Delhi District Court
Bharat Kumar Rajput S/O Nathu Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: SPECIAL JUDGE
(P.C. ACT) CBI01 (CENTRAL):TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
(1) Criminal Appeal No. 11/2018
Registration No. 177/2018
Bharat Kumar Rajput S/o Nathu Singh
R/o Village Bhupat Pur, Post Office Jagir,
PS Elau, District, Mainpuri, U. P.
...........Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
........Respondent
(2) Criminal Appeal No. 12/2018
Registration No. 178/2018
Dalip Kumar Malik S/o Madan Lal
R/o B2/B118, Janakpuri, Delhi.
...........Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
........Respondent
(3) Criminal Appeal No. 13/2018
Registration No. 179/2018
Rajesh Kumar S/o Kanhiya Lal
R/o E91, Gali No. 2, Subhash Vihar,
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
...........Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi)
........Respondent
Date of Institution : 09.05.2018
Order Reserved on : 30.07.2018
Order Pronounced on : 31.07.2018
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 1 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18)
JUDGEMENT:
1. Vide this combine order, I propose to decide the above three Criminal Appeals bearing CA Nos. 11/2018, 12/2018 and 13/2018 arising out of the same judgment and sentence.
2. These criminal appeals impugn the judgment dated 26.03.2018 and sentence dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 151/2013 of Police Station Subzi Mandi under Section 420/467/468/471/411/414/120B/34 IPC titled as "State Vs. Dalip Malik & Others".
3. The FIR in question was registered on the complainant of Sh. Y. P. Pandey, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi North II Sub Division, District Courts Post Office, Delhi, pursuant to the report of departmental inquiry dated 8.7.2003. As per the allegations the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar had fraudulently got 50 Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) transferred to Malka Ganj Post Office Delhi, which were purported to have been issued from Ghanta Ghar, Post Office Kota, Rajasthan. According to the prosecution the said KVPs were lost / stolen during course of transmission between Indian Security Press, Nasik and North East Stamp Depot Guwahati and were duly noticed as lost vide Postmaster General Assam Circle, Guwahati vide letter dated 12.12.1997. It is alleged that the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar managed to transfer of above Kisan Vikas Patras in the name of Pushp Lata Jain, Rajesh Jain / Surabi Jain, Murli Dhar and Pankaj Aggarwal, in connivance with one Mahinder Singh Postal Assistant, Malka Ganj Post Office, one Jagmohan Singh SAS Agent and one Smt. Gurbeer Kaur Dy. Sub Post Master, from Malka Ganj Post Office. All
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 2 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) the above persons further arranged the issuance of new and genuine Kisan Vikas Patras from Malka Ganj Post Office and thus the fraudulent encashment as well as transfer of above Kisan Vikas Patras from one person to another had taken place which have resulted a loss of Rs. 5,00,000/ to the Government.
4. It is also alleged that the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar had got transferred Kisan Vikas Patras and National Saving Certificates which were reported to have issued from Ghanta Ghar, Post Office Kota, Rajasthan to Malka Ganj Post Office Delhi, in his name and succeeded to encash them in connivance with one Mahinder Singh, Postal Assistant, Malka Ganj, Delhi and Sh. C. L. Sharma, Ex. Dy. SPM, Malka Ganj, Post Office, Delhi, through cash and cheque (total payment of KVPs and NSCs to Rs. 3,67,350.00).
5. As per the allegations, beside the above, the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar also manged the transfer of NSCs (details mentioned in the complaint), purported to have been issued from Ghanta Ghar, Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan to Malka Ganj, Post Office, Delhi, in connivance with Sh. Mahinder Singh, Postal Assistant and Sh. C. L. Sharma, Dy. Sub Post Master, Malka Ganj Post Office, which have not been encashed so far. As per the complaint, all the above NSCs had been reported lost / stolen during course of transmission between the Indian Security Press Nasik and Circle Stamp Depot Patna and were circulated lost vide Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna vide letter dated 29.10.1999. The payment of these NSCs amounting to Rs. 80,600/ was made through State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch vide cheques dated 26.4.2002 and 1.5.2002 issued in the
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 3 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) name of Dalip Kumar and the enquiries revealed that the above cheques were encashed on 4.5.2002 through Syndicate Bank C31, Community Centre, Near Janak Cinema, Janak Puri, Delhi and further inquiries reveals that both the said cheques were credited in SB account No. 11154 which was in the name of Sh. Dalip Malik resident of B2B/118, Nanak Puri, Dehli, Mobile No. 9811166540.
