Cbi vs K. M. Singh Etc. Judgement Dt. 17.8.2012 on 17 August, 2012

[Cites 40, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs K. M. Singh Etc. Judgement Dt. 17.8.2012 on 17 August, 2012

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc.                                                          Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

                    IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
              SPLECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI

CC No. 19/2009
(Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, Delhi)
CBI Vs     (1) Krishan Madhwa Singh
                S/o Sh. Jai Nath Singh
                R/o J130, Sector09, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad.
           (2) Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji
                S/o Sh. Deep Chand
                R/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
           (3) Laxman Prasad @ Thakur
                S/o Late Sh. Kalpnath Prasad
                R/o C120, Street No.5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.
           (4) Rohtash Kanwar (Already convicted)
                S/o Sh. Chander Bhan
                R/o RZ68, Indira Park, Uttam Nagar,
                New Delhi110059.
           (5) Harish Chander (Discharged)
                S/o Sh. Attar Singh
                R/o B, Daksha Road, Biswas Nagar Shahdara,
                Delhi110032 and C28, East Uttam Nagar,
                New Delhi59.
           (6) Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta
                S/o Sh. Hari Dutt
                R/o R1/14, Nawada Hosing Complex,
                Uttam Nagar, New Delhi110059.
           (7) Satish Pal Singh
                S/o Sh. Kehar Singh
                R/o C33, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road,
                Shahdara, Delhi
           (8) Alwar Singh (Expired)

CC No. 19/2009                                                                                        Page 1 / 121
 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc.                                                          Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

                              S/o Sh. Ralhan Singh
                              R/o RZ15A/1, Main Sagarpur, Delhi110046.

Date of conclusion of final arguments : 13.8.2012
Date of judgement : 17.8.2012

JUDGEMENT

1. Prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that genuine Kisan Vikas Patras were despatched from Nasik Security Press, Nasik to different consignees in India by Railways. During transit the said KVPs were stolen at various places including Patna Jn. Railway Yard by breaking open the wagon in the Railway Yard of Patna Railway Station. The open delivery of the consignment was received by Officers of Circle Stamp Depot Patna who reported the matter to the Police. The theft of KVPs was circulated through out India through different missing/lost circulars. One Naresh Praasad @ Sadhu was arrested by CBI in CBI case RC45(E)/98 BS&FC New Delhi and at present he is in judicial custody. In this regard a case has been registered at Patna vide FIR No. 29/99dated 24.2.1998 under Section 468/409 and 120B IPC in GRP Patna and at Howrah vide FIR No. 105 dated 2.5.1998 under Section 379/411 IPC at Howrah GRP. These stolen KVPs were sold by said Naresh Prasad @ Sadhu, Ramesh Kumar Ramania and CC No. 19/2009 Page 2 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Mohd. Anwar to various persons. Accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) in pursurance of said criminal conspiracy procured the stolen KVPs from Afzal Siddiqui and Sehzada Siddiqui from Lucknow. Accused Afzal Siddiqui is an accused in CBI case RC S19 2000 E 0001 and is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi.

2. Investigation has further revealed that accused K. M. Singh (A1) in conspiracy with coaccused Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2), Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6), Harish Chander (A5), Satish Pal Singh (A7) and Alwar Singh (A8) forged the stolen Kisan Vikas Patras and got them encashed from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office. Accused K. M. Singh (A1), Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) and Harish Chander (A5) obtained through fraudulent means identity slip booklets from Lodi Road Head Post Office, New Delhi110003. The stolen/forged KVPs were purported to have been issued from Char Bagh Lucknow, Jind Head Post Office, Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office, Machhrauli Post office, Karnal Head Post Office, Rajkishore Rajkot Post office360001, Hata Post Office & Batwadi Akola PO 4443021, and presented at Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment. Investigation has revealed CC No. 19/2009 Page 3 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and accused Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6) used to procure these stolen KVPs from their source Afzal Siddiqui and Sehzada Siddiqui based in Lucknow.

3. Investigation has revealed that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) had together worked at Jangpura Post Office and were known to each other. When accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was transferred to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, accused K. M. Singh (A1), coaccused H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) and accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) met him and hatched a conspiracy to encash the stolen/forged KVPs by forging the verification reports on NC32 Forms of the issuing Post Offices. Accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was asked to intercept the NC32 Forms and hand them over to K. M. Singh (A1) or other coaccused persons who after forging the verification reports would again hand them over to accused Satish Pal Singh (A7).

4. Investigation has revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy forged the body writing of KVPs bearing Nos. 45CC163601 to 45CC163321 to 45CC163400, 31BB007761 to 31BB007800, 28CC970338 to 28CC970348 and 28CC982031 to 982040 total 277 KVPs in the fictitious name of Hari Prasad. These CC No. 19/2009 Page 4 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 KVPs were encashed by accused Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) (who was the servant of accused Sohan Pal Sharma) from Hari Nagar Ashram, Post Office, New Delhi110014 during the period between 27.3.1998 to 12.6.1999.

5. Investigatgion has revealed that the accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) in furtherance of the conspiracy forged the above referred stolen KVPs and facilitated the encashment of KVPs to the tune of Rs.46,36,100/ thereby caused wrongful gain to himself and other accused persons and wrongful loss to the Government of India.

6. Investigation has further revealed that in furtherance to the said criminal conspiracy accused K. M. Singh (A1) directed accused Satish Pal singh (A7) that accused Rohtash (A4) would reach Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment of the KVPs. Accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) informed him tht Post Master Alwar Singh (A8) was going for training to Saharanpur and therefore he should send Rohtash on the same day. Accordingly, as per the direction of accused K. M. singh (A1), accused Rohtash Kanwar (A4)went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and presented the stolen/forged KVPs to the tune of Rs.8 Lacs for encashment. Accused Alwar Singh (A8) on seeing the KVPs asked accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) to send NC 32 Forms CC No. 19/2009 Page 5 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 to the issuing Post Office and verify the paritculars and himself went on training to Saharanpur (UP). Accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) in furtherance of criminal conspiracy signed on eight NC 32 Forms and also put the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for getting the verification forged. These eight NC32 Forms were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his pointing out.

7. Investigation has revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) was in possession of three blank NC32 Forms seized during the search of his house. Investigation has further revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) had met accused Harish Chander (A%) at Gole Dakkhana where accused Harish Chander (A5) ws working as a Mail Man. Accused Harish Chander (A5) asked accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) to forge the body writing of the KVPs so that they could be encashed.

8. Investigation has revealed that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and accused H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) got prepared round seals/stamp which were used to forge the KVPs to show them to have been issued from the concerned Post Office.

9. Investigation has further revealed that Laxman Prasad @ CC No. 19/2009 Page 6 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23/6/1998 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007761 to 31BB007770 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Post Office Lucknow vide Regn. No. 741 dated 24.2.94 to Postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 18/43892.

10. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007771 to 31BB007780 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 742 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 19/43892.

11. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007781 to 31BB007790 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post CC No. 19/2009 Page 7 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Office vide Regn. No. 743 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 20/43892.

12. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 13.6.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 31BB007791 to 31BB007800 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 744 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.81,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 21/43892.

13. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.8.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970301 to 28CC970310 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 746 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 22/43892.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 8 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

14. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.8.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970311 to 28CC970320 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 747 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,62,000/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with identity slip bearing no. 23/43892.

15. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970321 to 28CC970325 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 748 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

16. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970326 to 28CC970330 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post CC No. 19/2009 Page 9 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Office vide Regn. No. 749 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

17. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970331 to 28CC970336 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 750 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,30,800/ to him against these KVPs.

18. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970338 to 28CC970342 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 752 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

19. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.9.98 and presented CC No. 19/2009 Page 10 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC970343 to 28CC970348 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 753 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,03,800/ to him against these KVPs.

20. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 21.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982031 to 28CC982035 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 755 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

21. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 21.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982036 to 28CC982040 purported to have been issued from Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office vide Regn. No. 756 dated 24.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

22. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad CC No. 19/2009 Page 11 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.2.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936601 to 35BB936620 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 565 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

23. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.2.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936621 to 35BB936640 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 566 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

24. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 17.2.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936641 to 35BB936660 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 567 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

25. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went CC No. 19/2009 Page 12 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 19.2.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936661 to 35BB936680 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 568 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

26. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 19.2.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936681 to 35BB936700 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 569 dated 16.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

27. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 3.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936301 to 35BB936320 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 528 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

28. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 3.3.99 and presented KVPs CC No. 19/2009 Page 13 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 bearing serial no. 35BB936321 to 35BB936340 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 529 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

29. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 34.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936341 to 35BB936360 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 530 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

30. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936361 to 35BB936380 purported to have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 531 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

31. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB936381 to 35BB936400 purported to CC No. 19/2009 Page 14 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 have been issued from Jind Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 532 dated 6.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

32. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163321 to 45CC163330 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1381 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

33. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163331 to 45CC163340 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1382 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

34. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 27.3.99 and presented CC No. 19/2009 Page 15 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163341 to 45CC163350 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1383 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

35. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2730.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163351 to 45CC163360 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1384 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

36. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163361 to 45CC163370 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1385 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

37. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad CC No. 19/2009 Page 16 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163371 to 45CC163380 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1386 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

38. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 30.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163381 to 45CC163390 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1387 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

39. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 31.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163391 to 45CC163400 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1388 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him CC No. 19/2009 Page 17 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 against these KVPs.

40. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.4.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163601 to 45CC163610 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1394 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

41. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.4.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163611 to 45CC163620 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1395 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

42. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163621 to 45CC163630 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide CC No. 19/2009 Page 18 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Regn. No. 1396 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

43. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163631 to 45CC163640 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1397 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

44. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163641 to 45CC163650 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1398 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

45. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163651 to 45CC163660 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1399 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) CC No. 19/2009 Page 19 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

46. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163661 to 45CC163670 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1400 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

47. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.5.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163671 to 45CC163674 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1401 dated 28.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.74,400/ to him against these KVPs.

48. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163675 to 45CC163680 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1402 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,11,600/ to him CC No. 19/2009 Page 20 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 against these KVPs.

49. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163681 to 45CC163690 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1403 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

50. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) personating himself as Hari Prasad again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163691 to 45CC163700 purported to have been issued from Charbagh Lucknow (UP) Post Office vide Regn. No. 1404 dated 8.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

51. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) has personated himself as Hari Prasad and presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office 477 above referred stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.35,70,000/ and cheated the CC No. 19/2009 Page 21 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Government of India by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs. 64,96,100/.

52. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982151 to 28CC982155 purported to have been issued from Machharuli Post Office vide Regn. No. 516 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with Identity Slip Nos. 15/43893.

53. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982156 to 28CC982160 purported to have been issued from Machharuli Post Office vide Regn. No. 517 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with Identity Slip Nos. 16/43893.

54. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh CC No. 19/2009 Page 22 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982161 to 28CC982165 purported to have been issued from Machharuli Post Office vide Regn. No. 518 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with Identity Slip Nos. 17/43893.

55. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982166 to 28CC982170 purported to have been issued from Machharuli Post Office vide Regn. No. 519 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs. These KVPs were presented along with Identity Slip Nos. 18/43893.

56. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 29.7.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 28CC982171 to 28CC982175 purported to have been issued from Machharuli Post Office vide Regn. No. 520 dated 4.1.94 to postmaster CC No. 19/2009 Page 23 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

57. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922201 to 35BB922210 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 525 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

58. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922211 to 35BB922220 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 526 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

59. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922221 to 35BB922230 CC No. 19/2009 Page 24 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 527 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

60. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 8.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922231 to 35BB922240 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 528 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

61. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922241 to 35BB922250 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 529 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

62. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh CC No. 19/2009 Page 25 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922251 to 35BB922260 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 530 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

63. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 12.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922261 to 35BB922270 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 531 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

64. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922271 to 35BB922280 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 532 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 26 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

65. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922281 to 35BB922290 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 533 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

66. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) personating himself as Harpal Singh went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 14.12.98 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB922291 to 35BB922300 purported to have been issued from Karnal Head Post Office vide Regn. No. 534 dated 23.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.86,500/ to him against these KVPs.

67. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) has personated himself as Chaudhary Harpal Singh and presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office 125 above referred stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.7,50,000/ and cheated the Government of India by fraudulent means to the CC No. 19/2009 Page 27 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 tune of Rs.12,97,500/.

