Vide My Separate Judgment Dated ... vs . on 14 May, 2013

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Vide My Separate Judgment Dated ... vs . on 14 May, 2013

IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL
JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.

CC No. : 82/12

FIR no. : RC11(A)/2005/CBI/ACB/New Delhi.

Unique Case ID no. : 02403R0062512012

Title : State (CBI)
Vs.

1. Vijay Kumar Gupta
S/o Late Sh. K.L. Gupta
R/o 9D/7, NPL Colony,
New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi110060.

U/s : Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read
with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988

Date of Institution : 13.9.2012
Date of reserving order : 14.5.2013
Date of pronouncement : 14.5.2013

(Appearances)

Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior P.P. for CBI.

Sh. Satish Tamta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Vijay Kumar
Gupta along with accused.

J U D G M E N T

1. The present Charge Sheet was filed separately in
compliance of order dated 03.03.2012 passed by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court after deciding application u/s. 219
Cr.P.C. read with 216 Cr.P.C. in connected matter i.e. CC No.
78/12 vide which CBI was given liberty to file separate

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 1 / 82
challans for the remaining instances of offences, clubbing not
more than three instances of the offences in question in one
challan.

2. Brief facts of the case are that accused Vijay
Kumar Gupta while working as Assistant (S&P) Grade - I in
Central Stores of National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi
during the period 200102 had abused his official position as
public servant and had obtained stocks amounting to Rs.
1,31,362/ i.e. certain stationary items and other items
indented by NPL from the Kendriya Bhandar Stationary
Division, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in the name of National
Physical Laboratory by submitting forged purchase orders
and had thereby cheated the Kendriya Bhandar to the tune of
Rs.1,31,362/.

3. Accused Vijay Kumar Gupta is public servant and
as such, sanction order for his prosecution was obtained from
the competent authority who has accorded composite
sanction for prosecution as against 76 instances of forgery
committed by the accused, which was later on proved
separately in all the connected Charge Sheets filed in
compliance of order of Ld. Predecessor of this Court.

4. Accused had appeared in the Court and copies
of documents, as required were supplied to them, to their
satisfaction. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C,
Arguments on Charge were heard.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 2 / 82
5. The charge against accused Vijay Kumar Gupta
under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2)
read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988
was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

6. Section 13 of the P.C. Act provided as under:
(1) A public
servant is said to commit the
offence of criminal
misconduct ................................
..................................................

........................................(d) if he

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages;

(ii) ...............

(iii) ...............

                                      (e)     If he or any person 
                                      on   his   behalf,   is   in  
                                      possession   for   which   the 
                                      public   servant   cannot  
                                      satisfactorily   account,   of 
                                      pecuniary   resources   or 
                                      property disproportionate  


C.C. NO. 82/12               State (CBI)  Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta               Page no.  3  / 82
                                       to   his   known   sources   of 
                                      income.


                                      Explanation   For   the  
                                      purposes   of   this   Section,  
                                      "Known   sources   of  
                                      income"   means   income  
                                      received from  any lawful 
                                      source   and   such   receipt  
                                      has   been   intimated   in 
                                      accordance   with   the  
                                      provisions   of   any   law, 
                                      rules   or   orders   for   the  
                                      time being applicable to a  
                                      public servant.
                                       
                                              (2)       Any   public  
                            servant   who   commits   criminal 
                            misconduct   shall   be   punishable  
                            with   imprisonment   for   a   term 
                            which shall be not less than one  
                            year   but   which   may   extend   to  
                            seven   years   and   shall   also   be  
                            liable to fine."

7. Let me examine the testimony of the material witnesses and the other documents filed before me in light of law and the case law to decide whether charge is proved against accused Vijay Kumar Gupta.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 4 / 82

8. CBI in support of their case have examined 22 witnesses.

9. PW1 Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Stores and Purchase Officer, Institute of Genomics and Integrated Biology (CSIR) stated that the list of outstanding bills already Ex. PW13/C was also enclosed by Kendriya Bhandar alongwith letter Ex. PW22/A through which Kendriya Bhandar has asked for the payment of Rs. 31,09,299.49/. He stated that upon receipt of this letter, we had asked accused Vijay Kumar Gupta to check up and report the status of outstanding bills. Accused Vijay Kumar Gupta had prepared a statement which was reconciled in Purchase Section but nothing was cleared as the statement was incomplete. They have also asked Kendriya Bhandar to furnish the copies of the bills raised on National Physical Laboratory. In response to this, Kendriya Bhandar had provided copies of the bills. They had again reconciled the position with the copies, submitted by Kendriya Bhandar. It appeared from the bills that the articles were received by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. Still the position was not clear and they had reconciled their record again and as the position was still not clear even then, so they had asked Kendriya Bhandar to provide them with copies of purchase orders placed on them by NPL. They provided us copies of three four orders. He stated that regarding the remaining orders, Kendriya Bhandar expressed its inability as the bills were quite old. On these three four bills, he had verified the signatures as he used to sign the purchase orders and these C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 5 / 82 purchase orders did not bear his signatures. Some of the purchase orders were hand written and from the signatures thereon, it appeared that they were of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. They had intimated this fact to the Kendriya Bhandar and had again requested them to provide them copies of all purchase orders and had simultaneously reported this matter to their higher authority. He stated that the remaining 43 purchase orders were ambiguous and complete reference of them was not tallying with their official record. As such, he had reported the matter to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi after obtaining the approval of competent authority.

He stated that Mr. P.D. Aggarwal was his predecessor as Dy. Stores and Purchase officer. He stated that can identify his handwriting and signatures as he had worked with him and had been him writing and signing. He stated that the letter dated 07.4.2005 addressed to SP, CBI Ex. PW21/A bears his signatures at point A. Through this letter he had forwarded original copy of order dated 26.9.1999 issued by Sh. P.D. Aggarwal authorising the accused to collect material on behalf of NPL from the Government Agencies including Kendriya Bhandar Ex. PW21/A. Upon seeing the 69 purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/70 alleged to have been issued from NPL to Kendriya Bhandar, Raisina Road, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (D85 to D153) under his signatures, he stated that he had not signed any of the aforesaid purchase orders at point Q88 to Q156. Purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/47 were not on the prescribed performa of the purchase order whereas Ex. PW7/48 to Ex. PW7/70 were on the prescribed proforma. He stated that it appears C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 6 / 82 that his signatures on aforesaid exhibits have been done by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. He identified his handwriting as he was working under him for a longtime.

Upon seeing seven purchase orders Ex.

PW13/D1 to Ex. PW13/D6 and Ex. PW10/C alleged to have been issued from NPL to Kendriya Bhandar under his signatures, he stated that he has not signed any of the aforesaid purchase orders at point A as stores and Purchase Officer. It appears that his signatures on aforesaid exhibits have been done by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. He identified his handwriting as he was working under him for a longtime.

He also proved the photocopies of the purchase orders already Ex.PW7/50 to Ex.PW7/52 (D11, D12 and D13) as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/C. He stated that these purchase orders do not bear his signatures at point A. He also proved photocopies of bills already Ex.PW1/49, Ex.PW1/50 and Ex.PW1/70 as Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/F and identified signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta on the same. He proved the photocopy of the letter dated 04.2.2004 already Ex.PW22/A as Ex. PW1/G. He proved the photocopies of the complaint dated 08.2.2005 already Ex.PW22/B as Ex.PW1/J and annexures I and IV already Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B as Ex.PW1/K and Ex.PW1/L. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the written orders from the office for collecting the articles from Kendriya Bhandar were only for accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, but it was quiet possible that another officer may have been sent for collecting the articles. He stated that it was the duty of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 7 / 82 to deposit purchase price/bill payment in the Kendriya Bhandar. He does not know if in some instances, NPL used to pay the bill directly to the Kendriya Bhandar. He cannot say if the bill/payment could be sent by NPL to Kendriya Bhandar by post. A register is maintained at the gate of NPL, regarding entry of each visitor including employee. He stated that they reconciled only for accounts on coming to know about the fake bills. But no formal inquiry was conducted.

