be selected and in case where the amount to be handled is large, one or more guards should accompany the messenger". So only in extreme case of absolute necessity, the Peon(s) can be deputed to fetch or carry money and that too in that eventuality such a Peon has to be a man of integrity and when cash amount handled is large, then guard(s) should accompany such RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 38/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Peon(s). In ordinary parlance, Peon(s) were not permitted to fetch or carry money.
51. Even report D29, Ex. PW 6/A inter alia embodies that (1) the Cash Book for the period from May 2006 to May 2007 was not written / closed and signed by the DDO; (2) cuttings and over writings in Cash Book were not attested nor initialed by DDO. Accused in her statement u/s 313 Cr. PC admitted that Rent Cash Books D25 to D27, Ex. X13 to Ex. X15 were in her writings. Also was observed there in Ex. PW 6/A that (1) the reconciliation of receipts remitted into the bank through challans revealed that Rs. 2,33,127/ realized in cash in OEAH for the period from 28.02.2003 to 24.05.2007 have not been deposited in the accredited bank.
52. PW11, the then DDO, deposed that the accused, being the CashiercumAccountant, did not put the Cash Book before him for checking during his tenure from December 2005 to March 2007. PW11 also deposed that accused used to collect rental charges from guests against receipts and then accused used to deposit the Cash in the bank after signing on bank challans as deposit on behalf or for the AO. PW10, the then DDO, deposed that the accused, being the Cashiercum Accountant, used to reconcile the accounts with the statement of RBI every month in regard to collections/deposits of cash. PW 6, the then Assistant Accounts Officer of MEA deposed that it used to be the cashier RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 39/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty who was supposed to deposit the cash with the bank in the ordinary course of business, as per practice that was in vogue in the Hostel. PW6 also categorically denied the suggestions in his crossexamination that (1) accused used to handover the treasury challans as well as cash collected to the DDO in the ordinary course of business and (2) thereafter the accused (cashier) was left with no control over the deposit of the same with the bank. The DDOs / AOs who were working in OEAH in the tenure of accused as AccountantcumCashier in OEAH from March 2003 to May 2007 were examined as PW 10, PW11 and PW17 respectively but in the course of their crossexamination no suggestion was given to any of them that the accused as AccountantcumCashier ever handed over the cash collected / received by her or entrusted to her in OEAH, at the end of the day(s) to any or all of them. Even no suggestion was given in crossexamination of PW10, PW11 and PW17 that the cash receipt books were not retained in the custody of the accused i.e. AccountantcumCashier. Only to the auditing official PW 6 in crossexamination it was suggested by the Ld. Defence Counsel that along with the treasury challans cash was handed over to the DDOs in the ordinary course of business, upon which the Cashier was left with no control over the deposit of the same with the bank and the said suggestion was even categorically denied by PW 6. There was no impediment in the way of the defence to put questions or suggestions to relevant witnesses DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17 for such alleged handing over of the cash along with the treasury challans to them RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 40/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty in the ordinary course of business, had it been so done. These DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17 were the most relevant witnesses in this context who could have elucidated on the aspect aforesaid. Instead, on the back of these DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17, later in the course of her examination u/s 313 Cr. PC and as DW1 accused alleged of being victim of criminal conspiracy hatched by these DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17 and other staff with ulterior motives for embezzling the Government funds and shifting the blame on the accused for mischief and / or fraud. So it makes DW1 unworthy of credence.
53. There is a famous legal maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria", which means that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. It is a maxim of law, recognized and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong. This maxim is based on elementary principles and has gained status in law and equity. Herein pursuant to receipt of cash in question, the accused did not deposit it in the account of OEAH in the accredited bank but converted it to own use. Lapses on part of the DDOs may be sheer negligence but certainly short of having element of conspiracy and / or criminal misappropriation / breach of trust, for lack of evidence. Relevant questions, suggestions detailed in preceding para were not put to the relevant witnesses DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17 for alleged handing over of cash by accused daily to the said DDOs / AOs, PW10, PW11 and PW17. Accused cannot be permitted to take advantage RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 41/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty of her own wrong.