68. Investigation has further revealed that Sh.Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 5.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579620 to 34CC579629 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 975 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

69. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 5.3.99 and represented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579633 to 34CC579642 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 977 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

70. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 6.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579643 to 34CC579652 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 978 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster CC No. 19/2009 Page 28 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

71. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 6.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579653 to 34CC579662 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 979 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

72. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 69.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579663 to 34CC579672 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 980 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

73. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 9.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579673 to 34CC579682 CC No. 19/2009 Page 29 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 981 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

74. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 910.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579683 to 34CC579692 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 982 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

75. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 1011.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 34CC579693 to 34CC579699 purported to have been issued from Batwadi Post Office Akola444302 vide Regn. No. 983 dated 4.2.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,30,200/ to him against these KVPs.

76. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again CC No. 19/2009 Page 30 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823117 to 57CC823126 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1006 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

77. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823137 to 57CC823146 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1008 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

78. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 23.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823147 to 57CC823156 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1009 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 31 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

79. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823157 to 57CC823166 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1010 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

80. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940201 to 35BB920220 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1011 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

81. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 24.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940221 to 35BB920240 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1012 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 32 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

82. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 242627.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 57CC823131 to 57CC823136 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1007 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,11,600/ to him against these KVPs.

83. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940241 to 35BB940260 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1013 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

84. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940261 to 35BB940280 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1014 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 33 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

85. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 26.3.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 35BB940281 to 35BB940300 purported to have been issued from Hata Post Office vide Regn. No. 1015 dated 18.3.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

86. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855701 to 46CC855710 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 346 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

87. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 2.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855711 to 46CC855720 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 347 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him CC No. 19/2009 Page 34 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 against these KVPs.

88. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855721 to 46CC855730 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 348 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

89. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855731 to 46CC855740 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 349 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

90. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 4.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855741 to 46CC855750 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post CC No. 19/2009 Page 35 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 350 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

91. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855751 to 46CC855760 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 351 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

92. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855761 to 46CC855770 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 352 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

93. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 7.6.99 and presented CC No. 19/2009 Page 36 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855771 to 46CC855780 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 353 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

94. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855781 to 46CC855790 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 354 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

95. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 11.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855791 to 46CC855800 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 355 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

96. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash CC No. 19/2009 Page 37 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855801 to 46CC855810 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 356 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

97. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855811 to 46CC855820 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 357 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

98. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 16.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855821 to 46CC855830 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 358 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 38 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

99. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855831 to 46CC855840 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 359 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

100. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855841 to 46CC855850 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 360 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

101. Investigation has further revealed that Sh. Rohtash Kanwar personating himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma again went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office on 18.6.99 and presented KVPs bearing serial no. 46CC855851 to 46CC855860 purported to have been issued from Rajkishore, CC No. 19/2009 Page 39 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Rajkot Post Office 360001 vide Regn. No. 361 dated 21.4.94 to postmaster Alwar Singh (A8) who made payment of Rs. 1,86,000/ to him against these KVPs.

102. Investigation has thus revealed that accused Rohtash Kanwar has personated himself as Ramesh Kumar Sharma and presented before accused Alwar Singh (A8) Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office total number of 383 above referred stolen/forged KVPs of the face value of Rs.33,30,000/ and encashed the same by fraudulent means to the tune of Rs. 61,93,800/.

103. Investigation has further revealed that on 19.6.99 on the directions of accused K. M. Singh, accused Rohtash Kanwar had gone to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, New Delhi and presented KVPS worth Rs.8 lacs approximately for encashment. Since accused Alwar Singh was proceeding on training to Saharanpur he asked accused Rohtash Singh to get NC32 forms photocopied and submit the details to accused Satish Pal Singh for verification. Accused Satish Pal Singh in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy signed those eight NC32 forms and put the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and handed over the NC32 forms to accused K. M. Singh for forging the verification. He did not fill in the details of the KVPs which were to be CC No. 19/2009 Page 40 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 verified. These eight NC32 forms bearing only the signatures of accused Satish Pal Singh and stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh on his pointing out.

104. Investigation has further revealed that accused Alwar Singh (A8) posted as Sub Postmaster Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office abused his official position as public servant with dishonest intention and made payments againt stolen and forged KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163601 to 45CC163700, 45CC163321 to 45CC163400, 35BB936301 to 936400, 34CC579620 to 34CC579629, 34CC579633 to 34CC579699, 46CC855701 to 855860, 35BB940201 to 35BB940300, 35BB940541 to 35BB940600, 57CC823117 to 823126, 57CC823131 to 57CC823166, 57CC811609 to 57CC811652, 28CC982151 to 28CC982175, 35BB936601 to 35BB936700, 35BB922201 to 35BB922300, 31BB007761 to 31BB007800, 28CC982031 to28CC982040, 46CC982201 to 46CC982300, 28CC970301 to 28CC970336, 28CC970338 to 970348, 35BB940301 to 940500 by intentionally avoiding verification of the KVPs from Lost Circulars issued by the Departmentof Posts from time to time and he deliberately did not follow the laid down procedures in the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Vol. II CC No. 19/2009 Page 41 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 regarding encashment of Cash Certificates. Sh. Alwar Singh also failed to obtain/verify the proof of identity of Laxman Prasad @ Tahkur, Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Rohtash Kanwar. Accused Alwar Singh also deliberately did not check that the identity slip booklets bearing the same serial number that were obtained fraudulently by accused K. M. Singh, Harish Chander, Sohan Pal Sharma and Hari Narain Pal @ Neta from Lodi Road Post Office were the same used for Rajaji Puram and Machhrauli Post Offices at the same time. Accused Alwar singh also deliberately did not check that the serial number of the registration number of Char Bagh Post Office on 8.3.94 was 1403 and on 28.3.94 it was showing registration number as 1401 which is not possible. The KVPs bearing serial no. 45CC163671 to 45CC163674 and 45CC163675 to 45CC163680 were encahsed by him on these faulty registration numbers. Accused Alwar Singh also deliberately overlooked the fact that KVP bearing serial no. 45CC163373 was not bearing any registration number and encahsed the same for Laxman Prasad for Rs.1,86,000/. Thus by abusing his official position as a Public Servant, he caused wrongful loss to Government of India to the tune of Rs.1,89,53,700/ entrusted to him and corresponding undue pecuniary advantage to himself and for co CC No. 19/2009 Page 42 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 accused persons.

105. On the above stated allegations charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act 1998 and 419/420467/468/471 IPC were framed against accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2).

A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Laxman Parsad @ Thakur (A3).

A charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and 409 IPC was framed against accused Alwar Singh (A8).

A charge under Section 120 B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/468/471/409 IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act was framed against accused Krishan Madhwa (A1), Sohan Pal Sharma (A2), Laxman Parasad @ Thakur (A3), Rohtas Kanwar (A4), Hari Narain Pal (A6), Satish Pal Singh (A7) and Alwar Singh (A8).

A charge under Section 419/420/467/468/471 IPC was framed against accused Rohtas Kanwar (A4). All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

106. In order to prove its case, Central Bureau of Investigation has examined as many as 39 witnesses in all. Let me state in brief, the statements made by the prosecution witnesses:

CC No. 19/2009 Page 43 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

107. PW1 Sh. Ishwar Singh, the official from the Post Office Malviya Nagar, testified the procedure of encashment of KVPs by a post office.

108. PW2 Sh. Roop Chand, Asst. Superintendent of Post Office, Foreign Post Office, proved the Post Office Savings Bank Manual Volume II Ex.PA.

109. PW3 Sh. BDL Srivastava, Senior Superintendent Post Office, Central Division Meghdoot Bhawan Link Road, New Delhi. He accorded sanction to prosecute accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) vide his order Ex.PW3/A.

110. PW4 Dr. D. Veena Kumari proved sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute accused Alwar Singh (A8) and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7), which is Ex.PW4/A.

111. PW5 Sh. A. Kharkwal, Director Postal Services, Delhi Circle, New Delhi. He accorded sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute accused K. M. Singh (A1). The sanction order is Ex.PW5/1.

112. PW6 Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar testified that from the year 1995 to 2000 he was running a firm M/s Data Pro Services at Rajinder Palace and that he used to design as per the specification given by the customers. He testified that accused CC No. 19/2009 Page 44 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 K. M. Singh (A1) along with H. N. Pal (A6) came to his shop and requested him to design 3 or 4 designs of stamps of various post offices. He testified that he prepared the designs and handed over the same to them next day, after getting the charges. In cross examination he testified that he had prepared the designs of stamps impression and 4 specimen were prepared on each paper.

113. PW7 Sh. Man Mohan Singh testified that accused Alwar Singh (A8) had given his specimen signatures.

114. PW8 Sh. Lala Ram Bharti deposed that he knew Sh. Ram Kumar Paliwal being employed in his division who came to his office with coaccused Hari Narain Pal @ Neta alonwith one another person in the year 1996 and asked him by showing printed sample slip as to whether such slip could be made available to him then he (Lala Ram Bharti) took Ram Kumar Paliwal inside the room of the Post Office, Lodhi Colony where orderly N.K.Joshi was on duty and asked him to give similar slips after showing him the sample slips given by the said Ram Kumar Paliwal. Then peon N.K.Joshi made search for the slips in the store and handed over two booklets containing similar slips to Ram Kumar Paliwal and thereafter, he had accompanied with him in their vehicle parked CC No. 19/2009 Page 45 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 outside the post office, and had some cold drinks with them (Ram Kumar Paliwal and accused Netaji) and from there accused Netaji and Paliwal left the building of the Post Office along with the slip booklets. He further deposed that 1520 days after the above visit accused Hari Narain Pal @ Netaji accompanied with Ram Kumar Paliwal and some other person who was accompanying them at the time of his first visit again came to his office at Lodhi Road. On being asked by Ram Kumar Paliwal, he got 23 more booklets containing the aforementioned slips which they took away with them.

He has further stated that his statement was recorded during the course of investigation by the Investigation officer stands proved as Ex.PW 9/A whereas his statement recorded on 13.9.1999 under section 164 Cr.P.C by the Ld.M.M is proved as Ex.PW9/B.

115. PW9 Sh. Dinesh Chand Sharma testified that in the year 1999 he was working as Assistant Superintendent Post Office Division in the office of Senior Superintendent, New Delhi South East Division, New Delhi. At the direction of his superior officer he reached Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and took hold of SO Sub Office Accounts in which all the cash transactions of Sub Post Office were reflected. He testified that heavy payment of CC No. 19/2009 Page 46 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 KVPs were made at the post ofice during the period from April 1998 to June, 1999. During that period accused Alwar Singh (A8) was posted as Sub Post Master and accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was posted as Postal Assistant in the said Post Office. He took hold of the relevant records viz purchase applications of KVPs and discharge Journals and found that in all the cases KVPs were shown to have been purchased in other circular of Post Office i.e. outside Delhi. It was also found that the person named in the purchased application had been shown residing in and around Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office areas and most of the applications of the certificate were shown to have been transferred from Jind, Charbagh Lucknow, Rajaji Puram Lucknow, Raj Kishore, Hata, Akola, Machhrauli, Karnal and Rewa. On perusal of the applications it was revealed that the certificates were shown to have been received by transfer by way of NC32. He instructed another official to go and verify the address given in the purchase applications and he along with Sh. G. M. Verma, SSPO went to Lodhi Road Head Office with the requisition letter for paid KVPs from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and also verified the paid certificates from the Director of Accounts Postal. Telegrams were sent to the Controlling Offices of the Post office from where these CC No. 19/2009 Page 47 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 certificates were issued. All the Post Offices responded that those certificates were never sold at their Post Offices. In the meantime Sh. G. S. Yadav reported that either the addresses written on the purchase applications were fake or the persons named in the application were not residing at the addresses. He also came to know that no post office with the name of Raj Kishore existed in his division. He proved the letter of Sh. C. M. Verma SSPO as Ex.PW9/A. He proved the the list of KVPs purportedly issued by the aforesaid post offices. He also proved the reports of G. S. Yadav PRIP about the verification of the addresses of the persons purportedly holding the said KVPs. He proved telegram sent to the aforesaid post offices and the replies from the concerned post offices from where the questioned KVPs were issued.

116. PW10 Sh. Krishan Madan Singh is the elder brother of K. M. Singh (A1) and proved a few property documents concerning himself and his wife.

117. PW11 Sh. Ravinder Kumar Lal was posted as ASP Investigation in the office of Chief Post Master General Patna from August 1988 till 12.3.2001. He proved the proforma Ex.PW11/B. For the period from 23.3.1990 to 29.4.1999 in which short deliveries of security papers were reported by the CC No. 19/2009 Page 48 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 CSD Office Patna. (original in CC No. 17/02).

