Delhi District Court
State Through Cbi vs . Ved Prakash Etc. on 13 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA, CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI State through CBI Vs. Ved Prakash etc. RC No. 19A/93 P.S. CBI Under sections: 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC Unique ID No. 02403R0005361996 Date of institution of case: 23.04.1996 Date of reserving the judgment: 07.09.2013 Date of pronouncement of judgment: 13.09.2013 J U D G M E N T
1. S. No. of the Case : 275/96 & 2/6/11
2. Date of Commission of Offence : During the period 1983 to 1986
4. Name of the complainant : Sh. A.P. Mund, Dy. Chief Administrative
Officer, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.
5. Name,parentage & address of accused:1) Ved Prakash Verma S/o Sh. Jai Singh, R/o WZ556, Padam Basti, Nangalrai, New Delhi.
2) Ishwar Singh S/o Sh. Mahar Singh, R/o H. No. 329, Village & P.O. Kakrola, New Delhi. (expired on 07.03.2004 but no formal abatement order passed)
3) Jai Prakash S/o Sh. Bule Ram, R/o Village Rajpur, P.O. Mehrauli, New Delhi30
4) Rishi Pal Singh S/o Sh. Ajit Singh, R/o RZ176, New Roshan Pura, BBlock, Najafgarh, New Delhi46
5) Roop Singh S/o Sh. Jai Singh, R/o H. No. 145, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
6) Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Nathu Singh, R/o WZ469, Basai Dara Pur, New Delhi110015. (expired on 04.11.2002 and proceedings against him abated vide order RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 1/37 dated 22.01.2004)
7) Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Phool Singh, R/o RZ126, Gali No.7, East Sagar Pur, New Delhi.
8) Rishi Pal Tomar S/o Sh. Ram Saran, R/o RZ20M, Sagar Pur, Gali No.4, Palam Road, New Delhi
9) Pramod Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o village & P.O. Bamnoli, New Delhi
10) Gopi S/o Sh. Rishal, R/o WZ441, Nangal Rai, New Delhi42
11) Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, R/o WZ299A, village & P.O. Naraina, New Delhi28
12) Amar Singh S/o Sh. Kalu Ram, R/o WZ384, Naraina village, New Delhi.
13) Kanwar Singh S/o late Sh. Chandu Singh, R/o H. No. 614, Naraina village, New Delhi.
14) Surinder Singh S/o Sh. Amar Singh, R/o WZ638, Naraina village, New Delhi.
15) Om Prakash S/o Sh. Banwari Lal, R/o WZ556, Nangal Rai, New Delhi64 (expired on 22.01.2000 and proceedings against him abated vide order dated 22.09.2000)
16) Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Phool Singh, R/o RZ55A, Sagarpur, New Delhi46
17) Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh
18) Suraj Bhan S/o Sh. Net Ram, R/o H. No. 334, Kakrola village, New Delhi43
19)Nathu Singh S/o Sh. Jawala Prasad (already expired before filing of charge sheet)
20) Charan Singh S/o Sh. Banwar Singh (already expired before filing of charge sheet)
6. Offence complained or proved : 420, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 120 IPC RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 2/37
7. Plea of Accused : "Not guilty"
8. Final Order : Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order : 13.09.2013 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. In the present case, all the aforesaid accused persons were booked by the CBI with the allegations of offences under sections 120 B IPC read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 IPC on the basis of a complaint received from Sh. A.P. Mund, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, O/o the JS (Admn.) & CA), Dalhousie Road, DHQ PO, New Delhi. The present case was registered on 18.02.1993 based upon the said complaint.
2. The facts giving rising to the registration of the present case are summarily reproduced here under:
It has been alleged in FIR that Sh. Ishwar Singh, Peon of the Air Head Quarters, New Delhi, had approached Sh. A.P. Mund, the then Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi to enquire about his seniority and confirmation. On verification of his record, it was found that he was appointed as a peon on the basis of forged appointment orders purported to have been signed by Sh. Madan Lal Chhokra, the then Senior Administrative Officer (Recruitment). On further verification of the records, it was found that in all, 19 persons were appointed as peons/Safaiwalas on the basis of forged appointment orders. Sh. A.P. Mund, the then Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, New Delhi, had referred the case to CBI for investigation.
It has been alleged further that during investigation it was found that during the period 1983 to 1986, the accused Ved Prakash who was working as RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 3/37 Assistant in PII Section in the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, in conspiracy with the 19 other persons namely Ishwar Singh, Jai Prakash, Rishi Pal Singh, Roop Singh, Ranbir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Rishi Pal Tomar, Pramod Kumar, Gopi, Surinder Singh Manav, Amar Singh, Kanwar Singh, Surinder Singh, Om Prakash, Ramesh Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Suraj Bhan, Nathu Singh and Charan Singh had forged the signatures of Sh. Madan Lal, the then Senior Administrative Officer, and others on their appointment orders.
It has been alleged further that during further investigation it was revealed that the accused Ved Prakash Verma, during the aforesaid period in conspiracy with the accused Charan Singh S/o Sh. Banwar Singh, Peon (now deceased) had got forged the signatures of one Sh. K.C. Ratwal, the then Chief Administrative Officer, on his oath letter and in further conspiracy with another accused, Suraj Bhan S/o Sh. Net Ram, he had got forged the signatures of Sh. Upender Kumar on his appointment letter. In the rest of the cases, the signatures of Sh. Madan Lal were forged.
It has been further alleged that during investigation that accused Sh. Ved Prakash Verma, in conspiracy with Rishipal Tomar S/o Sh. Ram Saran had prepared a false police verification report regarding the character antecedents of Sh. Rishipal Tomar vide report no. 3093/CVR dated 23.12.1983 under the forged attestation of one U.K. Vaidhani the then Sr. Admn, officer with the object of showing falsely that the characters and antecedents of the accused Sh. Rishipal Tomar had been duly verified by the police.
It has further been alleged accused Sh. Ved Prakash Verma, while in conspiracy with accused Roop Singh S/o Sh. Jai Singh, had inserted the name of accused Roop Singh in the police report regarding the character and antecedents of Sh. Anil Kumar. Accused Ved prakash Verma in conspiracy with another accused RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 4/37 Kanwar Singh with the object to show that character and antecedents of the accused Kanwar Singh had been duly verified by the police inserted his name in the verification report originally of Sh. Daya Chand.
Investigation had further disclosed that Sh. Ved Prkash Verma (A1) while in conspiracy with his accomplices had also prepared false police verification report regarding the character and antecedents of the accused Ishwar Singh, Jai Prakash, Rishi Pal Singh, Roop Singh, Ranbir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Rishi Pal Tomar, Pramod Kumar, Gopi, Surinder Singh Manav, Amar Singh, Kanwar Singh, Surinder Singh, Om Prakash, Ramesh Chand, Dinesh Kumar, Suraj Bhan. However, the original police verification reports regarding their character and antecedents could not be traced.
