Delhi District Court
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs . on 31 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN K. KASHYAP,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
Tedar Tang & Ors.
(Present case is more than 32 years old matter and second oldest
matter pending in this court, hence taken on most priority basis).
RC No. 01/1982/CBI/ACU-II/ND
Originally Under Section: 120B, 420 IPC & 5(2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1947
FINAL JUDGMENT
a) Sl.No. of the case : RC 01/1982/CBI/ACU-II/ND
b) Date of commission of offence : During Year 1982
d) Name of the accused persons : 1. Sh Tedar Tang
Former Minister Supply &
Transport Etc. (Govt of
Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Smt T. Yadir
Prop M/s Capital Agency
Banderdewa, District Subansiri
Arunachal Pradesh.
3. Ms Go-mlhamu Thungon
Prop M/s Kameng Enterprises
Bomdila, District Kameng
Arunachal Pradesh.
4. Smt Thupten Lhamu
Thungon, Manager
M/s Kameng Enterprises
Bomdila, District Kameng
Arunachal Pradesh.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 1 of 88
5. Sh Prahlad Rai Mundra
S/o Hanuman Prasad Mundra
R/o Village & PO Singrawat
PS Losal, Tehsil & District
Sikar (Rajasthan)
At present:
C/o Sh Babu Lal Kucheria
Prop M/s Maha Laxmi Pictures
Rehabari, Gauhati.
6. Sh Babu Lal Kucheria @
Jai Chand Lal
S/o Sh Chouthmal
R/o Gate No. 3, Tokohari,
Gauhati.
At present: Partner
M/s Maha Laxmi Pictures
Rehabari, Gauhati.
7. Mohan Lal Bajoria
S/o Late Shew Bux Bajoria
Prop M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
Formerly located at 30/31
Kalakar Street, Culcutta.
Now located at:
7-Camac Street, 4th Floor
Calcutta-17, R/o 1-Mullen
Street, Culcutta-20.
8. Sh Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal
S/o Sh Babu Lal Aggarwal
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
Located at 30/31 Kalakar Street
Culcutta.
Now an employee of
M/s Kesoram Industries Ltd
9/3 R.N. Mukherjee Road
Culcutta-1.
R/o 221/A (Narain Majumdar
Bari) Battla Lane, Hind Motors
District Hooghly, West Bengal.
9. Sh Rurhmal Aggarwal @
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 2 of 88
Subhash Kumar Aggarwal
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta.
R/o Village & PO Charwas
Tehsil & PS Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu, (Rajasthan)/
10. Sh Tapas Goswami
S/o Late Bireshwar Goswami
R/o 12/2, Shanti Nagar Street
PO Bhadrakali, District Hooghly
(West Bengal)
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta-7.
11. Sh Ram Prasad Dehalia,
S/o Sh K.D. Dehalia
R/o 277, Bangur Avenue
8 Block, Calcutta-55,
Formerly Accountant at
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta-7.
12. Sh Rajinder Tiwari
S/o Late Bal Mukund Tiwari
R/o Tiwaripur, PS Baragaon
Tehsil & District Varansi (UP)
Formerly Darban with
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta.
Now located at:
7- Camac Street, 4th Floor
Calcutta-17.
13. Sh Ram Lakhan Tiwari
S/o Sh Banwari Tiwari
R/o Tiwaripur, PS Baragaon
Tehsil & District Varansi (UP)
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 3 of 88
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta-7.
14. Sh Ramesh Kumar Tiwari
S/o Sh Ram Lakhan Tiwari
R/o Tiwaripur, PS Baragaon
Tehsil & District Varansi (UP)
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta-7.
15. Sh Khyali Ram Aggarwal
S/o Sh Maan Lal Aggarwal
R/o 58-Kailash Bose Street
Calcutta.
R/o Bagaihati, Zarda Bagan
(Gouranga's Bari), Calcutta-54
Formerly an employee of
M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal
located at 30/31 Kalakar Street,
Culcutta-7.
16. Sh Sanwar Mal Aggarwal
S/o Sh Badri Prasad Aggarwal
R/o 28Black Burn Late,
Culcutta-12.
Formerly an employee of
M/s Rajdhani Carriers, 28,
Black Burn Lane, Culcutta-12.
17. Sh Pradip Kumar Saha
S/o Sh Bijoy Kumar Saha
Prop M/s P.K. Saha behind
Delhi Hotel
18. Sh Binod Kumar Kedia
Partner M/s Sree Durga Trader
New Road, Asansol
(West Bengal).
19. Sh Surinder Kumar Kedia
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 4 of 88
Partner M/s Surinder Kumar
Ajay Kumar, New Road,
Asansol, (West Bengal).
20. Sh Bishwanath Aggarwal
S/o Sh Shanker Parshad
Aggarwal
R/o 74-A, Balgachia Road
Culcutta-37.
21. Sh Ranjit Singh Kothari
Manager M/s Mahal Chand
Motilal Kothari & Co., 207
Maharish Debendra Road
Culcutta-7.
22. Sh Prahlad Kumar Gupta
Manager M/s Pradeep Traders
P-45, Strand Bank Road
Culcutta-7.
23. Sh Sajjan Saraf
Prop M/s Sajjan Stores, 156
Cotton Street, (Sonapatti)
Culcutta-7.
24. Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal
Partner M/s Puran Mal Ramesh
Kumar, 46-Kali Krishna Tagore
Street, Calcutta-70.
25. Sh Tara Chand Aggarwal,
Partner M/s Gulab Chand Tara
Chand, 45-B, Adhya Sradhya
Ghat Road, Culcutta-7.
26. Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal
Oil Merchant, Posta Bazar
Culcutta-7.
e) offence complained of : 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC
or proved and section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of
PC Act, 1947.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 5 of 88
f) Plea of accused persons : Accused persons pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
g) final order : Accused no. 2, 4, 5 and 16 are
convicted for the offence of
120B r/w 120 IPC.
Accused no. 2, 4 5 and 16
are acquitted of all the other
offences charged in this case.
Accused no. 3, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19,
20, 21, 23, 24 and 26 are
acquitted of all the offences
charged in this case.
h) date of such order : 31.10.2019
Date of institution of the case : 31.08.1987
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 31.10.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
The Facts :
1.Present case is more than 32 years old matter and second oldest matter pending in this court, hence taken on most priority basis in view of direction by Hon'ble High Courts.
2. The case of the prosecution / CBI in brief is that on the basis of a source information the case RC 1/82-CIU-II branch was filed on 25.05.82 against Sh Tedar Tang, Minister Supply & Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and Others u/s 120B IPC and 420 IPC and 5 (2) r/w 5 (1)
(d) of PC Act, 1947 was registered. It was alleged that Tedar Tang while working as Minister, Supply & Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh during the year 1980-81 at New Delhi and other places entered into a criminal CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 6 of 88 conspiracy with other private accused persons to dishonestly induce the Union Ministry of Food & Civil Supplies for allotment of large quantity of edible oils for Arunachal Pradesh without any actual requirement of the same and from STC Calcutta and to dispose of the same in black market for obtaining huge pecuniary advantages. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy allotment order were got issued in the name of M/s Capital Agency, Banderdewa, (AP) and M/s Kamenga Enterprises, Bomdila (AP) and the materials were got lifted by the aforesaid concerns from the State Trading Corporation, Calcutta. Sh Tedar Tang was also instrumental in attesting the signatures of Sh Prahlad Rai representative of the aforesaid firms who took delivery of 1260 Tons of Refined Rapeseed Oil and RBO Palm Oil worth about Rs 1 crores from STC and the same was sold at a very high premium in and around Calcutta, and the said oil was not transported to Arunachal Pradesh.
3. Smt T. Yadir (A-2), wife of late Sh Tedar Tang (A-1), was the proprietor of M/s Capital Agency which was not in existence during August 1980 to March 1981 and came into existence only on 09.07.1981. Ms. Go- mlhamu Thungon (A-3) was the proprietor of M/s Kameng Enterprises. Smt T. Lhamu Thungon (A-4), who is sister-in-law as per CBI of A-3 was the Manager of such M/s Kameng Enterprises. It is further alleged that Sh Babu Lal Kucheria @ Jai Chand Lal (A-6) was the partner of Mahalaxmi Pictures (Guwahati) and Sh Prahlad Rai Mundra (A-5) was employee of A-6. Sh Mohan Lal Bajoria (A-7) was proprietor of M/s Shaw Bux Mohan Lal, Culcutta and was dealing in edible oils. Sh Mahesh Kumar Agarwal (A-8), Sh Rurhmal Aggarwal @ Subhash Kumar Aggarwal (A-9), Sh Tapas Goswami (A-10), Sh Ram Prasad Dehalia (A-11), Sh Rajinder Tiwari (A-12), Sh Ram Lakhan Tiwari (A-13), Sh Ramesh Kumar Tiwari (A-14) and Sh Khyali Ram Aggarwal (A-15) were employees of A-7 Mohan Lal Bajoria. Sh Sanwar Mal Aggarwal CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 7 of 88 (A016) was proprietor of M/s Rajdhani Carriers, Culcutta. Sh Pradeep Kumar Saha (A-18), Sh Surender Kumar Kedia (A-19), Sh Ranjit Singh Kothari (A-
21), Sh Prahlad Kumar Gupta (A-22), Sh Sajjan Saraf (A-23), Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal (A-24), Sh Tara Chand Aggarwal (A-25) and Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal (A-26) are the various dealers / firms of Calcutta and neighboring places who had purchased the abovesaid edible oils in black market. Sh Vishwanath Aggarwal (A-20) had introduced A-9 as the proprietor of Kameng Enterprises with Punjab National Bank (PNB) Calcutta.
4. It is further alleged by CBI that pursuant to the criminal conspiracy late A-1 Tedar Tang, the then minister, supply and Transport, dishonestly wrote to Sh V.C. Shukla, the then Union Civil Supply Minister, Govt. of India on 16.06.1980 inducing to allot 500 tonnes each of refined rapeseed oil and RBD Palm oils to one Sanghkhandu Mosobi of Bomdila, Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh for public distribution without any actual requirement and without the knowledge of Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, Secretary Supply and Transport and Director Civil Supply Arunachal Pradesh. On the basis of abovesaid letter the Union Ministry of Civil Supplies had alloted 500 tonnes each of such oils to Arunachal Pradesh and a telegram dated 01.08.1980 was sent to the Director Civil Supply Eta Nagar, Arunachal Pradesh by Union Civil; Supply Ministry informing them about the said allocation. It is further stated that pursuant to such criminal conspiracy late A- 1 arrived New Delhi alongwith his wife / A-2 on 31.07.1980 and was staying in Arunachal Pradesh, New Delhi and he got collected the copy of said telegram through Ashok Kumar Shukla, care taker of Arunachal Pradesh Bhawan, New Delhi without informing Chief Secretary etc. it is further claimed that late A-1 himself issued two allotment letters no. M-ST-I/80 dated 04.08.1980 for the allotment of 250 tonnes each of refined rapeseed oil and RBD Palm oils in favour of such M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprises. It is further CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 8 of 88 claimed by CBI that said material was required to be lifted within 30 days of issuance of such allotment order. Not only this, copy of which were sent to Chief Marketing Manager, STC New Delhi and Branch Manager STC Calcutta and Director Civil Supply Arunachal Pradesh but copy of the allotment order meant for Director Civil Supply, Arunachal Pradesh was never sent and as such DCS Arunachal Pradesh had no knowledge of the abovesaid allotments.
5. It is further claimed by CBI that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy A-4 issued an authority letter in the letterhead of M/s Kameng Enterprises on 04.08.1980 appointing A-5 as an authorized agent to sign all the documents in connection with delivery, payment, dispatch etc. Not only this, the signature of A-4 and A-5 were attested by late A-1 himself. A similar authority letter was also issued by A-2 on the letterhead of M/s Capital Agency on 06.08.1980 in favour of same A-5 and similarly signature of A-2 were also attested by late A-1. These authority letters were addressed to Branch Manager STC Calcutta.
6. It is further claimed that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy late A-1 went to Calcutta alongwith his wife /A-2 and directed Sh S.K. Neogi, Liaison Officer, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh in the presence of Prahlad Rai, A- 5 and A-6 to issue letters in favour of A-5 authorizing him to receive and arrange for lifting of such oils from STC Calcutta against allotments made to M/s Capital Agency and Kameng Enterprises. A-1 also gave instruction to S.K. Neogi in writing to this effect. In compliance to these instructions Sh S.K. Neogi issued authority letter no. SUP-42/SC/80/60 favoring A-5 on 12.08.1980. It is further alleged that accordingly A-5 approached STC Calcutta on 18.08.1980 and submitted allotment orders, authorization letters issued by A-2 and A-4 alongwith the authority letters issued by such S.K. Neogi. Further A-5 also deposited the certain amounts through DD / pay CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 9 of 88 order with STC Calcutta who issued certain delivery orders for the quantity of rapeseed oil, details of which is mentioned in charge-sheet.
7. It was further claimed by CBI that A-21 made a payment of Rupee one lakh through pay order dated 16.08.1980 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Calcutta. A-19 made a payment of Rs 60,000/- through demand draft dated 18.08.1980 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Asansol. The remaining payments were made by A-5 through various pay orders which were got purchased by A-7 through his various employees details of which is given in the charge-sheet.
8. It is further claimed that in pursuance of such conspiracy, A-12,A- 13,A-14 took delivery of various consignments of rapeseed oil from the godown of STC Calcutta which were purchased by A-7 of M/s Shaw Bux Mohan Lal, A-22of m/s Pradeep Traders, A-24 of M/s Puran Mal Ramesh Kumar and A-26 of M/s Puran Mal.
9. It is further claimed by CBI that all such consignments were directly transported from the godown of STC Calcutta to their shops / godown through various trucks and no part of consignments were transported to Arunachal Pradesh.
10. It is further alleged that for such criminal conspiracy, late A-1 on 04.09.1980 issued fresh allotment letter no. ME/ST/15/80 dated 04.09.1980 in favour of such M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprises allotting 250 tonnes each of such oils against fresh allotment of 500 tonnes of each refined rapeseed oil and RBD Palm Oil made to the Arunachal Pradesh by the Union Ministry of Civil Supplies, New Delhi. Such allotment were again done by late A-1 without knowledge of Secretary Supply & Transport Arunachal Pradesh CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 10 of 88 and without any actual requirements. Regarding such further allotment A-5 made further payments through pay orders / demand drafts and accordingly delivery orders were issued by STC Calcutta which were collected by A-5 himself, details of which is given in the charge-sheet.
11. Further the CBI has given details of the bank, amount, date of pay order / demand draft and name of purchaser. Same are some of the accused persons mentioned in present charge-sheet. It is further claimed that such oil were purchased by A-22, A-23, A-7 and A-26 and such oil was transported again from STC godowns to their shops / godown only through trucks and no part of such consignment was transported to Arunachal Pradesh. It is further stated that during such time delivery of such oils to such M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprises were suspended w.e.f 29.10.1980 by Union Ministry of Civil Supplies due to reported malpractices in the distribution of such edible oils in Arunachal Pradesh. But later due to specific assurance given by late A-1 on 12.12.1980, supply of such oil to Arunachal Pradesh was restored and certain delivery orders were issued by STC Calcutta which were obtained by A-5 himself after making payments details of which is given in charge-sheet in para 12. Further, details of the persons who purchased the pay order / demand draft is also given in the charge-sheet in such para 12.
12. It is further alleged in para 13 of charge-sheet that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy late A-1 further obtained allocation of 500 tonnes of refined rapeseed oil from Union Ministry on 31.01.1981 for public distribution in Arunachal Pradesh and even issued allotment letter to such agencies as earlier, but due to intervention of Secretary, Supply & Transport, Arunachal Pradesh the amount for the same was refunded by STC Culcutta to M/s Capital Agency.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 11 of 88
13. It is further claimed by CBI that in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy A-16 issued nine forged road consignments showing the transportation of some of the edible oils consignments to Arunachal Pradesh through various trucks in order to claim a refund of 6% of Central Sale Tax from STC Calcutta.