He admitted that it took about a year in reconciling their record. Perhaps, they had given to CBI the tabulation given by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in the office as well as the correspondence which they had with the Central Stores of NPL and Vijay Kumar Gupta, who was working under the Store Officer. He stated that he does not know if NPL had got the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta examined from GEQD, Shimla. He had not given any information in his complaint to CBI about the credit passbook as the same was not necessary. He stated that he always signs in Hindi. His Hindi signature must be with the Kendriya Bhandar for the purpose of comparison with purchase order. However, he volunteered that he is not sure if his specimen signatures are with Kendriya Bhandar or not. He stated that some of the purchase orders were not in the prescribed performa. Only the officials of Kendriya Bhandar could tell why they had not noticed that the purchase orders were not in the prescribed performa as they ought to have done so. He does not remember the name of the Store Officers during the relevant time as they were changed from time to time. He admitted that Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. P. D. C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 8 / 82 Aggarwal were looking after the work of Stores as Store Officers. At the time of issuance of purchase order, the Stores and Purchase officer would authorise a person to collect the purchased articles from Kendriya Bhandar and the said fact would be mentioned on the purchase order itself. In the eventuality of non availability of the said authorised official on the date when articles were to be collected from Kendriya Bhandar, the Store Officer had the authority to authorize somebody else to collect the same. All the genuine Purchase Orders would bear the authorization in favour of an official for collecting the articles from Kendriya Bhandar. He stated that he does not remember whether the statement prepared by accused referred to in para no. 3 in his examination in chief dated 03.8.2010 was shown to him during investigation by CBI officials or not. He stated that he has not seen any such statement during his evidence in Court. He had gone through the said statement prepared by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in normal course of his duties when the same was prepared in response to letter dated 04.02.2004 received from Kendriya Bhandar regarding outstanding bills. The said statement was not complete as all the bills of the relevant period of Kendriya Bhandar were not mentioned in the said statement and even in the cases of those few bills, there were contradictions in the particulars furnished. He stated that as far as he remembers when the statement was submitted for first time by the accused, the same was returned with written comments to file the complete particulars. The letter received from Kendriya Bhandar dated 04.02.2004, the incomplete statement submitted by accused Vijay Kumar C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 9 / 82 Gupta in reference to the said letter, further efforts to call for more documents from Kendriya Bhandar and the reconciliation etc. were all lying in one file, although those details were prepared on the basis of different types of record maintained in their office sometimes in the form of files.

He further stated that till he was holding the charge of SPO, NPL, the said file was with him and when he had handed over the charge to his successor, the said file was also handed over to him. He stated that the incomplete statement submitted by accused was perhaps also not sent to the Administration Department and the summary of facts as well as annexures thereto were sent to the Administration Department for the purpose of lodging the complaint with CBI. An office copy of the said summary was maintained in the same file in which the earlier letter received from Kendriya Bhandar was filed. He does not remember whether he had shown the incomplete statement prepared by the accused to the IO during recording of his statement. The file containing the said incomplete statement was neither shown nor handed over to CBI although the original documents which were annexure to his complaint were handed over CBI. He voluntarily stated that CBI had seized many documents and files during investigation of this case before recording of his statement but he was not involved in the process of seizure so he does not remember whether the file containing incomplete statement prepared by accused was seized by CBI or not. He denied that he had intentionally concealed the said incomplete statement or any subsequent statement prepared by accused from CBI. He stated that he does not C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 10 / 82 remember the time gap between the date when he had handed over the complaint to the Administration Department and the date when the said department had forwarded the complaint to CBI. He stated that it is not in his knowledge whether the Administration Department had taken opinion of the handwriting expert before forwarding the complaint against accused to CBI. He denied that initially NPL had sought opinion from GEQD, Shimla and when the opinion was not favourable, then certain documents were concealed and manipulated while lodging complaint to CBI with a view to make out a false case against accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. He stated that since he was transferred to Lucknow, he does not know who was authorized in his place after his transfer to Lucknow. He stated that he does not remember whether any such authorization letter was again sent to Kendriya Bhandar in August, 2000 by the Administration Department after he took over as SPO, NPL, New Delhi. However, he voluntarily stated that in normal course the letter would have gone as per the requirement of Kendriya Bhandar.

He admitted that signatures of accused at point Q1 to Q3 and those of the authorized official at point C were not done in his presence. He stated that he cannot tell whether the signatures of accused were done at the counters of Kendriya Bhandar or at the delivery point as he was not present at the time when these signatures were done. He denied that signatures of accused on the bills Ex. PW1/3 to Ex. PW1/3 at point Q1 and Q3 were not done in Kendriya Bhandar at any point of time and these signatures were done in the office of NPL by the accused at the time of C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 11 / 82 reconciliation of outstanding bills. He stated that it was not necessary to attest the signatures of authorized officer of NPL who was sent to take delivery of articles from Kendriya Bhandar every time as his signatures were already available with Kendriya Bhandar. As far as he remembers the letter was written by Sh. P.D. Aggarwal to Kendriya Bhandar authorizing the accused to collect the material on behalf of NPL. He stated that as far as he remembers during his tenure no such letter was sent to Kendriya Bhandar authorizing accused Vijay Kumar Gupta on behalf of NPL to collect the material. He admitted that Ex. PW22/C is the same order by which accused was authorized by Sh. P.D. Aggarwal. He admitted that it is not a letter addressed to any specific person rather it is an office note. He admitted that there is no signature of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta as specimen signature or otherwise on Ex. PW22/C or his initials in token of having seen the same. He stated that he does not remember whether the diary was seized by CBI during his tenure as SPO, NPL, New Delhi. It is difficult to say whether few purchase orders could have been sent through Peon or by Dak to Kendriya Bhandar. He admitted that in case of bulk purchase, the supplies were made by Kendriya Bhandar in their own/hired vehicle directly to R&D Section. He stated that he does not remember whether he had given any such specimen signature to his Administration Department for forwarding the same to Kendriya Bhandar. He denied that accused has nothing to do with the questioned purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 and that the bills of Kendriya Bhandar bearing signatures of the accused had nothing to do C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 12 / 82 with the actual material supplied which were made by Kendriya Bhandar directly to R&D Section. He stated that he does not remember whether he had given any such specimen signature to his Administration Department for forwarding the same to Kendriya Bhandar. He denied that accused has nothing to do with the questioned purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 and that the bills of Kendriya Bhandar bearing signatures of accused have noting to do with the actual material supplied which were made by Kendriya Bhandar directly through their own vehicle. He denied that in reconciliation statements prepared before referring the matter to Administration and CBI, attempts were made by the NPL to fix the authorship of signatures on the questioned documents and on failure to do so, documents were manipulated to fix the accused.

10. PW2 Sh. Vikram Kumar, Director, National Physical Laboratory, stated that as Director he was the competent authority to appoint and remove the Assistant (S&P) GradeI in NPL. He stated that his office had received the request from CBI to consider the sanction in this case against accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. He had perused the documents which included the request to CBI to investigate the complaint, including the charged person. He stated that after perusal of the documents he had decided that it is a fit case to send for prosecution of the charged officer.

He stated that the sanction for prosecution qua the accused was granted by a composite Sanction Order pertaining to 76 purchase orders mentioned in the Sanction C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 13 / 82 Order dated 25.8.2006 already Ex.PW4/A. He proved the photocopy of the same as Ex.PW2/A and stated that the original is in case file bearing no. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he was conversant with the complete facts of the case. He stated that before according the sanction he was briefed by his subordinate about the facts and circumstances of the case in details. He stated that after he had taken over; at some point of time it was brought to his notice that some problem in billing had taken place in purchase department in the past. He stated that as far as he remembers even in 2003 the regular stocks were being purchased from Kendriya Bhandar as well as from other Government Suppliers. He stated that he had asked his purchase department to look into the issue of outstanding dues of Kendriya Bhandar and they had started inquiring into the same. He stated that he does not remember anything about the correspondence. He stated that he does not remember whether Sh. R.P. Sharma had brought this fact to his notice or not as this matter is very old. He stated that as far as he remembers the approval for forwarding the complaint to CBI regarding irregularities in purchase must have been given by him. The said approval must be available in the office record of NPL. He stated that he does not remember whether the expert opinion from GEQD, Shimla was also made available while considering the internal inquiry report. He admitted that he does not remember whether the statement of the charged person was part of the records sent to him by CBI as the matter is quite old. He C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 14 / 82 denied that the sanction was accorded without application of mind or that the said sanction was granted as per dictation of CBI.