The normal procedure for the recruitment of peons/safaiwalas was that the posts of peons/safaiwalas were firstly offered to the persons who were on the rolls of casual labourer with the department and who had fulfill the requirements of the post. Their character and antecedents were already verified at the time of their recruitment as causal labour. In case, no such casual labourers were available, the vacancies were filled up through the local employment exchange. But none of the accused (A2 to A18), who had been appointed, had either been a casual labourer or had been referred by the local employment exchange to the Ministry of Defence. Two of the 19 irregular appointees, Nathu and Charan Singh, had already expired while another accused Dinesh Kumar could not be traced. On the basis of the investigation, it was confirmed that the accused no.1 Ved Prakash in conspiracy with accused Ishwar Singh, Jai Prakash, Rishi Pal Singh, Roop Singh, Ranbir Singh, Ravinder Singh, Rishi Pal Tomar, Pramod Kumar, Gopi, Surinder Singh Manav, Amar Singh, Kanwar Singh, Surinder Singh, Om Prakash, Ramesh Chand, Dinesh Kumar and Suraj Bhan, respectively, had committed offences under section 120 Read with RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 5/37 Section 420, 467, 471 IPC while accused Ved Prakash had also committed offences under section 420, 467 and 471 IPC. Hence, it was clear that accused persons after entering into a criminal conspiracy with each other had committed the aforesaid offences. Matter was reported to police and upon completion of investigation, chargesheet for offences U/s 120 B read with Sections 420,467 and 471 IPC was filed by the CBI before the learned Predecessor of this Court against the accused persons.
3. Cognizance of the offences under section 420, 467, 471 IPC against accused Ved Prakash Verma and for offence under section 120 B IPC read with Sections 420, 467, 471 IPC was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide his order dated 14.05.1996 against all the accused persons and accused persons were also summoned to appear and contest the case on its merits. Thereafter, all the accused persons had duly appeared and were also duly supplied the copies of the charge sheet and charges were framed against accused Ved Prakash Verma for offences under Sections 420,468 and 471 IPC and charges were also framed against remaining accused persons for offence under section 120 B read with Sections 420,468 and 471 IPC on 02.07.1997 to which all the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and had claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its allegations against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, the investigating agency had examined 14 witnesses in all.
5. PW1 was one Shri A.P. Mund, Executive Director (Vigilence), Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd., Post office Burla, Distt. Sambalpur, Orissa, who had deposed that he was posted as Executive Director (Vig.) in Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. Post Office Burla, Distt. Sambalpur, Orissa. He had remained posted in Delhi from 1978 till 1994 in various capacities. From 1991 to 2003 he had remained posted as Dy. Chief Administrative Officer in the office of Chief Administrative Officer, RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 6/37 Ministry of Defence. In August, 1991, one peon Mr. Ishwar Singh had come to the office of Sr. Administrative Officer to enquire about his seniority. Mr. Madan Lal who was the senior Administrative Officer had asked him to bring along his appointment letter as he could not reveal the seniority without verification. Thereafter, Mr. Ishwar Singh had brought the appointment letter and after seeing the same, Mr. Madan lal found that his signatures were forged on the same. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Deptt. Of Chief Administrative Officer, for investigation. The enquiry was conducted by one Mr. H.M. Naik, Sr. Admn. Officer (Vigilance). After enquiry it was revealed that there was forgery of appointment letters in respect of 19 persons, and signatures of Mr. Madan Lal were forged. Out of 19 employees, 17 were still in service at that time. So far as other two persons were concerned, one Sh. Suraj Bhan had resigned and another employee Sh. Vinod Kumar had absented himself for a long period. Thereafter, it was decided to refer the matter to CBI. He had lodged a written complaint Ex. PW1/A which bears his signatures at point 'A'.
6. During his crossexamination by Shri F.A. Khan, Adv. for all the accused persons he had stated that the complaint was typed under his dictation. He had come to know about the facts from the concerned file which was put up before him. The departmental enquiry had taken about one to one and half year in its completion. He could not remember as to when the enquiry was completed but his complaint was of 18.2.93. The CBI had recorded his statement after one or two days of lodging the complaint.
7. PW2 was one Shri H.M. Naik, Joint Director, (Adm.), DGQA, Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. He had deposed that he was posted as Joint Director (Admn.) DGQA Head Quarter, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. During the year 1992, he was working as Sr. Admn. Officer, Vigilance in the office of Joint RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 7/37 Secretary Training and Chief Admn. Office, Ministry of Defence. He had done the preliminary enquiry of the present case. He had also described the procedure for appointment of Group "D" employee as under:
The P2 section i.e. Personnel Section on the basis of the vacancies, used to send recommendations to recruiting section, R1, of the CAO's Office, Ministry of Defence. The surplus vacancies were referred to the Directorate General of Employment & Training, Ministry of Labour. In the event of nonavailability of surplus candidates, a NOC was issued by Ministry of Labour. If no surplus candidates were available, casual labours working in the office, and if they fulfilled the criteria were considered for the post of Safaiwala and peon. The character and other verifications of these persons had already been done at the time of their initial recruitment as casual labour. In case of nonavailability of casual labour as well, they used to recommend to Directorate General of Resettlement & Local Employment Exchange for sponsoring the candidates. Thereafter, the candidates were made to appear before the Selection Committee. Thereafter, list of approved candidates was given to R1 Section, for carrying out the prerecruitment formalities. Then, this section used to issue the offer of appointment after getting all the requisite forms filled up by the candidates. Thereafter, the candidates were asked to report to P2 Section for issuance of posting orders. Then, P2 Section had issued the posting orders and had directed the candidates to report to the respective department. P2 section simultaneously also used to make an entry in the nominal rolls register, seniority register and the vacancies register. As soon as the candidates had joined, the concerned section was required to send a joining report to P2 and R1 Section.
Once accused Shri Ishwar Singh who was working as peon in Air Head Quarter had come to P2 Section to find out his seniority and confirmation. Thereafter, the P2 Section had carried out the necessary verification and had found RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 8/37 that his name was not entered into the employment register and other concerned register. Copy of the posting order was also not found in the file. Thereafter the concerned section had carried out and had inspected the police verification of accused Ishwar Singh. Thereafter, it was found that his name was inserted in the genuine verification report of one Jagdam. Mr. Ishwar Singh was shown as casual labour working in the Naval Head Quarter from 1983 to 1986 but actually he was not working as a casual labour.
In the police verification report, it was also noticed by the Deptt. that there were variations and insertions in the report of Mr. Jagdam. So far as entries of Mr. Ishwar Singh were concerned, it was also found that signatures of the officer in the appointment letter were also forged. There was no posting order of Mr. Ishwar Singh available on the file. The concerned section had found some foul play and thus referred the matter to the Vigilance Section where he was posted at the relevant point of time. He was asked to enquire into the matter. Then he had called Mr. Ishwar Singh and had interrogated him. He had stated that one Mr. Ved Parkash Verma who was then working in the CAOS office in P2 Section used to visit the Village of Mr. Ishwar Singh and he had agreed to offer an appointment for a monetary consideration of Rs. 20,000/ or Rs. 25,000/. Since Mr. Ishwar Singh had no money with him, hence, he had offered his land (a peace of land measuring 120 Sq. yards) to Ved Parkash Verma which was accepted by Mr. Ved Parkash Verma and thereafter he had issued a posting order directing him to join as peon in Personnel Section 2. During the course of interrogation, Ishwar Singh had confessed that two other persons i.e. Rishi Pal and Jai Pal were also given employment in the similar fashion for monetary consideration. He had also interrogated them and kept their statements on record.
Thereafter, he had called Mr. Ved Parkash Verma and had interrogated him. During the course of interrogation he had confessed and had revealed the RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 9/37 modus operandi for getting the persons recruited in various sections. He had confessed that in 8 or 9 cases, he had got issued such kind of appointment letters. He had also explained as to how he had inserted the names of the accused persons in place of the genuine candidates in reports and other relevant documents. In certain cases, he had rubbed the name of genuine candidates in carbon copies. In certain cases, he had confessed that he had also forged the signatures of appointing authority and all this had been done by him for monetary consideration. He had further disclosed that for issuance of the appointment letter, he had also taken the help of one Mr. V.K. Sharma working in R1 Section and had shared the booty with him in certain cases. But Mr. V.K. Sharma had denied his involvement in the conspiracy as he was dealing with the appointment of Group 'C' employees and not Group 'D' employees. After preliminary inquiry they had found that such kind of fraud had been committed in 19 such cases. Out of these 19, he could interrogate only 17 persons. Two of them one was Mr. Suraj Bhan and others name he could not remember at the moment, could not be interrogated as one of them had left and had joined LIC and the other one had absented himself unauthorizedly.