14. A-5 also prepared the forged consignment note for the remaining consignments on blank consignment notes of M/s North Lakhimpur Roadways, Guwahati which were secretly obtained by him and signed the said consignment notes as "Satish". It is further claimed that such A-5 opened a current account no. 8276 with PNB, Calcutta in the name of M/s Capital Agency, Calcutta in the premises of M/s Shaw Bux Mohan Lal owned by A-7. Such A-5 signed the bank account opening form of such M/s Capital Agency. He was introduced to such bank by A-21 and A-7. Further two cheques of refund of 6% Central Sale Tax issued by STC Calcutta were deposited by said A-5 in said bank account and same was withdrawn by A-7 through his employees.
15. Similarly, it is alleged that another current account no. 8298 was opened by A-9 with PNB Calcutta on 14.05.1981 in the name of M/s Kameng Enterprises. Such A-9 was introduced to the bank by A-20. Further the cheque for Rs 1,16,265/- issued by STC Calcutta was deposited by A-8 in said account on 14.05.1981 and the same were withdrawn by A-7 through his employees.
16. It is further claimed by CBI that market price of refined rapeseed oil during 1980-81 was ranging between Rs. 11,000/-to Rs. 11,500/- per ton while that of RBD Palm Oil was ranging between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 10,500/- per ton which was much more than the cost price of these edible oils CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 12 of 88 purchased from STC by the accused persons. As such it is claimed that accused persons obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of about Rs 29 lakhs.
17. Accordingly, on the basis of such investigation it is claimed by CBI that such facts disclose commission of offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1947 and also substantive offences u/s 420 IPC against all the accused persons A-1 to A-26. It is further claimed that offence u/s 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1947 is made out A-1. It is further claimed that offence u/s 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC made out against A-5 and A-16.
18. Further, sanction for prosecution of A-1 u/s 197 was obtained and placed on record alongwith charge-sheet.
19. Accordingly, the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons and they were sent up to face trial.
20. This is one of the oldest matter pending in this court in which charge-sheet was filed in the year 1987 i.e. 32 years ago.
21. It may further be noted that present case was instituted in the court of Special Judge, PC Act and the trial was conducted in such Ld court. But later it is noted in ordersheet dated 14.03.2000 that A-1 Tedar Tang has expired on 04.06.1999 and proceeding against him was abated accordingly. Further it would be pertinent to note that A-1 late Sh Tedar Tang was the only public servant charged in present criminal case and as he died, therefore, in view of the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBI v. Jitender Kumar Singh (2014 Eagle Legal (SC) 87), ultimately vide order dated 05.11.2016 the CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 13 of 88 Ld Special Judge, PC Act held that present case is required to be tried by MM concerned who will try all the offences except offence u/s PC Act. Accordingly, at the stage of final arguments present matter was transferred to the Ld Predecessor of this court i.e. CMM, Central District. As such, thereafter the matter is tried by this court.
22. Originally 26 accused, as mentioned in charge-sheet were summoned to face trial for offences mentioned in the charge-sheet. Further, as per record, initially all the accused appeared, except A-26. Complete set of copies were supplied to all the accused persons except A-26 as such. As such as per ordersheet dated 19.01.1989, bailable warrant were issued against A-26 and thereafter he appeared and moved bail application which was allowed and copies of chargesheet alongwith documents were supplied to him. But later on A-26 stopped appearing again, thus, such accused was declared PO vide order dated 07.05.2002.
23. It may further be noted that during pendency of such case Ex Chief Minister Sh G. Apang was summoned vide detailed order dated 28.03.1995 on the application filed by late A-1 Tedar Tang. But it further appears from record that later on vide a reasoned order dated 21.11.1995 such order dated 28.03.1995 was reviewed and such Ex Chief Minister, Sh G. Apang, was discharged.
24. After hearing arguments, vide reasoned order on charge dated 19.02.2003, it was held by the court that there is sufficient material on record to frame charge against all the accused u/s 120B read with 420, 468 IPC and 471 IPC and section 5 (2) r/w 5 (1) (d) of PC Act, 1947 and also substantive offence u/s 420 IPC. Further A-16 Sanwar Mal Aggarwal and A-5 Prahlad Rai Mundra who were charged additionally for substantive offences u/s 468 IPC CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 14 of 88 and 471 r/w 468 IPC.
25. It was further noted that A-1 Tedar Tang and A-13 Ram Lakhan Tiwari already expired and proceeding against them abated. It was further noted that A-26 is already declared PO at the time of such order. Accordingly, formal charge was framed against them by the court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
26. It may be noted that during trial A-6 Babu Lal, Accused No. 7 Sh. Mohan Lal Bajoria, A-11 Ram Prasad, A-22 Prahlad Kumar Gupta and A-25 Tara Chand Aggarwal also expired and accordingly case against them was abated.
27. It may further be noted that A-26 was again arrested on 07.06.2011 after he was declared PO and he was admitted to bail. Charge against him was framed on 23.07.2011, according to the original order on charge passed as mentioned above. Thereafter, at his request PW20 Mahender Pratap was recalled and cross examined by him as earlier evidence in his absence, (when he was PO), was recorded u/s 299 Cr.P.C.
Material Evidence In Brief :
28.It is a matter of record that Prosecution cited 136 witnesses as per the list of witnesses filed along with the charge-sheet. But it is a matter of record that despite repeated opportunities given, CBI could examine only 56 witnesses. Thus, CBI failed to examine many of the material witnesses.
29. PW1 Sibabrata Choudhury deposed that he was posted as Cashier cum Clerk in State Bank of Hyderabad, Bara Bazar Branch at Calcutta. He further deposed that draft/mail transfer application form D-53 is prepared in CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 15 of 88 his handwriting and bears his signature on the reverse side of the same and such document is exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that he received one cheque along with draft application form.
But in his cross-examination, he admitted that he do not know who signed the application form PW1/A for issuance of draft. He further deposed that he do not have any personal knowledge as to who has received the said draft issued by bank.
30. PW2 Sh. Nand Kishore Manpani deposed that he know accused No. 5 Prahlad Rai Mundra. He further state that accused No. 5 told him that he is working for accused No. 6 Sh. Babu Lal Kucheria. He further deposed that accused No. 5 always used to keep one diary with him.
This witness was not cross-examined by any of the accused despite opportunity given.
31. PW3 Sushil Narain Masaldan stated that he was Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Calcutta branch from 1978-81. He deposed that application dated 16.08.1980 Ex. PW3/1 for issue of pay order of Rs. 1 lac favouring STC of India and same was made by Mohan Lal Aggarwal/accused No. 7. It is further deposed that such application was accompanied by cheque dated 16.08.1980 for an amount of Rs. 1 lac favouring self. Same was exhibited as Ex. PW3/3. Banker's cheque made in this regard is proved as PW3/2 which bears PW3 signed at point B. It is further deposed that such cheque was paid on 19.08.1982 State Bank of India vide clearing. It is further stated that in case of self cheque payment is to be made by transfer entries.
32. PW4 T. Bagra deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI and he identified his signature which is a seizure memo dated CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 16 of 88 06.11.1982 Ex. PW4/A, whereby he handed over documents mentioned at Serial No. 1 to 3 is SPA and the same was handed over by him to CBI and same is marked PW4/P1.
This witness was not cross-examined by any of the accused despite opportunity given.
33. PW5 Kanak Choudhary deposed that he knew accused No. 6 Babu Lal Kucheria as he was his tenant at Guwhati. He further deposed that knew accused No. 5.
34. PW6 B. C. Pandey, deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI mentioned at Serial No. 1 and 2 on Ex. PW6/1. But he stated that at the time of his evidence such evidence are not shown to him as the same are not traceable. Infact, he admitted in his cross-examination that he has not been shown such documents mentioned in such seizure memo.
35. PW7 Sh. S. K. Sen Gupta deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI and he identified his signature at point A on document Ex. PW7/1. He further stated he handed over the documents mentioned in Para 2 and 3 to CBI officer.
36. PW8 Sh. Anant Naryanan deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI and he identified his signature at point A on document Ex. PW8/1. He further stated he handed over the documents mentioned in Para 1 to 10 to CBI. He further deposed that document Ex. PW8/2 bear signature of Assistant Manager Sukumar Mandal at point A which he identifies. Similarly, he deposed that he identified signature of Sukumar Mandal on document Ex. PW8/3 to Ex. PW8/10. He further deposed that he identifies the stamp of their bank on Ex. PW8/11. Same was objected by the accused side and such objection regarding admissibility of such document was left CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 17 of 88 open. It was further stated at that time by Ld. Sr. PP that original pay orders are not traceable hence are not put to that witness.
In his cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had not dealt with these documents and they were prepared before his period. He further deposed that CBI never interrogated him regarding present case.
37. PW9 Pardeep Kumar Shukla deposed that during 1980s he was studying and his father was running business of transport. He further deposed that he was assisting his father. He further deposed that registered number of his vehicle bearing No. WGH 5256 was in his name. That other vehicles were in the name of his father and his uncle. He deposed that CBI inquired from him and obtained certain documents regarding such vehicle and also obtained his signatures. He further stated that document Ex. PW9/A bears his signature at point A and B. Document Ex. PW9/B bears handwriting of his father which he can identify as he has seen him writing and signing. He further deposed that his father has already expired. He further deposed that vide entry Ex. PW9/C encircled in red ink, a fare of Rs. 200/- was charged for carrying 44 "Pipas" from Talli Ganj to Circular Road. He further deposed that vehicle was driven by Prabhu Nath Pandey who was a broker. He further deposed that goods belong to some Aggarwal. He further deposed that he had seen the challan given by the company for the loading of the goods. He further deposed that in this challan, his vehicle No. WGH 5256 is mentioned. He further deposed that PW9/D mentioned total drums/Pipas as 90 inclusive of 44 drums loaded on his vehicle. He further deposed that it bears the signature of Mr. Devi Lal driver of such vehicle at point A whom he identifies as he was his driver.
38. On the line of PW-9, PW-10 Shiv Kumar Tiwari deposed that during 1980 he was studying as well as looking after his transport business of his CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 18 of 88 father. Two vehicles namely WMK-271 AND WBK-2896 were registered in the name of PW-10. He further deposed that other vehicles were in the name of his father. He further deposed that CBI inquired from him and obtained certain documents regarding such vehicle and also obtained his signatures. He further stated that document Ex. PW10/A (D-205) bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that in the register regarding daily local trips of the vehicles, he has seen entry at page no. 98 dated 21.10.1980 at point A encircled in red regarding trip from Toly Ganj to Bagmali with regard to vehicle no. 271 and 2896. Likewise, he deposed about entry no. 98, dated 22.10.1980 regarding trip from Toly Gang to Bagwali vide vehicle no. 2896. he further deposed both such entries were in the name of his father and he can identify the same. He further stated that his father has expired. Same are Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C (D-115) entry at point A and B bears the name of broker who booked the vehicle Bachha Dubey and Naku Mishra. He further deposed that at entry at page 100 at point C dated 17.11.1980 is about a trip from high road to Posta vide vehicle no. 2896 and the same was booked by broker Naku Mishra in the entry Ex. PW10/D which is in the handwriting of his father. Likewise, entry at page 107 dated 16.02.1981 is about a trip from Matia Burj to Posta via vehicle no. 2896 and the same was booked by one Puran Mal. Such entry is in handwriting in his father and Ex. PW10/E.
39. PW-11 K.K. Singh deposed that he was working as Asst. Liaison Commissioner with Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. He deposed that he sent the documents through staff mentioned at point 1 and 2 on Ex. PW11/A which bears his signatures at point A. He further states that he has seen occupancy register of Arunachal Bhawan and it contained entries the person who occupied the rooms and same is Ex. PW11/B. He deposed that such entries are not in his hand and were made by receptionist whosoever was there. He CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 19 of 88 further deposed at serial no. 244 and 547 there is entry regarding late accused no. 1, Hon'ble Minister Supply and Transport.
40. PW-12 Tripti Kumar Banerjee deposed that he was a witness to the search at the premises of M/s Shahbux Mohan Lal and he has seen the seizure memo which bears his signatures at point A on each sheet and same is Ex.PW12/A (two sheets).
41. PW-13 Ratan Kumar Joshi deposed that he was partner in Joshi Transport Corporation during 1982. He deposed that seizure memo Ex. PW13/A dated 12.01.1982 bears his signatures at point A vide which he handed over the documents mentioned at point 1 and 2 to CBI. He further deposed that he has seen the goods manifest books of M/s Joshi Transport Ex. PW13/B (D-121) and page 77 of the same. It is deposed that such page is in the handwriting of his staff Satya Narain Sharma and he can identify his handwriting at point A on page 77 which is ex. PW13/C. He further deposed that he has seen one goods booking register of such transport and same is Ex. PW13/D (D-122) and he stated that entry at serial no. 5957 dated 18.09.1980 at page 42 is in the handwriting of Madan Lal Sain, Ex. PW13/E. In his cross-examination he admitted that in his statement u/s 161 name of Madan Lal Sain is not mentioned despite that he denied the suggestion that he named such Madan Lal Sain in his examination in chief at the instance of CBI.
42. PW14 Prem Lal Madan deposed that he was Branch Manager, PNB, Bara Bazar, Calcutta during 1982. He further deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI and he identified his signature at point A on seizure memo Ex. PW14/1 (D-166) dated 24.06.1982. He further stated he handed over the pay order application dated 20.01.1981 for the amount of Rs 2,79,434/-, Ex. PW14/2 and pay order dated 20.01.1981 for the amount of Rs CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 20 of 88 287551/-, Ex. PW14/3 bears the stamp of their bank.
Likewise, he identified and proved pay order dated 21.01.1981 as Ex. PW14/4. He further deposed that likewise he identified his signature of seizure memo Ex. PW14/5 (D-190) vide which he handed over four documents mentioned therein to CBI. He further deposed that document Ex. PW14/5 is a bank account opening form of M/s Kameng Enterprises and M/s Capital Agencies and same is Ex. PW14/6 (D-47) and PW14/6A (D-36). He further deposed that statements of accounts of M/s Kameng Enterprises and M/s Capital Agencies issued from his branch and bearing number 8298 and 8276 respectively are now Ex. PW14/7 (D-87) and Ex. PW14/8 (D-88).
Likewise, he deposed that seizure memo dated 24.09.1982 bears his signature at point A and he handed over the documents mentioned from serial no. 1 to 16 mentioned therein to CBI and same is Ex. PW14/9 (D-192). He further deposed that he has seen all such documents and same are Ex. PW14/10 to PW14/25 (D-61 to 67 and D-45) and same bears stamp of their bank.
Likewise, he deposed that receipt memo dated 09.09.1982 bears his signature at point A and he handed over the documents mentioned therein to CBI and same is Ex. PW14/26 (D-231). He further deposed that he has seen the pay order applications mentioned in the same and same are Ex. PW14/27 to PW14/28 (D-68 and D-69) and same bears stamp of their bank.
But during his cross-examination he admitted that neither he opened (such) accounts nor he handed over all these documents. He further admitted that these documents are not in his handwriting nor he handled the same. He further admitted that all pay in slips and cheques were filled by respective parties whom he does not know. He further deposed that he do not remember whether CBI recorded his statement or not. But he reiterated that he handed over these documents to CBI from his bank. He further deposed that he looked during these documents during his working hours.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 21 of 88 Thus, PW14 at best deposed that certain bank account in question were opened at their branch and certain pay orders were made. But he did not handled such transaction himself and at best handed over these documents to CBI during his service in such branch at the instance of CBI. In any case, it appears from the argument of accused side that making of such pay order and thereafter making payment to STC is not seriously disputed by accused side itself.
43. PW15 A.K. Tapedar deposed that he has seen 23 sheets (D-142) wherein the specimen handwriting of A-10 Tapas Goswami was taken in his presence. He further deposed that he gave such specimen out of his own free will and without any force or duress from any corner. And same are Ex. Pw15/A to PW15/A23.
But during his cross-examination he admitted that all these sheets shown to him in the court are carbon copies and not originals.
44. PW16 Deshram, who was about 80 years old at the time of recording of his evidence. He is a formal witness who was posted in CBI and in whose presence specimen handwriting of four accused were taken. But he deposed that he cannot identify the handwriting because of lapse of time and his eyesight has become weak. He further stated that because of his weak eyesight he cannot see his signatures on the sheets.