6. Further, the inquiries from the Sub Post Master, Ghanta Ghar, Kota Post Office, Rajasthan, revealed that the KVPs and NSCs under reference have neither been issued nor transferred from their office and hence the appellants / convict Dalip Kumar had fraudulently encashed lost / stolen Kisan Vikas Patras and National Savings Certificates amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/ + Rs. 3,67,350/ causing a loss of Rs. 8,67,350/ to the Government.
7. Pursuant to the completion of the investigation, charge sheet under Sections 420/467/468/471/411/414/120B/34 IPC was filed against the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar Malik, Bharat Kumar Rajput, Rajender Prasad Sharma and Dayaram (since PO). Ld. Trial Court framed a formal charge under Section 411 IPC against the accused Daya Ram (since PO); under Section 411/414/34 IPC against appellants / convict Rajesh Kumar and Bharat Kumar Rajput; under Section 420/467/468/471/34 and 120B IPC against the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar, Daya Ram, Rajender Prasad Sharma, Rajesh Kumar and Bharat Kumar Rajput. All the convicts pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The record reveals that during course of trial, the accused Daya Ram had absconded. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court proceeded to decide the case
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 4 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) against the remaining accused and vide impugned judgment the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420/467/468 read with Section 120B IPC; convict Bharat Kumar was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 120B/468 IPC and the convict Rajesh Kumar was held guilty for the offence under Section 120B/468 and 411 IPC.
9. Consequent upon the said judgment, vide impugned order on sentence dated 09.10.2018, the Ld. Trial Court sentenced the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 467/468/120B IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for three (03) years for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It was directed that the sentence for the offence under Section 467/468/120B IPC shall commence first and run concurrently and only thereafter, the sentence for offence under Section 420 IPC shall begin to run. He was also directed to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.
10. In so far as the appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput is concerned, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years for offence punishable under Section 468 and rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. It was directed that the sentence for the offence under Section 120B IPC shall run after completion of sentence under Section 468 IPC. He was also directed to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months.
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 5 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18)
11. The convict Rajesh Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one (01) year for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years for offence punishable under Section 468 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC. It was directed that the sentence for offences under Section 411/120B IPC shall commence first and run concurrently and only thereafter, sentence for the offence under Section 468 IPC shall began to run. He was also directed to deposit fine for sum of Rs. 10,000/ and in default in payment of same, shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.
12. All the convicts were given the benefit for Section 428 Cr.PC for period of detention already undergone by them in custody.
13. Now being aggrieved of the impugned judgment and sentence, the appellants / convicts Dalip Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Bharat Kumar Rajput have preferred the present appeals on the following grounds:
That the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment / order without justified reasons and the judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjunctures and against the law and facts.
That in criminal trial, there is no room of presumptions and the prosecution has to prove each and every circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the impugned and order is liable to be set aside.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to note the discrepancies in the depositions of various witnesses particularly of the
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 6 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) witnesses HC Rajiv Kumar (PW17) who has failed to mention as to the reason behind the arrest of Rajesh and Bharat whereas, S.I. Nalin Kumar Verma (PW21)in his deposition has deposed that Bharat and Rajesh were arrested at the instance of accused Dalip Malik.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to note the statement of the complainant (PW1) Sh. Y. P. Pandey wherein he has deposed that Sh. Dalip Kumar managed to transfer the KVP in the name of Pushplata Jain, Rajesh Jain and Murilidhar Aggarwal / Pankaj Aggarwal in connivance with Sh. Maninder Singh, Postal Asstt. Malka Ganj Post Office, Loni Road, Loni Border, Ghaziabad, U.P. Thus, the appellant Dalip was never named nor any role of whatsoever kind was assigned to the appellant in the theft of KVP and NCS.