11. PW3 Sh. G.K. Sahani stated that stated that since 2000 he had worked in Store Department of NPL. He stated that he know Vijay Kumar Gupta who was working as Stores and Purchase Assistant GradeI. He stated that he can identify the signatures of accused since he had worked with him and has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties.

He also proved the bills of Kendriya Bhandar Ex.PW1/176 and identified signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta on the same. He stated that accused had put his signatures on the same as a token of having received the stocks mentioned in the bills.

He proved the original bills pertaining to the present case in case CC no. 78/12 i.e. Ex.PW1/49, Ex. PW1/50 and Ex.PW1/70 (D8 to D10).

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he was senior to the accused as per his joining and post. He stated that his senior officer had called him to identify the signatures on the bills which he had identified as of the accused. He stated that for all practical purposes he had never worked with accused and had never seen any bills signed by him during the course of service. He stated that he cannot say if any other person had signed on these bills. He stated that in NPL his duties were to receive the material, to check the quantity of the material and C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 15 / 82 thereafter, to issue the said material as per the requirements received from different departments. He stated that the requirement requests were initially received in his department and if material was available, they used to issue the same otherwise they would give a certificate that required material was not available and thereafter, the said request was handled by the purchase section.

He stated that he had seen three purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 which bear different purchase order numbers. He stated that copies of the purchase orders were maintained in their office. He stated that he does not remember as to whether he had seen the copies of these purchase orders when he had deposed that these three purchase orders were forged. He stated that he does not remember whether the copies of these three purchase orders might have been available or not in the files maintained as this is the matter pertaining to year 2001. He does not remember as to whether his officers had told him when he had identified the signature of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta on bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 as to from which date the inquiry against accused by CBI is pending as the matter is quite old. He admitted that the accused had signed on bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 in Kendriya Bhandar at the time of receiving the material and not in NPL. He stated that he does not know as to how articles as per bill Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW1/3 might have been transported to NPL because the material is not directly received by them. He denied that he had worked in Receipt and Dispatch Section of NPL at the relevant time.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 16 / 82 He stated that the store keeper used to receive the material from the receipt department where a voucher was prepared in four copies after receipt of the material. He stated that the concerned store keeper used to maintain the copy of the voucher in a file. He stated that he had not seen the register maintained in the R&I Department when inquiry was made from him regarding signatures of the accused Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 as he had no link with the material received on these three bills as they pertained to other stores. He stated that he does not know as to whether the concerned store keepers related to these three bills were also questioned by his senior officers or not. He admitted that the purchase sections were separate from his section. He stated that he had never reminded accused Vijay Kumar Gupta to sign only in one fashion on all the official documents. He admitted that in three purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 and Kendriya Bhandar Bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3, the hand written portions were not written in his presence.

He stated that at the time of yearly inspection of the stores, the verification officer used to tally the actual stock lying in the store with the stock register maintained in their store. As and when the material was received in the store, the same was not to be inspected by the authorized official. He stated that this inspection used to take place within 23 days of the receipt of the material. The material was issued thereafter to the indenting department on the same day or thereafter as per the requirements. He stated that it is not in his knowledge whether CBI had seized the R&I Register or related voucher etc. because all the three bills C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 17 / 82 are not pertaining to his store. He stated that it is not in his knowledge whether his officers had right to show him the signatures of accused on Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 after initiation of inquiry by CBI. He denied that his officers had shown him these three bills only with a view to pressurize him and tutor him. He denied that he had not intentionally produced the relevant record maintained in his section either before his superiors or before CBI.

He further stated that accused V.K. Gupta was posted at Electronic Store and he was posted at Stationary Store. Both these stores were located at different floors in the Main Building. He stated that according to his knowledge, accused and he had never worked together. He denied that the papers prepared by the accused were never put before him.

12. PW4 Sh. Brij Chaudhary, AGM, Kendriya Bhandar, West Block 8, R.K. Puram, New Delhi has stated that the concerned department has to submit a request on the prescribed form to the Kendriya Bhandar for opening an account in the name of that department. He stated that Kendriya Bhandar issued a passbook in the name of that department. While submitting an indent on the Kendriya Bhandar, the concerned department had to submit it with the passbook. He stated that two copies are retained by Kendriya Bhandar and two copies are handed over to the employee who used to bring the indent. Thereafter, the employee takes the delivery of stationary. He stated that if the indented and billed items are not available in the store, C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 18 / 82 then the bill is amended to that extent. He stated that if there is any payment outstanding against any department, the same is monitored by their accounts section. At the time of the incident, Mr. Tayal was the Incharge of the accounts section and for sometime Mrs. Pillai was also the Incharge. He stated that whenever, there is any outstanding payment against any department, reminders are issued to that department and telephonic reminder are also given. He stated that at the time of the incident, the Kendriya Bhandar was computerized and everything was available on the computer system. He stated that one terminal of the computer system was accessible to the accounts section.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that normally Kendriya Bhandar allows credit of 30 days and thereafter reminders issued to be sent for recovery of delayed payment and to NPL also Kendriya Bhandar had issued reminders. He stated that in this matter they had received some letters giving the assurance of payment. He stated that in case of nonpayment if the assurance comes from the department then the supply of stationary would continue. He stated that in this case Kendriya Bhandar had supplied the goods during the period 200102 onwards although the payment was not received. He stated that he had no direct interaction with the customer when they submit their purchase orders/indents, in generation of bills and delivery of material. He stated that Kendriya Bhandar used to supply the material to different Government departments on cash as well as on credit. He stated that as and when a purchase is to be made, a C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 19 / 82 authorised representative of the department would came to Kendriya Bhandar alongwith the purchase order and the passbook. As soon as a bill is prepared on the basis of purchase order, the corresponding entry is made in the passbook. He stated that the bills in question being Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 were not prepared in his presence. The same were prepared by the billing clerk at the billing counter.

13. PW5 Sh. J.D. Batra, Retired Section Officer, Stores and Purchase, National Physical Laboratory has stated that he had joined the said officer in May, 1974. He had retired from NPL in May, 2006. In NPL he had worked in purchase and stores departments. He stated that accused Vijay Kumar Gupta had worked as Stores and Purchase Assistant GradeI. He stated that he was his colleague and he had worked with him. He stated that he can identify the signatures of accused since he had worked with him and had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. He stated that he has been shown the bills of Kendriya Bhandar which bear the signatures of accused which he has done as a token of having received the stocks mentioned in the bills.

He proved the original bills pertaining to the present case in case CC no. 78/12 i.e. Ex.PW1/49, Ex. PW1/50 and Ex.PW1/70 (D8 to D10).

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he has total service of 32 years in NPL. He stated that usually the accused used to go to Kendriya Bhandar to collect stocks but at times the Assistant who is C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 20 / 82 available and authorized to collect stores also used to go to Kendriya Bhandar. He stated that the Assistants used to be Sh. Ved Pal, Ram Pal and Vinay Sharma at the relevant times. He stated that if the payment was not received by the Kendriya Bhandar a letter used to be received from the Kendriya Bhandar that the payment is due. He stated that the accused has not signed on the bills Ex. PW1/1 76 in his presence. He stated that these signatures appear to be of accused but they could be of someone else also. He admitted that after the signatures of SPO the purchase file containing the purchase orders were sent to R& D Section of Stores and from there the stock used to be collected by the authorized representative himself. He stated that the person who used to come to deliver heavy items in Kendriya Bhandar used to hire vehicle and he used to take receipt from R&D Section of stores. He admitted that the purchase orders to the Firm were sent directly from the Purchase Department through post or courier.