Thereafter, the matter was referred to CBI for detailed investigation as they had found that Mr. Ved Parkash who was working as Asstt. in P2 Section had misused his official position and had offered them appointment order for monetary consideration. All these things amounted to misconduct.
During the investigation of this case, CBI Inspector Mr. R.S. Jaggi had contacted him and seized the statements given by the accused persons and other relevant papers vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A from the office. During enquiry, Mr. Ishwar Singh, Jai Parkash, Rishi Pal Sing, Roop Singh, Ranbir Singh, Ravinder Singh. Rishipal Tomar, Gopi, Nathu, Parmod Kumar, Surinder Singh, Charan Singh, Kanwar Singh, Amar Singh, Surinder Singh Manav, Ramesh Chand, Om Parkash, RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 10/37 V.P. Verma, Vijay Kumar Sharma had given written statements vide Ex. PW2B1 to B19. All these statements had been recorded in his presence and he had also made endorsement showing given before him and had put his signatures on all such statements. However, it is pertinent to mention here itself that all such statements allegedly made by accused persons before the IO were inadmissible in evidence by virtue of bar created under Section 25 of Evidence Act.
During enquiry he had also shown the personal file to the concerned employees and they had admitted the issue of appointment letter and posting letter etc. In this regard, he had also made endorsements on each of their statements.
8. During his crossexamination by learned defence counsel, he had stated that the above mentioned statements were given by the accused persons on different dates. Most of the statements had been given in one month only except two statements which had been given later in time. His senior i.e. Joint Secretary, Defence Mr. Suresh Chandra had ordered him for conducting the enquiry. The enquiry had been completed in a one to one and a half month. Mr. Ishwar Singh had gone to P2 section first probably in the end of 1991. He had received the order of enquiry in April or May 1992. There was one classI and one ClassII Gazetted Officer in P2 Section. However, he had stated further that he could not tell the exact number of total staff of P2 Section. He had only interrogated Mr. Ved Parkash from that Section.
The main personal file of the accused persons was supposed to be with PC2 Air Head Quarter. He had called Mr. Ishwar Singh for interrogation in the month of May, 1992. Since one of the employees had left and had joined LIC, his whereabouts were not known and therefore, he was not called. They had the residential address of that man. About the innocence of Mr. V.K. Sharma, no other person was interrogated. So far as conspiracy was concerned, the same was found by RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 11/37 him from statements of accused persons recorded by him during the course of investigation. He had given the statement of witnesses to the CBI before 19.2.93. He could not remember the date as to whether photocopies of statements were given by him prior to the date of seizure memos but originals were stated to be given only on 19.2.93. He had denied the suggestion that the statements given by the accused persons to him were dictated by him and the same were written as per his instructions. He had also denied the suggestion that in whole of the enquiry, he could not find that there was any conspiracy between the accused persons for procuring the employment. He had denied the suggestion that he had not recorded any evidence of conspiracy in his enquiry. He had also denied the suggestion that he had prepared false record and had given false report to wrongly implicate the accused persons.
9. PW3 was one Shri Satbir Singh Daggar, Farmer, son of Shri K.S. Dagar, R/o 104, Maidan Gari who had deposed that he was putting up in village Maidan Gari. He had purchased a land from one property dealer named Shokeen. He had purchased the land on the basis of General Power of Attorney and Agreement to Sell Ex. PW3/A, which bears his signatures. He had also seen the General Power of Attorney, Affidavit and one receipt which are Ex. PW3/B to PW3/D which were handed over to him at the time of purchase of land. He had purchased the land through property dealer but he had no knowledge about its ownership. He had signed on blank sheets at the instance of CBI officials under coercion, which were S11 to S49.
The witness was declared hostile by the learned APP for the CBI and during his crossexamination by the ld. PP for the CBI, he had stated that his statement was not recorded by the CBI. No inquiries were made from him. He had not told the CBI that he had purchased the land from Baby Chauhan. He had however, admitted it to be correct that he had handed over the agreement to sell, RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 12/37 receipt and GPA to CBI. He had also admitted it to be correct that he had purchased plot No. 418 measuring 120 Sq. yards Khasra No. 2/5 situated at Kakrola Extn. Delhi for Rs. 25,000/ but it was not purchased by him from Baby Chauhan. He had not told that Baby Chauhan was the daughter of Ved parkash who was then present in the office and was known to him. He had denied the suggestion that he had told the CBI that he had signed the specimen sheet, handwriting sheet of Ved Parkash. He had admitted it to be correct that he had written at the bottom of the sheet that Ved Parkash Verma had given specimen handwriting in his presence. He had however voluntarily stated that he was made to write under coercion. He had not made any complaint to anyone about this fact as he was threatened that his plot would be confiscated. He had denied the suggestion that he was well acquainted with accused Ved Parkash Verma. He had also failed to identify accused Ved Parkash Verma in the court. He had further stated that when all the documents like agreement to sell, affidavit, GPA and receipt were executed by Smt. Baby Chauhan, he was not present. He had no knowledge that whenever the land was purchased and power of attorney affidavit and receipt were prepared, both seller and buyer were supposed to be present. He had denied the suggestion that in collusion with accused Ved Parkash, he was deposing falsely, to save him.
10. During his crossexamination by ld. Defence counsel, he had stated that he did not know English. He could not remember as to whether he had signed on agreement to sell at CBI office or before property dealer. He had admitted it to be correct that GPA did not bear his signatures.
11. PW4 was one Shri R.S. Mehta, A.O. Ministry of Defence, DGQA, Delhi, who had deposed that during the year 1992 he was posted as Admn. Officer (Vigilance) in CAO. Mr. H.M Naik was his senior and he was working as S.A.O (Vig.) An enquiry was assigned to him regarding gross irregularity committed in the RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 13/37 recruitment of Peons during the period November, 1983 to May, 1986. During the said period, they had recorded the confessional statement of 19 persons recruited fraudulently. All the 19 statements were recorded in his presence, vide Ex. PW2/B1 to B20 and bears his signature as a witness at point 'C'. All the statements were seized by CBI vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A.
12. During his crossexamination by the Ld. Defence counsel, he had stated that the statements were made by the accused persons on different dates. The statements were given roughly between the period May, 1992 to June, 1992. He could not say as to when the statement of a particular person was recorded. Statements were written in office of SAO (Vig.). At that time, he (PW4), the accused and his Sr. Officer Mr. H.M. Naik were present. So far as he remembered, all the statements except one were written themselves by the accused persons. In one case, the statement could not be written by the accused as he was illiterate and therefore, the assistance of one official was taken to write down his statement in the same manner in which it was narrated by the accused. He had denied the suggestion that the statements were got recorded forcibly by them.