That in his statement the complainant Y. P. Pandey (PW1) had deposed that Sh. Jagmohan Singh S.A.S. Agent R.D.N. 2298 and Sh. Gurbir Kaur Deputy Sub Post Master, Malka Ganj, Delhi, further arranged the issuance of New and Genuine Kishan Vikas Patras and that he has no personal knowledge regarding the case. Nowhere in his entire deposition PW1 has even mentioned the name of the appellant Rajesh Kumar nor he has assigned any kind of role from which it can be established that the appellant was involved either in committing the theft or has attempted/abetted in commissioning of the theft. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that no public
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 7 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) person was made a witness during the arrest of the Appellants. That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate the deposition of PW5 Sh. Rahghunath Nagar (Postmaster in 2003, Ghanta Ghar, Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan) where in his deposition he deposed that in 2003 one police officer visited the Post office and made enquiries about some stolen NSC's and KVP's, that neither the name of the Police Officer was mentioned nor his rank.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the appellants / convicts have already undergone imprisonment and the agony of trial for last 12 years.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the entire investigation has been done in the police station. That the prosecution failed to prove any motive of the appellants / convicts to commit the offence, which is a major lapse.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Investigating Officer had deliberately not joined public persons witness during the investigation in the case and has concealed material facts.
That there is no clear, cogent, reliable and positive evidence against the accused and prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
That the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there exists material contradictions in prosecution evidence and the
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 8 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) testimony of the complainant and prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions, improvements and deficiencies and is not appears to be reliable.
14. I have gone through the submissions made before me, the evidence recorded before the Trial Court and the written synopsis of arguments filed by the parties.
15. In order to prove its case before the Ld. Trial Court, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. Sh. Y. P. Pandey (PW1) is the complainant who has proved his complaint Ex.PW1/A; M. L. Arora (PW2) was working as Postal Assistant, North Division in the Office of Senior Superintendent and S. N. Dhondia, ASP (PW4) in the Office of Chief Post Master who have both proved the seizure of medical documents of accused Daya Ram vide Ex.PW2/A; Raghunath Nagar (PW5), Post Master, Ghanta Ghar Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan has proved that the KPVs and NSC in question were not issued form the Ghanta Ghar Post Office, Kota Rajasthan; Anand (PW6) witness from Standard Chartered Bank has proved the account opening form of convict / appellant Dilip Malik vide documents Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C; R. C. Kataria (PW7) was working in Syndicate Bank and has proved the specimen signatures card of convict Dalip Malik and various statements of account vide documents Mark A and Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/C which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/D; S. C. Kumar (PW8) was working as Manager, Syndicate Bank, Janakpuri and has furnished information that on 04.05.2002, two cheques amounting to Rs. 80,600/ and Rs. 1,0,0750/ were credited to the saving bank account of convict Dalip Malik bearing no.
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 9 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) 11154 and the whole amount was withdrawn by the account holder within a period of one month of deposit; PW9 HC Jarnail Singh proved the service of notice under Section 91/160 Cr.PC upon R. C. Kataria, Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Janakpuri and Vasant Vihar; PW11 HC Nepal Singh being MHC (M) has proved the entries in Register No. 19 vide Ex.PW11/A and sending the same to CFSL vide RC Ex.PW11/B; PW12 Inspector Sunil Srivastava has recored statement of some witnesses, PW13 Ram Mahesh Shakya, Asstt. Superintendent, Post Office Mainpuri, U.P. has proved the seizure memo Ex.PW13/A; PW14 HC Manoj has joined investigation along with IO SI Nalin Verma and has proved various memos; PW15 Bina Ram has proved original circular issued by Department of Posts, Postmaster General, Assam copies of which are Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B; PW16 O. P. Srivastava has proved the Sanction under Section 190 Cr.PC to arrest convict Bharat Kumar Rajput vide letter Ex.PW16/A; PW17 HC Rajiv Kumar and PW18 ASI Ashok Kumar had joined investigation along with IO and have proved the arrested and personal search of convict Rajesh and Bharat; PW19 Dr. Sachin Mittal has produced the certified copies of various circulars and instructions issued by different Postmasters all over India regarding the theft of the KVPs and NSCs which are Ex.PW19/B to Ex.PW19/N; PW20 Mohinder Singh (Handwriting Expert) has proved his detailed report Ex.PW20/B; PW21 Si Nalin Verma is the Investigating Officer who has proved the investigation carried out by him.