14. PW6 Sh. Surender Kumar, Assistant Accountant, Kendriya Bhandar, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi stated that all the Departments of the Government who purchase material from Kendriya Bhandar have been allotted account number separately. He stated that the billing clerk used to obtain the signatures of the authorized representative on the bill and would also make an entry in the passbook. Whenever material is purchased from the Kendriya Bhandar, an entry used to be made in the passbook. The chances of an entry not being made in the passbook are only when the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 21 / 82 goods are taken in its own vehicle by the Government Department. He stated that one copy of the bill would be retained by the salesman/helper and two copies would be returned to the authorized representative after making an entry about the goods, if any, which are not supplied from the store. If some of the articles indented and billed are not supplied, then the Government Department may in its discretion send a fresh indent or may send the same bill for supplying those articles afterwards. If some goods are not supplied, then an entry in this regard is also made in the passbook regarding nonsupply of.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that it is not necessary to check the identity card of the authorized representative. He admitted that if payment is not made by the concerned Government Department within fifteen days as per the terms of the bill, the account would be locked. Anybody who is authorized by the Department and his signatures are attested on the indent itself can collect the indented articles. He stated that the bills in question being Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 were not prepared by him. Similarly, he has no personal knowledge about the mode of delivery of the articles mentioned in the said bills.

15. PW7 Ms. S.R. Mukherjee is Store Assistant in Central Store, National Physical Laboratory, Pusa, stated that she used to make the entry of the items in the ledger which was purchased against the indent and purchase order and the items were subsequently issued to the NPL staff and she used to make the entry. She stated that the entries of items C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 22 / 82 against the bill number mentioned in annexureI are not entered in the stock ledger which were checked by her during her statement to CBI. She stated that the items mentioned against the bill except the item at serial no. 21 are not mentioned in the stock ledger. She stated that these details she had also given to CBI while recording her statement.

She also proved AnnexureI and AnnexureIV, originals of which have already been proved in the connected matter bearing CC No. 78/12 i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that she used to make the entry in Receipt and Dispatch Register of the items which are brought to the store. She also used to take Dak and distribute the relevant papers to the concerned officials.

She further stated that AnnexureI and AnnexureII i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were not prepared by her and they do not bear her signatures also.

16. PW8 Smt. Swantantra Sethi is working as Store Assistant, GradeI, NPL. Pusa. She stated that she used to make entry in the stock ledger which was brought by way of purchasing from Kendriya Bhandar and other cooperative stores. She stated that the entries of the items as per the bill mentioned in Ex. PW5/A are not entered in the stock ledger. The entries mentioned in annexure IV Ex. PW5/B of the items against the bill are also not mentioned in the ledger except the entry at serial no. 21. She stated that the entries which are not mentioned in the stock ledger of the items mentioned in Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B are not made C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 23 / 82 because those items were not brought to the Central Store where she was working. She stated that the items once kept in the stores are issued to different NPL Officials and the entry to this effect is made in the same ledger.

She also proved AnnexureI and AnnexureIV, originals of which have already been proved in the connected matter bearing CC No. 78/12 i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B. On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that the purchase order for procuring stock was issued by the Store and Purchase officer and upon it the signature of the person authorized to bring the stock was attested and identified by the Store and Purchase Officer himself and without the same stock mentioned in the same could never be issued by Kendriya Bhandar. She stated that no stock could be issued without the credit passbook being produced at Kendriya Bhandar alongwith the purchase order. She stated that the relevant entries used to be made in the said credit passbook of Kendriya Bhandar while processing the purchase order. She stated that these items as per the relevant purchase order used to first come to the Receipt & Dispatch Department and later on used to come to the Central Stores. She stated that she cannot say whether the other ledgers are missing except ledger no. 2C25. The items were also brought from the private parties. She stated that except accused, other persons also used to go to purchase the goods. She stated that the indents/purchase orders after signatures of SPO were routed through R&D Section and not through the Store Section where she was working. She stated that in some cases the articles received by Receipt and C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 24 / 82 Dispatch Section were issued to the concerned departments and only the documents were received by the stores department and they used to make entries on the basis of said documents. She stated that she does not remember whether Mr. Brijesh Sharma was the Purchase officer in August, 2001 as the matter is about 11 years old. She stated that without looking into the Stock Register maintained by her, she cannot say whether she had handled the purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 and Kendriya Bhandar Bill Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 as they are for the period August, 2001 which is about 11 years old. She stated that the procedure adopted while making entries in the Stock Register is that after receipt of original bill, challan and copy of the purchase order, the entires are made in the Stock Register and to verify that she had made the entires in the stock register, she used to put her initials or her full signatures on the said bills. She stated that Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 do not bear her initials/signatures. During her evidence it was observed by the Court that bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 are stated to have been seized from Kendriya Bhandar and not from NPL. She stated that since she was not from Accounts Department, she cannot say whether Kendriya Bhandar had claimed the amount mentioned in these three bills from NPL or not. She stated that for the goods which were directly distributed by Receipt and Dispatch Section, it was the duty of the official posted in the said section to check the quantity of the articles received as per the quantity mentioned in the challans. She stated that she cannot admit or deny that that articles mentioned in the Bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 were C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 25 / 82 duly received in Receipt & Dispatch Section and the said articles were directly distributed by the said section and that is the reason that the Stock Register was also got intentionally misplaced. She denied that original challans in case of prereceipt bills were not received at her seat. She again denied that the present bills have nothing to do with the actual supply of material.

She further stated that AnnexureI and AnnexureII i.e. Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were not prepared by her and they do not bear her signatures also.

17. PW9 Sh. Kuldeep Kaushik, Stores and Purchase officer, National Physical Laboratory stated he had joined National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in November, 2000. He stated that generally common use items i.e. stationary, computer consumable, sanitary and electrical items etc. are procured through operative agency after receiving the indents from Central Store. He stated that material is normally collected by Authorized Representative of Central Store from Cooperative Store. After its entry in the Daily Receipt Register in R&D Division and Store Section, material is forwarded to respective stores for its entry and further use after it is duly endorsed by store officer and bill is forwarded to purchase section for its payment.

He stated that he knows accused V.K. Gupta working as Store and Purchase Assistant. He stated that the bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/76 collectively have been seen by him and appear to have been signed by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta at point A. C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 26 / 82 The original bills pertaining to the present case have already been proved by the witness in the connected matter i.e. CC no. 78/12 as Ex.PW1/49, Ex.PW1/50 and Ex.PW1/70.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he had worked with accused for four years from November, 2000 to September, 2004 at NPL Delhi. He stated that during his tenure as Store Officer (Additional Charge) for about 89 months he had not placed any purchase order. He denied that during his tenure in NPL he had never handled indenting, purchase or stores. He denied that normally the purchase orders were sent to Kendriya Bhandar through post or through a peon or through a nominated clerk. He stated that in the normal course, after signatures of the SPO, the purchase file was sent to Receipt and Dispatch Section of Store and the nominated person used to carry the said purchase order by hand. He stated that he had not been shown the said files during investigation or during his deposition in Court but he had seen the files in the normal course of his duties as Section Officer (Purchase). He denied that on 01.11.2000 Mr. S.N. Gupta and Mr. P.D. Aggarwal were functioning as SPO. He admitted that for the routine day to day items supplies were procured from Kendriya Bhandar. He denied that for supply of other articles like furniture, computers etc. NPL Delhi was maintaining a panel of suppliers. He stated that he does not remember whether for procuring supplies from Super Bazar and NCCF, any other officer was authorized or accused was the only authorized officer for the said procurement from the said two C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 27 / 82 stores. He denied that the empaneled suppliers of Kendriya Bhandar used to take direct orders from them. He further denied that when he had joined in November, 2000, no supplies were received from Kendriya Bhandar because of unpaid bills for the last many years.

18. PW10 Smt. Nirmal Gupta, Superintendent, Kendriya Bhandar, Ghaziabad, U.P. stated that she would give two copies of the bills to the customer, who brought the indent after getting their signatures and remaining two bills would remain with her. The bills were raised in four copies. The signatures of the customer who brought the indent were fed in computer, which were verified at the time of taking signatures of customer on the bill. She also stated that she also used to make entries in the credit passbook, which was brought by the customer. It was not necessary that the customer shall bring the passbook every time specially when the goods ordered were being sent by the vehicle of Kendriya Bhandar or by their own vehicle. She stated that she does not remember the name of the customer at this point of time despite the signature and document being shown to her but it bears the signature of the person who had collected the material. She again said after seeing the signatures, that the signatures seem to be of Vijay or Vishnu.

She stated that National Physical Laboratory was the customer of Kendriya Bhandar. She used to obtain the signatures of the person who used to bring indent for the National Physical Laboratory.