118. PW12 Sh. Shambhu Nath was the Assistant Post Master (Treasury) Lodhi Road Post Office, New Delhi. He testified that the sub post offices were authorized to maintain a minimum cash balance ranging between Rs.5000/ to Rs.20,000/. He testified that in the year 1998, accused Alwar Siongh (A8) was posted as Sub Master in Hari Nagar Ashram Chowk Post Office, New Delhi. He proved the SO daily accounts of various dates.

119. PW13 Sh. Hawa Singh is the Sub Post Master of Machhrauli Post Office Distt. Jhajjar in the year 1998. He proved the stock book cum issue register for KVPs w.e.f. 5.11.1988 till 14.2.1998. He testified that the KVPs in question purportedly having been issued from Machhrualit Post Officer were not actually issued from the said post office.

120. PW14 Sh. M. D. Verma was the Sub Post Master at Charbagh Post Office, District Lucknow from February 1998 till 31.7.2002. He proved the stock register of his post office and testified that KVPs in question purportedly issued from this post office were actually not issued from this post office.

121. PW15 Sh. Pritam Singh was the Post Master, Jind. He proved the stock register of Jind Head Post Office and testified that KVPs purportedly were issued from Jind Post Office but CC No. 19/2009 Page 49 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 actually were not issued from the said Post Office.

122. PW16 Sh. S. J. Mahajan was the Sub Post Master at Balapur Post office, District Akola, Maharashtra. He also testified that one branch of this post office is situated in village Batwadi. He testified that these KVPs could not be issued from Batwadi post office because it is only a branch post office and is not authorized to issue KVPs.

123. PW17 Sh. Chander Bhan (I am not inclined to discuss this witness because he is concerned with accused Rohtash Kanwar (A4), who has already been convicted on his plea of guilt).

124. PW18 Sh. G. S. Yadav was posted as PRIP in the DHQ Post Office, New Delhi. Apart from proving various letters, he proved his reports in respect of the verification of the names and addresses of the persons, who were purportedly the holders of the KVPs in question.

125. PW19 Sh. Chhitarmal Verma was Senior Superintendent of Post Offices South Division, New Delhi. He proved various letters including the letters sent to different post offices.

126. PW20 Sh. Dharam Pal was the tenant of accused H. N. Pal (A6) and proved the ration card and photographs of this accused.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 50 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

127. PW21 Sh. S. N. Bhardwaj, Assistant Post Master testified that it was incumbent upon the staff to tally the KVPs brought for encashment with the particulars of the lost/stolen KVPs mentioned in the circular but due to acute shortage of staff, it was not practically possible to cross check details of the KVPs.

128. PW22 Sh. Govind Singh Rattan Thakur, Superintendent of RMS, L Division, Bhusawal, District Jal Gaon, Maharashtra. He testified that the KVPs in quetion were not issued from the post offices namely Hata Branch Post Office or Batwadi Post office.

129. PW23 Mohd. Anwar testified that one Ramesh had given him 1000 KVPs of denomination of Rs.10,000/ each and that he used to sell them for a profit to one D. B. Singh.

130. PW24 Sh. Roshan Lal Yadav is the Inspector, CBI. He took specimen signatures of accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A6).

131. PW25 Sh. Ramesh Kumar @ Netaji testified that he purchased the KVPs from one Ranjit and had sold the same to one Anwar.

132. PW26 Sh. S. Balasubhramaniam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI. He took specimen signatures of accused Laxman Prasad (A3) at the instructions of the Investigation Officer in CC No. 19/2009 Page 51 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 presence of independent witness namely Laxmi Narayan.

133. PW27 Sh. Nand Kishore Joshi testified that Lala Ram Bharti was posted as Postal Assistant in Lodhi Road, Post Ofice and that he (PW27) was a postman in the said Post Office. He testified that while he was performing duties in the stock room of the Post Office, where NSCs, KVPs etc. used to be kept, in the year 1996 Sh. Lala Ram Bharti approached him for delivery of some paper identity slips. At his request he provided him the loose sheets of defective identity slips lying in the stock room. PW27 testified against that Sh. Lala Ram Bharti visited him against after one month and further asked for the identity paper booklet but he (PW27) refused to give him the identity slips.

134. PW28 Sh. Mahender Pal Sharma testified that K. M. Singh (A1) had purchased the flat from him and had also purchased jewellery from his nephew.

135. PW29 Sh. Devender Kumar testified that in the year 1996 he was posted as Chowkidar at Dadri Post Office. In the month of November 1996, one Ram Niwas introduced him with one person called 'Neta'. They met him to have a drink and on drinking the wine, his health deteriorated. Thereafter Netaji asked for the keys of the Post Offices. Keys were taken out from his pocket. They were asking about the date stamps. He CC No. 19/2009 Page 52 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 testified that both the persons went inside the hall and at the time of leaving main hall of the post office, they asked him not to disclose this incident. He testified that they were holding bundles rapped in the newspapers. On next day, he brought the incident to the notice of Post Master. On inquiry from the Post Master he told that nothing was stolen. He testified that he found one stamp lying in open ground after those persons had left post office. 2 or 3 stamps were lying scattered position near the box.

136. PW30 Sh. Ram Niwas was working as Packers in Post Office Surajpur Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar from 1989 to 1997. The witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

137. PW31 Sh. Janardhan Singh testified that a circular of the theft/lost KVPs was issued in the office of Senior Superintendent Post Office and thereafter sent to all the Post Offices.

138. PW32 Sh. Alok Pande was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Delhi. He testified that in July 1998, one Kadam Singh ASPO informed him on telephone that he had checked the records of Mangol Puri Post Office and he suspected something fishy. He sought permission to check the records, which accounting office of the Mangol Puri Post Office.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 53 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 He also went to Ashok Vihar Post Office. After checking the records, Kadam Singh reported the encashment of lost KVPs. Accordingly FIR was lodged with PS Mangol Puri.

139. PW33 Sh. H. C. Sharma is Addl. S. P. in Anti Corruption branch, CBI. He testified that he remained posted as Inspector CBI, New Delhi from June 1997 to April 2003 and he was the Investigation Officer of a case RC 4(E)/98/BS & FC/DLI. He testified that during the course of this investigation, he seized FIR No. 29/98 from Girinder Mohan, Inspector GRPF, Patna, which related to the theft of KVPs belonging to 46CC series.

140. PW34 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam testified that in the year 1999, he was running shorkshop in the name and style of M/s Pappu Motors, Sector12, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. He got an information about an accident of a vehicle having taken place near Hindon River bypass. He rushed to the spot. The condition of the vehicle was deteriorated and nobody was found present near the vehicle. Thereafter the said vehicle was brought at his workshop. After waiting for two days, he started the job of denting. After 5 or 7 days some CBI officials came to his workshop and asked as to why this vehicle reached in his workshop. A written instruction was given to him not to deliver the vehicle to anyone. The witness was declared hostile. In the CC No. 19/2009 Page 54 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that CBI made inquiries from him in respect of vehicle no. DL 3C F 0838 but he denied that he knew accused K. M. Singh (A1). However he admitted that the vehicle is still lying in his workshop and colour of the vehicle had been changed to light green.

141. PW35 Sh. Ram Kumar Paliwal turned hostile and stated that accused K. M. Singh (A1) never met him in June 1996 for arranging identity slips booklet. In cross examination by Ld. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that his statement was recorded by CBI on 18.8.1999.

142. PW36 Sh. Yamuna Prasad Pandey was ASP in the office of Superintendent Post Office. He remained associated with Sh. Kadam Singh in respect of the inquiries about the fraudulent encashment of the KVPs.

143. PW37 Dr. R. Sharma, the hand writing expert proved his opinion.

144. PW38 Sh. Naresh Prashad testified that in the year 1999, he was pulling rickshaw in Patna. He testified that he knows Bharat, Ramesh and Bengali. He testified that Bharat took him to the shop of Ramesh. They asked him to take some papers to Ramesh. The said papers were of red colour. Bharat gave Rs.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 55 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 200/ to him as fare.

145. PW39 Inspector V. K. Pandey is the Investigating Officer of this case.

146. Statements under Section 313 CrPC of all the accused persons were recorded. This court also examined one witness namely Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain under Section 311 CrPC.

147. In defence accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) & Laxman Prasad (A3) have examined DW1 Sh. Syed Faizal Huda as a defence witness. After obtaining permission from this court, he had randomly taken photographs of disputed & specimen handwriting from the judicial file and thereafter examined the disputed writing/signatures with specimen writing/signatures of Satish Pal Singh (A7) and Laxman Prasad (A3). He proved the report as Ex.DW1/A in respect of accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) and the report Ex.DW1/C in respect of accused Laxman Prasad (A3). He testified that the disputed signatures and hand writings were not written by the writers of the specimen signatures/writings.

I may add here that Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain was summoned by this Court under Section 311 CrPC in another connected case i.e. CBI Vs. K. M. Singh etc. (Nirankari Post Office, CC No.1/10). In view of the denial of giving specimen CC No. 19/2009 Page 56 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 signatures by the accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) in this case, I deemed it appropriate to examine Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain under Section 311 CrPC. He testified that he had witnessed the taking of specimen signatures/hand writings of accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) and Sohan Pal Sharma (A2).

148. It is necessary to mention here that Accused Alwar Singh (A8) died on 10.2.2011 and proceedings against him abated vide order dated 28.3.2011. Accused Harish Chander (A5) was discharged vide order dated 31.5.2003 and accused Rohtash Kanwar (A4) was convicted on 11.11.2010 on his voluntarily pleading guilty.

149. Before discussing the role of each accused, I would point that PW9 Dinesh Chand Sharma, the Assistant Superintendent Post Office, Delhi, PW13 Hawa Singh, PW14 M. D. Verma, PW15 Pritam Singh, PW16 S. J. Mahajan, PW19 Chitramal Verma, PW22 Govind Singh Ratan, all postal officials have proved that the KVPs in question have not been issued from the post offices namely Char Bagh Lucknow, Jind Head Post Office, Rajaji Puram Lucknow Post Office, Machhrauli Post Office, Karnal Head Post Office, Raj Kishore Rajkot Post Office, Hata Post Office and Batwadi Akola Post Office. The KVPs fraudulently encashed from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office were CC No. 19/2009 Page 57 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 shown to have been issued from the aforesaid post offices. None of the accused persons during final arguments has disputed the fact that these KVPs were not issued from the aforesaid post offices. Therefore it is not in dispute that forged stamps of the said post offices have been affixed on these KVPs, which were encashed in Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office.

Now I take up the case of each accused separately as under : Krishan Madhawa Singh (A1)

150. As per charge sheet, this accused was one of the main conspirators in the present case. It is alleged that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal @ Neta (A6) had procured stolen KVPs from Afzal Siddiqui and Shehzada Siddiquie based in Lucknow. They had also obtained the identity slip booklets from Lodhi Road Head Post Office, New Delhi. It is alleged that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) had worked together at Jungpura Post Office and were known to each other. When accused Satish Pal Singh Singh (A7) was transferred to Hari Nagar Ashrma Post Office, accused K. M. Singh (A1), H. N. Pal (A6) and Sohan Pal Sharma (A2) met him and hatched the conspiracy to encash the stolen KVPS by forging the verification reports on NC32 forms of issuing post offices. It is alleged that CC No. 19/2009 Page 58 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) was asked to intercepted the NC32 forms and hand them to K. M. Singh (A1) and other co accused persons, who after forging the verification report would again hand over these forms to accused Satish Pal Singh (A7). It is alleged that accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) signed on eight NC32 forms and also put a stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for getting forged verification report purported to have been issued from other post offices. It is alleged that these NC32 forms were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his pointing out. Further it is alleged that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A6) got prepared round seals/stamps, which were used to forged the KVPs.