16. All the incriminating evidence which had come on record, were put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC read with Section 281 Cr.PC wherein they have pleaded innocence and denied the correctness of the case
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 10 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) of the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated.
17. Before coming to the merits of the evidence, I may observe that it is the case of the prosecution that the appellants / convicts had got 50 KVPs bearing nos. 35BB 937901 to 35BB 937950 of Rs.5,000/ in denomination transferred to Malka Ganj Post Office, which were purported to have been issued from Post Office Ghanta Ghar, Kota, Rajasthan but were actually never issued from the Ghanta Ghar Post Office, Kota Rajasthan and were in fact stolen during transmission from Indian Security Press Nasik and North East Stamp Depot, Guwahati. It is submitted that the appellant / convict Dalip Malik managed to transfer above KVPs in the name of Pushpa Lata Jain and Rajesh Jain in connivance with the coaccused who arranged the issue of new and genuine KVPs bearing no. 87BB 071279 to 071298, 87BB 071263 to 071272 and 87BB 073105 to 073124 and in this manner, fraudulent encashment and transfer of KPVs from one person to another person had taken place which resulted into loss of Rs. 5 lacs to the Government. It is also the case of the prosecution that the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar had got above, fraudulent transfer of KVPs and NSCs bearing no. 58CC907055 to 907057 denomination of 10,000/ each, total amount Rs.55,800/, 58CC907067 to 907070 denomination of Rs.10,000/ each total amount Rs.74,400/ and 58CC907063 to 907065 denomination of Rs.10,000/ each total amount Rs.55,800/. The appellant Dalip Kumar also got transferred NSCs bearing no. 20EE483857 to 483860 denomination of Rs.10,000/ each total amount Rs.80,600/, 20EE483896 to 483900 denomination of Rs.10,000/ each total amount Rs.1,00750/. In this manner he fraudulently got transferred total amount of Rs.3,67,350/ and also
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 11 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) managed to transfer NSCs bearing no. 20EE483862 to 483870 purported to have been issued from Ghanta Ghar Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan to Malka Ganj Post Office, Delh. The payment against NSCs bearing no. EE483857 to 483860 amounting to Rs.80,600/ was made through SBI vide cheque bearing no. 315507 and NSC bearing no. 483896 to 483900 amounting to Rs.1,00750/ was made through SBI, Tis Hazari branch vide cheque no. 315508. Both the above said cheques were encashed by convict Dalip on 04.05.2002.
18. Now at the very Outset I may observe that the prosecution has specifically proved the circular bearing no. INA/NSC46/12/98 Ex.PW19/C and the corrigendum dated 24.04.2000 Ex.PW19/D annexed with the same would proves that IVPs, KVPs and NSCs bearing no. 33BB 920001 to 35BB 1000000 were reported lost during the transmission from Nasik Security Press to various Post Offices all over India and confirms the prosecution version that the KVPs were stolen.
19. Secondly, the Circulars Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW19/C and Ex.PW19/D also corroborate and confirm the case of the prosecution regarding the KVPs were stolen during transmission from Nasik Security Press to various Post Offices all over India and various circulars for taking caution to avoid misuse of the stolen KVPs and NSCs were issued by concerned Chief Postmasters all over the India and the KVPs and NSCs which were sought to be transferred by convict Dalip Kumar are bearing the same numbers which were reported stolen via the aforesaid circulars Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW19/C and Ex.PW19/D.
20. Thirdly, the handwriting expert has proved his report Ex.PW20/B
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 12 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) which confirms that the application written to the Postmaster, Ghanta Ghar Post Office, Kota, Rajasthan regarding transfer of KPVs and NSCs, bears the signatures of the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar.