54. Admittedly, aforesaid 33 Cash Challans Ex. PW 17/A1 to Ex. PW 17/A33 (also previously Mark X1 to X33) were prepared by accused in her writings bearing her signatures on behalf of Administrative Officer / DDO. It is not the case of prosecution that accused had herself forged the RBI rubber stamp impression or writings within it on said Cash Challans or had used it nor the accused is facing trial on charges for (1) being maker of forged documents / valuable securities; (2) using the forged documents as genuine. Perpetrators of said offences of forgery have not been ascertained, booked or tried.
55. In this fact of the matter, in the backdrop of elicited evidences on record, the opinions of private handwriting expert DW2 including that of accused is not maker of disputed signatures and figure work D1 to D24 within the purported rubber stamp impression of RBI on Cash Challans, would be of no help to defence to furnish any ground for acquittal of accused for the charges framed.
56. PW8 Sh R.K. Tyagi, the then Joint Secretary, Communication NGO Vigilance (CNV), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), South Block, New Delhi in December 2009 deposed that he was competent to remove the employees to the rank of Accountantcum Cashier including accused Priti Chakravarty, as per prevailing rules of RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 42/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty the Department. PW 8 further deposed that he had gone through all relevant documents viz. the FIR, statements of the witnesses and the documents prepared during investigation, submitted before him by the CBI; had also called the Investigating Officer and had raised certain queries regarding this case and after being fully satisfied that the employee concerned i.e., accused Priti Chakravarty had committed criminal misconduct, Sh R.K Tyagi (PW 8) had accorded the sanction Ex PW 8/A, dated 15/12/2009 against accused Priti Chakravarty under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for her prosecution for offences punishable u/s 409 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) of PC Act, 1988. It has not been suggested to PW 8 in his cross examination that he was not competent to remove accused, the AccountantcumCashier. It is proved on record that PW 8 was competent to remove the accused, AccountantcumCashier as PW 8 was the then Joint Secretary, CNV in Ministry of External Affairs of Central Government. I advert to Ex. PW 8/A. It finds mention on the top of it, "No. Q/Vig/843/12/07, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs (Vigilance Unit)". Per se, it is apparent on face of record that PW 8 had issued Ex. PW 8/A for and on behalf of the Ministry of External Affairs (Vigilance Unit), Government of India being its Joint Secretary, CNV and competent to remove the accused, AccountantcumCashier. The sanction order Ex. PW 8/A also bears the elicited number of the file concerned of the Vigilance Unit, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Fallacy in the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 43/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty on this count is apparent on the face of record. It was also argued by Ld. PP for CBI that after framing of charge, sanction gets the immunity and accused persons are not entitled to challenge the same. At the stage of the charge, the sanction order was assailed by the accused through her Counsel, only on the premise that it had been accorded u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act only and not u/s 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even at the stage of charge, it had not been in any manner argued that the Sanctioning Authority lacked competence for according such sanction or the sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was bad in law, as has been now argued in the course of final arguments. Be that as it may, fact remains that accused has not been able to demonstrate that the sanction order was suffering from non application of mind or the Sanctioning Authority was not competent to remove her (accused) from service or any alleged error/omission/ irregularity in such sanction had occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice. The contention of the defence qua sanction order being bad in law, does not hold any water.
57. In the case of Madhusudan Singh (Supra), the allegations in FIR were not proved at trial nor substantiated by oral evidence besides which in view of acquittal of the three accused persons by the Trial Court for the offence u/s 409 of IPC, the conviction of those three accused for offence u/s 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was not sustained.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 44/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
58. In the case of Dilawar Singh (Supra), it was held that "the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319 Cr. P.C. A Special Judge while trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot summon another person and proceed against him in the purported exercise of power under Section 319 Cr. P.C. if no sanction has been granted by the Appropriate Authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence qua that person."
59. The facts and circumstances embodied in the cases of Dilawar Singh (Supra) and Madhusudan Singh (Supra) are at complete variance and entirely distinguishable to the set of facts and circumstances of the case in hand, as discussed herein above in detail, accordingly the pronouncements in the said cases are of no aid for defence to seek acquittal on the facts in issue.