45. PW17 Anup Singh is retired Inspector of CBI and he was about 78 years old at the time of recording of his evidence. He participated in investigation and he seized certain documents and specimen signatures of some accused were taken in his presence. He proved such seizure memos and documents seized during the same as Ex. PW17/A (D-186), Ex. PW17/B (D-223), Ex. PW17/C (D-224). Further he deposed that in his presence certain specimen signatures were taken and such sheets are Ex. PW17/D1 to CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 22 of 88 D-23 (D-140), Ex. PW17/E1 to E107 (D-141), Ex. PW17/F1 to F-25 (D-143).
46. PW18 P.C. Sharma is another Inspector of CBI and he was part IO of present case. He seized certain documents and took specimen signatures of some accused and recorded statement of some witnesses at Calcutta and New Delhi. He proved such seizure memos and documents seized during the same as Ex. PW18/A (D-219), Ex. PW18/B (D-220), Ex. PW18/C (D-229), Ex. PW18/D (D-230). He further deposed that document Ex. PW18/E1 to E5 collectively (D-137) is the specimen signature of A-7 Mohan Lal Bajoria which was obtained by him on 09.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point A on all such five sheets. Likewise, document Ex. PW18/F1 to F5 collectively (D-146) is the specimen signature of Kailash Chand which was obtained by him on 25.03.1984 and it bears his signature at point A on all such sheets. Likewise, document Ex. PW18/G1 to G6 collectively (D-148) is the specimen signature of A-18 B.K. Kedia which was obtained by him on 09.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point A on all such sheets. Likewise, document Ex. PW18/P1 to P10 collectively (D-138) is the specimen signature of A-9 Rurh Mal Aggarwal which was obtained by him on 09.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point A on all such sheets. Likewise, document Ex. PW18/Q1 to Q7 collectively (D-
139) is the specimen signature of A-8 Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal which was obtained by him on 10.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point A on all such sheets. Likewise, document Ex. PW18/R1 to R5 collectively (D-154) is the specimen signature of A-17 Pradeep Kumar Shah which was obtained by him on 16.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point A on all such sheets.
47. PW19 Dhan Ram @ Dhanna deposed that he was sweeper at Siliguri during the year 1982 and in his presence document Ex. PW18/R1 to R5, which is the specimen signature of A-17 Pradeep Kumar Shah was obtained on 16.11.1982 and it bears his signature at point B on all such CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 23 of 88 sheets. During his cross-examination he deposed that he do not know English.
48. PW20 Mahinder Pratap Singh deposed that in the year 1980 he was transporter. He further deposed that two trucks with registered number WBK 6041 was in his name. That other vehicles were in the name of his son Sudhir Kumar Singh bearing no. WBK 5837. He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/A he handed over one diary to Sh A.K. Malhotra, Deputy SP CBI on 09.10.1982. He further deposed that he has seen such diary and same is Ex. PW20/B. He further deposed that on 22.10.1980 vehicle no. WBK 5837 was loaded with 540 oil tins which were sent from Lake Godown to Manakatlla the Godown of Puran Mal Aggarwal (A-24). Same was sent by him. He further deposed that on the same day he also arranged one vehicle no. UPK 1243 loaded with 540 oil tins which also sent on the same trip. The entry in diary is Ex. PW20/B1. Likewise, he deposed that on 24.10.1980 vehicle no. WBK 6014 was sent from Maniktalla to Posta Road loaded with 540 oil tins to the Godown of Parman Babu and he charged Rs 200/- for this. He further deposed that on the same day vehicle no. WBK 5837 was sent from Sodhpur to Shalimar and charged Rs 215/- for the trip. Such entry is Ex. PW20/B2 and same is in his handwriting.
49. PW21 is another formal witness in whose presence specimen signature of A-13 Ram Lakhan Tiwari (already expired) were taken.
50. PW22 Sh A.K. Ray Saha deposed that during 1981 he was working in Marketing Division of STC Calcutta as office Manager. He further deposed that document Ex. Pw22/A (D-35dm) dated 13.04.1981 for a sum of Rs 12,40,000/- was prepared by him and it bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that it bear the signature of Deputy Marketing Manager and CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 24 of 88 of Marketing Manager. He further deposed that he prepared office note Ex. PW22/B (D-35dl) which bear his signature at point A. He further deposed about approval of such voucher from Finance Section for payment and checking.
51. PW23 is a formal witness Sh Chhagan Singh, ASI in CBI. He deposed that specimen handwriting of Kailash Chand Aggarwal were taken in his presence.
52. PW24 Devender Nath deposed that vide receipt memo dated 17.07.1982, Ex. PW24/A (D-175) he handed over certain documents to CBI Officer mentioned at serial no. 1 and 2. He further deposed that document Ex. PW24/B (D-67) is the pay order application for amount of Rs 52917/- and the applicant is Mr Aggarwal.
During his cross-examination such witness admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the case and is deposing based on documents only.
53. PW25 J.K. Jayrama Hegde is another formal witness to documents. He deposed that vide receipt memo Ex. PW25/A (D-170) dated 17.07.1982 he handed over DDS mentioned from point 1 to 5 to the CBI and such five drafts are mark A1 to A5.
54. PW26 Mohan Kohojkar is another formal witness to documents. He deposed that vide receipt memo Ex. PW26/A (D-185) dated 21.09.1982 he handed over account opening form of M/s Shah Bux Mohan Lal to the CBI . He further deposed that two documents (D-95) are account opening form of Bank of Maharashtra dated 28.05.1976 and letter of proprietorship and same are mark X1 and XY which were handed over by him to CBI vide such memo Ex. PW26/A. CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 25 of 88
55. PW27 Sh P.C. Ray deposed that he was posted as Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager in Vijaya Bank, Asansol Branch, West Bengal during 1979 till 1984. He further deposed that he handed over some documents to CBI and he identified his signature at point A on seizure memo Ex. PW27/A (D-169) dated 14.07.1982.
He further stated he handed over two application for issuance of DD dated 14.04.1980 and 15.09.1980 Ex. PW27/A1 and PW27/A (D-72). He further deposed that accordingly two DDs of Rs 60,000/- and 94,000/- were issued. He further deposed that he can identify the initial of Surender Kumar Kedia at point B on both such application form as he worked with him during usual course of business.
Likewise he proved other such application and DDs, Ex. PW27/A3 to A5 (D-73), Ex. PW27/A6 to A10.
Likewise, he proved that vide letter dated 05.08.1982 Ex. PW27/B (D-238) he forwarded counter foils of DDs and statement of accounts of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar and M/s Durga Traders for the year 1980-81. Likewise, he proved other documents, counter foils of DDs, cash credit account of M/s Shree Durga Traders, OD account of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar as Ex. PWB1 to B41.
He further deposed that partners of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar Kedia were Mr Surender Kumar Kedia and Mrs Madhu Devi Kedia. He further deposed that Vinod Kumar Kedia and Shakuntala Devi Kedia were the two partners of M/s Shree Durga Traders. He further deposed that such firms used to transact frequently with such bank and having good deposits in their bank.
Likewise he proved many other receipt memo, cheque, DD application, statement of assets and liability Ex. PW27/C (D-230), PW27/C1 (D-76), Ex. PW27/C2 to C10, Ex. PW27/C11 to C15 (D-77) and PW27/C18 (D-77).
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 26 of 88 He further deposed that he can identify the signature of Vinod Kumar Kedia (A-18) as he is well conversant with his handwriting and signature as he has seen him writing and signing during his official duties. Further he deposed that letter Ex. PW27/C16 dated 06.03.1981 bears the signature of Surender Kumar Kedia (A-19) at point A
56. PW28 Sh Nishithendu Banerjee is another formal witness to search conducted at Kalakar Street of M/s Shah Bux. In his cross-examination he admitted that he witnessed the search only and except that he has no personal knowledge about this case. He further admitted that during such search some documents were seized but he did not personally examine such documents.
57. PW29 Sh Vivekanand Roy was working as Manager, PNB, Park Circus Branch, Calcutta during the year 1982. he also handed over certain documents vide handing over memo Ex. PW17/A (D-186) to CBI. He further deposed that document Ex. PW29/A (D-96) is bank account opening form dated 15.02.1978 of M/s Mahal Chand Moti Lal Kothari & Co. which bears his signature at point A and PW29 identified the signature of Sh B.M. Sharma, the then Manager, at point A. In his cross-examination he admitted that he was not in such concerned branch when these accounts were opened. He further admitted that he has no personal knowledge about present case and he is deposing on the basis of record.
58. PW30 A.N. Manjera deposed that he joined STC as Deputy Marketing Manager during the year 1980 and he was transferred to edible oil division. He further deposed that the whole file Ex. PW30/A (D-35) is regarding allotment of edible oils to Arunachal Pradesh Government. He CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 27 of 88 further deposed that page 184 (D-35-br) is a TPM dated 09.12.1981 received from their Head Office regarding allocation of 500 metric ton of RBD Palm oils to Andhra Pradesh Government which was revalidated upto 31.12.1980 as an initial extended dated 01.12.1980. Further he identified his signature at point A and same is exhibited Ex. PW30/A-1. He further deposed that prior to this edible oils to Arunachal Pradesh was stopped. And he was called for a discussion regarding this matter by Mr. Hazarika, Marketing Manager.
He further deposed that he has seen TMP No. 25, dated 20/21.01.1981 at page 187 and 188 and both such pages were Ex. PW30/A-
2. Likewise, he further deposed that he has seen page 190 (D-35/bt) which is a TPM No. 11, dated 22/.23.02.1981 from Sh. J.N. Goel, Marketing Manager, New Delhi same was regarding extension of lifting of 500 metric tons rapeseed oil upto 31.01.1981. Same was dealt by him on 24.01.1981 and same is Ex. PW30/A-3. He further identified his signature at point A on three delivery orders dated 21.01.1981, 20.01.1981 and 20.01.1981. Same are Ex. PW30/A4 to A6 (D35dx, D35cb, D35cd bearing page no. 206,216 and 220).
Likewise, he further deposed that he has seen TPM No. 16, dated 24.01.1981 (page 193) and same is Mark A which was sent from their office.
He further deposed that vide document Ex. PW30/A-7 (D35ce, page 222) canceled quantity was again restored by their head office and the same was revalidated upto 28.02.1981.
He further deposed that vide document Ex. PW34/A-5 (it should be Ex. PW30 and it appears that due to typographical mistake mentioned as Ex. PW34) (D35-cb at page 216), Ex. PW30/A-8 (D35-bv page 202-203) delivery orders were issued to Capital Agencies an amount mentioned therein 2,87,531/- .
He further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex. PW30/X (D167) two files mentioned Ex. PWX1 (D33) and Ex. PWX2 (D34) in respect of delivery CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 28 of 88 challan of M/s Capital Agencies and Kameng Enterprises. Delivery order of Kameng enterprises is Ex. PW30/A9 to Ex. PW30/A12 (D35-cl, ck, bz and cm) and same were issued from their office.
59. PW31 Biswanath Mukherjee deposed in detail about the procedure at STC. His evidence is discussed and analysed later on.
60. PW32 Subhash Chander Bal is a witness who deposed about handwriting and signature of A-5 Prahald Rai Mundra. He stated that document Ex. PW32/A (D-225) is a production memo handed over by him to CBI. He further deposed that A-5 was Manager of A-6 Babu Lal Kucheria. He further deposed that document Ex. PW32/B (D-75) is the ledger book which he handed over to CBI and in various pages in such ledger at point A 1 to A12 is the handwriting of A-5. He further deposed that he was working as Booking Clerk in the Talkies in which A-5 was Manager and A-6 was the owner. He further admitted that A-5 was the employee of A-6 but he denied the suggestion such A-5 was a petty employee of A-6.
61. PW33 is Rameshwar Singhania. He deposed that earlier he was Secretary of Bengal Oil Association since 1974. That he do not remember the rate of rapeseed oil in Calcutta market during the year 1980-1981 but he stated that he can depose about the same after seeing the record. This witness was allowed to cross examine by the prosecution as he was resiling from his previous statement. But in his cross-examination also he stated that he cannot admit or deny whether he told the rate of rapeseed oil as 11000/- per ton and rate of palm oil as 11500/- per ton to CBI. But he admitted that it was known to him that quota oil was sold in black market. As such he was confronted with his statement from point A to A of Ex. PW33/PA.
In his cross-examination by accused side he admitted that he cannot CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 29 of 88 tell the then prevent rates of abovesaid commodity in the market but he stated that same were daily recorded in the record of association. He further admitted that today he has not seen such record. He further claimed that CBI did not take his signature on any statement.
62. PW34, Sh Sanjeev Kumar Neogi is an important witness of CBI. His evidence in detail is discussed later on at appropriate stage.
63. PW35 D.P. Banerjee is also a witness from STC Calcutta. He deposed that he was working as Office Manager, Edible Oil Section in the year 1981. He deposed that at the time of issue of delivery order as per procedure in STC they used to charge 10% sale tax of total cost. He further deposed that if later on one party submits 'C' Form and Road consignment note, then they used to refund 6% out of such 10%. He further deposed that he had seen three debit vouchers already Ex. PW30/A (D-35 cp, co, bp) and he can identify his signature at point A on all three debit vouchers. He further deposed that he calculated refundable amount at the backside of all the three vouchers. Same is Ex. PW35/A to Ex. PW35/C. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of B. Bhattacharya at point A and three cheques Ex. PW35/D to Ex. PW35/F (D-98, D-99), as he has seen him writing and signing during his official duty. He further deposed that these three cheques were issued on 07.05.1981 in favour of Capital Agencies and Kameng Enterprises on the basis of calculation made by PW35 and same were issued on behalf of STC.
This witness was not cross examined as such his deposition has remained unrebutted. This witness deposed about the refund claimed on behalf of M/s Capital Agencies and M/s Kameng Enterprises.
64. PW36 Sh A.N. Dutta is a witness from Tax & Excise Department, CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 30 of 88 Arunachal Pradesh. He is an important witness of CBI. His evidence in detail is discussed later on at appropriate stage.
65. PW37 Satish Kumar Pandey deposed that he can identify the signature and handwriting of his father. He further stated that he has seen document D-210 which bears his fathers signature at point A and same is Ex. PW37/A. He further deposed that D-123, which is a diary was maintained by his father and same is Ex. PW37/B. He further deposed that certain pages in such diary are in the handwriting of his father Ex. PW37/B1 to B4.
On a bare perusal of examination-in-chief of PW37 it is clear that prosecution is showing unsuccessfully to prove contents of certain documents / diary written by father of PW37. Further, from the cross-examination of such witness it is clear that his father was alive at the time of his evidence but not well. Thus, in any case CBI has failed to examine the best witness / father himself. As such, not much reliance can be placed on the testimony of such PW37.
66. PW38 Rajender Kumar Harlaka deposed that he knew A-5 as he belonged to his village and they were having visiting terms with each other. He further deposed that he is conversant with the handwriting and signature of such A-5. He further deposed that he has seen Ex. PW38/P5 and can identify the handwriting encircled in red of such A-5 and same is Ex. PW38/X. He further deposed that he as well as his brother handed over certain documents to CBI. He handed over such documents mentioned in seizure memo Ex. PW38/A dated 16.09.1982 and document mentioned at serial no. 1 to 4 are the same registers which were handed over to CBI Ex. PW38/P1 to P4. He further deposed that North Lakhimpur Roadways Transport Company was of his brother Sh Deen Dayal Harlaka and his cousin brother Nathmal Harlaka and same was a partnership firm. He further deposed that one CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 31 of 88 vehicle bearing no. ASU 8963 was owned by such company. He further deposed that he was also looking after the business of such offices. Later on such company was dissolved and new company was made. He further deposed that builties Ex. PW38/C1 to C8 (D-38) bears writing of A-5 . Likewise, he proved other builties Ex. PW38/D1 to D6 (D-40), Ex. PW38/E1 to E12 (D-41), Ex. PW38/F1 to F22 (D-42). But during his cross-examination he admitted that he did not saw A-5 signing before him. But he further deposed that A-5 executed his writing in his diary in his presence. He further admitted that A-5 was working for A-6 initially at a salary of Rs 300/- and same was increased later on to Rs 1000/- per month.
67. PW39 Sudipta Nandi is a formal witness who was working in some hotel. He was sought to be examined to prove arrival register of certain visitors of the year 1980 to 1982. He further deposed that as per information gathered they had already destroyed the same and nowadays they are maintaining computerized visitor register.