151. Prosecution has examined PW6 Sunil Krishan Nagar, who has testified that accused K. M. Singh (A1) and H. N. Pal (A6) has come to his shop and got the designs of the stamps of various post offices prepared. PW39 Inspector V. K. Pandey has testified that he had recorded the disclosure statement of accused K. M. Singh on 24.6.1999, 27.6.1999 and 3.7.1999 collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/A39. It is further testified that during the course of investigation, on pointing out of accused K. M. Singh (A1), 8 NC32 forms (D40 collectively CC No. 19/2009 Page 59 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 marked as Ex.PW39/A44) bearing the signatures of Ashok Gupta and Sudha Gupta, bearing the stamp impression of post office Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi dated 22.6.99 were recovered from the blue colour Zen Maruti card, which were lying under the mattress beneath driver seat in the presence of independent witnesses. All these NC32 forms were lying wrapped in the newspapers. These were recovered vide memo Ex.PW39/A38. It is pertinent to note that pursuant to disclosure statement of accused K. M. Singh CBI had found this car in the workshop of Ajay Kumar Gautam (PW34). Pursuant to his disclosure statement accused K. M. Singh (A1) took the Investigating Officer to the car and as per the Ex.PW39/A38, the 8 NC32 forms were taken out, which were lying under the mattress beneath the driver seat of Maruti Zen Car. The Investigating Officer PW39 has testified that during the course of investigation the car bearing no. DL3SF0838 was given on superdari to Ajay Kumar Gautam vide superdaginama Ex.PW36/A41 dated 11.1.2000 in CC No. 7/09 on the application moved by accused K. M. Singh. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that in this application accused K. M. Singh had prayed that his vehicle should be given on superdari to Sh. Ajay Kumar Gautam. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn CC No. 19/2009 Page 60 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 my attention to the superdaginama vide which PW34 Ajay Kumar Gautam has taken the superdaginama of car no. DL3CF0838 Maruti 800 pertaining to accused K. M. Singh. This fact was put to the accused K. M. Singh in question no. 312 in his statement under Section 313 CrPC and he has not denied this fact.

152. The NC32 forms, which are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/A44 bear the stamps of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and all are dated 22.6.1997. At the place of the signatures of the holder, there are signatures of Ashok Gupta in English and Sudha Gupta in Hindi. On these 8 NC32 forms, accused Satish Pal Singh has written "for transfer" in capacity of postal assistant. As per the report of PW37 Dr. R. Sharma, the writing "for transfer" in red pen is that of accused Satish Pal Singh. I will discuss the report of PW37 Dr. R. Sharma while discussing the role of accused Satish Pal Singh. Suffice it to say that the handwriting of Satish Pal Singh on these 8 KVPs in his official capacity stand proved.

153. It is argued that these KVPs have been planted and that the question of these 8 KVPs was considered in other three cases of KVPs scam namely CC No. 13/2008 pertaining to the fraudulent of encashment of KVPs in Eastern Court Post Office, CC No. 19/2009 Page 61 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 CC No. 7/2009 pertaining to Mangol Puri Post Office and CC No. 1/2010 pertaining to Nirankari Colony Post Office. Accused K. M. Singh has filed the copies of the said judgements and on perusing the same, I would say that recovering of these Eight NC32 forms was not a relevant fact in those cases. Those cases pertained to the other post offices and not to the post office Hari Nagar Ashram, whereas these NC32 forms have been connected by the prosecution with the conspiracy in the present case pertaining to Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. Therefore the acquittal of accused K. M. Singh in those cases will not affect this case.

154. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that accused K. M.singh had made disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999 in respect of NC32 forms and stated that he can get it recovered from his Maruti Zen Car. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 in which accused K. M. Singh had disclosed that he had purchased Maruti Zen DL3CF0838 from one Tyagi of Uttam Nagar through H. N. Pal and that the vehicle was not transferred in his name and that it had met with an accident and that now the car was under

repairs in a work shop called Pappu Motors. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that pursuant to this disclosure statement CC No. 19/2009 Page 62 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Investigating Officer V. K. Pandey along with accused K. M. Singh went to the service station on 27.6.1999 and met Ajay Kumar Gautam, proprietor of this work shop and directed him not to deliver the vehicle to any other person.

155. Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999 of accused K. M. Singh in which he disclosed that on 23.6.1999 he made a telephonic call to accused Satish in post office and inquired about the NC32 forms. Accused Satish told him that the same were ready and thereafter at about 10:30 pm accused Satish handed over those NC32 forms. Accused K. M. Singh disclosed that these NC32 forms have been placed by him under the mattress beneath the driving seat of the Maruti Zen Car. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that although this car was searched on 27.6.1999 at the work shop of Ajay Kumar Gautam but these NC32 forms could not be traced because the same were placed under the mattress beneath the driving seat. Accordingly in the presence of Sh. M. M. Sharma, an official of State Bank of India, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, accused K. M. Singh took them to the blue colour Maruti zen car and got the NC32 forms recovered. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that accused K. M. Singh moved an application for release of this Maruti car on superdari.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 63 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Since the Investigating Officer had not yet seized this vehicle, therefore the vehicle was seized by Investigating Officer on 16.1.2000 and thereafter its custody was given to the garage owner namely Pappu i.e. Ajay Kumar Gautam on the application of accused K. M. Singh. Although the complete details as submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor have not given in the evidence but prosecution has proved by examining PW34 Ajay Kumar Gautam, the proprietor of Pappu Motors that the vehicle was found in his custody by CBI. Later on pursuant to the disclosure statement dated 3.7.1999, the eight NC32 forms were recovered by the I.O. under the mattress beneath the driving seat of the car in presence of a independent witness. I may point out that these 8 NC32 forms were found wrapped in a newspapers Ex.PW39/A45. This newspapers is of the date 31.5.1999. Note is taken of the fact that the fraudulent encashment of the KVPs from Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office continued during the period from 2.6.1998 to 18.6.1999. I may refer to the SO Journal of this post office Ex.PW37/118 prepared by Sub Post Master Alwar Singh on 18.6.1999. The SO Journal is a composite sheet of the KVPs discharged and payments made. This sheet mentions the KVPs 46CC 855831 to 855860, which were discharged by the Sub Post Master Hari CC No. 19/2009 Page 64 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Nagar Ashram. A perusal of these KVPs (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW33/110) also show that these were discharged on 18.6.1999. Therefore the stamp on the NC32 forms of the date 22.6.1999 makes it clear that the accused K. M. Singh and Satish Pal Singh (along with Rohtash Kanwar A4, already convicted) were thickly into this conspiracy even just before the arrest of accused K. M. Singh which took place on 24.6.1999. Regarding Rohtash Kanwar, I would only mention that as per GEQD report, he was the person who had signed as Ramesh Sharma, purportedly the holder of these KVPs, and had encashed the aforesaid KVPs. He had pleaded guilty and has already been convicted.

156. Regarding the allegation of planting of the NC32 forms, I would say that as per testimony of PW39, the recovery was made vide memo Ex.PW39/A38 at the disclosure and the pointing of accused K. M. Singh. This recovery memo bears the signatures of accused K. M. Singh at point B and recovery was effected in presence of an independent witness namely M. M. Sharma an employee of State Bank of India. It is pertinent to note that all the eight NC32 forms as well as the newspaper has been signed by accused K. M. Singh with the date 3.7.1999. Accused has not been able to convince this court as to how his CC No. 19/2009 Page 65 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 signatures dated 3.7.1999 are available on them. These signatures support the prosecution case that these were recovered at the instance of a accused K. M. Singh as a token of which, he had put his signatures on the recovery memo as well as on the NC32 forms and the newspaper. Therefore I have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Investigating Officer in this regard. Ld. Public Prosecutor has submitted that had the CBI wanted to plant a document, they could have even planted the documents upon him in other three cases in which he was acquitted by the court. It is submitted that CBI could even have shown the recovery of these forms from the house or from the person of accused K. M. Singh. But this was not done as CBI never resorts to such practices. I agree with the submissions of Ld. Public Prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubt following facts against accused K. M. Singh:

(1) His disclosure whereby he disclosed the names of other conspirators namely A1 to A8.

(2) PW6 proved that accused K. M. Singh got three or four designs of various post offices prepared. Accused K. M. Singh does not explain as to for what purpose he got prepared these designs of stamps.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 66 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 (3) Pursuant to disclosure of K. M. Singh, eight NC32 forms were recovered by I.O.

What is the effect of all these circumstances, would be discussed by me after discussing the role of Satish Pal Singh (A7).

Satish Pal Singh (A7)

157. Satish Pal Singh has assailed the sanction order to prosecute him. I may point out that PW4 Dr. D. Veena Kumari had accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting accused Satish Pal Singh. It is submitted that PW4 was not competent to remove him and that no document has been proved by prosecution to place on record her competency to accord sanction under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act. I disagree with this submission. PW4 has testified that she was posted as Senior Superintendent of Post Office, New Delhi, South District and accused Satish Pal Singh was working as Postal Assistant and that she was competent to remove him from the service. In cross examination accused Satish Pal Singh has nowhere given the suggestion that she was not competent to accord sanction under Section 19 of P. C. Act. Accused Satish Pal Singh has also not brought any evidence in defence to show as to who was CC No. 19/2009 Page 67 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 competent to remove him from service or to accord sanction. In view of clear unrebutted assertion of PW4 that she was competent to remove him from the service, it has to be accepted that she was competent to accord sanction.

158. It is argued that the request letter sent by CBI to the sanctioning authority has not been proved. Therefore it is not brought on record by the prosecution as to what documents were sent by CBI to PW4 for her perusal. In absence of this request letter, it is argued, it has to be presumed that neither there was any request letter nor any documents were sent and therefore sanctioning authority accorded the sanction on a draft of sanction without examining the factual correctness of the actual documents. I disagree with this submission. In State of Karnataka Vs Aameer Jan (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 273, it is held that "the order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the facts that there had been proper application of mind on part of sanctioning authority". I have perused this judgement, cited by the accused, and I find that the sanctioning authority had accorded the sanction simply on a report and no material collected against the accused was placed before the sanctioning authority and therefore it was held that the sanction suffered from non application of mind. On the CC No. 19/2009 Page 68 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 other hand in the present case, the sanction order Ex.PW4/A. The sanction order mentions the fact of the case and in para 19 of this order she has specifically stated as to what material was examined by her before according the sanction. I refer to her testimony before this court in which she has stated that she had accorded the sanction after careful examination of the material including the statements of witness recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and documents collected by the Investigating Officer, which had been placed before her with regard to allegations and circumstances of the case. In cross examination by accused Satish Pal Singh, she testifies that "if NC32 form bearing the stamp of post office and signatures of concerned official of postal department is there, it means that the form has gone through that particular employee of the postal department. I had seen the documents before granting sanction though I do not recollect what those documents were." This testimony shows that at the time of according sanction, she was fully conscious of the facts and documents which are appearing against accused Satish Pal Singh. Therefore I do not find any defect in the sanction order.

159. The accused Satish Pal Singh has argued that the expert report Ex.PW15/1 and reasoning Ex.PW15/3 are not available CC No. 19/2009 Page 69 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 in this file and even true copies are not placed on the judicial file. It is submitted by Ld. Public Prosecutor that a large number of KVPs were got encashed from different post offices with the active collusion of the postal officials. Therefore initially the handwriting of all the suspects were taken and sent for comparison to GEQD. When the report came, the cases were filed post office wise. But there is a common GEQD report relevant to all the cases. This report has been mentioned in list of documents of each case including the present one and the copy of the same was also supplied to each accused. It is pertinent to note that PW37 proved the aforesaid reports in the court in this case and accused not only cross examined him on this report/opinion/reasoning but also examined a handwriting expert in his defence. Therefore the reports of GEQD had been the subject matter of this trial and were hotly contested. Though I agree that it would have been more convenient for the purpose of trial to place a copy of these reports on this file and it could have been given a different exhibit number. Even if it is not done, the said reports stand proved and have to be considered by this court.

160. Accused has taken the plea that as per the prosecution, the questioned documents and standard handwritings were sent to CC No. 19/2009 Page 70 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 GEQD Shimla, whereas the signatures of Dr. R. Sharma (PW37) show that he had signed the same in Chandigarh on 20.7.2001. It is submitted that it is nowhere explained as to how these documents, which were sent to Shimla, had reached Chandigarh. Ld. Public Prosecutor submits that the office of GEQD CFI is situated in Shimla and its one branch is situated in Chandigarh and court can take judicial notice of this fact. I have perused the report and I find that the report Ex.PW15/1 is prepared on the letterhead of GEQD, Central Forensic Institute, Government of India, Shimla but it had been signed by PW37 at Chandigarh. I take judicial notice of this fact that the branch office of GEQD, Shimla is situated at Chandigarh. Here the question is not as to at which office the documents were examined. The question before this court is that as to whether the opinion of prosecution expert is correct or not.