13. PW5 was one Shri Upender Kumar, Asstt. Director, Air Head Quarter, New Delhi, who had deposed that in the year December, 1982 he was posted as Sr. Admn. Officer in Recruitment Section dealing with the recruitment of the Civilian Staff in the office of CAO, Ministry of Defence. During his tenure, names were called from employment Exchange for filling up the vacancies for the post of Class IV employees. Thereafter, they used to conduct the interview and after selecting the persons, their names were sent for verification. In the second week of March, 1983 under the Chairmanship of A.N. Kohli, Dy. CAO, Interviews were held. On the day of interview, he was not present as he had met with an accident. He had remained on leave for 15 to 20 days. After recovery he had joined and the process of recruitment RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 14/37 was already going on. Some verifications were also sent for police verification and some were yet to be sent. On receipt of verification from police, call letters were sent to the persons concerned. He had seen Mark P5 i.e. oath certificate and it was not bearing his name or his signatures. He had also seen Mark P5A and had stated that this was an appointment letter of Rishi Pal Tomar but it was not bearing his signature. Someone had tried to copy his signatures on the same. He had also seen mark P5B and had stated that this was an appointment order of Rishi Pal Tomar purported to have been issued under his signatures, but the signature appearing on it were not his signatures. Someone had tried to copy his signatures. He had also seen call letter of Rishi Pal Tomar. This letter i.e. markP5C was also not issued under his signatures. The letter for verification of character and antecedents in respect of Mr. Rishi Pal Tomar was also not attested by him. The signatures appearing at point A on MarkP5D were also not his signatures. Someone had tried to copy his signature. He had seen recruitment letter MarkP5E and it was also not bearing his signatures and someone had forged his signatures. He had also seen MarkP5F which was an appointment order of Surender Singh, which was not bearing his signatures and someone had forged his signatures. He had also seen MarkP5G Call letter of Surender Singh and it was also not bearing his signatures and someone had forged the same. Similarly, he had also seen MarkP5H which was a verification/antecedents report of Mr. Surender Singh and it was also not bearing his signatures and someone had tried to copy his signatures. He had stated that his specimen signatures was probably taken by the CBI.
14. During his crossexamination by the ld. Defence counsel Sh. F.A. Khan, he had stated that the call letters were sent by CAO R1 Section. The call letter was prepared by clerk and then verified by Section Officer and ultimately signed by SAO. It was a confidential letter. Till verification and before then, the file remained with RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 15/37 R1 Section and thereafter i.e. after joining, it was sent to P2 Section. He had stated that it was not known to him as to whether Mr. Ved Parkash Verma was in P2 Section or not. All the papers/formalities were dealt by the Section R1 before joining. All this work was confidential in nature. Appointment letters were sent by R1 Section. He had no knowledge as to how many vacancies were called from the Employment Exchange. He also did not know as to by which Deptt. the demand was sent for vacancy. He had admitted it to be correct that file placed before him was not having his specimen signatures, taken by the CBI. He had denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW6 was one Shri K.C. Rattawal, retired as Civilian Staff Officer, from the office of DGAFMS, Ministry of Defence, who had deposed that during the period from June, 1982 to April 1985, he was posted as Administrative Officer in the office of Chief Admn. Officer, CII Hutment, Ministry of Defence, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi. He had further deposed that on completion of requisite formalities, they used to send offer of appointment to the candidates whose names had been sponsored by the employment exchange. Upon joining of candidate, the appointment letter was signed by Sr. Officer and oath certificate was filled up and signed by the candidate and counter signed by him (PW6). Thereafter, they used to send the candidates to P2 Section for further posting. He had seen Mark P5, oath letter Mark P6/A, oath certificate Mark P6/B, these documents were stated to be not bearing his signatures and someone had tried to copy his signatures. He had also seen Mark P6C i.e. other letter in respect of Rishi Pal Tomar, he had also seen Mark P6D i.e. oath certificate in respect of Nathu and these documents were also not bearing his signatures and someone had forged the same. He had also seen oath certificate of Kanwar Singh MarkP6E, character and antecedents letter of Kanwar Singh and Daya Chand MarkP6F, oath letter of Charan Singh Mark P6G, letter of verification of RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 16/37 character and antecedents in respect of Jia Lal and Charan Singh which was Mark P6/H, oath letter in respect of Surender Singh Mark P6/I and these documents were also not bearing his signatures and someone had tried to copy his signatures.
He had further stated that his specimen signatures were taken by the CBI on three sheets vide Ex. PW6/A to PW6/C respectively. The Oath letters had been prepared in CAO office by the concerned clerk and he used to obtain the signatures of the candidate. The oath letters were thereafter sent to Admn. Officer who used to counter sign the oath letters. However, he could not remember as to who was the concerned Clerk at that relevant point of time.
16. During his crossexamination by learned Defence counsel, he had stated that the requisition to employment exchange was sent by R1 Section. He had stated that he did not know as to how many requisitions were sent by the branch. He could not remember that one Mr. B.K. Sharma was a UDC in his Section who was also suspended in connection with the present case. He got posted in the said office after April, 1984 and no enquiry was conducted by the CBI in his presence and he was called later on for investigation. Further, he could not say that signatures were forged by Sh. V.K. Sharma, the UDC working at R1 Section.
17. PW7 was one Shri Madan Lal Chhokra, Sr. Civilian Staff Officer, Directorate of Air Force Works, Head Quarter, New Delhi, who had deposed that he was working as Sr. Civilian Officer in Directorate of Air Force Works. He had worked from August 1990 to Feb. 1994 as CSO in CAO P2. He had deposed further that from 1.2.84 to Jan. 1988 he was working as CSO in CAOR1. When he was working as CSO in P2, one Mr. Ishwar Singh had come to claim and verify his seniority as his name was not in the seniority list. The office copy of his posting order was not found in the Section, as such his record was called from Air Head Quarter. When the record was received, it was noticed that his signatures were RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 17/37 forged on the appointment letter as well as on offer of appointment as in his service particulars the individual had claimed that he had been serving as casual labour in Naval Head Quarter before his appointment as a peon. He had written to Naval Head Quarter to verify the correctness of his claim. Naval Head Quarter had intimated him that no such person was serving as causal labour with them. Thereafter the case was submitted to Vigilance Section for further action.
COP2 was forwarding the quarterly vacancy statement to COR1 for bringing out as to how many vacancies were required to be filled and by which method. COR1 was recruiting the person according to the method of recruitment prescribed in the recruitment Rules for the particular post and the vacancy position. The first step to fill up the vacancy of peon was to release the same to the surplus cell of DGEND. On receipt of nonavailability certificate from them, persons working as casual labour who were fulfilling the criteria were considered for their regularization as peon. After scrutiny, case was submitted to the appointing authority and necessary approval was obtained. Thereafter, the offers of appointment were issued to the individuals through the concerned agencies where they were working as casual labours. On joining, their certificates were checked and an entry was made in the reservation roaster under his signature. The individual was thereafter, sent to COP2 for further posting. The criteria laid down was that their names should have been registered with the employment exchange at the time of their appointment as casual labour, (ii) they were within the prescribed age limit at the time of their appointment as casual labour (iii) they were holding the required qualification (iv) they were having the attendance of 240 days (with six working days in a week) per year during the last two years and 206 days in case of 5 days working week.
He had seen forwarding letter in respect of appointment of Ishwar Singh Ex. PW7/A which was purported to have been signed by him at point Q3.
RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 18/37 This proforma had neither been filled by him nor it bears his signatures at point Q3 and someone had forged his signatures. He had also seen Ex. PW7/B which was an appointment order in respect of Ishwar Singh, which was also not filled by him nor it bear his signatures. Someone had forged his signatures at pointQ5. Similarly oath letter Ex. PW7/C in respect of accused Ishwar Singh was also stated to be a forged one and it was also not bearing his signatures at pointQ6 and someone had forged his signatures.
He had further seen forwarding letter in respect of one Jai Parkash as Ex. PW7/D, which was not filled by him nor it was bearing his signature at point Q13 and someone had forged his signatures. He had seen appointment order of Jai Parkash as Ex. PW7/D1 which was also stated to be a forged one and someone had forged his signatures at point Q15. He had seen offer of appointment of one Jai Parkash i.e. Ex. PW7/D2 which was also a forged one and was not bearing his signatures. Someone had forged his signatures at point Q18. The other offers of appointments relating to other accused Ex. DW7/D1 to Ex. PW7/D41 were also not bearing his signature and someone had forged his signatures at pointA thereon.