68. PW40 A.K. Shukla is an important witness of CBI. His evidence in detail is discussed later on at appropriate stage.
69. PW41 Mohd Hasmat Ali is a formal witness who was working as gate keeper in Harditta Talkies, Assam. He deposed that A-5 signed on 23 sheets as told to him by CBI and then he signed on each of such sheets at point A on documents already Ex. PW17/D1 to D23. He further admitted that A-5 was his Manager.
70. PW42 A.K. Mehrotra deposed that he was working as Branch Manager in New Bank of India, Asansol in the year 1979. He knew M/s Madan Lal Kedar Nath, Sita Ram Daruka and Satyanaryan Daruka who all were the active partners of such firm and known to him. They opened current CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 32 of 88 account in his branch in the name of said company. That such firm was dealing in food grains, vanaspati etc. He further deposed that vide receipt memo Ex. PW18/A (D-219) he handed over original application cum voucher dated 22.12.1980 in connection with DD in favour of State Trading Corporation for an amount of Rs 80,000/-. He further deposed that he can identify his signature at point B on Ex. PW42/A on such original application cum voucher.
71. PW43 is another formal witness who handed over one cheque dated 04.02.1981 Ex. PW43/B vide receipt memo Ex. PW43/A (D174) to the CBI.
72. PW44 Sh. D.C. Bhaumik is another witness from STC. He deposed in detail regarding the transaction with STC His evidence is discussed in detail later on.
73. PW45 B.C. Sutradhar is a formal witness who handed over some documents to CBI Ex. PW45/A and PW45/B. He further identified the signature of Sh P.N. Sood Ex. PW45/B1 (D-92). But during his cross- examination he admitted that he has no personal knowledge of the documents handed over by him to CBI.
74. PW46 G.K. Tamang deposed that in the year 1982 he was working as HC and was posted at Check Gate. He used to check all the incoming and outcoming vehicles coming into and going through Eta Nagar. He further deposed that he used to make the entries of the trucks in the register maintained at check post passing through Eta Nagar. He deposed that document (D-135) which is Ex. PW46/A is the register handed over by him to CBI and same is in his handwriting. He further deposed regarding various truck numbers appearing in such register and he further deposed that certain truck numbers as mentioned in his examination-in-chief are not appearing in CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 33 of 88 such register Ex. PW46/A. This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity given.
75. PW47 B.R. Sinku, is another formal witness in whose presence specimen signature and handwriting of Subhash Kumar Aggarwal and Rurh Mal Aggarwal (A-9) was taken by CBI and he also signed on such document and same is already Ex. PW18/P1 to P10.
76. PW48 B.R. Maiti is another formal witness to the specimen handwriting and signature of accused Pradeep Kumar Saha (A-17) and he identified his own signature on all the pages already Ex. PW18/R1 to R5.
77. PW49 A.K. Paul deposed that he was Chief Post Master General West Bengal Circle and was witness to specimen writing and signature of A- 16 Sanwar Mal Aggarwal and A-16 gave his specimen writing and signature in his presence and presence of another winess R. Chakroborty. He further deposed that he can identify his signature at point A in document Ex. PW49/A1 to A-57 (D-149).
78. PW50 is another formal witness. He deposed that he signed at point A in seizure memo whereby various files were seized and handed over to CBI vide document D-164. He further deposed that one file mentioned in the seizure memo is D-11 and same is Ex. PW50/A1.
79. PW51 is Sh Ashok Kumar Malhotra who retired as DIG in CBI. He deposed that during the period 27.03.1973 to 13.10.1987 he was posted in AC Unit II of CBI as Inspector and DSP and present case was entrusted to him for investigation. This witness deposed about over all case and investigation carried out therein and documents collected during such investigation and thereafter filing of charge-sheet by him. His evidence is CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 34 of 88 discussed later on at appropriate stage.
His examination in chief itself is of about 45 pages.
80. PW-52 Sita Ram Daroka deposed that payin slip already Ex. PW42/A for obtaining of DD of Rs. 80000/- of New Bank Of India was filled by his employee Nayem and he can identify his handwriting and signature as he was his employee. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of P.K. Sharma who has obtained a draft as he was also one of his employees.
But, this witness was resiling from his previous statement as per the claim of the prosecution, as such at the request of Ld. APP she was allowed to cross-examined such witness by the court. In his such cross-examination by ld. PP, he denied the suggestion that Mr. Baleshewar Prasad was working with Surender Kumar Kedia/accused no. 19 and he was removed by accused no. 19 or that such Baleshewar joined PW52 firm and thereafter again joined accused no. 19. He further denied that he can identify his signature and writing on the back side of counterfoil of DD No. 2287 dated 10.09.1980 which is already Ex. PW27/B-4. This witness was confronted with his statement u/s 161 dated 03.11.1982 where it is stated so recorded in the whole statement and such whole statement was marked as P-A. It may further be noted that despite opportunity given none of the accused cross-examined this witness.
81. PW-53 Ram Parvesh Tiwari is another formal witness in whose presence specimen signature of his brother R.K. Tiwari were taken. He identified his signature at point A on all the nine pages Ex. PW53/A (Colly) (D-
152).
82. PW54 Vijay Kant Singh deposed that he was in the business of transport in Calcutta, Bayda Bazar. He further deposed that he had trucks CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 35 of 88 bearing no. WGA1682, UPK1243 and WBL3969 that truck WBL3969 was in partnership with his brother Raghuvansh Singh. He deposed that vide seizure memo Ex. PW54/A (D-214), he handed over documents mentioned therein to CBI. He further deposed that vide Ex. PW54/B (D-127) and PW54/C (D-128) registers were handed over to CBI in which they used to maintain the entries regarding trip of trucks and amount of fair receipts. He further deposed that at running page no. 93 of Ex. PW54/B, the entry dated 22.10.1980 is in his handwriting and it is regarding delivery from Tolly Ganj to Manik Tala vide truck no. UPK1243 for which a fair of Rs. 250/- was taken. He further deposed that Mahinder PRATAP Singh was working with Pooran Mal Aggarwal/Accused no. 9 to lift his goods through trucks. He further deposed that he has seen D-33-az, the challan which bears his signature of his driver Jang Bahadur at point A and such challan is already exhibited as Ex. PW20/C. Likewise, he deposed regarding other trips vide document Ex. PW54/C (D-128), PW54/D.
83. PW55 V.K. Khanna deposed that he is retired from the post of Principal Scientific Officer and Incharge Document Division in CFSL CBI, Ne Delhi on 30.11.2007. He is M.Sc. in Chemistry and was selected on the post of Asstt. Central Intelligence Officer Grade I in the office of Govt. Examiner of questioned documents. He further deposed regarding his field of work and his experience the same. He further deposed that during his working he given report in about 2500 cases in involving one lac of exhibits of various kinds. He further deposed that in present case certain documents were submitted for examination vide memo dated 25.05.1985 and thereafter further material vide memo dated 02.07.1985. He further deposed that D-155 and D156 are such forwarding letters and reference of the same is mentioned in Ex. D158. He further stated that he has seen document D158 which is a legal opinion given by him dated 31.12.1985 running into 34 pages and he identified his CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 36 of 88 signature at point A on all such pages. He further deposed regarding the opinion given by him and he deposed in this regard handwriting evidence points to the writer of specimen English ball pen and ink signatures marked S-1 to S-5 and he further deposed that he has seen D-137 which is specimen writing of Mohan Lal Bijoria/A-7 and the same is already Ex. PW18/E-1 to E-5 being the person responsible for writing the questioned English ink signatures Mark Q-1. Due to the reasons given by him in detail in report Ex. PW55/C. He further submitted that likewise specimen English writing Marked S-253 to 310 (D-149) relating to Samara Mal Aggarwal/A16 and same are already collectively Ex. PW49/A-1 and he is the person responsible for writing in questioned English Ball Pens writings Mark Q60 to 62 due to the reasons given in his such report Ex. PW55/C. It is further deposed that he has given such opinion after pursuing the sample handwriting, admitted handwriting and questioned handwriting mentioned therein and his opinion is in the report Ex. PW55/C. During his cross-examination also he supported the stand taken by him in his examination in chief and denied the suggestion to the contrary.
84. PW56 S.G. Malchandaney deposed that he was working as Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training at the time of recording of his evidence. That he has brought the office file relating to sanction of prosecution against late accused no. 1/Tadar Tang As Mr. Tadar Tang/A-1 has already expired and that is why this matter was transferred from the court of Special Judge(PC Act) and assigned to the court of undersigned and therefore no purpose would be served in going into detail of such witness who is relating to sanction.
The Defence :
85. Statement of all the accused recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 37 of 88
86. All the accused pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
87. It is submitted by accused no. 5 Prahlad Rai Mundra that he was employee of accused no. 6. He further submitted that authority letter Ex. PW34/E (D-37) bears his signature on asking of accused no. 6. He further admitted that his handwriting and signature were obtained during investigation of the case by CBI. He further admitted that he was working for accused no. 6 and his father Chautu Mal Kucheria in Guwahati since 1972. He further stated that on delivery order dated 19.08.1980, 20.08.1980, 22.08.1980, 23.08.1980, 25.08.1980, 28.08.1980, 29.08.1980, 19.08.1980 etc., he must have signed the acknowledge at the instruction of his employer Babu LLal Kucheria/A-6. He further admitted that he received various delivery orders of oil on different occasions but it is further claimed that he was not having any knowledge of any criminal act and only acting on the instruction of his employer. He further admitted that he had been visiting the STC whenever he was asked by accused no. 6 to visit and whatever accused no. 6 directed him to do, he did the same.
88. Accused no. 4 claimed that she is not connected either with Kemang Enterprises or M/s Capital Agencies. She denied rest of the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise. She deposed that she wants to lead DE.
89. Accused no. 2, 9, 18, 19, denied the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise.
90. Accused no. 3 denied the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise. She further deposed that at that time she was studying at Chandigarh and completed her graduation in 1983 and got married in the year 1983. It is further claimed made her accused without proper CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 38 of 88 investigation. She deposed that she wants to lead DE, if necessary.
91. Accused no. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 denied the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise. They deposed that they do not want to lead DE.
92. Accused no. 16 denied the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise. He further submitted that no consignment note was signed by him or his minor son Kailash Chand of M/s Rajdhani Carriers as he has nothing to do with such firm. He deposed that he does not want to lead DE.
93. Accused no. 21 and 26 denied the allegations for want of the knowledge or otherwise. They further stated that they were Attorney in the year 1977 of a partnership firm namely Mal Chand Moti Lal Kothari & Co. which was dealing in pulses and oil. They further stated that in the year 1980, accused no. 6 met them for supply of oil etc. as A-6 was doing wholesale business of oil and accused no. 21 and 26 were the retailer in Calcutta. They further stated that A-6 ordered them for supply of some oil for which accused no. 6 asked him to issue a pay order of Rupee One lac each in the name of M/s Capital Agencies. They further stated that accused no. 6 told them that it is the name of the firm of accused no. 6. They further stated that accordingly they got prepared pay order and handed over to one of his employees, named Prahlad Rai Mudra/accused no. 5, on the instructions over phone by accused no. 6. They further stated that they dealt with the others in the normal course of business only. They deposed that they do not want to lead DE.
94. Ultimately it is only accused no. 5 Prahlad Lal Mudra who led DE . He examined one Mehant Kumar Das as DW-1. DW-1 deposed that he was working at the same place where accused no. 5 was working. Accused no. 5 CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 39 of 88 was getting a salary of Rs. 400/- per month from the owner/accused no. 6. It was further deposed that accused no. 5 was favourite employee of accused no. 6 and was doing all work including fixing of posters and other related work relating to cinema hall. But in the cross-examination he admitted that he was called at the instance of accused no. 5 who had paid all the expenses for coming and deposing in court. But he further admitted that he has not brought any proof to show that he was working with the same employer/accused no. 6.
95. Accused no. 5 examined himself as DW-2. In his evidence he deposed that since 1972 he was working with the father of the accused no. 6 and thereafter he joined accused no. 6 in the year 1976. Later in the year 1980 accused no. 6 called him to Calcutta as accused no. 6 was starting a new business of oil etc. As such, it is admitted case of accused no. 5 itself that accused no. 6 was in the business of oil etc. He further admitted that he used to do various work like visiting the State Trading Corporation at Calcutta and filling other forms etc. and booking of transportation. It is further stated that he was a salaried employee of accused no. 6. He further deposed that he never received any money except such salary from accused no. 6.
In the cross-examination he claimed he used to do various work of accused no. 6 without knowing that same is legal or illegal, right or wrong. He further admitted that he used to accept delivery orders of rapeseed oil and palm oil on behalf of Capital Agencies according to instruction of accused no. 6 after measuring quantities in the delivery order. He further admitted that he used to put his signature also with regard to receipt of delivery of such oil. He further admitted that he used to accompany accused no. 6 wherever he used to go in relation to his business transaction. He further admitted that he signed document/delivery in STC Office Calcutta.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 40 of 88 The Arguments:
96. Opportunity was given to prosecution as well as to all the accused to address oral arguments as well as to file written arguments/case laws, if any .
Ld APP for State as well as Ld respective counsels for accused persons argued very well in detail and ably assisted the court.
Arguments of Prosecution:
97. It is argued by Ld APP for State that present case is a classic and serious offence of diverting the public distribution goods to black market. It is argued that late A-1 cause wrongful loss to the government particularly Union Ministry of Food & Supply and wrongful gain to himself and other accused persons by way of well designed conspiracy. Further, Ld APP has filed written arguments in detail in this regard which also include the role of each of accused and the witnesses who deposed against such accused persons. This is a unique case of corruption in which a person holding a high office of the status of a Cabinet Minister of Union Territory had shown favour to his own wife as well as the sister of another colleague in the Union Government. It is in the evidence that Shri T. Tang Minister had made personal efforts with the Union Civil Supplies Ministry to secure allotment of imported edible oils for Public Distribution in the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh.
98. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that it is also established from the oral as well as the documentary evidence of Shri Ashok Shukla Caretaker of Arunachal Bhavan that Shri T. Tang, Minister was available in Delhi on 01.08.1980 and had got the allotment order collected personally through Shri Ashok Shukla, caretaker of Arunachal Bhawan. It is also established from the allotment order that the Minister issued the allotment in the name of M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprise from New Delhi, itself on 04.08.1980. It is also in the evidence of (PW-36) Shri A.N. Dutta that CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 41 of 88 Ms. G. Thungon Prop. M/s Kameng Enterprise issued the authority letter in favour of Shri Prahlad Rai on 04.08.1980 at New Delhi itself while Smt. T. Yadir Prop. M/s Capital Agency (Wife of the Minister) issued a similar authority letter in favour of Shri Prahlad Rai on 06.08.1980 at New Delhi. Shri S.K. Neogi, Liaison Officer, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh (PW-34) has further proved that the Minister arrived at Calcutta alongwith his wife by 08.08.80 (Evening Flight) and called him on 09.08.80 (Second Saturday) in Arunachal Bhavan where S/Shri Babu Lal Kucheria and Prahlad Rai were also presented and introduced him to issue authorizations in the name of Shri Prahlad Rai (Ex PW 34/B-1) on the provocation of Babu Lal Kucheria and Prahlad Rai Mundra, for lifting the edible Oils, from STC Calcutta against the allotment of M/s Capital Agency and M/s. Kameng Enterprise because the STC, was not prepared to deliver the oil merely on the basis of allotment letter. It is further established from the evidence of Shri Neogi that it was the Minister himself who gave written instructions to him to issue authorizations in the name of Shri Prahlad Rai, which facilitated the whole fraud Ex-34/D-1(D-
5).
99. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that it is also in the evidence that these allotments in the name of M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprise were not within the knowledge of Director Civil Supply and Secretary, ministry of Supply and Transport and that they were not consulted by the Minister in this regard. It was for the Director Civil Supply to issue the allotment keeping in view the applications of the various parties, which were not considered by him. Shri T. Tang Minister completely sidetracked the whole official machinery and issued the allotment letters at New Delhi itself. It is not understood as to what was the hurry to issue these allotment orders at New Delhi itself keeping in view that the consumption of Edible Oils was so low in the said Union Territory because these oils were not at all popular amongst CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 42 of 88 the local public. Apart from that during the preceding year's almost negligible quantity of Edible oils were being lifted by the said Union Territory. In fact in the instant case the STC Calcutta should also not have honoured the orders issued by the Minister himself and should have insisted for the allotment from Director, Civil Supply or secretary, Supply & Tpt. Arunachal Pradesh. However, they acted on a bit safer side by asking the parties to get the authorizations in their name from the local Liaison Officer stationed at Calcutta, who was also incharge designated as Dy. Asstt. Director, Supply and Transport, Arunachal Pradesh.
100. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that it is further in the evidence of (PW-44) Shri D.C. Bhaumick Chief Marketting Manager, STC, (PW-31) Sh. B. Mukherjee Dy. Marketing Manager (PW-30) and Sh. A. N. Manjera, Dy. Marketing Manager, STC that it was Shri Prahlad Rai who submitted the allotment order alongwith the authorizations issued by Liaison Officer, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Stationed at Calcutta. PW-22; Sh. A.K. Roy Saha have also confirmed that it was Shri Prahlad Rai who made the payments on behalf of both the firms to the STC Calcutta in the form of Pay orders/Demand Drafts drawn on various banks of Calcutta and neighboring places on the basis of which the delivery orders were issued by them from time to time. (PW-35) Sh. D.P. Banerjee STC Calcutta and PW-22; Sh. A.K. Roy Saha have also proved the payments both these firms to STC Calcutta and also about the 3 cheques issued by STC towards refund of 6% Central Sales Tax for distribution in Arunachal Pradesh. (PW-35) Sh. D.P. Banerjee was also proved the refund of 12,40,000/- to M/s Capital Agency posted by them on 07.03.81 towards the cost of 155 Tons of Refined Rapeseed Oil.
101. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that it is further established from the deposition of the various banks officials (PW-1) Sh. S. Choudhary, CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 43 of 88 (PW-3), Sh. S.N. Masaldan, (PW-7), Sh. S.K. Sengupta, (PW-8), Sh. Anant Narayan, (PW-14) Sh. Prem Lal Madan, (PW-24) Sh. Davender Nath, (PW-
26) Sh. Mohan Kokojkar, (PW-27) Sh. P.C. Ray, (PW-42) Sh. A.K. Malhotra as well as STC Calcutta that Shri Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, Subhash Kumar Aggarwal. Tapas Goswami Ram Prasad Dehalia, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari and K. Ram Aggarwal employees of M/s Shew Bux Mohan Lal were responsible for getting the pay Orders/Demand Drafts issued from the various banks favouring STC which were deposited by Shri Prahlad Rai with the STC to obtain delivery orders. It is also proved from the evidence of the STC officials (PW-44) Shri D.C. Bhaumik, Chief Marketing Manager (PW-30) and Sh. A.N. Manjera, Dy. Marketing Manager, STC that Shri Prahlad Rai himself collected these Delivery Orders. From the Delivery Challans of STC godowns it is further established that S/Shri Khyali Ram Aggarwal, Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, Rajinder Tiwari & Ramlakhan Tiwari took the delivery of various consignments from the different godowns of STC Calcutta and lifted them through various trucks. It is further established from the various bank transfers made by M/s Mahal Chand Moti Lal Kothari & Co, M/s Surinder Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Asansol, Shri Durga Traders, Asansol and M/s R.K. Saha of Siliguri that these firms got the pay orders/Demand Drafts issued in favouring of STC which were deposited on behalf of M/s Capital Agench and M/s Kameng Enterprise, which they were not required to make any payment to STC Calcutta particularly when there was no demand from them in this regard. Secondly, there is no reason for them to make any payment to STC Calcutta on behalf of M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprise.
102. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that PW-38 Rajinder Kumar Harlaka that Prahlad Rai Mudra (A-5) forged the road consignment submitted to HTC.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 44 of 88
103. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that on the other hand, it is evident from the deposition of (PW-46) Sh. G.K. Tamang that from the movements of various trucks, these oil consignments have never reached Arunachal Pradesh or entered in Arunachal Pradesh.But on the contrary the same were unloaded mainly in Posta Bazar, main Oil market of Calcutta as well as to the godown of other oil merchants of Asansol, Siliguri, Ranchi and Purulia, which is evident from the deposition of various truck owners i.e. (PW-
9), Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shukla (Transported oils at the instance of Accused Puran Mal Aggarwal), (PW-20) Sh. Mahender Pratap Singh (transported oils at the instance of Accused Puran Mal Aggarwal from STC Calcutta to his godown), (PW-13) Shri Ratan Kumar Joshi, (PW-37) Sh. Satish Kumar Pandey.
104. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that coming to the preparation of various false road consignment notes by Shri Sanwar Mal Aggarwal Prop. of M/s Rajdhani Carriers, 28 Blackburn Road, Calcutta-12, it is established from the records of various checkposts enroute to Calcutta to Arunachal Pradesh that name of these oils consignments as detailed by Shri Aggarwal in the consignment notes issued by him never reached Arunachal Pradesh. Apart from that the papers written by Shri Khyali Ram Aggarwal containing the account of various Demand Drafts issued by STC in favour of M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprise as well as letter written in Hindi to Shri Sanwar Mal Aggarwal to issue Road Consignment Notes recovered during the search of the said Transport Company clearly shows that it was Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria who had approached Shri Sanwar Mal Aggarwal to issue false Road Consignment Notes showing transportation of the various oil consignments from Calcutta to Arunachal Pradesh. These oil consignments had never reached Arunachal Pradesh, as per evidence of the Civil Supply officials as well as of the checkposts record that none of these oil CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 45 of 88 consignments were transported to Arunachal Pradesh for distribution through Public Distribution System. It is further argued that CBI has gone a little head of their duty by bringing evidence about the disposal of some of these consignments at Calcutta and neighboring places. In view of this it is quite clear that there is positive as well as negative evidence on record to establish that these oils were never taken to Arunachal Pradesh for public distribution, but on the contrary were disposed of at Calcutta and neighboring places. About the role of Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria, Shri Babu Lal Kucheria and Prahlad Rai Mundra, the king-pins as well as the pivot of the Whole conspiracy, it was mentioned that both Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria and Shri Babu Lal Kucheria have very cleverly avoided to sign the vital documents. But Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria cannot escape the criminal liability because he had introduced Shri Prahlad Rai Mundra as Prop. Of M/s Capital Agency in a bank account opened with Punjab National Bank, Calcutta where the cheques regarding the refund of 6% Central Sales Tax and the cost of 155 Tons of Refined Rapeseed Oil were deposited by Shri Prahlad Rai. Further, it is evident in the evidence of bank officials of the said bank that it was Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria ultimately who got benefit and utilized the funds from the said account. Not only this Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria allowed Shri Prahlad Rai to utilize his own office premises as well as address to facilitate all these transactions. Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria had also arranged funds to be paid to the STC towards the cost of the said Edible Oil without which the whole transaction would have been very difficult because Shri Prahlad Rai happened to be a stranger at Calcutta and was working at Guwahati. Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria also allotted his employees to play an active role in getting Pay order/demand Draft issued from different banks against cash payments which were ultimately deposited by Shri Prahlad Rai with the STC, Calcutta. It is further argued that it was Shri Babu Lal Kucheria who deputed Sh. Prahlad Rai to go to Calcutta and do all these exercises. In fact, it was Babu Lal CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 46 of 88 Kucheria and Prahlad Rai Mundra only who conspired with the Minister to dispose of these oils at Calcutta and it is in evidence of Shri S.K. Neogi that Babu Lal Kucheria and Prahlad Rai Mundra worked in the back-ground and enacted the whole Drama. Shri Babu Lal Kuchria has not signed any of the papers but since Shri Prahlad Rai happened to be an employee of Shri Babu Lal Kucheria and the fact that Babu Lal Kucheria and Prahlad Rai Mundra were present at the time when the Minister issued instructions to Shri Neogi to issue authorization in favour of Shri Prahlad Rai clearly goes to show that he was responsible for the whole under-hand deal. It is also in the evidence of STC officials that Prahlad Rai used to approach them to pursue the case of issue of Delivery orders to M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprise.
105. As regard, Shri Bishwanath Aggarwal (A-21) it is further argued by Ld APP for State that it is in the evidence of officials of Punjab National Bank Bara Bazar, Calcutta that he introduced Shri Subhash Kumar Aggarwal (A-9) as Prop. of M/s Kameng Enterprise, on the basis of which a Current Account No. 8298 was opened which facilitated the encashment of various Cheques issued by STC towards the refund of 6% Central Sales Tax. Similarly, Shri Ranjeet Singh Kothari (A-20) had introduced Shri Prahlad Rai as Prop. M/s, Capital Agency with Punjab National Bank, Bara Bazar Calcutta on the basis of which another Current Account No. 8276 was opened with the said Bank by Shri Prashad Rai and the sale proceeds of various Cheques issued by STC were enjoyed by Shri Mohan Lal Bajoria (A-7).
106. It is further argued by Ld APP for State that coming to the role of the firms (A-22) it is in the evidence of the truck Drivers/Owners that the various oil consignments were transported by them from different STC godowns to the godown of these parties. The name of some of these firms figure in the Trip-cum account books of these vehicles.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 47 of 88 Arguments of Accused Persons:
107. It is argued by Ld counsel for A-2, A-3 and A-4 that out of 136 witnesses cited in the list of witness filed alongwith charge-sheet, despite opportunity given, CBI could examine only 56 witnesses. It is further argued that out of such 56 witnesses also, about 26 witnesses are formal witnesses who only handed over some documents. It is further argued that no official / witness from Central Government / Ministry of Food & Supply or from State Government of Arunachal Pradesh was examined. It is further argued that 15 witnesses were only relating to specimen signatures. It is further argued that out of the remaining 4-5 witnesses, 2 are hostile.
108. It is further argued that there is no evidence proved or placed on record regarding the allegation in the charge-sheet that oils in question did not reach Arunachal Pradesh for which it was issued by Union Ministry through State Trading Corporation (STC), at Calcutta, West Bengal.
109. It is further argued that in fact most of the documents are simply exhibited and thereby tried to be proved by the prosecution through IO/PW51. It is argued that this is not the mode / way of proving the documents. It is further argued that the concerned person i.e. author of such documents etc. were not examined at all. It is further argued that admissibility of such documents placed on record through PW51 was even objected to by accused side at the time of examination in chief of such PW51/IO.
110. It is further argued that in fact A-26 was PO and charge against him was framed later on. In any case, it is argued that after the death of A-1 the PC Act no more attracted and therefore there was need to amend the charge after his death.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 48 of 88
111. It is further argued that one of the essential ingredient of section 420 is wrongful gain and wrongful loss, but no evidence is lead as no PW examined from the concerned Ministry of Central Government or Arunachal Pradesh State Government. Coupled with this it is argued that it is not denied that payment was duly made for supply of such oils from STC Calcutta. It is further argued that it is so admitted by CBI in the charge-sheet itself that payments were made and thereafter only oils were supplied from the STC Calcutta. It is further argued that in any case most importantly there is no evidence on record to prove that after taking delivery from STC Calcutta such oils were not delivered at Bomdila, Arunachal Pradesh i.e. the place for which it was lifted / supplied. In fact it is stated that in this regard i.e. non receiving of such oils in the State of Arunachal Pradesh no witness from Food & Supply Department of Arunachal Pradesh was examined nor any concerned officer mentioned in charge-sheet examined in this regard. It is further argued that only one witness from Arunachal Pradesh examined who at best stated that such goods / oils did not enter Eta Nagar. But in this regard it is argued by Ld counsel for accused that for going to Bomdila through road, it is not always necessary to pass through Eta Nagar. Thus, in any case, benefit of doubt be given to accused in this regard. It is further argued that in fact PW20 who was a transporter admitted during his cross-examination that he cannot tell where he had taken the goods and where he had delivered the goods.
112. It is further argued that witnesses like PW50 only proved at best that some files were seized through seizure memo but what is the content of such file, such witnesses could not depose anything.
113. Further, PW51 IO A.K. Malhotra at best proved that he seized certain files from different persons and nothing more. In this regard it is further argued and even case law relied that mere marking is not proving of CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 49 of 88 documents.
114. In fact it is further argued that some of the PWs like PW6, PW7, PW8 etc. were called but the concerned documents which they tried to prove was not even shown to them. Not only this, despite so, no application for secondary evidence was moved by prosecution. As such, in nutshell nothing could be proved by such witnesses.
115. It is further argued that it is wrongly claimed by prosecution that A-3 is sister-in-law of late A-1. In fact no such evidence brought on record during evidence. It is further argued that same is also factually incorrect. It is further argued that A-3 was not involved in opening of bank account by A-6, A-7, as such she cannot be said in conspiracy with the other accused in any case.
116. Further it is argued that it is the Ex Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh Mr G. Apang and not late A-1 who instructed PW44 and PW44 acted accordingly. Still, such Ex Chief Minister was neither examined nor made co- accused. It is further argued that late A-1 met the Union Minister Sh V.C. Shukla alongwith such Ex Chief Minister and not alone and only on the assurance of such Ex Chief Minister further 500 metric tonnes of oil was approved by the Central Ministry. But it is stated that despite so CBI deliberately did not collect nor even investigated the conspiracy angel involving such Ex Chief Minister or the concerned Union Minister Sh V.C. Shukla.
117. Further it is argued that PW9 and PW10 are not the concerned person and in fact their respective father should have been examined. It is further argued that such PW9 or PW10 cannot prove whether goods were oil in question or otherwise.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 50 of 88
118. It is further argued that A-3 and A-4 are at best should have been called as a witness. It is argued that in any case that there is no incriminating evidence against them. In fact it is argued that A-3 is a victim as bank account is opened in her name without her knowledge.
119. It is further argued that there is no evidence for conduct of so called accused persons. In fact it is argued that the prosecution has just narrated a story in the charge-sheet which it is unable to prove on record at all.
120. It is further argued that in fact it was a genuine transaction of supply of oil and no offence is made out. It is further argued that late A-1 Sh Tedar Tang acted only in his official capacity and there was no malafide in his action.
121. It is argued on behalf of accused no. 5 and 21 by ld. Counsel that it is admitted case that accused No. 5 Prahlad Rai was just employ of accused No. 6 Babu Lal. In fact, it is argued that accused No. 5 was just a salaried employee and was only following the instructions of his employer/accused No. 6 during the usual course of business. It is further argued that no evidence to prove the allegations of criminal conspiracy in any case as far as accused No. 5 is concerned, nor there is any evidence on record placed to prove other offences alleged against such accused No. 5. It is further argued that PW2 and PW5 at best only proved that they knew accused No. 5. It is further argued that PW17 is Inspector of CBI who only obtained writing of accused No. 5 which evidence is formal in nature and likewise, there are only formal witnesses to the same. Further, it is stated by him that he is not denying receiving the deliveries from STC at Calcutta, as deposed by PW30, but it is argued that same were received as employee on the instructions of employer/accused No. 6. It is further argued that in any case accused No. 5 had no knowledge of conspiracy, if any, going on among other accused CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 51 of 88 persons. It is further argued that the aspect of mensria is absent, therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out.
122. As far as accused No. 21 is concerned, it is argued there is no incriminating evidence against him at all. It is further argued that even his sample handwriting was not taken.
123. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 that charges were not modified despite death of late Sh. Tedar Tang who was the only public servant in the present case. It is further argued that concerned director of Food and Supply was essential person for such oil of food, still he was not examined. It is further argued that it is not the case the such supply of oils was sanctioned only once. In fact, it was sanctioned twice by the Union Ministry of Food and Supply, still nobody is made co-accused from such Union Ministry. In any case, it is argued that no witness from Central Ministry/Union Ministry was examined by the CBI despite opportunity available. It is further argued that CBI deliberately did not investigate the role of Union Ministry and the Union Minister late Sh. V. C. Shukla. It is further argued that it is hard to believe that if as per the allegations of CBI accused No. 1 acted without informing Chief Secretary or the concerned Director of Civil Supply, still why they did not act to correct the wrong done, if any, by late accused No. 1.
124. It is further argued that although it is argued that accused No. 1 conspired with accused No. 5, 6 and 7 for arranging the finance for such oil deliveries and lifting such oils from STC Calcutta, but no evidence about such arrangement or agreement proved on record. Further, it is argued that there is no evidence to show that any profit was shared or agreed to be shared for such alleged conspiracy. In fact, it is alleged that CBI discriminated and as per its whims and fancies pick and choose the accused and left the real CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 52 of 88 culprit.