161. As discussed above it stands proved that the 8 NC32 forms were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) at his instance and pursuant to his disclosure. As per charge sheet, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, accused K. M. Singh (A1) directed accused Satish Pal Singh that accused Rohtash Kanwar would reach Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office for encashment of KVPs. Accused Satish Pal Singh informed him that postmaster CC No. 19/2009 Page 71 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Alwar Singh was going for training to Saharanpur and therefore he would send Rohtash Kanwar on the same day. Actually as per the direction of accused K. M. Singh (A1), accused Rohtash Kanwar went to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and presented the stolen/forged KVPs to the tune of Rs.1 lac for encashment. Accused Alwar Singh on seeing the KVPs asked accused Satish Pal Singh to send NC32 forms to the issuing post office and verify the particulars and himself went on training to Saharanpur. It is alleged that accused Satish Pal Singh in furtherance of criminal conspiracy wrote "for transfer" on 8 NC32 forms and also put the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and gave them to accused K. M. Singh (A1) for getting the verification forged. These NC32 forms were recovered from the car of accused K. M. Singh (A1) on his pointing out.

162. These 8 NC32 forms (collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/A44) were wrapped in a newspapers Ex.PW39/A45 and were placed under the mattress beneath the driving seat of the blue colour Zen Maruti car at the instance of accused K. M. Singh (A1) vide memo Ex.PW39/A38. On these NC32 forms, the words "for transfer" are written in red pen and beneath it there are initials in red pen. This hand writing and initial is at CC No. 19/2009 Page 72 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886, Q1894, Q1890, Q1903 and Q1898. On each of the forms, the round stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office is affixed and the stamp of sub postmaster with an initial is also fixed. On the initials of the sub postmaster a date 22.6.1999 is written. In the round stamp also the date 22.6.1999 is visible. As per the report of hand writing expert Ex.PW15/A (on page 28), it is written that above stated noted questioned writings have been written by the same person whose specimen hand writing is found on S515, S536 to S539 and S541 to S545. These specimen hand writings are Ex.PW39/A3 (D124) and pertains to accused Satish Pal Singh and the same have been taken in presence of an independent witness namely Sh. Gyanesh Kumar Jain. (examined by this court under Section 311 CrPC)

163. As per charge sheet, in his disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 accused K. M. Singh (A1) stated that he had purchased one Maruti Car No. DL 3CF 0838 from one Tyagi of Uttam Nagar and that the vehicle has not been transferred in his name and that this vehicle met with an accident and was under

repair in a workshop called Pappu Motors. In this disclosure statement, he has also disclosed the name of Satish Pal Singh. In his disclosure statement dated 3.6.1999, he disclosed that CC No. 19/2009 Page 73 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 accused Satish Pal Singh handed over to him NC32 forms and he kept the same under the mattress beneath the driving seat of blue colour Maruti Zen car. At his instance, the said NC32 forms were taken out from the said vehicle. As per prosecution case form 32 are required when KVPs are to be transferred from one post office to another post office. As per Rule 37(1) of Post Office Saving Bank Manual Volume II, "when an application for transfer of a certificate in the prescribed form (NC32) is received in an office for registration either direct or through the office to which transfer is desired, the postmaster of the office of registration must satisfy himself that certificate sought to be transferred actually stands in applicant's name.......". Therefore it is alleged that accused Satish Pal singh facilitated and acted in conspiracy with accused K. M. Singh (A1) by handing him over the blank form 32 after writing "for transfer" and putting his initials beneath it. It is pertinent to note that these 8 NC32 forms bear the stamp of sub postmaster and his initials as well as a stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office bearing the date 22.6.1999. The remaining columns which should contain particulars of KVPs etc. are blank.

164. Now I take up the report of GEQD as well as the opinion of the expert witness namely DW1 Syed Faizal Huda examined CC No. 19/2009 Page 74 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 by accused Satish Pal Singh. The defence witness has proved his opinion as Ex.DW1/A. He proved the enlarged photographs of the disputed signatures and specimen signatures as Ex.DW1/B. He has opined that the disputed writing and the signatures and the specimen writing/signatures (of accused Satish Pal Singh) have been written by different persons. I have perused his opinion. He has observed that specimen signatures have been written fluently in a graceful manner and show superior degree of penmanship. Similarly he has considered the alignment, slant and natural variations and the proportion of letters including the spacing between the letters. I disagree with his opinion on the aforesaid points because perusal of the specimen hand writing/signatures and the disputed hand writing/signatures shows equal degree of penmanship and I do not find any difference in alignment, slant, natural variations and proportions of the letters. Now I take up his opinion on individual characteristics, which is reproduced as under :

"INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WRITINGS (for Transfer): Formation of individual letters of the disputed writings shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen writings in the following manner:

a) Letter "f": In word "for", the beginning stroke is extended and the formation of CC No. 19/2009 Page 75 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 triangular loop is prominent in specimen writing (e.g. S515, S536) but not in disputed writings (Q1881, Q1886), demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.

In word "four" letter "f" makes rounded top in disputed writings (Q1898, Q1903) whereas loop formation in specimen (S536, S515, S537) writings and suggest the dissimilarities of individual habits, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.

In word "transfer" letter "f" is tended towards the left side in disputed writings (Q1890, Q1894) whereas it is vertically placed to tend towards the right side in specimen writings (S538, S522) demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.

b) Letter "o": It is written in fully developed manner and style of formation in specimen writings (e.g. S515, S536) but not in disputed writings (e.g. Q1890, Q1894), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.

c) Letters "u, r": in word "four" it is vertically placed in specimen writings (S538, S522) but tended towards the left side in disputed writings (Q1898, Q1903), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.

d) Letter "T": The bar of letter "T" is more rounded in style in disputed writings (Q1890, q1894) as compared to the specimen writings, demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.

e) See the presence of additional cursive stroke in letters "r, a, n, and s" of word "Transfer" in specimen writings (S538, S522) which is not prominent in the disputed writings CC No. 19/2009 Page 76 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 (Q1898, Q1903), demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs.

f) Terminal stroke of letter "r" of word "Transfer" goes upwardly in disputed writings (e.g. Q1871, Q1876) but horizontally in specimen writings (e.g. S515, S542) and suggest the different individual habits of the writers."

165. Now I reproduce the relevant GEQD opinion Ex.PW15/3 in this regard as under : "My opinion that the writings in the enclosed portions stamped and marked Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886, Q1890, Q1894, Q1898, Q1903; S515, S536 to S539 and S541 to S545 have been written by one and the same person, is based upon the cumulative considerations of the similarities both in the general and individual writing habits occurring in them.

Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: manner of execution of letter 'f' with the nature of start; nature and location CC No. 19/2009 Page 77 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 of upper body part as well as nature and location of downward stroke with similar variation; nature and manner of linking letters 'o' and 'r', execution of letter 'T' with the nature and location of horizontal and vertical stroke; nature and location of next succeeding character and manner of connecting with next succeeding character with similar variation observed to be similar with similar variation; manner of execution of letter 's' with the nature and location of upper and lower body part and manner of joining its terminal stroke with letter 'f'; nature and location of the commencement, body part as well as nature and location of finish in the execution of last character were also observed to be similar variation int he questioned and standard.

All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings.

There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings and there is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."

166. With a view to assess the aforesaid opinion, I have perused the enlarged photographs of the questioned and CC No. 19/2009 Page 78 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 disputed hand writings filed by DW1 in the court and which are exhibited as Ex.DW1/B. On seeing these enlarged photographs, there cannot be two opinions that the same have been written by one and the same person. The formations of 'f', 'r', 'T', 's' are similar and I have no doubt about the accuracy of the opinion given by the PW37 Dr. R. Sharma. Accordingly the opinion of the defence expert witness has to be rejected. I would like to reproduce the cross examination of PW37 by Ld. Counsel of accused Satish Pal Singh as under :

"Q. I draw your attention to questioned document no. 1898 and 1903, in which starting "f" is different from starting "f" in questioned writing 1890, 1894. Is it correct?

Ans. It is correct. Vol. the same habit of writing letter "f" is also appearing in specimen writings.

Q. Is it correct that in view of the aforesaid difference in letter "f", it would be correct to say that both were written by two persons?

Ans. It is correct.

                              Q.       Do   you   find   difference   of   alignment 
                              between   questioned   as   well   as   specimen 
                              writings?
                              Ans. I do not find any difference.
                              Q.       I   suggest   that   in   question   writing   no.

1898, there is ascending alignment, whereas the same is not in specimen writing. What do you want to say?

Ans. It is correct that there is ascending alignment in questioned writing no. 1898. I want to explain that in other questioned CC No. 19/2009 Page 79 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 writings, the alignments vary with each other and the same were reflected in specimen writings.

Q. I suggest to you that in all questioned writings, there is ascending alignment with small variation but in all specimen writings the alignment is straight?

Ans. It is correct that in question writing there is ascending alignments with variations but in all specimen writing the alignment is not precisely straight there is a variation.

Q. Do you find backward slant in all questioned writing whereas forward slant in specimen writing, this is major difference between two?

Ans. It is correct.

                              Q.      Do   you   find   backward   slant   in   starting 
                              letter "F" and "T" Q. 1894 and Q.1886?
                              Ans. It is correct.
                              Q.      Is   it   correct   that   there   is   difference   in

spacing in as much as it is more in between the words "for" and "transferred" in specimen writing, whereas less in questioned writing Q1871, Q1876, Q1881, Q1886 and Q1894?

Ans. It is incorrect. The spacing between the words "for" and "transferred" were similarly found in the specimen writings.

It is wrong to suggest that I am denying the facts.

Q. Did you notice any difference in starting letter "F" with triangular loop at the bottom in between the specimen writing but not in questioned writing?

Ans. I do not find as the same is appearing in specimen with natural variations.

Q. Do you find in the terminal stroke of letter "r" of word transfer, which goes upwardly CC No. 19/2009 Page 80 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 in the questioned writing but horizontally in the specimen writing?

Ans. No. Q. Do you find letter "T" of word "transfer" is more curved in style in questioned writing i.e. Questioned Q1871, Q1881, Q1886 and Q1894, whereas less curved in style in specimen?

                              Ans. No.
                              Q.      I   put   it   to   you   that   the   similarities   as

mentioned and pointed out in your report is only pictorial resemblance in the outward form of letters?

Ans. The similarities mentioned in my reports are based on the scientific examination and comparison of questioned and specimen."

167. This part of cross examination shows that there is no substance in the plea of the accused that his specimen handwritings do not tally with the questioned handwriting. I further point out that the report of defence expert Ex.DW1/A has opined that the formation of the letters in the disputed writing is different from the specimen writings. I totally disagree with this opinion because perusal of the specimen and disputed handwriting would show the striking similarities between the two and therefore I fully agree with the report given by PW37 that the handwriting on these NC32 forms is that of accused Satish Pal Singh.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 81 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 The inference of 8 NC32 forms recovered at the instance of K. M. Singh (A1) I have already held that eight NC32 forms bearing the writing "for transfer" and signatures of Satish Pal Singh (A2), the postal assistant, were found at the instance of accused K. M. Singh. These forms bear the date stamp having the date 22.6.1999. I have already mentioned that accused K. M. Singh was arrested on 24.6.1999. As arleady discussed, the last bunch of KVPs were fraudulently encashed on 18.6.1999. I have already discussed that the NC32 forms is sent by a post office to the issuing post office, mentioning all the particulars of the KVPs, which have been presented to such post office. This is done for the purpose of verification of the KVPs by the issuing post office. The NC32 forms collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/A44 are blank in all respect except the signatures of some Ashok Gupta and Sudha Gupta and the signatures of Satish Pal Singh with the endorsement "for transfer" and the stamp of Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office bearing the date 22.6.1999 along with the stamps and initials of Sub Post Master. Accused Satish Pal Singh has not been able to explain as to why the endorsement "for transfer" in his hand along with the date stamp are available on these forms. The only inference is that CC No. 19/2009 Page 82 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 these forms were to be used for the purpose of filling the particulars of stolen KVPs and putting the fake stamps of other post offices on the same and thereafter getting the same encashed from the Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office. I may point out that PW6 Sunil Krishan Nagar has testified that accused K. M. Singh has come to his shop and got various designs of various post offices prepared. This proves that accused K. M. Singh and Satish Pal Singh were in conspiracy with each other in commission of this type of offences. It needs to be stressed that the aforesaid facts have to be seen in overall backdrop of the circumstances in this case. The stolen KVPs are filled with the forged particulars. The offenders are impersonating as holders of the KVPs and getting the same encashed from the post offices. For this purpose they are adopting two types of methods. First they are preparing fake identity slips purported to have been issued by the post office from where the KVPs were shown to have been purchased and on the basis of such identity slips, the postal officials encashed those KVPs. Second method is to prepare fake NC32 forms required for transfer of KVPs from one post office to another post office. In this case fake identity slips were prepared to get the KVPs encashed. The another method of getting fake NC32 forms was under the way just CC No. 19/2009 Page 83 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 before the arrest of accused K. M. Singh. Although this is a very small fact but it goes far away backwards. This exposes the entire story as to how all the KVPs were encashed fraudulently by active involvement of postal official namely Satish Pal Singh. It proves that accused K. M. Singh was one of the active conspirators in the conspiracy which involved, apart from the other co accused persons, the postal officials including Satish Pal Singh.