The I.O had taken his specimen handwriting and signatures, running into 11 sheets as Ex. PW7/E1 to E11.
18. During his crossexamination by learned defence counsel, he had admitted it to be correct that para Nos. 2,3 and 4 of his deposition before the court were not recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C given to the I.O.
CBI had recorded his statement at CBI Office but he could not remember either the date of such recording or the name of the I.O. He was summoned for recording the statement, however, he had not brought the said summons in the court on the date of his examination. The documents which had been exhibited were shown to him by the I.O. The statement was also read over to him. He RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 19/37 was confronted with statement Ex. PW7/DA, where it was not so recorded. He was not asked about the procedure by the I.O.
He had submitted a written note to the authority about Ishwar Singh and had submitted the same to his higher authority but he had not brought the said file which was stated to be in the office. He had denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely about Ishwar. He could not say that Ishwar Singh was not aware as to whether he had been cheated by someone regarding his appointment. He had stated that his statement was never recorded during vigilance enquiry though he was shown the signatures by the Vigilance. He did not know as to whether one Mr. Charan Singh had expired and his wife Mrs. Savitri had been offered appointment in the Ministry. He had denied the suggestion that he had signed on the forged documents. He had also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
19. PW8 was one Shri A. Benerjee, Dy. Chief Admn. Officer, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, C2, Hutments, Dalhauji Road, New Delhi, who had deposed that he was currently working as Dy. Chief Admn. Officer, but for the period 1984 to 1987, he had worked as Asstt. Director PersonalII in Air Head Quarter. He was Incharge of all managing problems and establishment matters including posting and transfers within the Air Head Quarter. The appointments of peons etc. had been made by the office of the JS Training and CAO. At that particular point of time, that office was called the office of the CAO only. The recruitment was to be made by the RGroup. After recruitment, the officials so recruited were to be turned over to the P Group who in term would have posted them to various head quarters and inter services organization in cognizance of the vacancy position. The postings of peons were dealt with by P2. On their postings to various head quarters etc., the concerned officials were to be taken on strength and posted to various sections, branches etc. as the case might have been by the coordination section of the concerned branch office RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 20/37 head quarters etc. As far as the practice prevailing in the Air Head Quarter was concerned, the said officials were to be taken on strength by taking out an office order wherein their appointment, pay etc. were to be specified as well as their placement or posting in the concerned office and the concerned officials were to be paid on the basis of the authority of the said office order.
He had further stated that he had seen Ex. PW8/A the personal file of Sh. Ramesh Chand as well as office order Ex. PW8/A1 which were bearing his signature. He had also seen the personal files of Roop Singh, Charan Singh, Kanwar Singh, Nathu, Gopi, Rishi Pal Singh, Rishi Pal Tomar, Ranbir Singh, Ishwar Singh as Ex. PW8/B to Ex. PW8/K, respectively. All these files had contained office orders as Ex. PW8/B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, H1, J1, K1, which were also bearing his signatures.
20. During his crossexamination by Shri M.P. Singh, counsel for the accused Ved Parkash Verma, he had admitted it to be correct that on the date of his deposition before the court he had only seen the cyclostyled copies of office orders pertaining to the appointment as Ex. PW8/A to K and not the originals. Originals of these cyclostyled documents were stated to be not available in the office because he used to sign only the original one copy and rest of the copies were then cyclostyled being voluminous in number at times running into 200 copies.
This witness was not crossexamined by Shri F.A. Khan, Adv. for other accused persons despite availing an opportunity in that regard.
21. PW9 was one Shri O.P. Aggarwal, Dy. Chief Manager, OBC, F Block, 1415, Shivam House, First Floor, Cannaught Place, New Delhi, who had deposed that in the month of February1993, he was posted as Manager at OBC, I, Tolstoy Marg, Jawahar Bhavan, Cannaught Place. On one day he was called by CBI officers and in his presence specimen signatures of Shri Ved Parkash Verma were taken on RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 21/37 nine sheets as Ex. PW9/A1 to A9 which were bearing his writing and signatures at point A.
22. During his crossexamination by the ld. Defence counsel for all the accused persons, he had failed to identify Mr. Ved Parkash Verma on the pretext that the matter pertained to the year 1993.
23. PW10 was one Shri S.L. Mukhi, Principal Scientific Officer of CFSL, New Delhi, who had deposed that he was working as Principal Scientific Officer in CFSL, New Delhi. Previously he was working as Sr. Scientific Officer, Gr. II and Gr. I since January, 1972. He was M.Sc in chemistry. He had received the specialized training in the examination of disputed documents before joining as SSOII in the year 1972 from Sh. S.K. Gupta, the then Incharge of Document Division in this Laboratory. He had also received the training to operate all the equipments being used in the examination of disputed documents as well as other branches of Forensic Science at CSIO Chandigarh. He was also stated to be a coauthor of number of papers published in this field in National and International Forensic Science Journals. So far he had examined more than 2000 cases consisting of lacs of exhibits and had also appeared before more than 1800 courts as an expert throughout India in different cases.
He had further deposed that in this case, he had an occasion to examine certain documents referred by SP/CBI vide letters nos. DLI/3/19(A)/93/8575 dated 16.6.95 consisting of four pages placed on record as Ex. PW10/A, which was bearing the signature of his Director at point A. The documents of this case had been examined by him with scientific equipments. After the examination of the disputed signatures with the standard documents, he had arrived at the following opinion: Handwriting evidence points to the writer of specimen writings marked by him as S11 to S49 exhibited as Ex. PW10/B1 to B39, S81 to S89, on Ex.
RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 22/37 PW9/A1 to A9 being the person responsible for writing the questioned writings marked by him as Q1 and Q3 on Ex. PW7/A, Q4, Q5 on Ex. PW7/B, Q6 on Ex. PW7/C, Q15 on Ex. PW7/D1, Q18 on Ex. PW7/D2, Q19 on Ex. PW7/D3, Q20 exhibited as Ex. PW10/C, Q21 on Ex. PW7/D4, Q22 on Ex. PW7/D5, Q23 on Ex. PW7/D6, Q24 on Ex. PW10/D, Q31 on Ex. PW7/D7, Q32, Q33 on Ex. PW7/D8, Q34 on Ex. PW7/D9, Q35 on Ex. PW7/D10, Q34A also on Ex. PW7/D10, Q41 on Ex. PW7/D11, Q45 on Ex. PW7/D13, Q46 also on Ex. PW7/D13, Q53, Q54 on Ex. PW7/D14, Q55 on Ex. PW7/D15, Q57 exhibited as Ex. PW10/D1 Q58 on Ex. PW7/D16, Q68 and Q69 on Ex. PW7/D17, Q70 and Q71 on Ex. PW7/D18, Q74 on Ex. PW7/D19, Q80 on Ex. PW7/D20, Q82 on Ex. PW7/D21, Q83 on Ex. PW7/D32, Q85 on Ex. PW7/D23, Q89 on Ex. PW7/D24, Q93 on Ex. PW7/D25, Q96 and Q98 on Ex. PW7/D26, Q100 on Ex. PW7/D27, Q102 on Ex. PW7/D28, Q109 on Ex. PW7/D29, Q111 on Ex. PW7/D31, Q113 on Ex. PW7/D30, Q119 on Ex. PW7/D32, Q121 on Ex. PW7/D33, Q124 on Ex. PW7/D34, Q142 on Ex. PW7/D35, Q143 on Ex. PW7/D36, Q146 on Ex. PW7/D37, Q154 on Ex. PW7/D 38, Q155 and Q156 on Ex. PW7/D39, Q157 on Ex. PW7/D40, Q158 and Q159 on Ex. PW7/D41. To arrive at this opinion he had detailed his reasons in his report no. CFSL95/D615 dt. 21.8.1995 which was placed on record as Ex. PW10/E consisting of ten pages bearing his signatures on all the pages at pointsA. The detailed reasons for arriving at such an opinion were given by him in his report Ex. PW10/E vide opinion No. 1 at page No. 1 to 7.