125. It is further argued that in any case no evidence is led to prove the allegation that such oil instead of sending to the destination in Andhra Pradesh, was sold in open market/black market. It is further argued that there is no witness about purchase of such oil. Further, no evidence is proved on record about selling of such oil in open market by such accused persons. It is further argued that there is no evidence that any money was withdrawn by accused from the bank account etc.
126. It is further argued that PW17 at best proved seizing of certain documents and nothing more. It is further vehemently argued that in any case no one was examined to prove such seized documents at all.
127. Further, it is argued that accused No. 8, 12, 14 and 15 were just employees working with their employer and following the instructions of their employer.
128. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused No. 17 that as per the CBI allegation, he purchased oil from accused No. 5, 6 and 7. But it is stated that there is no evidence that same was as a result of criminal conspiracy between such accused No. 17 and other accused. It is further argued that there is no evidence proved on record to show that payment made to STC was on behalf of accused No. 5, 6 and 7.
129. As far as accused No. 23 is concerned, it is argued by ld Counsel that no evidence at all is proved on record against accused No. 23.
130. Short written arguments filed on behalf of accused No-16 claiming that no incriminating evidence proved on record against him.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 53 of 88
131. As far as accused 18 and 19 are concerned, it is argued by ld. Counsel on their behalf that no evidence at all is proved on record against such accused and at best some witnesses were examined relating to specimen signatures of such accused persons.
132. On behalf of accused No. 9 it is argued that he was just an employee of accused No. 7 even as per allegation by CBI. And it is further argued that being employee he was just following instruction of his employer Accused No. 7 and there is no malafide intention on his part. In fact, it is argued that he is an illiterate Peon/Public Servant following the instruction of his master. It is further argued that there is no evidence is proved against him regarding any of the offence charged against such accused.
133. On behalf of accused No. 26, it is argued that he was declared Proclaimed Offender earlier and, thereafter, appearing since 2011. It is further argued that there is no evidence against him at all and only PW20 is examined regarding his role, who was just a transporter who does not prove his culpability for involvement in the present case.
134. It is argued on behalf of accused No. 20 that the only allegation against him that he introduced accused No. 9 to bank account opening. As such, it is argued that no allegation/charge is proved even if it is accepted he introduced accused No. 9 for such bank account opening.
135. Further, certain written synopsis filed and many case law also relied by the accused side inducing by Accused No-2,3,4, 5,7,8 12, 14,15, 16,21 also.
136. Further, it may be noted that it is a settled proposition of criminal law CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 54 of 88 that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
Section 120B IPC:
137. Before proceeding further, it would be fruitful to deal with the law relating to conspiracy.
138. Section 120B of IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of criminal conspiracy given in Section 120A reads as follows:
"120A- When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done.-
(1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof".
139. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 55 of 88 this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence.
140. Further it is settled law that in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public view. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal.
Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
The inferences are normally deduced from acts of parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. There must be a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding the commission of an offence and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances, the prosecution has to show that the circumstances give rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence.
141. It may further be noted at this stage that there is no difference between the mode of proof of the offence of conspiracy and that of any other CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 56 of 88 offence, it can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.
142. It may further be noted the circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.
143. At this stage, it would also be relevant to note section 10 of Indian Evidence Act. It states:
"Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.--Where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it."
144. In the backdrop of the law, we come back to the present case . In the case in hand it is not disputed that late Sh. Tedar Tang, was the Hon'ble Minister, Supply & Transport, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. Further it is not disputed that A-5 Prahlad Rai Mundra was working for A-6 late Sh Babu Lal Kucheria.
145. At this stage it may be noted that, PW51 Sh. Ashok Kumar Malhotra, is the IO of the case. It may further be noted that on bare regarding of his examination-in-chief it can be seen that such witness tried to prove on record documents, which was left due to the fact that CBI could not examine majority of its witnesses, and as such ,which could not be proved on record through the witnesses cited in list of witnesses.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 57 of 88 In any case, it can be further seen that his deposition does not relate to the alleged offences in question,but collection of evidence regarding the same after commission as per the investigation carried out. He deposed about various documents collected / seized by him during investigation.
146. In this background, it may be noted that contents of a document can be proved by a person who is the author of the same or who is otherwise aware about the same, for example, if the document was written in his presence.
On a bare reading of evidence of such PW51/ IO it is clear that he is neither the author of documents, which were tried to be proved during his examination-in-chief nor such documents are executed / written in his presence. At best, such IO can prove that same were handed over to him by various witnesses. But in such situation accused does not have the opportunity to cross examine the author of such documents or other person who is the best witness, like in whose presence such documents were written / executed. Thus, contents of such documents cannot be read in evidence for the purpose of deciding present case as the same are not proved as per law. No opportunity of cross-examination was available, in fact could have available, to the accused side regarding to test the veracity of contents of such documents / files / letters mentioned in examination-in-chief of PW51.
147 In fact, during his cross-examination IO / PW51 admitted that not a single document was ever prepared in his presence and only his observation about such documents,after they were seized and scrutinized, are mentioned in his examination-in-chief / evidence.
In fact, it is further pertinent to note that objection regarding admissibility of such documents were duly raised by the accused side and CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 58 of 88 same was left open. As such same is to be decided at this final stage. Accordingly, same is decided that they cannot be considered for the purpose of present judgment.
148. Having noted so, it may further be noted that PW40 A.K. Shukla deposed that he was working in government rest house concerned since 1978. He stated that letter Ex. PW40/A dated 01.08.1980 (D-2 d) was a letter given to him by his commissioner. Same was duly signed by late A-1,Sh. Tedar Tang and he can identify the signature of late A-1 Tedar Tang as he has seen him signing at several places in visitors register. He further deposed that letter Ex. PW40/B dated 01.08.1990 (D-2 h) is signed by Sh P.S. Cheema, then Deputy Secretary to Government of India and same was received by him. He further deposed that entry Ex. PW40/C (D-79) is in the guest entry register of guest house maintained by the receptionist in the due course of official business and at page no. 24, serial no. 22 for suite no. 101 is the entry of late Tedar Tang for stay in such guest house for eight days. Likewise, there is another entry Ex. PW40/D for four days at page no. 77 at serial no. 732 for the suite no. 104.
149. Further PW 34 , Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Neogi deposed that during the year 1980 he was Liaison Officer, Government of Arunachal Pradesh posted at Calcutta office to look after the movement of various commodity and also to attend VIP and senior most officers. He further deposed that Ex. PW34/A dated 10.06.1982 is the seizure memo which bear his signature at point A (D-
160). Vide such seizure memo he handed over document Ex. PW34/B (D-4) and Ex. PW34/C (D-78).
He further deposed that he knew late Sh Tedar Tang (A-1) who was Supply Minister at that time and on 09.08.1980 he came alongwith his wife CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 59 of 88 from Delhi by IC Flight No. 401. He stayed at the guest house attached to their office. He further deposed that late Sh Tedar Tang introduced him to A-5 and A-6. He further deposed that entry no. 47 in document Ex. PW34/C is regarding stay of late Sh Tedar Tang with his family on that day. He further identified his signature at point B. Same are Ex. PW34/C1.
He further deposed that late Tedar Tang verbally directed him to issue authority letter for lifting of rapeseed oil and palm oil from STC Calcutta in favour A-5 Prahlad Rai. He further deposed that he was not competent to issue such authority letter as Director of Civil Supply it is sponsoring authority to issue such authorization letters. He further deposed that such issue of letter was regarding allotment of M/s Kameng Enterprises. More importantly he deposed that in the meantime A-6 intervened and told that such A-6 has already talked to STC Calcutta in this regard and he further stated that if the Liaison Officer Calcutta will issue the authority letter then STC will give the delivery. More importantly he further deposed that on such reply by PW34 late Tedar Tang became very annoyed, which indicate the conduct of late accused. He further deposed that late Tedar Tang deposed that he is Civil Supply Minister and PW34 office comes under him and if PW34 do not carry his order, then A-1 will sack PW-34 from the services. He further deposed that late Tedar Tang again enquired from him about authority letter to which PW34 adamantly told that until and unless he is given written instruction by Tedar Tang, PW34 cannot issue authority letter.
PW34 further deposed thereafter late Tedar Tang started giving dictation to him and he noted down the same. He further deposed that late Tedar Tang started writing personally on the same page. He further deposed that Ex. PW35/D1 (D-5) is the same letter whose first para encircled in red was written by him as per late Tedar Tang instruction and rest of para at point A, B and C are in the handwriting of late Tedar Tang. He further deposed that same was signed / initialed by late Tedar Tang at point A which is now Ex.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 60 of 88 PW34/D1.
He further deposed that in file Ex. PW34/B (D-4 (a)) he can identify the signature of late Sh Tedar Tang at point A and this letter was finally written by him as per late Tedar Tang's instructions. He further deposed that vide such letter late Tedar Tang authorized A-5 Prahlad Rai to lift the commodity on behalf of M/s Kameng Enterprises and such letter is Ex. PW34/B1 He further deposed that thereafter A-6 alongwith A-5 asked him to issue the authority letter immediately but he stated that this day being a holiday, he cannot issue authority letter. On this they told him that they will come on 11th August to which PW34 replied that he will not be available due to VIP movement and PW34 told them to come on 12 th August 1980 and such letter is Ex. PW34/E (D-37) dated 12.08.1980 which bear PW34's signature at point A and that of A-5 at point B, signed in his presence. He further deposed that copy of the same was sent to Hon'ble Minister In-Charge Supply & Transport and to Deputy Marketing Manager, STC. He further deposed that D-16 and D-19 are such copies and same are Ex. PW34/F and Ex. PW34/G. He further proved his signature in file Ex. PW34/B at point A and that of A-5 at point B, Ex. PW34/B2.
He further deposed that he received telegram from Shillong and Eta Nagar raising some queries and same is at page 62, Ex. PW34/B5 in file Ex. PW34/B and Ex. PW34/B6 at page 63 respectively. He further deposed that in response thereto he wrote the letter dated 29.08.1980 Ex. PW34/B7. He further proved the related communication in this regard as Ex. PW34/B9 to Ex. PW34/B18.
150. In his cross-examination he admitted that he do not know A-5 and A- 6 personally and he issued the authority letter as per the instruction of late Tedar Tang. He further admitted that A-6 visited his office on 12.08.1980 only.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 61 of 88
151. Thus, inter-alia it is clear that such PW34 knew very well that what is being asked from him is not as per the procedure and not within his authority. Despite that on a bare perusal of his evidence it is clear that he was at best interested in saving his own skin and did not raise any alarm regarding misdeeds committed by others. But having said that , it is also clear that through him the CBI is able to prove on record the vital aspect of conspiracy in question.
152. Further PW36,Sh A.N. Dutta, deposed regarding registration of the firm of A-2 Mrs T. Yadir. He deposed that he handed over two files Ex. PW36/A and Ex. PW36/B vide seizure memo dated 09.11.1982 and 04.04.1984 (D-227, 235). He further deposed that vide Ex. PW36/A he handed over file Ex. PW36/C (D-14) to CBI which was maintained by him. He further deposed that he has seen D-14-A in file Ex. PW36/C and identified his signature in the note-sheets. He further identified signature of Sh B.C. Namasudra at point B. he stated that vide application Ex. PW36/C1 dated 23.03.1979 of A-2 application for registration of her firm M/s T. Yadir was forwarded. He further deposed the application form running into three pages Ex.PW36/C2 is the application for registration of CST. He further deposed that vide Ex. PW36/C3, which is letter dated 23.03.1979 (D-14 B) registration certificate under CST in favour of A-2 for making delivery of certificate to A-2 was made. He further deposed that Smt T. Yadir (A-2) wife of Tedar Tang, the then Minister, Arunachal Pradesh also moved an application for change of title of CST registered firm from M/s T. Yadir to M/s Capital Agency and also for inclusion of additional items as mentioned in the application and same is Ex. PW36/C5(D-14D) and official forwarding letter is Ex. PW36/C6. Such application was approved. He further deposed that letter dated 20.09.1982 was marked to him and same was regarding inclusion of certain items in the CST registration certificate and same is Ex. PW36/C8. He further deposed CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 62 of 88 that noting at page no. 4 and 5 on file Ex. PW36/C is in his handwriting and he recommended penal action u/s 7 CST Act and even a notice was issued to A-2 in this regard. He further deposed that he can identify the signatures of all the officers as he was conversant with their signatures and handwriting.
153. On a bare perusal of evidence of PW36 it is clear that he deposed and proved that M/s Capital Agency was a firm registered in the name of A-2 Smt T. Yadir and its previous name was M/s T. Yadir. It is further proved on record by this witness that later on A-2 even moved application for inclusion of additional items as mentioned in the application Ex. PW36/C5. Further it can be seen that such movements by way of an application for change of title of CST registered firm from M/s T. Yadir to M/s Capital Agency and also for inclusion of additional items was at the instance of A-2.
154. Further it may be noted that PW11 ,Sh.K.K. Singh, is able to prove the concerned register kept in the normal course of business at Arunachal Bhawan, containing entries of the persons who occupied the room.
155. In furtherance of such criminal conspiracy action was also taken about which PW14 Prem Lal Madan deposed. He deposed that he was Branch Manager, PNB, Bara Bazar, Calcutta during 1982.He, inter alia, deposed as noted above that document Ex. PW14/5 is a bank account opening form of M/s Kameng Enterprises and M/s Capital Agencies and same is Ex. PW14/6 (D-47) and PW14/6A (D-36). He further deposed that statements of accounts of M/s Kameng Enterprises and M/s Capital Agencies issued from his branch and bearing number 8298 and 8276 respectively,Ex. PW14/7 (D-87) and Ex. PW14/8 (D-88).
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 63 of 88
156. Further, as already noted above, the witnesses like PW22, PW28, PW30 and PW31 deposed in detail and proved on record that in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy action was also taken like approaching the STC Calcutta for delivery of such oils in question. Further, in fact such oils were actually delivered by STC through Accused No-5, which is also proved on record as noted above in the evidence of various witnesses from STC.
157. In fact, more importantly PW30 deposed that these delivery orders were issued by them against payment made by M/s Kameng Enterprises and M/s Capital Agencies. More importantly he deposed that Prahlad Rai Mundra (A-5), representative of the firm, received delivery order as his signatures are there.
PW30 further deposed that allotment order no. M-ST-I/80, dated 02.02.1981 which was received from the then Supply and Transport Minister Sh. Tedar Tang (A-1) and same was in favour of M/s Capital Agencies for allotment of 500 MTS and the same was received by Sh. K.C. Hazarika, Marketing Manager, on 03.02.1981. He further deposed that the same was marked to him as such he put a note on the face of the letter and same is encircled in red. He further identified his signature at point B on the back of the letter vide such note he was asked whether they should go ahead on the basis of this allotment letter or should they ask the representative of State Government to get the allocation confirmed from the local liaison officer of Arunachal Pradesh (wrongly written as Andhra Pradesh). He further deposed that acting Branch Manager, Sh. Bhumikh ordered that that allottee may be asked to obtain the endorsement of local officer as proposed by PW30.
PW30 further deposed that vide document Ex. PW30/A40, TPM No. 44, dated 04.02.1981 Deputy MM intimated that the Arunachal Pradesh was alloted 500 MTS of refined RSO for meeting the requirement as mentioned in CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 64 of 88 such TPM. More importantly it is deposed Prahlad Rai Mundra/A-5, Authorized Representative of Capital Agencies Contacted PW30 and PW30 told him to get his allocation confirmed from Local office of Arunachal Pradesh to which A-5 stated that local officer has refused. He further deposed that telegram dated 12.02.1981 was sent to Secretary Supply and Transport, Itanagar informing them about the allocation of 500 mts of RSO.
He further deposed that as per telegram received from Secretary, SNT, Itangar Ex. PW30/A-15 (D-35-cq), such Secretary asked them to honour allotment order issued from Arunachal Pradesh Government under the seal and signature of civil supply.
He further deposed similar telegram was also received from Secretary SMT Ex. PW30/A-16 (D-35-cr) and vide such telegram it was asked not to entertain any other order except under the seal and signature of Director Civil Supply and such telegram was marked to PW30.
He further deposed that their branch received reply from Secretary SNT on 16.02.1981 in response to their earlier telegram Ex. PW30/A-17 (D- 35-cs).Same was put by PW30 to Mr. Hazarika vide a note. It is further deposed that after discussion it was decided that order not be honoured except under the seal and signature of civil supply.