Sohan Pal Sharma (A2)

168. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, Ld. Defence Counsel that the specimen hand writing of accused Sohan Pal Sharma was taken by the Investigating Officer without the permission of the Magistrate and therefore the same is not admissible in evidence against him. I disagree with his submissions. There were divergent views of our own High Court on this issue but now in Bhupender Singh Vs. State, the full Bench of Delhi High Court consisting Hon'ble Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, Mr. Justice Anil Kumar and Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 1005/2008 (vide order dated 30.09.2011) upheld the view taken by the single judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sunil Kumar @ Sonu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2005 decided on 25.3.2010) and CC No. 19/2009 Page 84 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 rejected the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench in Satyawan Vs. State (Criminal Appeal No. 34/2001 decided on 9.7.2009). In Satyawan Vs State, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court had held that taking specimen writing without the order of the court is not legal and would not be admissible in evidence against accused. In Bhupender Singh Vs. State the full Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly held that the view expressed in the decisions namely Satyawan Vs State is not the correct view. Hence it is clear that the specimen hand writing can be taken from an accused by the Investigating Officer and same would be admissible in evidence even if such specimen hand writing had been taken by the Investigating Officer without permission of the Magistrate. Further, there is nothing on record to show that specimen handwriting of accused Sohan Pal Sharma was taken under coercion, threat or pressure. Therefore, the specimen handwriting has been given by the accused voluntarily.

169. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that it would be highly unsafe to convict a person solely on the basis of the opinion of the handwriting expert. He has referred to the following judgments in his support:

1. Ishawari Prasad V. Mohd. Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728.

2. Sashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 529.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 85 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

3. State of Gujarat Vs Vinaya Chandra Chhota Lal Patni AIR 778, 1967 SCR(1) 249.

4. Balakrishna Das V. Radha Devi AIR 1989 AII 133.

5. State of Maharashtra V. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100 (2116): (1992) 3 SCJ 330.

6. State of U.P. V. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, CriLJ 3844: (1996) 9 SCC 472:1996 SCC 1065.

7. State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Jai Lal & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3318, 199(2) ALD Cri 855.

8. Piara Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh AIR 1987 Punj 93.

9. Vandavasi Karthikeya alias Krishnamuthry v.S. Kamalamma AIR 1994 AP 102 at 114.

10.Ram Chandra and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 381, 1957 CriL.J. 559

11.Kanchan Singh v.State of Guj. AIR 1979 SC 1011: 1979 CriLJ 889.

12.Magan Behari Lal v. State of Pb. AIR 1977SC 1091: 1977 CriLJ

711. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor has referred to Jaipal Vs State and Rajender Vs State and submitted that handwriting expert's report is enough to connect a person with the crime. I have considered the submissions. I am of the opinion that an expert's opinion is an evidence in itself. Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act lays down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions, CC No. 19/2009 Page 86 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two handwritings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the the Indian Evidence Act. To say it differently, the matching of two handwritings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the handwriting expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of handwriting expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of handwriting and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a handwriting expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the handwriting. If the handwritings match there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I fully agree with the Ld. Public Prosecutor and quote from the judgment dated 05.07.2011 passed by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'b le Mr. Justice G.P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under:

"It is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531. The court observed that handwriting expert is not an CC No. 19/2009 Page 87 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."

It is pertinent to note that Hon'ble High Court had relied upon Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated.

170. In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.

171. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no evidence that he has been benefited from this crime and that prosecution has been unable to prove any motive for commission of these offences. I do not find any substance in these submissions. If there is evidence that an accused has been CC No. 19/2009 Page 88 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 a part of conspiracy wherein forged KVPs had been encashed, the inescapable consequence would be that such accused has done so with a view to get wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the government. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that neither any ingredient of section 467 IPC has been proved nor any ingredient of Section 468 IPC has been proved. It is argued that cheating is a necessary ingredient of the offences of forgery and since prosecution has been unable to prove that accused has cheated anyone, he cannot be convicted u/s 467 & 468 IPC. I disagree with his submissions. Forging the handwritten portion of KVPs in a large number of such KVPS itself shows that the forgery has been done with an intention to cheat the Government/Postal Authorities.

172. Ld. PP submits that initially only one case was registered in which the specimen signatures of the accused persons were taken. Later on, these cases were saggregated in four, post office wise. Therefore, the specimen signatures are relevant to each case of these four connected cases.

173. I am of the opinion that there is no law which prohibits the prosecution from taking any material of one case and putting the same in another case. If a material of one case also forms a piece of evidence against an accused in another case, CC No. 19/2009 Page 89 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 the same may be proved by the prosecution in other cases also.

174. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the specimen signatures Ext.PW15/A1 and submits that initially the Investigating Officer has written the name of Satish Pal Singh and thereafter he wrote Sohan Pal Sharma after cutting the name of Satish Pal Singh. I have seen the specimen signatures. On seeing the sheet Ext.PW15/A1, it is clear that an inadvertent mistake has been corrected. It bears the signatures of Sohan Pal Singh at point A. It is pertinent to note that on further sheets Ext.PW15/A2 to Ext.PW15/A158, the signatures of Sohan Pal Sharma are present at point A of each sheet and perusal of the same would show that the signatures at point A on Ext.PW15/A1 and the other sheets are of the same person. Accused has nowhere shown or proved that the signatures on the specimen sheets at point A do not pertain to him. I point out that as per prosecution case these specimen signatures were taken in the presence of Gyanesh Kumar Jain. This witness was examined by me u/s 311 CrPC as a court witness and he had proved his signatures at point B on each sheet. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the specimen handwriting of Sohan Pal Sharma was taken on these sheets. Even if there is some cutting CC No. 19/2009 Page 90 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 on one sheet Ext.PW15/A1, the same is inadvertent and is a correction of a mistake. Hence, no benefit of it can be given to the accused.

175. As per the prosecution case, accused K. M. Singh was arrested on 24.6.1999 and he made a disclosure in which he made disclosure of the role of Sohan Pal Sharma. He made disclosure statements on 24.6.1999 and 27.6.1999. In these disclosure statements, he disclosed the name of Sohan Pal Sharma as being active participant in the conspiracy. Accused Sohan Pal Sharma was arrested on 2.7.1999 and therefore his disclosure statement was recorded on 6.7.1999. In his disclosure statement he disclosed about his involvement in the conspiracy and having encahsed the KVPs. He specially disclosed about the encashing of various KVPs. As per prosecution case, he impersonated as Chaudhary Harpal Singh holder of 125 KVPs bearing no. 28CC982151 to 28CC982175 and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 amounting to Rs. 12,97,000/ and got the aforesaid payment. It is alleged that he had fraudulently signed as Chaudhary Harpal Singh on these KVPs.

176. As per the prosecution case the aforesaid writings on the body part and the signatures of Harpal on these questioned CC No. 19/2009 Page 91 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 documents tally with the hand writings of the person, who has S1 to S158, which are the specimen hand writings of accused Sohan Pal Sharma.

177. On 125 KVPs bearing no. 28CC982151 to 28CC982175 and 35BB922201 to 35BB922300 has the signatures of one Harpal Singh signifying the receipt of the encashed amount. As per prosecution case the specimen signatures as Harpal Singh of accused Sohan Pal Sharma were taken on the sheets S74 to S83 (Ex.PW15/A74 to Ex.PW15/A83). Accused Sohan Pal Singh has given these specimen hand writing by writing "Harpal Singh" in Hindi language. As per the expert's report Ex.PW15/3 (Page 11, which is the "reasons" for the opinion), the expert has given the opinion, relevant portion of which is as under : "Inter se comparison of the standard writings reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and terminal stroke, simplification etc. Both questioned and standard writings also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combination, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are: manner of execution of Hindi letter 'ra' with the nature and location of its start nature and location of its body curvature with the formation loop at the middle and direction of finish; relative size ,nature and location of the vowel sign of 'Aakar'; commencement of letter 'ma', nature and location of its diagonal stroke and manner of its joining with the second vertical staff and direction of finish; movement in the execution of the vowel sign of 'ikar', 'okar', 'chandra CC No. 19/2009 Page 92 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 bindu' etc with similar variation; executi9on of letter 'sa', nature and location of its body part and finish; nature and start of letter 'ha'.........

178. After perusing the specimen and questioned handwritings, I fully agree with this report and the reasoning of the expert witness PW37. Thus prosecution has proved that accused Sohan Pal Singh not only impersonated as Harpal Singh (a fake holder of KVPs) and thereby cheated the postal department but has also received the money after encashing these KVPs because he has signed on the KVPs as the recipient of the encashed amount.

Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3)

179. As per charge sheet during the period 2.6.1998 to 12.6.1998, he had impersonated as Hari Prasad holder of 527 KVPs bearing no. 45CC 163601 to 163700, 45CC 163321 to 163400, 35BB 936301 to 936400, 35BB 936601 to 936700, 31BB 007761 to 007800, 28CC 570301 to 570336, 28CC 970338 to 970348, 28CC 982031 to 982040, 28CC 970351 to 970400 total amounting to Rs.64,96,100/ and encashed the same on various dates. It is stated that as per the report of CC No. 19/2009 Page 93 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 GEQD, the signatures of the recipient of the KVPs amout as Hari Prasad has been forged by accused Laxman Prasad. I may point out that specimen hand writings/signatures were taken by the Investigating Officer on the sheets from S546 to S619. However his specimen signatures as Hari Prasad are taken from S552 to S565.

180. As per the GEQD report Ex.PW15/1, the hand writing vide which the amount has been written in numerals as well as in words in the column of "RECEIPT OF DISCHARGE" and the signatures of Hari Prasad beneath it as recipient of the amount/holder of KVPs tallies with the specimen hand writings and signatures of accused Laxman Prasad. This opinion has been given on page 1 to 4 of the report Ex.PW15/1. The reasoning for the opinion as appearing in Ex.PW15/3 at page 1, 2 and 3, which is reproduced as under : (the relevant portion) "Inter se comparison of the standard writings and signatures reveals that they are freely written, show natural variations and have inter consistency among themselves. The questioned writings and signatures also exhibit these qualities similarly. They also agree in the general writing habits of movement which is wrist predominant with some action of forearm, skill, speed, alignment, spacing, relative size and proportion of the letters and their combination, nature of commencing and CC No. 19/2009 Page 94 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 terminal stroke, simplification, movement of strokes in the formation of letter and signatures etc. Both questioned and standard writings and signatures also agree in the minute and inconspicuous details of formation of letters and their combinations, some of such similarities in the individual writing habits are:

manner of execution of letter 'S' with the nature and location of its start, nature and location of upper and lower body part and manner of its joining with the succeeding letter 'i', nature and start of letter 'e', nature and location of its eye let and direction of finish; commencement of letter 'E', nature and location of its upper and lower body curvature and manner of its joining with the succeeding letter 'i'; nature and location of idot ; combination of letter 'g ' h ' and 't' in the letter 'eight'; manner of execution of letter 'n' with the nature and location of its body part and finish; combination of letter 't' and 'h' 'u' and 's' in the word 'thousand', start of letter 'o' with the nature of its body part and finish; simplified execution of letter 'd' nature and location of its downward vertical staff and finish' bifurcation in the execution of letter 'r'; combination of letter 'o' 'n' 'I' 'y' in the word 'only'; start o letter 'N' with the nature of its diagonal stroke and manner of its joining with second vertical staff and direction of finish; nature and location of the vertical and horizontal stroke in the execution of letter 'T'; execution of letter 'H' with the nature and location of its horizontal stroke as well as manner of its joining to the vertical staff and direction of finish; nature and location in the formation of body part of letter 'p' ; start of letter 'a' nature and location of it oval part and CC No. 19/2009 Page 95 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 manner of its joining to the succeeding letter; manner of execution of commonly occurring figures such as: 'I' '4' '6' '9' and combination of figures '00' & '29' are observed similar in the questioned and standard. All the significant features as occurring in the questioned writings and signatures are found similar exemplified at one or the other place in the standard writings and signatures.