She proved the bills original of which are already C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 28 / 82 Ex.PW15/14, Ex.PW15/15 and Ex.PW15/25 in connected case bearing CC no. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that she could not identify signatures earlier but after seeing the accused she has recollected his signatures. Mostly the accused V.K. Gupta used to come to Kendriya Bhandar to collect the material. She stated that the authorized officer from the indenting department had the option to go to any of the counters but if the said counter is not dealing with the items required by the purchasing department, the counter clerk would guide the purchaser to the concerned counter. As and when an indent was received from any department, the concerned official operating the computer would check the name of department, its address and the name as well as designation of the authorising officer who had signed the said indent. She stated that she is not sure whether the specimen signatures of the indenting officer were also available in the computer record or not. She admitted that on purchase orders Ex. PW7/2 Ex. PW7/4 name of the officer authorized to collect the articles from Kendriya Bhandar is not mentioned. She stated that in case the name of the authorized officer was not mentioned on the purchase order, the procedure was to refer the said purchase order to their Manager and as per his authorization, the material was supplied. She stated that in this case accused Vijay Kumar Gupta was regularly visiting their store on behalf of NPL.

As far as purchase order Ex. PW7/2, is concerned she does not remember exactly whether she had referred the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 29 / 82 said purchase order to the concerned manager or not as the time is quite old. She stated that the records authorizing the purchase officers on behalf of different departments was not handled by her and she had not seen any letter authorizing Sh. Brijesh Sharma to issue purchase orders on behalf of NPL. As and when the matters were referred to the manager where names of authorized officers were not mentioned or there was any other deficiency in the purchase orders, some times the manager would clear the said purchase orally and some time he would issue instructions in writing. She stated that the name of the authorized person to collect the articles on behalf of department was also available in the computer records but she is not sure whether the specimen signatures were also available in computer record or not. She stated that the signature of the officer who had brought the indent on the bill was taken and verified by her. The signature of the authorized officer was also available on the back side of the credit passbook issued to the department. She stated that she does not remember now as to whether at the time of issuing the bill Ex. PW1/1, any entry was made in the passbook or not as the matter is about 11 years old.

She stated that she does not remember whether the signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta were available in only one language either in Hindi or English or in both the languages. She stated that the signatures on Ex. PW1/1 at point A were similar to the signatures available in record either on computer or on the backside of the passbook or on the Identity Card. She stated that she does not know the procedure adopted for delivery of bulk articles at the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 30 / 82 premises of the buyer department by the vehicle of Kendriya Bhandar as to whether any separate challan was prepared or not or any receipt was obtained at the time of delivery or not. The decision to sent any articles by the vehicle of the Kendriya Bhandar was not taken by her and the said decision was to be taken by the Manager of Kendriya Bhandar. The bulk articles or heavy articles were usually delivered by the vehicle of Kendriya Bhandar. She denied that purchase order related to the bill Ex. PW1/1 was not brought by the accused and it was received by other mode of communication and goods were sent by Kendriya Bhandar vehicle without knowledge of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta.

She further stated that the specimen signature of the accused were compared from the pass book. Those signatures were in English. She stated that she cannot tell if, the signatures were in Hindi or in English. She stated that the specimen signatures were not feed in the computer.

19. PW11 Smt. Sandhya Bhargava, Sr. Clerk, Kendriya Bhandar had stated that between 1995 to 2002 she was posted in Stationary Branch of Kendriya Bhandar, R.K. Puram (East) as Sr. Clerk stated that the bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/76 dated 27.8.2001 were raised by her for supplying towels of Rs. 75,400/ where password appeared at point B. She also stated that all these exhibits are computer generated record which are maintained in their office in ordinary course of business.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that there was no rule under which one C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 31 / 82 employee could use the password or another. She stated that specimen signature of the indenting officer were maintained in the Accounts Department. They used to verify only the names of the indenting officer from the computer available with them. She further stated that the names indenting officers were fed by them earlier. The Store and Purchase officer was also considered as Indenting Officer. Every department has one indenting officer. There were number of indenting officers and they kept on changing from time to time. She further stated that as and when they used to receive the indenting order/purchase order, the signature of the indenting officer/SPO used to be taken on it. She also stated that it was not her duty to verify the signatures of the Indenting Officer/SPO, it was the duty of concerned dealing Assistant of her Department/Section. The signatures of the receiving official of the concerned department were taken as and when the bill was prepared and thereafter, the receipt copy of the bill was sent to a different counter for supply of material. In case some material was not available, the concerned clerk would inform them and they would prepare a fresh bill and then obtain the signature of receiving officer of the concerned department. She stated that she has no knowledge regarding the delivery department or the mode of delivery as she was handling only the billing department.

20. PW12 Smt. Rakeshwari, Helper, Kendriya Bhandar, Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi stated that she used to do billing on computer after receipt of Indent from a billing clerk who used to sit next to her. She stated that as per the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 32 / 82 password of the individual billing clerk, name of each billing clerk would appear on the foot of the bill. After generating the bill she used to return the computer generated bill as well as indent to the same clerk. She stated that her duty was only to generate the bill. Delivery was to be made from the counter. She stated that she has seen bills already Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/76 and these bills were generated by herself, Mr. Sandhya and Sh. Harish Bhatt. She stated that the clerk to whom she used to pass the computer generated bill along with indent used to sign each bill at the right side bottom corner. She stated that almost all these bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/76 have been signed by Sh. Nirmal Gupta, Assistant Clerk, to whom she used to pass the computer generated bills. She stated that she cannot tell on seeing these bills as to who had collected the material.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused she stated that there was no helper by the name of Ms. Asha in the billing department. She stated that Asha was password. She admitted that she had never accepted any indent directly from accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. She also stated that she had not given him any bill directly. She stated that on receipt of indent, she used to check the name of the authorized officer on the indent with the computer system. She stated that the person who used to receive the indent, used to check and verify the sign of the authorized officer.

21. PW 13 Sh. J.B. Singh, retired as Public Health Inspector, MCD, Delhi had stated that daily receipt registers were seized from National Physical Laboratory, Pusa in his C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 33 / 82 presence. He stated that he can identify the register as he had put his signatures at point A on the said register. He stated that he had also seen register Ex. PW21/C which bears his signatures at point A. He stated that this register was also seized through seizure memo Ex. PW8/1.

He also proved the photocopy of production cumseizure Memo and photocopy of the register, originals of which are already Ex. PW8/1 and Ex.PW11/A in connected case bearing CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that on the date of seizure he had reached CBI office and from there he had accompanied the concerned CBI officials to the office of NPL. He stated that he cannot tell who had written the contents of the said registers. He denied that the register was blank when his signatures was taken and the contents of the said register were written later on after seizure. He stated that he cannot tell who had written the contents of the register Ex. PW21/C. He stated that he cannot identify handwriting of any person who had written in the said register.

22. PW14 Sh. Narender Kumar, stated that he has seen seizure memo already Ex. PW8/1, which was prepared in his presence and it bears his signatures at point C. He stated that on the said date, daily receipt registers were seized in his presence from National Physical Laboratory, Pusa. He stated that one of the register seized is already Ex. PW11/A and bears his signatures at point B. He further proved productioncumseizure Memo C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 34 / 82 and one register original of which are already Ex.PW8/1 and Ex.PW11/A in the connected case bearing CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel he stated that the writing work was done in the office of NPL. He stated that on requisition communicated to his office, he was asked to report to the office of CBI at CGO Complex, Lodhi Road. Thereafter, he had accompanied the CBI officer to the office of NPL, Pusa. He had signed on the first and the last page of the register. After seeing the register he stated that he had signed only the first page of the register. He stated that the register was produced by the Official of NPL under whose charge it was lying. He denied that he had signed on the asking of the CBI Office without looking at the register or the contents thereof.