The authorship of the questioned signatures marked by him as Q3 on Ex. PW7/A, Q5 on Ex. PW7/B, Q6 on Ex. PW7/C, Q13 on Ex. PW7/D, Q15 on Ex. PW7/D1, Q18 on Ex. PW7/D2, Q19 on Ex. PW7/D3, Q21 on Ex. PW7/D4, Q22 on Ex. PW7/D5, Q23 on Ex. PW7/D6, Q24 on Ex. PW10/D, RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 23/37 Q31 on Ex. PW7/D7, Q33 on Ex. PW7/D8, Q34 on Ex. PW7/D9, Q35 on Ex. PW7/D10, Q41 on Ex. PW7/D11, Q46 on Ex. PW7/D13, Q54 on Ex. PW7/D14, Q55 on Ex. PW7/D15, Q58 on Ex. PW7/D16, Q69 on Ex. PW7/D17, Q71 on Ex. PW7/D18, Q74 on Ex. PW7/D19, Q80 on Ex. PW7/D20, Q82 on Ex. PW7/D21, Q83 on Ex. PW7/D22, Q85 on Ex. PW7 D23, Q89 on Ex. PW7/D24, Q93 on Ex. PW7/D25, Q98 on Ex. PW7/D26, Q100 on Ex. PW7/D27, Q102 on Ex. PW7/D28, Q109 on Ex. PW7/D29, Q111 on Ex. PW7/D31, Q113 on Ex. PW7/D30, Q119 on Ex. PW7/D32, Q121 on Ex. PW7/D33, Q124 on Ex. PW7/D34, Q142 on Ex. PW7/D35, Q146 on Ex. PW7/D37, Q154 on Ex. PW7/D38, Q156 on Ex. PW7/D39, Q157 on Ex. PW7/D40, and Q159 on Ex. PW7/D41 could not be connected to the writer of specimen writings and signatures marked S73 to S75 which were later on exhibited as Ex. PW7/E4 to E6. To arrive at this opinion, he had given his detailed reasons in his report Ex. PW10/E vide opinion No. 2 at page No. 7 to 9.
The authorship of the questioned signatures marked by him as Q16 present on mark P5 Q44 marked P6/A Q56 marked P6/B, Q61 marked P6/C, Q19 marked P6/D, Q122 marked P6/E, Q127 marked P6/F, Q127/A marked P6/G, Q131 marked P6/H and Q136 marked P6/I could not be connected to the writer of specimen signatures marked by him as S63 to S65 vide Ex. PW6/A to C. To arrive at this opinion, he had detailed his reasons in his report Ex. PW10/E vide opinion No. 3 at page No. 9 and 10.
He had further stated that in this case, the documents were subsequently rereferred alongwith new sets of documents vide letter dated 8.9.95 which were consisting of two pages as Ex. PW10/F, bearing the signatures of his Director at pointA. He had examined those documents as well with scientific equipments and after examination, he had arrived at the following opinions:
RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 24/37 Handwriting evidence pointed towards the writer of standard writings S11 placed on record as Ex. PW10/B1, S14 Ex. PW10/B4, S16 on Ex. PW10/B6, S18 to S26 on Ex. PW10/B8 to B16, S28 to S31 on Ex. PW10/B18 to 21, S33 on Ex. PW10/B23, S36 on Ex. PW10/B26, S49 on Ex. PW10/B39, S93 on Ex. PW10/B40, S154 on Ex. PW10/B41, S156 to S165 on Ex. PW10/B42 to B51, being the person who was also responsible for writing, the questioned writing marked by him as Q36 exhibited as Ex. PW10G, Q63 marked P5/D, Q126 marked P6/F and Q126B also on mark P6/F. To arrive at this opinion, he had given his detailed reasons in his report CFSL95D, 615 as Ex PW10/H. His report Ex. PW10/H consisted of nine pages and was bearing his signatures on all the pages at point A and was correct.
The authorship of questioned signatures marked Q165 placed on record as Ex. PW10/J and Q166 Ex. PW10/K could not be connected to the writer of Specimen signature marked S73 to S75 on Ex. PW7/E3 to E5. To arrive at this opinion he had given his detailed reasons in his report Ex. PW10/H. Handwriting evidence pointed towards the writer of specimen signatures marked as S41 exhibited later on as Ex. PW10/B31, being the same person responsible for writing the questioned signatures marked as Q165 on Ex. PW10/J and Q166 on Ex. PW10/K. To arrive at this opinion, he had given reasons in his report Ex. PW10/H vide opinion No. 4 at page No. 7 to 9.
He had further stated that his reports were based on examination of original documents and had been typed by his steno on his dictation and the same were correct.
24. During his crossexamination by Shri M.P. Singh, counsel for accused Ved Parkash Verma, he had admitted it to be correct that he had expressed the opinion twice in this case. He had also admitted it to be correct that no admitted RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 25/37 writings of Sh. Ved Parkash Verma were ever sent to him either in the first instance or in the second instance. In case somebody was asked to copy the writings of any other person, there were some superficial similarities bound to exist between the said two writings. However, they were to be disagreed in their individual writing characteristics. During his examination of the writings and signatures, he had not got the enlarged photographs made of the questioned and specimen writings. He had also admitted it to be correct that this specimen writing marked S95, S154, S156 to S165 were not taken in his presence. Those writing were the writing of the investigating agency and thus, he could have assumed that those writings were purportedly to be of Ved Parkash Verma. He had also admitted it to be correct that since those writings were not taken in his presence hence, he could not say exactly as to whether those writings were written by Ved Parkash or not. He had not enclosed any photographs or any photographic chart alongwith his report. Suspect documents written by W R Harrison was stated to be a standard book.
25. Hence, from the cross examination of this witness itself, it becomes an established fact on record that once there were no concrete reasons available with the handwriting expert himself to believe the said handwriting to be that of accused Ved Prakash Verma only, then it shall not be safe to place any reliance or to give any credibility to his reports for forming a basis of conviction of any of the accused persons.
26. PW11 was one Sh. Ravi Chand son of late Shri Jai Ballabh Sharma, R/o G98, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhiaged 67 years, who had deposed that he had retired as Astt. Civilian Staff Officer (ASC) from Directorate of Public Relations, Ministry of Defence. He had remained posted in that capacity since November/December 1983 till Sept. 1986 in CEAO/PII Section. He had been dealing with matters such as postings, transfers, probation matters, confirmations etc. RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 26/37 of Stenographers, GroupD employees and various other miscellaneous categories. This section was never dealing with the recruitment/ employment of any category of employee which work as in fact was dealt by CEAO/R1. The appointed individual was used to be sent to CEAO/PII for further posting and as ACSO he was supervising the work of the Section.