There is no divergence between questioned and standard writings & signatures. There is no sign of imitation in the production of the questioned writings and signatures. The above discussed similarities in the writing habits between the questioned and standard writings and signatures are significant and sufficient and will not accidentally coincide in writings of two different persons and when considered collectively lead me to the aforesaid opinion of common authorship."

181. On the other hand, accused has examined his hand writing expert, who has given a different opinion and has stated in his report Ex.DW1/C that the question hand writings/signatures and the specimen hand writings have been written by two different writers. He selected disputed writing and signatures randomly.

In this report, the defence expert has selected Q2405, Q2410, Q2415, Q2420, Q2425, Q5615, Q5619, Q5623, Q11633, Q11636, Q11641, Q11645, Q11649 which are the disputed hand writings vide which the amount encahsed on CC No. 19/2009 Page 96 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 discharge of KVP has been written in numerals as well as in words. He randomly selected disputed signatures Q2407, Q2411, Q2416, Q2421, Q2426, Q5616, Q5620, Q5624, Q11634, Q11637, Q11642, Q11646 and Q11650. Photographs of the above stated question hand writings and signatures were taken and endorsed. As per this report, the specimen signatures show a better degree of penmanship as compared with that of the disputed signatures. Further it is opined that the disputed signatures have been written by a medium skilled writer and these signatures do not show well defined motion and fluency in the manner of execution and that curvatures of stoke are not well formed and even the individual letters are different in their curves and joining and placing of strokes on the point of signatures. The expert witness has further opined as under :

"COMPARISON OF SIGNATURES (H.PRASAD): A comparison of class and individual characteristic in disputed and specimen signatures is as under: "1) MOVEMENT: The disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) have been written with advance finger movement due to lower order of writing skill, unsymmetrical letter formation and ill defined connections between the letters.

But specimen signatures (e.g. S551, S552) CC No. 19/2009 Page 97 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 have been written with wrist cum forearm movement due to fair degree of writing speed, angular connection, well defined curves and smooth connections of the letters.

2) LINE QUALITY: Line quality is smooth, flowing and fluent in specimen signatures (e.g. S555, S556) due to continuity in movement and well graded strokes but on the other hand disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) show lower order of line quality in comparison to the specimen signatures and this is due to the reason of less fluency and rhythm of the stokes of letters and their curvatures.

3) SPEED: The speed is rapid order in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to well defined curves and angle of the strokes of the letters but it is slow to medium order in disputed signatures (e.g. Q5620, Q5624) due to halting formation of the letters and their strokes as well as connection of the letters in the manner of execution.

4) SKILL: The skill observed in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11646, Q11650) is of comparatively inferior order than that of the specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) and writings because no writer can show a better degree of penmanship than one is actually possess.

5) STYLE: Both specimen (e.g. S553, S554) and disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) shows angular and rounded style but it is laboured in disputed signatures and flying and speedy in specimen signatures.

6) AHDING, PEN PRESSURE AND PEN POSITION: The correct examination of these factors is not possible in photocopies and ball pen writings. This can be examined only in CC No. 19/2009 Page 98 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 fountain pen writing because in those writing there is split of nib.

7) NATURAL VARIATIONS: Disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) shows unnatural variations with the specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the presence of inconsistencies in the formation of letters. Only specimen signatures show natural variations interse in the form of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters.

8) SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF LETTERS: The size and proportion of the letters are not similar in their relative proportions in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) when they are compared with the specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) due to the presence of different height and width of the letters. e.g. The height of the letters such as "H" and "P" is more in disputed signatures but less in specimen signatures.

9) DISGUISE: There is no evidence of disguise in disputed and specimen signatures.

10) COORDINATION OF WRITING MUSCLES: There is a perfect coordination in writing muscles in specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) due to wrist cum forearm movement of the hand. But it is not perfect in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) due to slow to medium order of speed and unsymmetrical stokes formation between the letters.

11) PEN SCOPE: Due to the presence of advance finger movement in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) the pen scope is limited. But it is much extended in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to the CC No. 19/2009 Page 99 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 presence of wrist cum forearm movement of the hand.

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SIGNATURES (H. PRASAD): Formation of individual letters of the disputed signatures shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen signatures in the following manner:

a) Letter "H": The manner and execution of letter "H" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. It is written in more fluency, rhythm and continuous manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) the deposition of the ink is discontinuous at unusual places in the execution of this letter which suggest the different writing habits of different persons, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.

The first and second vertical staff and their joining with the middle connecting stroke are similarly executed in well defined manner in specimen signatures but not in disputed signatures due to different pen operation and uneven density of ink. It is written in three pen operation in specimen signatures but more than three in disputed signatures.

b) Letter "p": The design and manner of execution of letter "p" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The initial stroke of the body loop is extended and makes joining with the middle connecting strokes of letter "H" in most of the disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) whereas the initial stroke of the body loop is short and makes joining mostly with the second vertical staff of letter CC No. 19/2009 Page 100 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 "H" in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.

c) Letter "r": Formation of letter "r" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The ink is uniform and written in fully developed manner and style of formation in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas the deposition of the ink is more and slowly executed due to different pen operation employed by the writer in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.

d) Letter "a": The design and style of formation of letter "a" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body oval is circular to elliptical in shape in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) whereas mostly elliptical in shape in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646), demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.

e) Letter "s": The execution of letter "s" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body stroke is written in widely spread manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S556, S557) than that of the disputed signatures (e.g. Q11646, Q11650) and suggests the dissimilarities of individual habits, demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs.

                              f)       2  nd  Letter "a"
                                                         : The manner of execution 
                              of   letter   "a"   is   different   in   disputed   and

specimen signatures. The body oval is open as well as closed and makes loop in disputed signatures (Q2407, Q2411) whereas it is mostly closed and does not make any loop in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554), CC No. 19/2009 Page 101 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 demonstrated at point f on the enlarged photographs.

g) Letter "d": Formation of letter "d" is different in disputed and specimen signatures. The body oval, formation of loop and the finishing of its downward stroke is similarly executed in well defined manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) due to uniform density of ink but not in disputed signatures (e.g. Q11642, Q11646) due to different pen operation, uneven density of ink and movement of the writer, demonstrated at point g on the enlarged photographs.

h) Embellishment Stroke: The variation in the width of stroke, its starting and finishing is in well defined manner in specimen signatures (e.g. S553, S554) but not in disputed signatures (e.g. Q2407, Q2411) due to unusual pen pauses and sudden departures in the lines which suggest the lower writing movement employed by the writer, demonstrated at point h on the enlarged photographs.

COMPARISON OF WRITINGS: The specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601) on careful examination show that they have been written and signed freely, carelessly and unconsciously with complete natural writing action, freedom of flow and smoothness. All these specimen writings are written by the skilled writer and they shows natural variations with each other due to the presence of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters.

The disputed writings (e.g. Q2405, Q2410) on careful examination show that they CC No. 19/2009 Page 102 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 have also been written by a skilled writer and free from any line quality defects such as hesitation on the parts of the strokes, unnatural pen pause in the middle of the strokes and a careful joining of the strokes at the starting, middle and ending connection of the letters etc. But these disputed writings are different in the manner and making of individual letters, curves, joining and placing of strokes and their connection etc. when they are compared with the specimen writings.

Because both specimen and disputed writings are written by the skilled writers and no attempt is made to simulate/copy and trace from a model in disputed writings therefore some class characteristics features such as movement, speed, skill, pen scope, coordination of writing muscles, line quality defects such as hesitation, pen lifts, pen pause, retouching etc. has no significant value in comparison process.

There are some superficial similarities between the disputed and specimen writings but careful and minute examination show differences in the formation of letters, which suggest that the disputed writings have not been written by the writer of the specimen writings.

A comparison of other class and individual characteristics between the disputed and specimen writings is as under:

1) SLANT: The degree of slant of the letters is more forward in disputed writing (e.g. Q5615, Q5619) as compared to the specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601).

2) NATURAL VARIATIONS: The letters of the disputed writings (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) do not show natural variations with the specimen CC No. 19/2009 Page 103 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 writings (e.g. S602, S603) due to the presence of different manner and execution of the letters. Only the letters of the specimen writings show natural variations interse in the form of slight divergences in curves, loops, angles and initial and terminal strokes of the letters.

3) SIZE AND PROPORTIONS OF LETTERS: The size and proportion of the letters are not similar in their relative proportions in disputed writings when they are compared with the specimen writings due to the presence of different height and width of the letters. e.g. The height of the letters such as "E, g, h, s, e" etc. is more in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) but less in disputed writings (e.g. Q2425, Q5615).

4) SPACING: The relative spacing between the wrods and letters is more in specimen writings but less in disputed writings . e.g. Between the words Eighteen and thousand the spacing is less in disputed writing (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) but more in specimen writings (S604, S605).

INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS: Formation of individual letters of the disputed writings shows fundamental differences with the formation of individual letters of specimen writings in the following manner:

a) Letter "E": The upper loop of letter "E" in word eighteen is bigger in shape in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) as compared to the disputed writing. The terminal stroke makes retraced joining with the staff of letter "i" in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) but not in specimen writings, demonstrated at point a on the enlarged photographs.

b) Letter "i": It is more tended towards the CC No. 19/2009 Page 104 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 right side in disputed writing (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) as compared to the specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point b on the enlarged photographs.

c) Letter "q": The lower loop is bigger in shape and the terminal makes crossing on the upper portion of its body staff in specimen writing (e.g. S604, S605) whereas the lower loop is smaller in shape and the terminal makes crossing on the middle portion of its body staff in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615), demonstrated at point c on the enlarged photographs.

d) Letter "h": It is more tended towards the right side and makes loop in the body staff in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) whereas it is vertically placed and makes retracing with the body staff in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point d on the enlarged photographs.

e) Letter "n": In word "Eighteen", it is more tended towards the right side in disputed writings whereas vertically placed in specimen writings (e.g. S604, S605). In word "thousand" it is written in fully developed manner and style of formation in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) but not in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601), demonstrated at point e on the enlarged photographs.

f) Letter "t": In word "thousand", it is written in continuation manner with the staff of letter "h" in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645) whereas written separately in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601). It is also written in upper case manner in Q5615, Q5619 and Q5623, demonstrated at point f on the CC No. 19/2009 Page 105 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 enlarged photographs.

h) Letter "i": In word "sixteen", the diacritic mark is tented type in specimen writings (e.g. S600, S601) whereas dot type in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645), demonstrated at point h on the enlarged photographs.

i) Letter "S": In word "sixteen", the lower loop is elliptical in shape in disputed writing (e.g. Q2425, Q5615) whereas mostly circular in specimen writings (e.g. S604, S605), demonstrated at point i on the enlarged photographs.

j) Letter "x": In word "sixteen", the beginning stroke is curved in style in specimen writing (e.g. S600, S601) whereas straight stroke formation of manner in disputed writings (e.g. Q11641, Q11645), demonstrated at point j on the enlarged photographs."

182. I have perused the reports of prosecution expert and the defence expert and I have also perused the questioned documents and the specimen handwritings/signatures. The standard writings of accused Laxman Prasad are from S546 to S619 Ex.PW26/1 to Ex.PW26/74. In these standard writings his signatures as Hari Prasad have been taken on S550 to S565. Similarly his standard handwritings in numerals and in words mentioning the "amount" is taken on S600 to S605. I take the example of the KVP no. 45CC 163660 Ex.PW14/D59.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 106 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 On this KVP, Q9868 is the handwriting of the amount of Rs. 18600/ and "Eighteen thousand and six hundred" with the date "8.5.1999". The signatures of recipient on this KVP is at point Q9869. The standard handwriting of the signatures available from S550 to S565 fully matches with Q9869. Similarly perusal of standard handwriting at S600 Ex.PW26/55 namely "Eighteen thousand five hundred only" would show that it unmistakably matches with Q9868 (except the word "six" because in the sample handwriting word "five" has been written.) At S602/1 Ex.PW26/58, the word "Sixteen thousand" has been written. From this specimen handwriting, the word "six" written in the aforesaid KVP at Q9868 can be compared. The very perusal of both these words specially the manner of writing 'S' is without any doubt similar.