23. PW15 Sh. U.S. Rawat, Inspector, Customs, IGI Airport, New Delhi had stated that he has been shown specimen signatures Ex. PW7/71 to Ex. PW7/148 of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, Assistant (S&P), NPL, New Delhi which bears his signatures at point A. He further stated that specimen signatures of accused V.K. Gupta were taken in his presence. He proved the specimen signatures sheets already Ex.PW7/71 to 148 in connected case CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that the accused was asked to give the specimen signatures without showing him any other document on which his signatures were already existing. He stated that he does not know as to how the accused was C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 35 / 82 asked to give his specimen signatures as "Brijesh Sharma" i.e. as to whether he was asked by the IO to sign as Brijesh Sharma or he was shown any other paper. He stated that he does not remember the exact number of persons present at the time when specimen signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta were taken as long time has passed. He stated that in his presence IO had signed on the specimen sheets after the specimens of accused were taken and thereafter he had signed on each sheet at point A. He denied that all the specimen sheets were already with CBI and he had put his signatures on all the sheets under the pressure of CBI.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he had seen accused Vijay Kumar Gupta only in the Court when he had come to give evidence earlier and today after his specimen signatures were taken. Accused Vijay Kumar Gupta was introduced to him by the IO as one Mr. V.K. Gupta.

24. PW16 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gupta, Retired as AAO, Ministry of Finance, Janpath, New Delhi upon being shown document already Ex. PW13/B stated that it is outstanding balance statement for recoveries pending against NPL. This document was prepared by him and is in his handwriting and bears his signatures at point A on the last page. He stated that he had prepared this statement on the basis of file of outstanding claims.

He further proved the outstanding balance statement for recoveries pending against NPL Ex.PW13/B. Ld. Defence Counsel did not cross examine the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 36 / 82 said witness despite opportunity being given.

25. PW17 Sh. Harsh Kumar Verma, Technical Officer, National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi had stated that in R&D Section his duties were to receive and dispatch goods, which was to reach there against purchase orders, supplied by different suppliers. When goods used to reach him, he used to make an entry in daily receipt register in that regard. He stated that goods are handed over to the indenter and thereafter test report is prepared. He stated that his statement was recorded by CBI Ex. PW8/1 and bears his signature at point A. He further proved the Seizure Memo original of which is already Ex.PW8/1 in the connected matter bearing CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by the accused he stated that he was never called to the CBI Office but was examined by C BI at the office of NPL only. He further stated that inquiries were made from him regarding the procedure but no statement as such was recorded. He stated that he had only signed on the Seizure Memo but his signatures were not obtained on any of the Registers. The pages of registers were already filled. He admitted that the document prepared for seizure of the registers did not mention the number of pages filled in. He stated that no body else had signed the documents in his presence.

26. PW18 Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Retired Chief Accounts officer from Kendriya Bhandar, New Delhi stated C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 37 / 82 that he had seen letter dated 28.7.2005, and the same bears his signatures at point A, and is Ex. PW13/A. He stated that through this letter, he had sent bills and purchase orders to the SP, CBI as demanded by him. He stated that the statement of account of outstandings from M/s National Physical Laboratory, comprising of four sheets is Ex. PW13/C, which is computer generated. He stated that the purchase orders pertaining to M/s National Physical Laboratory are already Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/70, Ex. PW10/C and Ex. PW13/D1 to Ex. PW13/D6.

He proved the letter dated 28.7.2005 original of which is already Ex.PW13/A in connected case bearing CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he does not remember the rules pertaining to realization of outstandings of Kendriya Bhandar as he has retired two years ago. He stated that he was working in Accounts Department of Kendriya Bhandar since 1996 till his retirement in January, 2008. He stated that he does not know much about the realization of outstandings. He stated that he cannot say as to what action was to be taken in case payment was not realized within 15 days, as per the terms of the bills as there was a separate Department for that, i.e. Stationary Division. He stated that he cannot say as to why the accounts of NPL was kept open for more than 14 years, despite nonpayment, as there is separate Department dealing with it. He stated that he is not aware of any CBI investigation. Only a letter had come to him and he had replied to that. He stated that he had not mentioned the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 38 / 82 name of the Department in the letter Ex. PW13/A, as it was not asked for. He stated that the matter regarding delivery of articles to Kendriya Bhandar's own vehicle/vehicle taken on contract directly to the office of the purchaser was handled by a different department so he does not know the procedure adopted regarding payment of the charges as to whether the said expenses were added in the bill raised on the purchaser department or the said expenses were borne by Kendriya Bhandar. He stated that as Chief Accounts officer of Kendriya Bhandar, he was over all InCharge of Accounts, Finance and Taxation etc. He stated that in the year 2001, there were 34 Accounts Officers working under him who were looking after the different departments like Account, Outstanding Dues etc. and they were reporting to him as well as to the Managing Director. He stated that he had personally not handled the said Purchase Orders/Bills at the relevant time and he had only sent these Bills and Purchase Orders to CBI, as per their request during investigation vide letter Ex. PW13/A. The description of the documents sent by him is duly mentioned in his letter Ex. PW13/A and the same is correct.

27. PW19 Ms. Lalita Sethi, Sr. Stenographer, NPL, Pusa Road, New Delhi stated that CBI officers took specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Stores and Purchase Officer, NPL in her presence Ex. PW7/149 to Ex. PW7/162 which bears her signatures at point A on each exhibit.

She stated that the specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma were taken in her presence Inspector Sh. S.Q. C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 39 / 82 Ali and proved the proved the original sheets containing specimen signatures already Ex.PW7/149 to Ex.PW7/162 in connected case CC no. 78/12.

On being cross examined by accused she stated that specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma were taken in NPL Office int he office cabin of Sh. Brijesh Sharma. She stated that nothing else was written on those sheets when the signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma were taken. She stated that she does not remember the exact number of signatures, however, there might have been 1011 signatures on one sheet. She stated that she does not remember the nature of pen used to giving specimen signatures. She stated that she must have signed the sheets on which specimen signatures had been taken with her own pen. She also stated that her statement was not recorded by CBI on that day. She stated that it might have taken an hour for the entire proceedings regarding specimen signatures and her signatures being taken by CBI. She denied that the specimen signatures of PW Sh. Brijesh Sharma were not taken in her presence or that signatures had already been taken when she was called by CBI. She denied that she was deposing falsely.

28. PW20 Inspector Pramod Kumar, stated that the investigation of this case was conducted by Sh. S.Q. Ali, the then Inspector, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. He had stated that he had filed the charge sheet of this case on the directions of his S.P. Sh. Ganesh Verma.

On being cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel he stated that he was never involved in the investigation of C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 40 / 82 the present case. He stated that he had gone through the documents and statements of the witnesses at the time of filing of Charge Sheet.

29. PW21 Sh. S.Q. Ali, DSP, CBI, ACB, Jodhpur, Rajasthan stated that during investigation, he had examined witnesses both from National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi and Kendriya Bhandar, New Delhi and seized relevant records pertaining to the instant case. He had examined Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Sh. H.K. Verma, Sh. Brij Chaudhary, Sh. Harish Chandra Bhatt, Sh. Surender Kumar, Smt. Rakeshwari, Smt. Sandhya Bhargava, Sh. Kuldeep Kaushik, Sh. G.K. Sahni, Sh. J.D. Batra, Smt. Swatantra Sethi, Ms. S.R. Mukherjee and Smt. Nirmal Gupta. He stated that during investigation, he had received authority letter dated 26.9.1999, authorizing accused Vijay Kumar Gupta to collect the material from Kendriya Bhandar and other Government Agencies, besides other documents were forwarded by Sh. Brijesh Sharma, Stores and Purchase Officer, NPL vide his letter dated 07.4.2005. He stated that during investigation, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, the then Chief Accounts Officer, Kendriya Bhandar had forwarded original bills and purchase orders etc., vide his letter dated 28.7.2005, mentioned in the letter Ex. PW13/A. The particulars of documents are mentioned in the letter Ex. PW21/B. He stated that during investigation, he had obtained specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ex. PW7/71 to Ex. PW7/148 and Ex. PW7/149 to Ex. PW7/162 (S1 to S78). He had obtained C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 41 / 82 specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma already Ex. PW7/149 to Ex. PW7/162 (S79 to S92). All these specimen signatures and handwritings bear his signatures at point B on each sheet. These signatures and handwritings were given by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sh. Brijesh Sharma. He stated that these signatures and handwritings alongwith the questioned documents were forwarded for expert opinion to GEQD, Shimla through SP, Sh. N.M. Singh Ex. PW7/1. He stated that after completion of the investigation, he had found this case fit for prosecution for the reasons mentioned in the charge sheet.