He was also shown the original posting orders relating to appointment of two GroupD employees: 1 and 2 in respect of Gopi son of Risal Singh, Om Parkash son of Sh. Banwari. He had stated further that these posting orders mark A and B were though issued in his name but the same were not bearing his signatures at pointA. He had further stated that he had served the Defence Head Quarter from 1952 to 1992. He had served at ACSO in the Head Quarter from 1983 to 1992. There was no other person working in his Section as ACSO. He had also seen appointment orders of Sh. Ravinder Singh exhibited as Ex. PW7/D14, another document exhibited as Ex. PW7/D15, another document exhibited PW10/D1, but all those documents were stated to be not bearing his signatures. Similarly he had also seen appointment orders of Parmod Kumar as PW7/D7, it was also not bearing his signatures at pointA. However, he had found that one Sh. Madan Lal Chhokara had signed this document at pointA. Similarly he had seen appointment order of Amar Singh Ex. PW7/D29, which was not bearing his signatures at pointA. However, it was also stated to be bearing the signatures of Madan Lal Chhokra at pointA. He had further stated that there was Ink difference between the signatures of Madan Lal Chhokra and the name written in Capitals as Madan Lal. He also used to sign on the official papers presented to him during his official duty mostly in Hindi. He had come to know about this case only after his retirement.
27. During his crossexamination by Shri N.P.Singh, Adv. for accused Ved RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 27/37 Parkash, he had seen Ex. PW7/D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, all of which were stated to be bearing the signatures of Sh. M.L. Chhokara at pointA. He had also seen Ex. PW10 and PW15, Ex. PW7/D16, which were also stated to be bearing the signatures of Sh. M.L. Chhokara at pointA.
28. He was not crossexamined by the counsel for all accused persons despite availing an opportunity in that regard. Hence, it becomes amply clear that this PW had deposed quite contrary and contradictory to the deposition of PW7 i.e. Sh. Madan Lal Chhokara himself and whereas PW7 had categorically denied his own signatures on the aforesaid documents, this PW on the other hand had categorically identified the same to be those of Sh. M.L. Chhokara and despite that he was neither declared a hostile witness by the CBI for not supporting its case, nor he was ever cross examined by the learned PP of CBI on this aspect.
29. PW12 was one Sh. R.S. Jaggi, Dy. SP CBI, Spl. Unit, New Delhi, who had deposed that during the year 1993 he was posted as Dy. S.P. in CBI/ACB New Delhi. He was entrusted with the investigation of case FIR No. RC No. 19/93 dated 18.9.93. The FIR was signed by his then SP Sh. Rupak Kr. Dutta and he had also identified his signatures at point A on FIR Ex. PW12/A. This case was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Sh. A.P. Mund Dy. Chief, Admn. Officer, Ministry of Defence and the same was already placed on record as Ex. PW1/A which was the same complaint containing two pages, as was shown to him on the day of his deposition. During the investigation, he had seized the statements recorded by Vigilence Unit of Ministry of Defence and the seizure memo was already placed on record as Ex. PW2/A and he had identified his own signatures at point C on the said memo whereas the signatures of Sh. R.S. Mehta at point B and the signatures of Sh. H.M. Naik at point A were also identified by him. He had also recorded the statements of Sh. A.P. Mund Dy. Chief Admn. Officer, H.M. Naik, Sr. AO RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 28/37 (Vigilance) R.S. Mehta AO (Vigilance) all from Ministry of Defence and one Sh. Satbir Singh Dagar. During the course of investigation, he had also conducted searches at the r/o V.P. Verma, V.K. Sharma, and had also taken the specimen handwriting of V.K. Sharma containing 10 sheets and he himself had signed on every sheet at point A. Other witness had also signed those sheets at point B and were placed on record as Ex. PW12/B1 to B10. He had also taken specimen writings of Sh. V.P. Verma on 39 sheets and on each sheet he had signed at point A and witness Sh. Satbir Singh Dagar had signed on each sheet at point B and the same were already Ex. PW10/B 1 to B39 on record. He had also taken some specimen writing of V.P. Verma Ex. PW9/A1 to A8 and he had signed on each sheet at point B whereas witness O.P. Aggarwal had signed each sheet at point A. He had also seized recruitment files of GroupD employees who were alleged to have been recruited on the basis of forged documents and those documents were handed over to him by Sh. H.M. Naik, Sr. Admn. Officer, Ministry of Defence and the same were Ex. PW8/G,F,H, D, K, E, C, J, B and A. He had continued the investigation in this matter for about 5/6 months and after that the case was transferred to Inspector Sh. Kishore Kumar, ACB Delhi for further investigation. He had remained in ACB Delhi till September 1996 and during that time Sh. V.S.K. Kaumaudi was working as SP and he had identified his signatures at point A on the letter written to Director, CFSL, CGO Complex, New Delhi containing 2 pages, containing the specimen and the questioned documents and the same was placed on record as Ex. PW12/C. This witness was not cross examined by either of the accused persons despite availing an opportunity in this regard.
30. PW13 was one Sh. Dharamdev Negi S/o Sh. Chander Sukh Negi, Inspector CBI, HP Unit Shimla who had deposed that he was posted at ACB, New Delhi, CBI w.e.f. January 1995 to May 1996. SP Sh. Kaumadi had deputed him to RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 29/37 carry out the remaining investigation of this case and primarily the investigation was done by Dy. SP Kishore. He had further deposed that he had recorded the statements of Harjinder Singh, M.L. Chokra, Upender Kumar Vidhani. He had seen FIR of RC 1993 vide which R.S. Haggi Dy. SP was deputed as IO by SP R.K. Dutta and he had identified his signatures at point A on Ex. PW12/A. After DSP Jaggi was transferred, the investigation was transferred to Kishore Kumar, DSP and finally he was deputed as IO to file the charge sheet and had completed the remaining investigation work. He had recorded the statements of abovesaid witnesses and had also filed the charge sheet containing three sheets which were duly signed by him at point A. He had identified the signatures of Sh. Kaumudi at point B on third page and the same was Ex. PW13/A. The original statement of abovesaid witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. was Ex. PW7/DA (Madan Lal Chhokra), an additional sheet of Madan Lal Chhokra which was also signed by him (PW13) at point A was placed on record as Ex. PW13/B. The statement of Upender Kumar Vidhani containing 2 pages and signed by him at point A was Ex. PW13/C. The major part of investigation was stated to have been done by Sh. Kishore Kumar DSP and by Sh. R.S. Jaggi and they had seized various documents vide various seizure memos. He had only received the opinion of CFSL Expert and had filed the same in the court alongwith case documents in original.
A letter written to director CFSL by his SP Sh. Kaumudi who had signed the same at point A on page 2 was placed on record as Ex. PW10/F and the questioned documents were already Ex. PW10/A. He had also received the opinion.
He had seen a letter addressed to Director CFSL sent by his SP Kaumudi and the same was Ex. PW13/D . He had also mentioned about supplementary report of Sh. S.L. Mukhi, SSO Gr. I as a opinion/result over RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 30/37 examination which was running into 59 pages .
Sh. S.L. Mukhi had signed at point A, Additionally he had intialled on all the pages of Ex. PW10/H. He had also seen the original letter signed by Sh. B.N. Sehgal Director, CFSL sent to SP CBI alongwith opinion of CFSL expert Ex. PW13/E. The original opinion carried 10 pages which were signed by the expert Sh. S.L. Mukhi at point A and other 9 pages were also initialed by him, the same was PW10/E. He had also identified the signatures at point C on Ex. PW2/A bearing the signatures of Sh. R.S. Jaggi appearing at said point C which he could have identified as he had seen him signing and writing many documents during the performance of his official duties.
31. During his crossexamination by Sh. N.P. Singh, Adv. for accused Ved Prakash, he had stated that he was not aware as to whether Sh. Kaumudi was still serving in CBI and was posted at Patna. He had sent the documents for supplementary opinion as well as for the initial opinion to the handwriting expert in the CFSL. However, he could not remember as to when he had sent those documents for obtaining a supplementary opinion to the handwriting expert. He could also not tell the time gap between the two requests made to the handwriting expert.