183. I may point out that the handwriting expert has examined large number of documents allegedly forged by accused Laxman Prasad but as per his opinion as many as 527 questioned handwritings on the KVPs and identity slips matched with his specimen handwritings/signatures.

184. I would again revert to the opinion of defence expert, which is Ex.DW1/C. In his opinion he has stated that the specimen handwriting have been written by a skilled writer, CC No. 19/2009 Page 107 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 whereas the questioned handwritings show a lesser degree of penmanship. I disagree with his opinion because both the writings show equal degree of penmanship. Since a different pen was used in writing the specimen and the questioned documents, it appears that such difference has been taken by the defence expert as different degrees of penmanship. Regarding the opinion of expert on the movement, line quality, speed and style, I would say that the defence expert has not considered the fact that, whereas the specimen handwriting/signatures were written on broad sheets having ample space, the questioned handwritings and signatures were written on a very small space available on the KVPs. Hence this difference. On the formation of letters, I would say that there has to be natural variations in the handwriting of a person but that would not lead to the conclusion that the same have been written by two different persons.

185. On the other hand, PW37 in his opinion has referred to the typical habits of the writer of both the handwritings, which are nature and location of "idot", bifurcation in the execution of letter 'r', start of 'o', start of letter 'n' with the nature of its diagonal stroke, formation of 'H' and 'p' etc. Even the numerals in the questioned handwriting on the KVPs also match with the CC No. 19/2009 Page 108 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 standard handwriting.

186. Hence I reject the report of the defence expert and accept the opinion of PW37 and hold that the KVPs in question have not only been forged by Laxman Prasad but also since he has put the signatures of a fake holder namely "Hari Prasad" as the receiver of the cash amount, I hold that he has also cheated the postal department by impersonation.

Evidence qua accused Hari Narayan Pal @ Neta (A6)

187. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. Ld. Amicus Curie that PW29 Devender Kumar, who is a Chowkidar in Dadari Post Office, Lala Ram Bharti (PW8) and Nand Kishore Joshi (PW27), are highly doubtful witnesses. Further the testimony of Sushil Krishan Nagar (PW6) is also unworthy of credence. It is argued that Devender Kumar, Lala Ram Bharti and Nand Kishore Joshi are postal officials and it appears that they have actively colluded in commission of the offence. Further more their testimonies are not corroborated by independent evidence. It is argued that the testimony of PW6 Sushil Krishan Nagar is very vague. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that PW8 Lala Ram Bharti, who was posted in Post Office, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, has testified that accused H. N. Pal had come with one Paliwal and had taken a booklet of identity slips. It is argued that this CC No. 19/2009 Page 109 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 evidence does not connect H. N. Pal with the commission of the present offence because it is not known as to how this booklet of identity slips was used in the commission of the offence pertaining to Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. It is further argued that PW27 Nand Kishore Joshi, the postman in Lodhi Road Post Office, does not in any manner name accused H. N. Pal having received the identity slips booklet from him. It is further argued that PW29 Devender Kumar, who was a chowkidar at Dadri Post Office, does not testify as to what accused H. N. Pal had done inside the post office.

188. On the other hand, Ld. Public Prosecutor argues that this court had relied upon the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses while convicting accused H. N. Pal in CC No. 1/2010 pertaining to the similar fraud committed in Nirankari Colony Post Office. Ld. Public Prosecutor has argued that PW27 Nand Kishore Joshi has testified that the Lala Ram Bharti, the postal assistant posted in his post office namely Lodhi Road Post Office, had taken the loose sheets of identity slip lying in the defective papers in the stock room from him. It is submitted that PW8 Lala Ram Bharti has testified that he had supplied the identity slips to accused H. N. Pal. PW29 Devender Kumar, the chowkidar in Dadri Post office, has testified that accused H. N. CC No. 19/2009 Page 110 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Pal along with a view other persons had come to Dadri Post Office at about 8:30 pm and made him to drink liquor due to which be became intoxicated. They took out the keys from his person and they were asking about the date's stamps. Thereafter they went inside the hall and when he gained consciousness, he found that in the main hall of the post office, one stamp was lying on ground and two or three person were lying in scattered position near box. Further Sh. Sunil Krishan Nagar (PW6) has testified that accused K. M. Singh and H. N. Pal had come to his shop and had requested him to prepare designs of three or four various post offices for post office department.

189. I have considered the testimonies of all these witnesses and I say that their testimonies are truthful. PW27 Nand Kishore Joshi as well as PW8 Lala Ram Bharti, both have testified having supplied the identity slips to accused H. N. Pal. PW8 Devender Kumar, the chowkidar in Dadri Post Office, also testifies that H. N. Pal along with his accomplices had taken out the key from his person and was asking for the date's stamp and when they left, PW8 found that one stamp was lying on the ground and other stamps were lying in scattered position. It is clear that accused H. N. Pal was upto some mischief. However CC No. 19/2009 Page 111 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 with a view to connect him with the forgeries and conspiracy in the present case pertaining to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, prosecution must prove something more to connect this accused to the hilt.

190. I may point out that in the case CC No. 1/2010, which pertained to a similar fraud committed in Nirankari Colony Post Office, I had relied upon the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses but there was also an unmistakable evidence of hand writing expert, which proved that he had forged many KVPs. However this is not the case here. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, there is no evidence to show that the booklet of identity slip taken by accused H. N. Pal from Lala Ram Bharti and using the stamps of Dadri Post Office on the KVPs, the fraud was committed in Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office. Therefore the hands of law reach upto this accused but fall short of catching his neck. Accordingly I give benefit of reasonable doubt to this accused and acquit him.

Conspiracy

191. It has been argued by all the accused persons that there is no evidence that the accused persons have ever met each other. Hence it is argued that no offence of conspiracy is disclosed. I disagree with the defence submissions. On arrest, accused K. M. CC No. 19/2009 Page 112 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Singh had disclosed the names of accused Sohan Pal Sharma (A2), Laxman Prasad (A3) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) along with the other accused persons including Rohtash Kanwar (since convicted) having actively taken part in forgery of KVPs and getting the same encashed fraudulently from the Post Office Hari Nagar Ashram. Pursuant to disclosure statement, investigation started and during investigations eight blank NC32 forms with the handwriting of accused Satish Pal Singh were recovered at the instance of accused K. M. Singh. This aspect has already been dealt by me in earlier part of this judgement. Further the disclosed fact of accused Sohan Pal Sharma and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (and also Rohtash Kanwar) having forged and having encashed the stolen KVPs stand proved by handwriting experts as discussed above. I may mention that in his disclosure statement dated 27.6.1999 accused K. M. Singh had disclosed the name of one "Thakur" who was a close confidante of Sohan Pal Sharma. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW39/A40 accused Sohan Pal Sharma had disclosed the name of Laxman Prasad @ Thakur as a conspirator. I may mention here that in his statement under Section 313 CrPC accused Laxman Prasad in answer to question no. 317 has stated that he was a tenant of Sohan Pal Sharma, which fortifies CC No. 19/2009 Page 113 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 the prosecution case and the disclosure statement of K. M. Singh that Laxman Prasad was a close confidante of accused Sohan Pal Sharma. As stated earlier, the handwriting of Laxman Prasad also matched with the questioned handwritings. In these circumstances, prosecution has proved a complete chain that accused Sohan Pal Sharma has impersonated as "Chaudhary Harpal Singh" and got encashed 125 KVPs, accused Laxman Prasad has impersonated as "Hari Prasad" a fake holder of the KVPs and got encahsed 527 KVPs. It needs to be mentioned here that accused Rohtash Kanwar was charged with having impersonated as "Ramesh Kumar Sharma" and fraudulently got encashed 383 KVPs and he was convicted on his plea of guilt. The entire conspiracy originates from accused K. M. Singh. Though there is no direct evidence of the accused persons having met each other but the chain of circumstances leaves no other option but to hold that they were colluding with each other in commission of these offences. Accused K. M. Singh is the hidden face behind the entire conspiracy, whereas accused Sohan Pal Sharma and Laxman Prasad (as well as Rohtash Kanwar, A4) were the front men executing the conspiracy. At the cost of repetition, I would say that recovery of blank forms NC32 having been duly stamped with the stamp of Hari Nagar CC No. 19/2009 Page 114 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 Ashram Post Office with the endorsement and initials of accused Satish Pal Singh (A7) leaves me in no doubt that entire conspiracy was being executed with active aid of Satish Pal Singh, who was postal assistant in that post office. I would repeat again that the only inference that can be drawn from these blank KVPs duly stamped and endorsed "for transfer" is that the particulars of stolen KVPs were to be filled in these forms so that after making the fake verification of these KVPs, the same may be presented to Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office and such stolen KVPs are got encashed from the said post office. Needless to say that KVPs are valuable securities within the definition of Section 30 IPC and forgery of the same falls within the four corners of Section 467 IPC.

192. In view of above discussions, accused Hari Narain Pal (A6) stands acquitted. However I convict Krishan Madhwa Singh (A1), Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2), Laxman Prasad @ Thakur (A3) and Satish Pal Singh (A7) under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

193. I further convict accused Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji (A2) and Laxman Prasad (A3) under Section 419/420/467/471 CC No. 19/2009 Page 115 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 IPC.

194. I further convict accused Satish Pal Singh under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 because he had abused his powers by handing over to accused K. M. Singh the blank NC32 forms by making endorsement of "for transfer" and putting a stamp of his post office.

Announced in the open court on 17.8.2012.

(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBIII Rohini, Delhi CC No. 19/2009 Page 116 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR SPLECIAL JUDGEII (P. C. ACT, CBI), ROHINI, DELHI RC No. S19/1999/E0001/SPE/SIUIX CC No. 19/2009 (Hari Nagar Ashram Post Office, Delhi) CBI Vs (1) Krishan Madhwa Singh S/o Sh. Jai Nath Singh R/o J130, Sector09, Vijay Nagar, Ghaziabad. (2) Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji S/o Sh. Deep Chand R/o D74, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94.

(3) Laxman Prasad @ Thakur S/o Late Sh. Kalpnath Prasad R/o C120, Street No.5, Ganga Vihar, Delhi94. (4) Satish Pal Singh S/o Sh. Kehar Singh R/o C33, LIG Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 18.8.2012 ORDER ON SENTENCE

1. It is argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie for convict Krishan Madhwa Singh that he is 56 years old and is the sole bread winner and that it is his first conviction. It is submitted by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv. that convict Sohan Pal Sharma, aged 69 years, has only one son, who has also been convicted in another case of KVP fraud and now both are in jail.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 117 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 It is submitted that wife of convict Sohan Pal Sharma has already expired, therefore only his daughter in law is left in the family to look after two mentally retarded children of his son. It is further argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie for convict Laxman Prasad that he is 60 years old having three children and has only been convicted in one another case of KVP scam in which only a sentence of three years was awarded to him.

2. It is further argued by Sh. Kedar Yadav, adv., Ld. Amicus Curie that convict Satish Pal Singh has six children, out of which four are daughters of marriageable age and if he is sentenced, his entire family would come on road.

3. It is therefore prayed that a lenient view may be taken and minimum sentence should be awarded.

4. Ld. Public Prosecutor however prays for maximum doze of sentence in view of the gravity of the offence.

5. I have considered the submissions. The offences are indeed very serious and the facts submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel are not weighty enough to take a lenient view.

6. I therefore sentence convict Krishan Madhwa Singh to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section CC No. 19/2009 Page 118 / 121 CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

7. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

8. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 467 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

9. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 419 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 119 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

10. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

11. I sentence convict Sohan Pal Sharma @ Panditji and Laxman Prasad @ Thakur to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine in the sum of Rs.1000/ under Section 471 IPC. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month each.

12. I sentence convict Satish Pal Singh to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/ under Section 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/467/471 IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

13. I sentence convict Satish Pal Singh to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/ under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

CC No. 19/2009 Page 120 / 121

CBI Vs K. M. Singh etc. Judgement dt. 17.8.2012

14. All the sentences shall run concurrently. In case any of the convicts had remained in judicial custody in this case, benefit under Section 428 CrPC may be given to him.

15.The sentence warrants be prepared and file be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court on 18.8.2012.

(VINOD KUMAR) Spl. Judge, CBIII Rohini, Delhi CC No. 19/2009 Page 121 / 121

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs K. M. Singh Etc. Judgement Dt. 17.8.2012 on 17 August, 2012