21. Fourthly, Raghunath Nagar (PW5) whom I found is a credible witness and he has duly proved that in the year 2003 on inquiry by the Delhi Police regarding the application for transfer of NSCs and KVPs, he had informed the police that the said KVPs and NSCs were not issued from their Post Office and he also supplied the details of the same to the IO for verification.
22. Fifthly, the statement of account of appellant / convict Dalip Kumar which is ExPW7/A confirms that on 4.5.2002, two cheques amounting to Rs.80,600/ and Rs.1,00750/ were collected for clearance and the amount was immediately withdrawn by the account holder. Hence, the allegations of the prosecution made in the complaint Ex.PW1/A that two cheques were issued to Dalip Kumar towards the NSCs got encashed by him in the Syndicate Bank account bearing no. 11154 on 4.5.2002 (proved by PW8 Sh. S. C. Kumar) stands established.
23. Sixthly, the appellant / convict Dalip Kumar has desperately tried to raise a plea with regard to his identity alleging that he is not the same Dalip Kumar who has been mentioned in the complaint Ex.PW1/A which line of defence he has taken in the crossexamination of SI Nalin Verma (PW21) which defence on the face of it stands rejected in view of the fact that the KVPs and NSCs were encashed through cheques issued in the name of Dalip Kumar and collected by Syndicate Bank where appellant / convict Dalip Kumar was maintaining his account which facts stand confirm from the
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 13 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) account opening form Ex.PW21/X13 belonging to the present appellant Dalip Kumar which had been collected from the Syndicate Bank vide detailed seizure memo which bears signature of convict Dalip Kumar and had been encashed in his account identity of which Dali Kumar has been established from the photograph present upon the account opening form confirming that the appellant is the same Dalip Kumar who had fraudulently got the cheques towards KVPs and NSCs issued in his name.
24. Seventhly, in so far as the appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput is concerned, his arrest, personal search and seizure memo of various documents, have been duly proved. The seizure memo confirms that the number of KVPs / NSCs mentioned on the transfer application Mark "X" (original of which was produced before the Ld. Trial Court) had been recovered from the possession of appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput and the report of Handwriting Expert Ex.PW20/B confirms that these documents were prepared by the appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput which recovery of the application Mark "X" is not disputed by the appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the findings of the Ld. Trial Court in so far as the forgery of documents for purposes of cheating against the appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput.
25. Lastly, coming to the allegations made against the appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar, he has been arrested at the instance of the coaccused / convict Dalip Kumar Malik vide memo Ex.PW17/G on 24.6.2004 and the evidence on record confirms that on his personal search he was found to be in possession of eight (08) KVPs in the name of one Sangeeta bearing Sl. No. 45BB 454448 to 45BB 454433. The appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 14 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) has not been able to furnish any explanation regarding possession of these KVPs. Further, the report of the Handwriting Expert Ex.PW20/B confirms that the transfer application Mark "X" recovered from the Bharat Kumar Rajput also bears the handwriting of appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar at Q234 and Q235. The appellant / convict has not been able to explain the possession of the KVPs and the reasons for putting his signatures on the transfer application Mark "X" at Q234 and Q235. It is the recovery of these KVPs and the application Mark "X" and the signatures of appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar on said transfer application recovered from the possession of appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput, proves the allegations of conspiracy so attributed to Rajesh Kumar which was for purposes of fraudulent transfer of stolen KPVs / NSC.
26. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, I hereby hold and conclude that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish and prove beyond reasonable doubt that IVPs, KVPs, and NSCs, bearing No. 30BB 920001 to 35BB 100000 were lost/stolen during the transmission from Nasik Security Press to various post offices in India. Further, some circulars were issued to avoid misuse of stolen KVPs and NSCs. This fact has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the documents Ex.PW15/B, Ex.PW19/C and Ex. PW19/D. No cross examination has been done on this aspect. Further appellants / Dalip Singh made an application to the Post Master, Ghanta Ghar through which he sought transfers of stolen KVPs / NSCs. FSL report Ex.PW20/B has clearly established that the application was written by the appellants. Also, the numbers of the KVPs and NSCs mentioned in this application are matching with the numbers of KVPs and NSCs which were
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 15 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) reported stolen through the Circular Ex.PW15/B Ex.PW19/C and Ex.PW 19/D. No cross examination has been conducted regarding the FSL report and matching of numbers mentioned in the application with the Circulars in question. It has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt that convict Dalip misappropriated the amount which he obtained through stolen / forged documents by withdrawing the amount. Sh. S. C. Kumar (PW8) has proved that the account number 11154, in which cheated amount was transferred belong to convict Dalip Kumar. This fact has also been proved through the statement of account Ex. PW7/A and account opening form Ex. PW21/1 / X13 of Syndicate Bank on which photograph of appellant / convict Dalip Kumar is pasted and the said account opening form bearing the signature of accused and no detailed crossexamination has been conducted in this aspect. Further, at the instance of appellant / convict Dalip Kumar, the appellants / convicts Bharat Kumar Rajput and Rajesh were arrested and incriminating materials relating to the present case (i.e. NSCs and KVPs) were recovered. The documents which were recovered from convict Bharat Kumar confirm that the number of KVPs / NSCs mentioned in the transfer application were the same which were mentioned in the Circular Ex.19/C which was issued regarding the stolen KVPs / NSCs. The FSL report Ex.PW20/B establishes that the recovered documents were prepared by the convict Bharat Kumar and he himself has admitted this fact as no explanation is forthcoming on this aspect. Further, eight KVPs in the name of one Sangeeta were recovered from the possession of convict Rajesh who has not been able to offer any explanation for the same. It has been established by the FSL report that the transfer application recovered from convict Bharat Kumar also bears
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 16 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) the handwriting of convict Rajesh Kumar. This confirm that Rajesh Kumar was in active conspiracy with the other coaccused. The above said facts have clearly proved conspiracy of the appellants to cheat the Government on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and to misappropriate the cheated money.
27. I may also observe that the aspect of conspiracy stand established by overt act of the appellants / convicts to obtain the benefit of the cheated amount and the circumstances relating to recovery of stolen KVPs and NSCs, recovery of money and the report of the handwriting expert, is sufficient to establish the conspiracy in the case. This being the background, I hereby hold that the impugned judgment dated 26.03.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity and is hereby upheld.
28. Coming now to the aspect of sentence, the case was registered in the year 2003. The appellant / convict Dalip Kumar Malik is aged about 47 years having a family comprising of one daughter aged 22 years (unmarried), widow sisterinlaw (aged 50 years), one nephew (aged 21 years) and niece (aged 20 years). He has already remained in judicial custody for two years, five months and five days.
29. The appellant / convict Bharat Kumar Rajput is aged about 53 years having a family comprising of wife, two sons and two daughters (all married) and has already remained in judicial custody for three months fourteen days.
30. The appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar is aged about 50 years, having a family comprising of wife, two son and one daughters (all unmarried) and has already remained in judicial custody for four months thirteen days.
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 17 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18)
31. They have already suffered the agony of trial for the last almost fourteen years and are hence entitled to leniency. I hereby modify the sentence as under: Appellant / convict Dalip Kumar Malik is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 468 r/w 120B IPC and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 467 IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120B IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for Two Years for the offence under Section 420 IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Appellant / convict Rajesh Kumar is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 468 r/w 120B IPC and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120B IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 411 IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Appellant / convict Bharat Kumar is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 468 r/w 120B IPC and fine for a sum of Rs.10,000/ and Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 120B
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 18 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18) IPC. In default of payment of fine the convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
All the appellants / convicts are also given the benefit for Section 428 Cr.PC for the period already undergone by them in custody during trial.
It is clarified that the appellants / convicts have already deposited the fine amount of Rs.10,000/ each.
32. In terms of the above, all above three appeals are partially allowed and disposed off. Trial Court record be sent back along with copy of this order.
33. Revision file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by KAMINI LAU KAMINI Date:
LAU 2018.07.31
16:54:07
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 31.07.2018 Spl. Judge (P.C. Act) CBI01
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
1. Bharat Kumar Rajput Vs. State (CA No. 11/18) Page No. 19 of 19
2. Dalip Kumar Malik Vs. State (CA No. 12/18)
3. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State (CA No. 13/18)