60. In the case of "Mustafikhan vs State of Maharashtra"
2007(1) RCR (Criminal) 503, it was held that "9. In order to sustain a conviction under Section 409 IPC the prosecution is required to prove that (a) the accused, a public servant was entrusted with property of which he has duty bound to account for,
(b) the accused had misappropriated the property.
10. Where the entrustment is admitted by the accused, it is for him to discharge the burden that the entrustment has been carried out as accepted and the obligation has been discharged.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 45/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
11. The above position was reiterated in Jagat Narayan Jha vs. State of Bihar (1995 (Supp) 4 SCC 518).
12. It is not necessary or possible in every case to prove as to in what precise manner the accused had dealt with or appropriated the goods. In a case of criminal breach of trust, the failure to account for the money, proved to have been received by the accused or giving a false account of its use is generally considered to be a strong circumstance against the accused. Although onus lies on the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused, yet where the entrustment is proved or admitted it would be difficult for the prosecution to prove the actual mode and manner of misappropriation and in such a case the prosecution would have to rely largely on the truth or falsity of the explanation given by the accused. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the entrustment."
61. There is also another legal maxim "acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta" which means that acts indicate the intention. The previous intention of a person can be judged by his subsequent acts. It is a settled proposition that if a man abuses his authority given to him by the law, he becomes a trespasser ab initio.
CONCLUSION
62. From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is proved on record that cash in question i.e., Rs 41,879/ was collected against elicited receipts by the accused in course of her duties as Accountant cumCashier, a public servant in OEAH. Even major part of it has been admitted by accused herself as herein before elicited. So accused received and was entrusted with the cash in question against receipts issued by her. But there is no cogent evidence on record that (1) after RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 46/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty collection of such cash the accused used to hand over the cash with challans prepared by her to the AOs / DDOs and her duty ceased and (2) it was the AO / DDO who used to depute someone from amongst peons namely Om Prakash, Gurcharan Singh, Rajesh and Babu Lal for depositing the cash in the bank for the challans in question, as has been alleged in defence by accused as DW 1 and her Ld. Defence Counsel. Neither in the led defence evidence nor in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, it is the case of defence that the cash in question after receipt vide aforesaid receipts had been deposited in the accredited bank by the accused herself or through anybody. Even it has not been suggested to PW3, PW6 or other prosecution witnesses that the cash in question i.e., Rs 41,879/ stood deposited in the accredited bank. Even in Ex PW16/A (colly) there is no mention of any entry of deposit of any sum part of the cash in question i.e., Rs 41,879/ in the stated 16 entries of deposits of the cash amount in Reserve Bank of India from OEAH. Of course, prosecution did not prove the actual mode and manner of misappropriation of such received cash by accused, nor was it duty bound to do so. No cogent evidence is borne out of record as to what actually was done with such received cash in question by the accused. Explanation given by accused of handing over the such received cash to DDO / AO daily, defies logic, stands not proved for want of any cogent evidence on record including absence of any signatures, initials or writings of such DDO / AO in the Cash Receipt Books Ex. PW 17/B1 to Ex. PW 17/B12. Even in the Rent Cash Books Ex. X13 to Ex. X15 RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 47/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty there are no writings, signatures or initials of such DDOs / AOs, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 17 in token of receipt of any cash by any of them from accused on any day. The tendered defence of accused elicited herein before stands not proved. The explanation offered by the accused is neither probable nor satisfactory. Per contra, it appears to be sham, tendered only for the purpose to adopt it to save own skin. Falsity of such explanation of accused is writ large on the face of record. In consonance with the maxim "nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria", accused cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrong merely due to inaction or sheer negligence on part of DDO / AO to timely notice and check the misdeeds of the accused for retention of the cash in question instead of deposit in the accredited bank on its receipt. In terms of the maxim "acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta", the intention of the accused is judged from her subsequent acts. Sheer negligence on part of DDOs / AOs for lack of supervision in deposit of the collected cash by accused in accredited bank and reconciliation of accounts did not entitle the accused to carry further her misdeeds for retention of received / entrusted