32. PW14 was Inspector Kishore Kumar, Security Branch, Delhi Police, who had deposed that he was working as Inspector in Security, Delhi Police, E Block, 36 Krishanan Menon Marg, New Delhi. He had deposed that in the year 1993 to 1995 (Jan) he was working as Inspector in CBI Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi on deputation from Delhi police. In the month of October 1993 he was entrusted with the investigation of case RC No. 19 (A) 93 against Ved Prakash & Ors. from DSP R.S. Jaggi. He had recorded the statements of Sh. K.C. Ratawal, Ravi Chand, A Banerjee, M.L. Chhokara and accused persons and had also received the specimen writings of Sh. K.C. Katyal, Ramesh Chand and M.L. Chhokara. He had also RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 31/37 collected documents i.e. original files in respect of Gyan Chand, Kishan Chand from R.S. Mehta, Administrative Officer, Vigilance and had also seized original files in respect of Jagdamba Pd., Gainda Lal, Personal file of Anil Tiwari, Deepak Kumar and had investigated the case till Jan 1995. He had further deposed that he was promoted in the month of January 1995 in CBI as DSP and was transferred from ACB to SIC IV CBI. Therefore, the investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector D.D. Negi. He had further deposed that he had obtained the specimen writing of Sh. K.C. Ratawal on 15.04.1994 in the presence of independent witness R.S. Garg. The specimen Sheets were already Ex. PW6/A, B & C bearing his signatures at point A. Similarly, he had obtained specimen writings of Madan Lal Chhokra on 24.11.1994 in the presence of witness Mahavir Singh. The specimen sheets were already Ex. PW7/E1 to Ex. PW7/E11. Both these persons had given their specimen writing voluntarily.
33. During his cross examination by learned Defence counsel Sh. N.P. Singh for accused Ved Prakash Verma, he had stated that he had not taken the specimen writing of V.K. Verma. He had not done any other investigation in this case except recording of statements of Rattawal, Ravi Chand, K. Banerjee and taking the specimen writings of Rattawal and M.L. Chhokara. The investigation was carried out on 14.10.1993 till 31.01.1995. He had not taken the specimen writings of accused persons. He had not sent any of the specimen writings to CFSL as the investigation was transferred from him. He was not aware as to whether R.K. Dutta, the then SP was still in CBI or not. He had no knowledge as to whether he had recorded the statement of Ved Prakash or not. He had denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
This witness was not cross examined by the remaining accused persons despite availing an opportunity in that regard. Thereafter prosecution evidence was RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 32/37 closed vide order dated 25.08.2006.
34. Thereafter accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein the entire incriminating evidence appearing on record against all the accused persons was put to them in its vernacular which was denied by them as wrong and incorrect and had stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the present case.
35. I have heard Shri Ratandeep Singh, Ld. APP for the CBI as well as Sh. F. A. Khan, Ld. Defence counsel and have also gone through the material available on record and after going through the same, I have no hesitation in holding that the investigating agency has miserably failed to prove the guilt of either of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, on record. In view of contradictions appearing in the depositions and statements of witnesses as discussed above in the preceding paras, I have no hesitation in holding that it raises a serious shadow of doubt and suspicion on the story of prosecution in respect of its authenticity and genuineness and as such in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused persons are entitled to all the benefits of doubts arising out of the lacunas appearing in the prosecution case which has miserably failed to bring about their acts within the ambit and four corners of the definition of such offences as defined in the books of Statute with which they have been charged, warranting their conviction and sentence in the present case.
36. The story as set up by the prosecution/investigating agency in the present case does not inspire much confidence and has fallen much short of proving the guilt of all the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubts for the following reasons:
1. There are stark contradictions related to the period of departmental enquiry as borne out from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 because as per PW1 the departmental enquiry had continued for around one one and half year RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 33/37 whereas PW2 had cited the aforesaid period to be just for around one - one and half month. This contradiction as appearing in the version of these two important witnesses cannot be ignored or brushed aside in a lighter manner.
2. PW3 had not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Neither any admitted signatures of PW5 were obtained nor even his specimen signatures were ever placed on record which fact was also admitted by him during his cross examination that his specimen handwriting was also not available on record.
3. PW7 had neither produced nor proved his alleged correspondence with the Naval Head Quarters as claimed by him during his deposition before the court.
4. PW8 had also not stated that any of the documents placed on record by him was either forged or fabricated.
5. PW9, the alleged eye witness to the taking of specimen handwriting of accused Ved Prakash had failed to identify him in the court and thus it could not be held with precision that it was accused Ved Prakash himself whose handwriting was taken by the IO in the presence of PW9 or it was some other person who was posed as accused Ved Prakash. Therefore, the suspicion arising out of his deposition related to identity of the person whose specimen writing was allegedly witnessed by him cannot be ignored or brushed aside in a lighter manner and all the benefits arising therefrom are to be given to the accused persons.
6. So far as the testimony of PW10 is concerned, he could not have exhibited or proved the letter of SP, CBI as he had never ever worked either with him or under him and hence, had no occasion to see him either writing or signing. No admitted writings of either of the accused persons or PWs were ever taken by the IO during the investigation and only specimen writings were claimed to have been obtained and those too were obtained without the permission of the RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 34/37 court hence, in view of the settled proposition of law they have lost their legal sanctity.
37. It is well settled law that evidence of handwriting experts can never be conclusive because it is, after all, an opinion evidence. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shashi Kumar Bannerjee Vs. Subodh Kumar Bannerjee AIR 1964 SC 529 had held that "the expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence". In the present case, the direct evidence is to the contrary and the circumstances are neither proved nor conclusive.
Further, in Magan Bihari Lal Vs. State of Punjab 1977 Cri. LJ 711, a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that " It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This type of evidence, being opinion evidence, is by its very nature, weak and infirm and cannot of itself form the basis for a coviction".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 SCC 709 had held that "15. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character..... The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 35/37 basis of his conclusion".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bhagwan Kaur Vs. Maharaj Krishan Sharma AIR 1973 SC 1346 held that "........... The evidence of a handwriting expert, unlike that of a fingerprint expert, is generally of a frail character and its fallibilities have been quite often noticed. The courts should, therefore, be wary to give too much weight to the evidence of handwriting expert".
38. In view of the above settled position of law, if the cross examination of the handwriting expert PW10 in the court is examined, then I have no hesitation in holding that the accused had been able to elicit a contrary opinion in respect of handwriting, which was totally contrary to the case of the CBI and also to the written opinion as mentioned above. The opinion of the handwriting expert was not only contrary to the evidence but also did not inspire any confidence. The opinion is shaky and based on very limited data and therefore not beyond reasonable doubt hence, to place undue reliance on it would be travesty of justice.
39. Lastly, none of the witnesses Madan Lal Chhokara, Upender Kumar, K.C. Rattawal and Ravi Chand whose signatures were allegedly forged on the letters of appointment, offer of appointment or the police verification had even uttered a single word against accused Ved Prakash Verma during their deposition before the court that it was he, who had forged the same.
40. Therefore the prosecution had miserably failed to connect the accused persons with commission of offences as alleged or to prove its allegations against them beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, all accused persons stand acquitted from the charges of the offences alleged to have been committed by them. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged. Original Documents of surety, if any be returned to its rightful claimant(s) after cancellation of endorsement RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 36/37 on the same.
41. File be consigned to record room after completion of other necessary formalities in this regard.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA)
TODAY ON 13.09.2013. CMM/SE/Saket Court/New Delhi.
RC No. 19 (A)/93 State Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. 37/37