He further stated that he had seized daily receipt register vide ProductioncumSeizure Memo dated 11.2.2005 for the period 09.11.1995 to 17.01.2005 of NPL from Sh. H.K. Verma, the then Senior Mechanical Assistant, NPL and proved the the said ProductioncumSeizure Memo already Ex.PW8/1 in connected case bearing CC no. 78/12.

He also proved the registers already proved as Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW21/C in connected matter bearing CC no. 78/12. He also proved the photocopies of the authority letter dated 07.4.2005, letter dated 28.7.2005 and letter dated 05.7.2006 which are already proved as Ex.PW21/A, Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW21/B respectively in connected matter bearing CC no. 78/12.

He proved the specimen signatures and handwriting of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta which are already Ex.PW7/71 to Ex.PW7/148 in connected matter bearing CC no. 78/12 and photocopies of the specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma already Ex. PW7/149 to Ex.PW7/162.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 42 / 82 He further proved the photocopy of the letter dated 25.5.2006 vide which the signatures and handwritings along with the questioned documents were forwarded for Expert Opinion to GEQD, Shimla through SP, CBI Sh. N.M. Singh already Ex.PW7/1 in connected case bearing CC no. 78/12. He also proved the letter dated 12.7.2006 of GEQD, Shimla vide which the expert opinion was forwarded Ex.PW7/165, the expert opinion Ex.PW7/163 and the detailed reasons given by the Expert Ex.PW7/169 respectively in connected case bearing CC no. 78/12. He further proved the FIR Ex.PW21/D in CC no. 78/12.

He further proved the complaint which was received by him along with the aforesaid FIR for investigation already Ex.PW22/B in connected case CC No. 78/12.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he had not verified the signatures of accused which appeared on his identity card issued by NPL with the records of Kendriya Bhandar. He admitted that he had not collected the details regarding the entry and exit of the accused from NPL from the register maintained there. He stated that he did not check from the log book of official car regarding the entry and exit of the official concerned of NPL including the accused. He admitted that credit opening form issued from NPL used to be submitted in Kendriya Bhandar for purchasing the goods on credit. He stated that it had come to his knowledge during investigation that NPL at its own end had sent the signature of Vijay Kumar Gupta to GEQD, Shimla. He admitted that with respect to the bills which were subject matter of this case, none of the witness C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 43 / 82 has stated that they have seen accused bringing the goods from Kendriya Bhandar.

On being cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused he stated that he did not seize any document to this effect. During his investigation he did not come across any communication from NPL to Kendriya Bhandar stating that Mr. Brijesh Sharma was appointed as Stores & Purchase Officer w.e.f a particular date so as to enable Kendriya Bhandar to feed his name in its computer system. He denied that he had intentionally not placed on record three such letters by which intimation regarding change of name of SPO was intimated by NPL to Kendriya Bhandar from time to time. He stated that he had not collected any print out from the Kendriya Bhandar during his investigation to show that Mr. Brijesh Sharma was the SPO of NPL during the relevant time. Similarly, he had not collected any printout from Kendriya Bhandar showing that accused Vijay Kumar Gupta was the authorized officer to collect the material. It had not come to his knowledge during investigation that Purchase Orders were also dispatched by post from Receipt & Dispatch Section of NPL to Kendriya Bhandar. He had not made any inquiries from the officials in Receipt & Dispatch section of NPL as to whether original Purchase Orders were handed over to the authorized officer after obtaining his signature or they were handed over while obtaining his signature. He had not investigated as to whether any such copies of Purchase Orders were retained by R&D Section of NPL or not. He had not investigated as to which department of NPL used to verify as to whether all the articles ordered through purchase C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 44 / 82 orders were received or only part delivery had been received from Kendriya Bhandar. During investigation it did not come to his notice that signatures of the authorized officer receiving the articles from the counter were also obtained by the delivery officials of Kendriya Bhandar apart from the signatures obtained on a copy of the bill. He denied that he is intentionally concealing the fact that no delivery could be made by Kendriya Bhandar delivery man without challan or the challans of other bills were available in the R&D Section of NPL and he had intentionally not seized them.

He further denied that the original bills, challans and copies of purchase orders related to the three bills in question were available in Receipt & Dispatch Section of NPL and he had intentionally not seized the same. He again denied that the accused was not concerned with the signatures of the Purchasing Officer as he used to get duly singed Purchase Orders from Receipt & Dispatch Section of NPL. He admitted that he had searched the residential premises of the accused and business premises of his son but none of the articles mentioned bills Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 were recovered from there.

The witness had been reexamined by Ld. PP for CBI. On being reexamined by Ld. PP for CBI he stated that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of the then SP Sh. N.M. Singh under whom he had worked as Inspector, ACB, CBI, New Delhi. He had seen FIR of this case dated 11.02.2005 which bears the signatures of Sh. N.M. Singh at point A and the FIR is Ex. PW21/D. The FIR was marked to him for investigation. He had received complaint Ex.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 45 / 82 PW21/A alongwith the aforesaid FIR for investigation.

He further stated that he had not examined Sh. Ved Pal, Sh. Mool Chand, Sh. Ram Pal, Sh. Vinay Sharma and Sh. Subhash who were working in NPL, Stores Department. He also stated that during investigation it did not come to his notice that bulk and heavy materials were being supplied by Kendriya Bhandar in their own vehicle. He stated that he had not examined the InCharge of the Accounts Section, Kendriya Bhandar. He did not conduct any investigation on the aspect as to why the credit account of NPL was not freezed when outstanding was for more than fifteen days. He stated that he had examined most of the dealing clerks who had raised the bills in Kendriya Bhandar against the supplies made to NPL. He stated that he has no knowledge as to whether Ms. Asha and Mr. Pankaj had also made the bills against supplies to the NPL. He had not examined Ms. Asha or Mr. Pankaj of Kendriya Bhandar.

He stated that he had examined the witnesses of Kendriya Bhandar on the aspect of what happens in case the indented item was not available with them and it was clarified to him that bills were never raised when the items were not available with them. He stated that he had collected most of the purchase orders in order to investigate and identify the forged purchase orders and corresponded the same with the bills in his investigation. He stated that he had not collected or seized the identity card of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta. He stated that he had also not seized any reconciliation statement prepared by the accused regarding outstanding bills of Kendriya Bhandar. He denied that he C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 46 / 82 had not investigated the case fairly and impartially. He further denied that he has recorded incorrect statements of the witnesses. He denied that Kendriya Bhandar was raising the bills without verifying the inventory and subsequently when the goods were not there in the store, the same used to be brought back to the dealing clerk and an amended bill used to be prepared. He stated that the officers of Kendriya Bhandar had handed over the original office copies of the bills in question for the purpose of investigation which contained acknowledgment regarding receipt of store items.

30. During the course of final arguments it was pointed out that PW1 Sh. Brijesh Sharma was again examined as PW22 due to oversight. However, he has stated the same facts. Ld. Defence Counsel, on the other hand, had no objection if the evidence of PW Sh. Brijesh Sharma as PW1 or PW22 be read in evidence in the present case as it does not cause any prejudice to him.

31. PW23 Dr. B.A. Vaid, Deputy GEQD, Shimla stated that he had received specialized training in the scientific examination of the documents including handwriting identification, detection of forgery and allied subjects in the Government of India Laboratory at Shimla for three years. He stated that he had examined thousands of documents and expressed opinion on them independently. He stated that the documents of this case were received in his laboratory from SPE, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter no. DLI/AC/CR/3/11(A)/2005/1348 dated 25.5.2006 and the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 47 / 82 same is Ex. PW7/1 which bears his signatures at point A. He further stated that after carefully and thoroughly examining these documents he came to the conclusion which is detailed in his opinion Ex. PW7/163 which bears his signature at point A. He further stated that it also bears signatures of Sh. Mohinder Singh, Deputy GEQD at point B. Sh. Mohinder Singh had independently examined these documents and had come to the same conclusion. He stated that the documents of this case were photographed by the Government of India Photographer for the purpose of record under his supervision and guidance.

He further stated that the documents of this case were received in his laboratory from SP/SPE, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter dated 25.5.2006 and proved the same already Ex.PW7/1 in CC No. 78/12. He further proved the questioned documents Q49, Q49/1, Q50 and Q50/1 already Ex.PW1/49 to Ex.PW1/50 and questioned documents Q136, Q137 and Q138 already Ex. PW7/50, Ex.PW7/51 and Ex.PW7/52 in connected case CC no. 78/12. He also proved the standard documents as specimen writing and signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta as S1 to S78 already Ex.PW7/71 to Ex.PW7/148 in connected case bearing CC No. 78/12.