Government cash in question instead of depositing it in the accredited bank. Per contra, the accused retained the received / entrusted Government cash in question i.e., Rs 41,879/ instead of depositing it in the accredited bank and converted it to her own use and thus committed criminal misconduct. It is so vivid and clear due to absence of any signatures, initials or writings RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 48/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty of such DDO / AO in the Receipt Books Ex. PW 17/B1 to Ex. PW 17/B 12 while even in the Rent Cash Books Ex. X13 to Ex. X15 there are no writings, signatures or initials of such DDOs / AOs, PW 10, PW 11 and PW 17 in token of receipt of any cash by any of them from accused on any day. As per PW7 and Ex.PW7/A (D9), letter of PW7 with enclosures, purported stamps of RBI on Cash Challans were not genuine. Admittedly, aforesaid 33 Cash Challans Ex. PW 17/A1 to Ex. PW 17/A33 (also previously Mark X1 to X33) were prepared by accused in her writings bearing her signatures on behalf of Administrative Officer / DDO. As per Ex.PW9/B (D13) Rent Cash Book was not written in OEAH after 9/12/2005. As per Ex.PW3/A (D
10) and its copy Ex.PW6/A (D29) and deposition of PW 11, Cash Book was not written in OEAH for period from May 2006 to May 2007 in the tenure of accused as AccountantcumCashier there. Dishonest intention of accused for misappropriation of the said received and entrusted cash in question i.e., Rs 41,879/ is writ large on face of record and stands proved.
63. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against arraigned accused Priti Chakravarty for offences (1) under Section 409 of IPC and (2) of criminal misconduct, as defined in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 49/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Act 1988, for which offences, the said accused is held guilty and convicted accordingly. Let she be heard on sentence.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh) Announced in open court Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)6, today i.e.,19.12.2012 Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 50/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) (CBI)6, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI CC No. 42/12 (Old CC No. 33/11) RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND U/S 409 IPC and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(c) of PC Act CBI vs. Priti Chakravarty Unique ID No. : 02403R0424822009 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Priti Chakravarty W/o Sh. Gautam Chakravarty, R/o C603, Panchsheel Apartments, Plot 24, Sector 4, Dwarka, PhaseI, New Delhi ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Having convicted Priti Chakravarty (1) under Section 409 of IPC and (2) of criminal misconduct, as defined in Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; I have heard the Ld. PP for CBI, the Ld. Defence Counsel and the convict and have perused the record.
2. Sh. Anil Tanwar, Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI has prayed for maximum prison term on the premise that corruption has reached RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 51/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty phenomenal level and deterrent sentence would meet the ends of justice as is required in the interest of the society.
3. Sh Jagdish Singh, Ld. Counsel for convict in his written submissions and even orally has prayed that (1) the convict has got unblemished record of service, has been discharging her duties most diligently and efficiently; (2) convict is victim of criminal conspiracy hatched by the AO/DDO and the Peon (s); (3) convict remained suspended from service from 13/06/2007 to 28/12/2009, got only 50% of her salary as Subsistence Allowance during the period of suspension; (4) convict suffered from mental agony and frustration during period of suspension, investigation and trial, while she also suffered financially; (5) convict had been regularly and punctually attending the trial on every date of hearing without any default; (6) convict is the first offender of the alleged crime; (7) convict has only one son, who is under education; (8) convict is suffering from various ailments i.e., Diabetes, acute Arthritis (Joint knee pain) in both the legs; (9) convict is the sole bread earner in the family since her husband retired four years ago from private service not getting any pension or retirement benefits; (10) convict has to pay monthly loan installment of Rs 7,000/ for her residential flat in Cooperative Group Housing Society, she has also to discharge social obligations; (11) any sentence imposed would result in loss of job, forfeiture of retiral benefits and complete ruination of the family. Accordingly, lenient view has been prayed for seeking awarding RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 52/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty of minimum possible sentence. Convict herself submitted to be of age 56 years, being educated till class 11 th; that her only son of age 27/28 years is doing MCA privately and since her husband is retired from private service, she is the sole bread earner in her family and has prayed for lenient view.
4. In the case of "State of U. P. v. Kishan," AIR 2005 SC 1250, it was held that "Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every Court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1991 SC 1463).
The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal."