Not only this, it appears that there was further confusion at that time and contradictory orders / communications were being received from various officials/Minister of Andhra Pradesh.
In this regard, it may be noted that it is further deposed by PW30 that vide telegram Ex. PW30/A18 (D-35-ct), dated 20.02.1981 it was asked to honour Minister allotment order dated 02.02.1981 in favour of M/s Capital Agencies. It is further deposed vide such telegram it is mentioned that their previous telegram stood cancelled. He further deposed that on 09.03.1981 a telegram was received from Chief Minister, Arunachal Pradesh stating therein that RSO be released to M/s Capital Agencies otherwise matter will be CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 65 of 88 seriously taken up with Union Civil Supply Minister. Such telegram is Ex. PW30/A-20 (D35-cv). He further deposed that confirmatory of Ex. PW30/A20 telegram was received and same was marked by PW30 to Mr. Hazarika, Marketing Manager and Branch Manager Mr. Bhumikh. He further deposed that vide PW30 noting at point Y on Ex. PW30/A-21, PW30 asked the staff to get prepared the delivery order and keep the same pending till signature of Capital Agencies authorized representative.
PW30 further deposed that he saw telegram Ex. PW30/A22 (D35- cy) wherein it was mentioned that telegram dated 20.02.1981 was not issued from Itanagar office and the instruction mentioned in telegram dated 09.02.1981 were upheld. He further deposed that he marked this telegram vide his noting at point X, mentioning therein to stop the delivery order 155 mts and to send photocopy of all communications to their head office for their advice, to Mr. Hazarika and Bhumikh. He further deposed that vide noting at point Y ,Mr. Hazarika asked for stopping the delivery of oil of M/s Capital Agencies.
PW30 further deposed that vide document Ex. PW30/A-23-A (D35- dc) information was sent to their surveyor to stop the delivery of oil to M/s Capital Agencies. HE FURTEHR deposed that office copy of TPM dated 16/17.03.1981 is signed by Mr. Hazarika at point A and same is Ex. PW30/A24 and the fair copy is Ex. PW30/A25.
He further deposed that refund of Rs. 12,40,000/- was made to M/s Capital Agencies as delivery order was cancelled.
It is further important to note that despite opportunity given none of the accused cross-examine such PW30. Thus, the testimony of this witness has remained unrebutted.
158. Further, from a bare perusal of testimony of PW30 read with PW22 alongwith with other witnesses, it is established that accused no. 5 Prahlad CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 66 of 88 Rai Mundra was actively participating in all the transactions for taking delivery of the oils in question from STC Calcutta on behalf of M/s Capital Agencies and M/s Kameng Enterprises.
159. Further, from a bare perusal of testimony of PW30, it is clear that conflicting orders/telegrams were being received including from the then Hon'ble Chief Minister regarding release of such oil to such firms. Thus, it can be inferred that the Hon'ble Chief Minister was aware about the transaction which was going on as well as the issue whether such supply was ordered through proper channel or not.
But, as already noted earlier during pendency of this case such Hon'ble Chief Minister was summoned as an accused, but later he was discharged by a reasoned order dated 21.11.1995. Thus, in any case, ultimately there is no sanction order against such Hon'ble Chief Minister. Further the order of discharge of Hon'ble Ex Chief Minister was never challenged by CBI as such attain finality. Thus, no further order can be made in his regard, particularly at this belated stage by this court which is not even a special court under PC Act but a court of Magistrate level.
160. It may further be noted that PW31,Biswanath Mukherjee,deposed in detail about the procedure at STC. He as noted above deposed that bigger States had their own channel of lifting the allocation but the small State particularly North-East were not having such corporate bodies of their own and used to nominate individual allottee. He further deposed that State Government used to sent their allotment letters allotte wise to STC Calcutta. He further deposed that parties concerned also used to report to them with copy of their allocation letters and necessary authorization for taking delivery of the oil. He further stated that oil were released to them against payment. He further deposed that they used to verify the signature of the person CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 67 of 88 reporting to them for taking delivery against payment. He further deposed that if their signature were not attested by allocating authority in the State, then they used to get the same attested through local officer concerned of the State Government at Calcutta. He further stated that this was the general procedure regarding allocation of edible oil under public distribution system. He further deposed and proved certain communication regarding allocation of edible oils for Arunachal Pradesh between the concerned officials of Arunachal Pradesh and STC Calcutta like, telex, notes relating to such telex, telegram, delivery orders letters issued by Minister of Supply and Transport, Arunachal Pradesh for allotment of such oils to M/s Capital Agencies and M/s Kameng Enterprises and later, letters regarding stopping the deliveries of such oils, revised allocation orders as Ex. PW31/B1 (TPM No. 8 dated 27/28.03.1980), Ex. PW31/B2 (letter dated 26.03.1980), Ex. PW31/B3 (note dated 18.04.1980), Ex. PW31/B4 to Ex. PW31/B6 (telegrams), Ex. PW31/B7 to Ex. PW31/B10 (delivery orders, D-35 g, k, m, o, s regarding M/s Capital Agencies), Ex. PW31/B11 to Ex. PW31/B14 (delivery orders, D-35 I, q, u, w regarding M/s Kameng Enterprises), Ex. PW31/B15 and Ex. PW31/B16 (telex messages including dated 18/19.08.1980), Ex. PW31/B17 (letter dated 02.09.1980 regarding stopping deliveries of such edible oils in question, Ex. PW31/B18 (telex dated 2/3.09.1980, regarding cancellation and reallocation of edible oil to Arunachal Pradesh), Ex. PW31/B19 and Ex. PW31/B20 (communication / message regarding actual lifting of edible oils).
He further deposed that after the receipt of revised allocation order they issued delivery orders to Capital Agencies Ex. PW31/B21 to Ex. PW31/B29 (D-35 ab, ap, aq, ba, ay, au, bd, ah, be, bj, bn). He further deposed that same were issued by him or by Mr K.C. Hazarika.
Likewise, he stated that they issued delivery orders to M/s Kameng Enterprises Ex. PW31/B30 to Ex. PW31/B34 (D-35 ae, af, al, aj and aw).
He further deposed that all the abovesaid delivery orders were CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 68 of 88 received by Prahlad Rai (A-5). He further deposed that Prahlad Rai signature are on all the delivery orders and he received the same on behalf of M/s Capital Agencies and M/s Kameng Enterprises He further deposed that document Mark Y (D-35-bm, page 168) is the letter from Prahlad Rai Mundra (A-5), authorized nominee of M/s Capital Agencies whereby he requested for issuance of delivery orders in respect of 60 MTS of RBDPO and 35 MTS of RBDPO. He further deposed that delivery order Ex. PW31/B38 (page 170) is the delivery order in this regard.
He further deposed that vide document Ex. PW31/B37 is the allocation / prepayment and lifting position in respect of Arunachal Pradesh at page no. 162 and was prepared by him. He further deposed that as per the instructions received from Sh B.C. Malhotra, the stock lifting position was intimated by Sh D.C. Bhomik, Chief Marketing Manager, which is already Ex. PW44/1.
He further deposed that Ex. PW31/C (D-181) is the search list in which his signature appear at point A regarding search at M/s Rajdhani Carriers Calcutta.
He further deposed that specimen signature / handwriting of Prahlad Rai Mundra and Ram Prasad Dahliya was taken in his presence in the year 1982. These documents are collectively Ex. PW31/D1 to Ex. PW31/D66 (D-
150)
161. PW44 Sh. D.C. Bhaumik is another witness from STC. He deposed in detail regarding the transaction with STC. He deposed that he was working with STC initially as Marketing Manager and later on promoted as General Manager at Calcutta. He deposed on the line of other witnesses examined from STC.
He deposed that he has seen the file already Ex. PW30/A same is a CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 69 of 88 file from STC regarding allotment of edible oil to Arunachal Pradesh. He further deposed that letter dated 04.08.1980 Ex. PW44/A1 is a carbon copy of letter received in his office and he marked the same to Sh K.C. Hazarika. He further deposed that telegram Ex. PW44/A2 was received in their office by sh K.C. Hazarika and same was marked to Deputy Marketing Manager Sh B. Mukherjee. He further deposed that he has seen the delivery report dated 19.08.1980 (at page 30, D-35 (I)) and as per such delivery noted M/s Kameng Enterprises could lift 25,296 metric tons of rapeseed oil from Central Warehouse Corporation. Same was issued by then Deputy Marketing Manager and same was received / acknowledged at point Y by Prahlad Rai (A-5). Likewise, vide delivery order dated 20.08.1980 (page 35, D-35 (k)), M/s Capital Agency was authorized to lift the oil as mentioned in encircled portion and same was likewise acknowledged by Prahlad Rai (A-5). Likewise, he deposed about delivery order dated 22.08.1980 (page 35), dated 23.08.1980 (page 43), dated 25.08.1980 (page 47), dated 28.08.1908 (page
51), dated 28.08.1980 (page 55), dated 29.08.1980 (page 59), dated 19.08.1980 (page 26) regarding authorization of lifting such oil to M/s Capital Agency / M/s Kameng Enterprises.
He further deposed that vide teleprint message Ex. PW44/K3 (page 63, D-35 (x)), which bears his signature at point A, information was given for cancelling the balance allotment of oil and action taken by lower staff on the same is at portion mark X. He further deposed regarding message in this regard including dated 03.09.1980 at page 70 and telex message Ex. PW44/A4 regarding re allocation of rapeseed oil etc and adjustment of previous lifted oil.
He further deposed that letter dated 04.09.1980 to Branch Manager STC, is from Supply & Transport Minister late Tedar Tang regarding allotment of oil to M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprises same bears his signature at point B and same is Ex. PW44/A5. He further deposed that he CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 70 of 88 has given approval to the remarks of Sh K.C. Hazarika at point X. Further he deposed about various delivery orders at page no. 77, 85, 89, 94, 98, 102, 105, 112, 115, 119, 123, 127, 131, 134, 141, 143, 146, 148, 160. He further deposed that same were made to the parties mentioned in such delivery orders and same were made from their office. It is further stated that at point Y Prahlad Rai signed as acknowledgement for having received the quantity of oil mentioned in such delivery orders. Same are marked as K-1 to K-16 and K-19 and delivery note at page no. 160 and 141 are Ex. PW44/K17 and K18.
He further deposed that Ex. PW44/19 is the TPM No. 27 dated 28.10.1980 and same was received from Delhi and same was intimation regarding cancellation of balance of edible oil for Arunachal Pradesh. Same was marked by him to concerned Deputy Marketing Manager B. Mukherjee. He further deposed that Ex. PW44/20 is also a TPM dated 30.10.1980 received from Delhi about confirmation regarding such cancellation and further instruction were given awaiting till further order and same was marked by him to the then Branch Manager Sh Moitra. Likewise, he deposed regarding TPM dated 31.10.1980 Ex. PW44/21 (page 165), TPM No. 16 dated 24.01.1981 Ex. PW44/23. He further deposed regarding certain other correspondence which were already proved by witnesses already examined from STC.
162. In his cross-examination he admitted telegrams were received in his office from the office of Chief Minister,Sh. G. Apang for necessary action. He further admitted any authorized person of company after obtaining the authorization from Government of Arunachal Pradesh can receive the delivery. He further admitted that allocation advise was given by their corporate office at Delhi and it was duty of their such branch office to act on such advice / concerned State Government to receive payment and issue CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 71 of 88 delivery order to authorized representative of concerned allottee by the State Government.
163. PW27 deposed that he was posted as Assistant Branch Manager and Branch Manager in Vijaya Bank, Asansol Branch, West Bengal during 1979 till 1984. He deposed in detail about the Demand draft got prepared in order execute such conspiracy by Surender Kumar Kedia.He further proved counter foils of DDs and statement of accounts of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar and M/s Durga Traders for the year 1980-81. Likewise, he proved other documents, counter foils of DDs, cash credit account of M/s Shree Durga Traders, O.D. account of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar as Ex. PWB1 to B41.
He further deposed that partners of M/s Surender Kumar Ajay Kumar Kedia were Mr Surender Kumar Kedia(A19) and Mrs Madhu Devi Kedia. He further deposed that Vinod Kumar Kedia(A-18) and Shakuntala Devi Kedia were the two partners of M/s Shree Durga Traders. He further deposed that such firms used to transact frequently with such bank and having good deposits in their bank.
He further deposed that he can identify the signature of Vinod Kumar Kedia (A-18) as he is well conversant with his handwriting and signature as he has seen him writing and signing during his official duties. Further he deposed that letter Ex. PW27/C16 dated 06.03.1981 bears the signature of Surender Kumar Kedia (A-19) at point A.
164. On reading of evidence of witness PW27 deposed that some payments were arranged by accused like A-18, A-19. But it is the stand of Accused like A-18 and A-19, which is even the stand of CBI that such persons were traders of such goods and were dealing with the accused No-5/6/7 in the usual course of their business. Thus, Accused No-18, A19 are given CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 72 of 88 benefit of doubt.
165. But on the basis of evidence ,which the CBI is able to prove on record, it can be concluded, as also stated by IO, that A-1 engaged A-5, A-6 A-7 and A-16 to arrange for finances and lifting of edible oil from different godowns of STC Calcutta and for its disposal in the local market of Calcutta.
It is further clear and can be safely concluded, having regard to the law of conspiracy and evidence on record and the attending circumstantial evidence, that the profit so generated was to be shared among themselves. Further, it is clear that after making order and arrangement at Delhi, late A-1 traveled to Calcutta from Delhi. Not only this, he contacted PW S.K. Neogi, Liaison Officer of Arunachal Pradesh Government at Calcutta and asked him to issue authority letter in favour of A-5 in the presence of A-5 and A-6. Document Ex. PW34/D1 is already proved by such S.K. Neogi. Further because of such instruction ,which was in pursuance of such conspiracy, A-1 instructed PW34 to issue such authority letter and even attested the signature of A-5 to receive and arrange lifting of rapeseed oil and palm oil in question from STC on behalf of M/s Capital Agency and M/s Kameng Enterprises. Further, in pursuance of such conspiracy, A-5 deposited money through demand drafts and pay orders with the STC towards the cost of such oils to be lifted from various godowns of STC. It is further proved that such DD / pay orders were got issued by A-5, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-18, A-19 and A-21 and as such payments were received on behalf of Capital Agency and Kameng Enterprises, delivery orders were issued by STC and same were personally collected by A-5. In fact thereafter it is also proved that such oils were actually lifted i.e. physical deliveries of the same taken from STC Calcutta. In fact, there is no dispute in this regard.
166. At this stage it is interesting to note that during the cross-
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 73 of 88 examination of witness, a suggestion was given that Sh V.C. Shukla, the then Union Minister and Mr G. Apang the then Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh Government were involved in the present conspiracy and that is why they demanded rapeseed oil and palm oil as per the desire of late A-1. Although there is no evidence proved on record, of the standard required to prove guilt of such Late Union Minister or then the Chief Minister, but one thing is clear that by such suggestion the accused side itself admitting that there was in fact some conspiracy and there allegation is that such Union Minister and Chief Minister were part of the same.
167. In any case, in the background of such evidence discussed , there is overwhelming evidence on record that although accused no. 5 was an employee of accused no. 6, but he acted and actively participated in the conspiracy in question. Thus, his actions are beyond his duty as employee. Thus, just because he happens to an employee of accused no. 6 is of no help to such accused no. 5. He was an active co-conspirator, who was present right from the beginning when late accused no. 1 alloted such oil, without informing the concerned officials of Arunachal Pradesh, till actually taking delivery from STC, Calcutta, as well as for arranging payments and trucks for loading such oils from STC godown at Calcutta.
168. Thus, in the back-ground of such evidence which the CBI is able to prove on record, it can be safely concluded that there is sufficient evidence that late accused no. 1 along with accused no. 2, 4, 5, 6,7 and 16 conspired with each other. Not only that, in furtherance of such conspiracy they acted further and authorized accused no. 5 to act on behalf of firms namely M/s Kemang Enterprises and M/s Capital Agency. Not only that,thereafter payments were arranged through demand draft and even delivery of goods CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 74 of 88 were received from the STC Calcutta.