5. In the case of "A.Wati A.O. vs. State of Manipur," 1996 RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 53/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Cri. L. J. 403 (SC), it was held that "The fact that the appellant is a senior IAS Officer really requires a serious view of the matter to be taken, instead of soft dealing. The fact that he has a number of dependents and is going to lose his job are irrelevant considerations in as much as in almost every case a person found guilty would have dependents and if he be a public servant, he would lose his job. The present being the first offence is also an irrelevant consideration. Though the delay has some relevance, but as in cases of the present nature, investigation itself takes time and then the trial is prolonged, because of the type of evidence to be adduced and number of the witnesses to be examined, we do not think that the fact of delay of about five years could have been a ground to award the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the Court, which really makes a mockery of the whole exercise."
6. In view of the law laid in the case of A. Wati A.O. (Supra), in the cases of corruption the age, family, responsibilities, previous records of convict and the possibility of loss of job cannot be considered as mitigating circumstances in sentencing of the convict.
7. Corruption is indeed one of the major roadblocks in India's journey from a developing to a developed economy. There is an urgent need to have a comprehensive framework that would help curtail corruption. Rigid bureaucracy, complex laws and long drawn processes of the legal system deters people from taking legal recourse against corrupt public servants.
8. Need of the hour is to sacrifice selfish approach for the sake of the society and nation. Corruption needs to be eradicated from the RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 54/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty nation. Task is arduous but not unachievable. To achieve that, one has to rise above his vainglorious interest and to raise his moral standards. Public persons need to resist to such illegitimate insistence and rather should act as whistleblowers. Only with collective efforts, corruption can be eradicated.
9. In the fact of the matter Convict had the job profile of AccountantcumCashier as public servant in the Hostel of Ministry of External Affairs. Convict was responsible to keep entrusted cash safely and account for it. Instead, consequences were kept at bay by the convict while usurping Government money despite the fact that the convict had a long experience in government service and was educated till class 11 th, capable of understanding well all consequences of her criminal acts. The criminal breach of trust and criminal misconduct were committed by the convict, a public servant, with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Government Exchequer and/or Community. Convict gave supremacy to illegal personal gains putting the Government Exchequer at loss to the tune of Rs 41,879/. No glimpse of remorse was visible on the face of the Convict. Over all entire nation is suffering on account of misdeeds of such offenders who put Government Exchequer to such loss compromising with the economy of the nation. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book and suitably punished.
RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 55/58
CBI vs Priti Chakravarty
10. Grant of probation to convict would be like granting license to such offenders to usurp Government/ public money in detriment to public interest. Cry of society is that such convict is to be suitably sentenced. Grant of probation to convict is passe part not made out. Breach of trust and criminal misconduct by a public servant putting the Government Exchequer at loss are certainly serious offences calling for a deterrent sentence in the interest of nation as well as society, lest it would send wrong signals to public at large that by fleebite sentence, such offenders can be let off, which would encourage such like offenders to commit similar offences and enhance misery of society and nation, which are infact presently reeling under the evil of corruption.
11. Be that as it may, I cannot be oblivious of the fact that the convict has no bad antecedents and has already undergone agony of trial for period little less than three years as well. Keeping in mind overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Convict Priti Chakravarty is sentenced to:
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.10,000/ in default thereof she would undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 409 of IPC;
(ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.10,000/ in default thereof she would undergo Simple RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 56/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty Imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and punishable under Section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
The sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment shall run concurrently. The sentences of Simple Imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall run consecutively.
12. The convict was on bail since filing of the case and during trial. The convict has been sent to jail on 19/12/2012 after the judgment of conviction in this case. Needless to say, the convict would be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
13. A copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
14. Let the convict be sent to jail under appropriate warrant for which the Reader is directed to do needful.
15. The convict has also been made aware about the fact that she has right to file appeal.
16. Ahlmad is directed to page and bookmark the file as per the RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 57/58 CBI vs Priti Chakravarty latest circular so as to enable digitization of the entire record.
File be consigned to record Room.
(Gurvinder Pal Singh) Announced in open court Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)6, today i.e., 21/12/2012. Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
Deepika RC No. DAI/08/A0046/CBI/ACB/ND 58/58