169. At this stage, it may further be noted that conspiracy is a substantive offence in itself.
170. Further it can be noted that as far as other accused, who are still alive, are concerned they are either servants who while acting in the normal course of their service carried out their work on the instructions of their employer or there is no sufficient evidence that they were part and parcel of the conspiracy as undisputedly, they were in the business of trading of such goods, as such, were purchasing such material from the accused. As such, it is concluded that the accused No-3, 8 to 15 and 17 to 26 are acquitted of giving them benefit of doubt, as the charges against them could not be proved on record beyond reasonable doubt.
171. Accordingly, accused no. 2, 4, 5, and 16 are convicted for the offence of 120 B read with section 420 IPC.
Section 420 IPC:
172. Section 420 IPC states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
173. Thus, section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 75 of 88 delivery of property. The offence of cheating is made of two ingredients. Deception of any person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.
174. To put it differently, the ingredients of the offence are that the person deceived delivers to someone a valuable security or property, that the person so deceived was induced to do so, that such person acted on such inducement in consequence of his having been deceived by the accused and that the accused acted fraudulently or dishonestly when so inducing the person.
175. To constitute the offence of cheating, it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words, but it may be by conduct or implied in the nature of the transaction itself.
176. Such offence of cheating is made punishable by sections 417 and 420, IPC. Section 417 provides punishment for a simple case of cheating, whereby, the person cheated is injured otherwise than by being induced to part with property.
177. Section 420 IPC deals with certain aggravated forms of specified classes of cheating. It deals with cases of cheating, whereby, the deceived person is dishonestly induced: (a) to deliver any property to any person; or
(b) to make, alter or destroy: (i) the whole or any part of valuable security; or
(ii) anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. It is required to prove that the complainant has parted with the property due to dishonest inducement of the CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 76 of 88 accused. The property so delivered must have some money value to the person cheated.
178. Further it may be noted that Section 24 of the Penal Code defines "dishonestly" as whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Further, "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 IPC. A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
179. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice versa, it need not necessarily be so.
If it is held that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived, it would be appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of "dishonestly" that to satisfy the definition of "fraudulently" it would be enough if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived. Both need not coexist.
180. In this background of law, on appreciation of evidence proved on CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 77 of 88 record, it can be seen that CBI failed to examine many of the material witnesses.
181. Apart from this, on reading of evidence of PW9 ,Pradeep Kumar Shukla, it can be seen that such witness at best proved that certain goods/drums/"pipas" belonging to some Aggarwal were transported from Talli Ganj to Circular Road on his vehicle WGH 5256 apart from some other vehicle through his driver Devi Lal and such vehicle was booked for such goods by one Prabhu Nath Pandey.
But as per record, such Prabhu Nath Pandey is not examined as witness by CBI, although his name is mentioned at Serial No. 102 in the list of witnesses. Instead, it appears that his son Satish Kumar Pandey is examined as PW37. Such Satish Kumar Pandey is about 28 years of old at the time of his evidence in the year 2009. As such, in the year of 1980 where such offence is alleged to have taken place such Satish Kumar was not even born. Further, in any case such PW37 Satish Kumar Pandey deposed that he can identify signature and handwriting of his father and he had seen document Ex. PW37/A (D-210) which bears signature of his father at point A. He further deposed that he had seen the diary maintained by his father Ex. PW37/B (D-
123). He further state that he had seen pages dated 11.09.1980, 16.09.1980, 10.10.1980 and 22.10.1980 and all such pages are in the handwriting of his father. Same are Ex. PW37/B1 to Ex. PW37/B4.
Further, from the cross-examination of such witness it appears that at the time of evidence of such Satish Kumar Pandey, his father was not well. Thus, it means that his father Prabhu Nath Pandey was alive in any case at the time of such evidence still not efforts were made to examine Prabhu Nath Pandey at that time or later on.
Thus, as per evidence on record, at best it is proved by PW9 that CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 78 of 88 goods were booked by one Prabhu Nath but for which Aggarwal, same were booked, is not proved on record. As such, not much reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW-9.
182. Further PW10 shiv Kumar Tiwari during his cross-examination, admitted that goods were not loaded in his presence nor he knew the description of the goods loaded in the vehicle. He further stated that he was a student in 1980 and he used to come to shop of his father now and then.
It may further be noted that in any case such witness did not identity nor could have identified that Puran Mal who booked the vehicle on 16.02.1981 is the accused no. 24 or some other Puran Mal. Further, the person who booked all such goods i.e. Sh. Shivadulari Tiwari has already expired. In fact, he was not even cited as a witness by the CBI.
Further, other person namely other brokers who booked such vehicles namely Bachha Dubey, Naku Mishra are not examined. In fact, it appears that they were not even cited as witnesses Thus, at best again what is proved by PW-10 is that certain goods were books as per the record maintained in the register maintained by his late father in the usual course of his business for transporting such goods from one place to another. But, whether such goods were booked at the instance of any of the accused. What was the description of such goods. Whether such goods were the oils in question which were lifted from the concerned STC Calcutta or not is also not proved by such witness.
183. Further, on a bare reading of evidence of witness like PW20 Mahender Pratap Singh it can be concluded that at best he deposed that Jung Bahadur was the driver of vehicle no. UPK 1243 and he has seen the challan of STC which bears the signature of Jung Bahadur and thumb CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 79 of 88 impression of Kallu Yadav driver. Such challan is Ex. PW20/C and bears thumb impression of Kallu Yadav at point B and signature of Jung Bahandur at point A. But such driver Jung Bahadur nor Kallu Yadav was examined as a witness.
184. It may further be noted that PW-20 deposed that he know accused Puran Mal Aggarwal (A-24). In his cross examination he deposed that Puran Mal (A-24) hired the truck. But he further deposed that he cannot tell from where he has taken the goods and where he has delivered the goods. He further admitted that he do not know what type of oil was filled in oil tins. He further admitted that he charged the fare of the truck and he was concerned for the same and he does not know anything more.
This witness was recalled on 22.02.2012 as A-26 whose name is also Puran Mal Aggarwal was arrested later on and he was cross examined by Ld counsel for A-26 accordingly at his request.
During his such further cross-examination, inter-alia he admitted that he cannot say whether or not goods sent on his truck on 22.10.1980 had been delivered at the godown of Puran Mal Aggarwal (A-24).
185. Further, it is deposed by PW31 that small State Arunachal Pradesh were nominating invisible alottees to receive the delivery of oils/goods in question from STC, Calcutta. Further it is the case of prosecution itself that accused no. 5 was nominated and authorized, though malafidely, to receive such deliveries. It is further the evidence and case of prosecution itself that the concerned officials of STC insisted on authorization and after following the prescribed procedure only, delivered the goods/oils. Further they even received the payments for delivery. Therefore, so far there cannot be element of cheating as there is no wrongful loss or gain. One of the essential CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 80 of 88 condition of cheating is deceiving. Same is also missing upto the delivery of oils by STC to the authorized representative/accused no. 5. In this regard, it may be noted that on a bare reading evidence of witnesses from STC like PW22, PW28, PW30, PW31 etc., there is no question of deception as far as STC Calcutta is concerned, as it insisted and infact got all relevant papers/ authority, required by them in their normal course of business then only they made delivery of oils in question. Thus, STC Calcutta did not part with property/oil due to dishonest inducement by accused persons.
186. CBI best case is that although such oil was received from STC Calcutta but was never taken to its destination in Arunachal Pradesh. It was alleged in the charge sheet by the CBI that later such oils were sold in open market in West Bengal and never taken to Arunachal Pradesh. But, the prosecution failed to prove on record convincing evidence in this regard. It only examined one witness who deposed that he maintains the registers regarding trucks entering into the Arunachal Pradesh and it is claimed that as the trucks in question in which oils in question were loaded did not find mention in such register, therefore, it is claimed that such goods never reached the destination in Arunachal Pradesh. But, there can be possibility that some other route was taken by the trucks. There may be possibility that the concerned duty officer failed to register such truck number in their record. As such, it is held that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that such trucks were not ultimately taken to their destination in Arunachal Pradesh.
187. Further, PW35 deposed that at the time of issue of delivery order as per procedure in STC, they used to charge 10% sale tax of total cost. He further deposed that if later on one party submits 'C' Form and Road consignment note, then they used to refund 6% out of such 10%. He further deposed that these three cheques were issued on 07.05.1981 in favour of CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 81 of 88 Capital Agencies and Kameng Enterprises on the basis of calculation made by PW35 and same were issued on behalf of STC.
As such, it is claimed by prosecution that it was also cheating relating to refund of such sale tax malafidely although goods were consumed/sold in West Bengal itself. But it is just held above that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that such oil/goods were not taken outside West Bengal to its destination in Arunachal Pradesh, therefore, giving benefit of doubt, it is held that the offence is cheating is not made out on such account also.
188. It may further be noted that in any case is able to examine only one witness i.e. PW33 regarding market rate of such oils in question. But on a bare reading of evidence of such PW33, it is clear that he is not supporting the prosecution regarding such rates. Thus, even otherwise, CBI has failed to prove the essential condition as to what was the rate on which the oil was allegedly sold in the open market, if so, at all. Thus, in any case, it is not proved on record that the oil in question was sold at a higher rate than the rate paid to STC. Thus, another essential element of cheating is not proved on record.
189. As such, it is concluded that all the accused are acquitted of substantive offence of cheating , giving them benefit of doubt , as the same is not proved on record beyond reasonable doubt .
Section 468 and 471 r/w 468 IPC:
190. Before proceeding further it would be fruitful to refer to the relevant provision of law.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 82 of 88
191. As per section 463 IPC whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
192. In order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a false document. The false document must be made with an intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any class of public or to any community.
193. Further the expression 'intent to defraud' implies conduct coupled with intention to deceive or thereby to cause injury. In other words, defraud involves two conceptions namely, the deceit and injury to the person deceived, that is infringement of some legal right possessed by him but not necessarily deprivation of property.
Further the term 'forgery' as used in the statute is used in its ordinary and popular acceptation.
194. The definition of the offence of forgery declares the offence to be completed when a false document or false part of a document is made with specified intention.
195. The relevant questions are (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 83 of 88
196. In order to constitute an offence of forgery the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently.
197. But dishonest or fraudulent are not tautological. Fraudulent does not imply the deprivation of property or an element of injury. In order to be fraudulent, there must be some advantage on the one side with a corresponding loss on the other. Every forgery postulates a false document either in whole or in part, however, small.
198. The intent to commit forgery involves an intent to cause injury. A person makes a false document who dishonestly or fraudulently signs with an intent or cause to believe that the document was signed by a person whom he knows it was not signed.
199. Though almost always an advantage to one causes loss to another and vice versa, it need not necessarily be so.
If it is held that the concept of fraud would include not only deceit but also some injury to the person deceived, it would be appropriate to hold by analogy drawn from the definition of "dishonestly" that to satisfy the definition of "fraudulently" it would be enough if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived. Both need not coexist.
200. Further section 468 IPC states that whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 84 of 88 liable to fine.
201. Further, Section 471 of IPC states that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.
202. In this case, PW38 Rajender Kumar Harlaka deposed that he is conversant with the handwriting and signature of accused no. 5 and he can identify his handwriting. But during his cross-examination he admitted that he did not see A5 signing before him but A5 executed his writing in his diary in the presence of PW38. Further, PW35 D.P. Banerjee was working as office Manager with STC Calcutta deposed about charging of 10% sales tax. He further deposed if later on one party submit C form and road consignment note, then they used to refund 6% out of such 10%. He further deposed that he calculated refunded amount in voucher Ex. PW30/A. He further admitted that three cheques were issued on 07.05.1981 in favour Capital Agencies in Kameng Enterprises based on his calculation. Thus, there is evidence on record that refund vouchers and cheques were made in favour of M/s Capital Agencies and Kamen Enterprises regarding refund of 6% of sales tax. Further, PW-55 V.K. Khanna deposed that specimen English writing Mark S- 253 to 310 (D-149) related to accused no. 16 and same are proved as Ex. PW49/A-1. He further deposed that such person responsible for writing the questioned English Ball Pen writing mark Q-60 to 62 to the reasons given in his report Ex. PW55/C.
203. But, the facts remains as noted above that in order to prove a CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 85 of 88 charge of forgery, the relevant questions are (i) is the document false (ii) is it made by the accused and (iii) is it made with an intent to defraud. If all the questions are answered in the affirmative, the accused is guilty. That is, in order to constitute an offence of forgery, the documents must be made dishonestly or fraudulently.
204. At this stage it may be recalled that Section 24 of the Penal Code defines "dishonestly" and it states that whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.
Further "Fraudulently" is defined in section 25 of IPC and it states that a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.
The word "defraud" includes an element of deceit. Deceit is not an ingredient of the definition of the word "dishonestly" while it is an important ingredient of the definition of the word "fraudulently". The former involves a pecuniary or economic gain or loss while the latter by construction excludes that element. Further, the juxtaposition of the two expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" used in the various sections of the Code indicates their close affinity and therefore the definition of one may give colour to the other.
205. In this background of law, it is noted that during his cross- examination on behalf of A-16, PW51/IO admitted that A-16 did not receive any payment either from Central Government or State Government as per his investigation. He further admitted that account books of Capital Agency were not sealed as those were not available. He further admitted that A-16 Sanwar Mal did not perform any service for M/s Capital Agency and therefore he was not entitled for any payment.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 86 of 88 Further it is not proved on record as to what was the market price of such oils, whether the same was more than the price paid to STC to procure such oil based on the transaction in question. PW-33 did not supported the prosecution on this aspect .
Further, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt as already noted above that such oils in question never reached their destination in Arunachal Pradesh. As such, it is held that element of dishonestly or fraudulently is not proved beyond reasonable doubt on record. The allegation that the accused persons 5 and 16 are not entitled to claim back 6% of the sales tax is based on the fact that such goods/oil did not reach Arunachal Pradesh, which itself is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Therefore, the accused persons charged with section 468 as well as 471 read with 468 IPC deserve benefit of doubt. As such, giving such benefit they are acquitted for such charges.
Conclusions:
206. Accordingly, ultimately, only accused no. 2 Smt T. Yadir, accused no. 4 Smt Thupten Lhamu, accused no. 5 Sh Prahlad Rai Mundra and accused no. 16 Sh Sanwar Mal Aggarwal are convicted for the offence of 120B r/w 120 IPC.
207. Accused no. 2 Smt T. Yadir, accused no. 4 Smt Thupten Lhamu, accused no. 5 Sh Prahlad Rai Mundra and accused no. 16 Sh Sanwar Mal Aggarwal are acquitted of all the other offences charged in this case.
208. Accused no. 3 Ms Go-mlhamu Thungon, accused no. 8 Sh Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, accused no. 9 Sh Rurhmal Aggarwal @ Subhash Kumar Aggarwal, accused no. 10 Sh Tapas Goswami, accused no. 11 Sh Ram CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 87 of 88 Prasad Dehalia, accused no. 12 Sh Rajinder Tiwari, accused no. 13 Sh Ram Lakhan Tiwari, accused no. 14 Sh Ramesh Kumar Tiwari, accused no. 15 Sh Khyali Ram Aggarwal, accused no. 17 Sh Pradip Kumar Saha, accused no. 18 Sh Binod Kumar Kedia, accused no. 19 Sh Surinder Kumar Kedia, accused no. 20 Sh Bishwanath Aggarwal, accused no. 21 Sh Ranjit Singh Kothari, accused no. 23 Sh Sajjan Saraf, accused no. 24 Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal and accused no. 26 Sh Puran Mal Aggarwal are acquitted of all the offences charged in this case.
209. It may be noted for the sake of record that accused no. 1 Sh Tedar Tang, accused no. 6 Sh Babu Lal Kucheria @ Jai Chand Lal, accused no. 7 Sh. Mohan Lal Bajoria, accused no. 11 Sh Ram Prasad Dehalia, accused no. 13 Sh Ram Lakhan Tiwari, accused no. 22 Sh Prahlad Kumar Gupta and accused no. 25 Sh Tara Chand Aggarwal have already expired by now, as such case against them has already stands abated.Digitally signed
NAVEEN by NAVEEN
KUMAR
KUMAR KASHYAP
KASHYAP Date: 2019.11.01
Announced in the open court on 31/10/2019 16:33:13 +0530
All the pages from 1 to 88 are signed by me. (NAVEEN K. KASHYAP)
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Rouse Avenue Courts
New Delhi.
CBI vs. Tedar Tang & Ors. page 88 of 88