He further proved the specimen signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma S79 to S92 already Ex.PW7/149 to Ex.PW7/162 in CC No. 78/12. He also proved his opinion dated 07.7.2006 which is already Ex.PW7/163 in CC no. 78/12. He stated that his opinion is based on the reasons C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 48 / 82 recorded in three sheets and each sheet bears his signatures. He proved the same which is already Ex.PW7/164 in CC no. 78/12.

He further stated that the documents, opinion and reasons of opinion were sent to SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi vide letter dated 12.7.2006 and proved the same which is already Ex.PW7/165 in CC No. 78/12 He admitted that he had examined each and every documents referred to his laboratory independently. He admitted that he had made request for further examination of documents on which he had not expressed opinion, the specimen as well as contemporaneous admitted genuine signatures of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta in Hindi and of similar model as occurring in the relevant question Ex. PW7/165. He stated that he had not taken enlarged photographs of the signatures for comparison purpose as he had used other modern techniques available in GEQD, Shimla which have enlargement facilities. He stated that he had not supplied any enlarged photographs to SP, CBI, New Delhi. Although for record purposes the negative prints at one and half times were taken but their positive prints were not prepared.

He stated that he had prepared some rough notes before reaching the conclusions for forming the opinion in this case. He denied that the surface on which the questioned handwriting/signatures and the specimen handwriting/ signatures were taken would materially effect the results/opinion of handwriting expert. He had seen bills of Kendriya Bhandar Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/3 and purchase C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 49 / 82 orders of NPL Ex. PW7/2 to Ex. PW7/4 as well as the specimen signatures/handwriting Ex. PW7/71 to Ex. PW7/148 and stated that without properly examining the paper quality of all these documents he could not say whether there is any difference in the same. He stated that he cannot admit or deny the statement that the admitted writing/signature of a long period are a better option for comparing the same with questioned writing and signatures than the specimen handwriting/signatures. It depends on case to case basis. He stated that for forming opinion they consider both general writing habits and individual writing habits. As far as number of characteristics to be compared is concerned, it depends upon the nature of the questioned handwriting/signature. He denied that there are normally 14 points on the basis of which the comparison is to be made between the questioned and admitted handwriting/signatures. He admitted that as soon as the documents for comparison are received in GEQD, Shimla, a file number is assigned to the same. He stated that he had not examined any documents in this case prior to receipt of the same from from the office of SP, CBI therefore, he cannot depose about them.

He admitted that whenever documents are received in his laboratory, they are alloted to the expert for examination and opinion. He stated that the present case was examined by Sh. Mohinder Singh, the then Deputy GEQD, Shimla. He further stated that he had examined these documents prior to Sh. Mohinder Singh. He stated that the time taken in examination of the documents depends upon C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 50 / 82 nature of the case and volume of the documents. He admitted that the documents sent pertaining to the Kendriya Bhandar i.e. the bills, are the carbon copies except for bill Q73 for which he was not sure as to whether the same was original or a carbon copy. He admitted that in his opinion, he had not mentioned that most of the documents were carbon copies or not. He stated that he had prepared some notes while examining the documents and the same were lying in their office. He admitted that he had not forwarded them along with the opinion nor he had brought them as the same was not requested. He denied that his opinion is not correct or he has given false statement under the pressure of CBI.

32. Prosecution evidence was closed thereafter.

33. Statement of accused Vijay Kumar Gupta was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which accused had stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.

34. Accused Vijay Kumar Gupta has examined three witnesses in his defence in the connected case bearing CC no. 58/12 :

35. DW1 Sh. R.P. Sharma, Retired Senior Controller of Administration, NISCAIR stated that from 2002 to 2008 he was serving with NPL, New Delhi as Controller of Administration. He stated that the identity Cards to the Employees of NPL were issued under his signatures. In case of his absence from the office, the same were signed by C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 51 / 82 Junior Administrative Officer. He stated that an identity card was issued for a particular tenure and after expiry of the same a new ICard is issued to the employee. He further stated that at a time only one Icard was issued to the employee of the National Physical Laboratory. The expired card was deposited back in the office in case the same was not lost. He stated that in that eventuality, a complaint is made to the nearest police station about the loss of Icard and the new card is issued after application is written about the loss of ICard. The ICard also carries the signatures of the card holder. He stated that two signatures, one of the card holder and another of the issuing authority would appear on the ICard.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that issuance of Icard in the aforesaid manner was a practice prevailing in the Department.

36. DW2 Sh. Jagan Prasad, Senior Technical Officer, NPL, Pusa, New Delhi proved the photocopies of the relevant pages of the Log book for the year 20012002. He stated that the record is maintained by the Transport Section of National Physical Laboratory. He further stated that the record is maintained in the normal course of official business.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that the aforesaid record neither bear his signatures nor his handwriting and he had also not dealt with the records for the period 20012002. He stated that he cannot identify the signatures appearing in the column of signature of officer using Card. He admitted that there is no C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 52 / 82 mention of date, month and year about certification of the registers Ex.DW2/B1 to Ex.DW2/B4. He further stated that there is no certification on registers Ex.DW2/B5 and Ex.DW2/B6.

37. DW3 Sh. M.C. Acharya, Manager, Kendriya Bhandar, West Block, R.K. Puram stated that he has not brought the summoned record i.e. log book for the relevant period 20012002 as the same is not maintained in their office.

The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI despite opportunity being given.

38. It was requested that the six defence witnesses examined in connected case i.e. CC No.78/12 i.e. DW1 Sh. Subhash Chander, Sh. P.D. Aggarwal, DW2 Sh. Malay Chandra Acharya, DW3 Sh. N.C. Sood, DW4 Sh. Sayed Sarfaraz Ahmed and DW 5 Sh. Bhikaram Singh, be also read along with the above mentioned three defence witnesses examined in the present case. The same defence evidence is as under :

39. DW1 Sh. Subhash Chander, stated that in the year 20012002 he was working as Section Officer, National Physical Laboratory in Pusa Institute, New Delhi. At that time there were two gates of their complex which were manned by security guards. The officials working in the Laboratory, if they are entering the office in normal working hours, will not make any entry at the gate but if they were C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 53 / 82 coming late, the entries were to be made along with their signatures in the register kept at the gate. If any official was to leave the office either for official work or for personal work, he had to make an entry in the register at the time of leaving the office and while coming back again to the office.

He also stated that in case any vehicle, except that of NPL had to enter the office complex, an entry was to be made at the gate register. In case any official vehicle was to be assigned duty to transport any articles/ stationery etc., the driver was to make entries in the log book and to be signed by the official concerned.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that he had never done any duty at the gate of NPL as it was not his job. He also stated that he cannot comment as to whether the procedure described by him in his examinationinchief regarding making entries at the gate was properly followed or violated. He stated that he has not handled any office file related to the present case against accused V.K. Gupta but since he was working in the said office, it was in his knowledge that a case was registered against him.

40. DW Sh. P.D. Aggarwal was inadvertently examined as DW1. He stated that he has retired from National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi in the year 2001 as Deputy Store Officer. An authority letter used to be prepared in the name of the person so deputed to purchase articles from Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of National Physical Laboratory. Whenever an authority letter was prepared, he C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 54 / 82 used to sign the same. He further identified his signatures on letter Ex.PW22/C. However, he stated that he does not know whether the said letter was sent to Kendriya Bhandar or not since it was not part of his duty to send it to Kendriya Bhandar. It was the duty of the Purchase Department.

The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI despite opportunity being given.

41. DW2 Sh. Malay Chandra Achraya, stated that in the year 20012002 he was posted as InCharge of Section NO. 2, Kendriya Bhandar, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. He stated that there was a procedure of issuing articles to the government offices on credit basis. A purchase order was to be submitted by the government department which should have been signed by indenting authority whose signatures were already available with Kendriya Bhandar. The name of the said indenting officer was also available in the computer system and the said name could be verified by any dealing hand at Kendriya Bhandar. However, the signatures of indenting officer were not available in scanned form in the said computers. He stated that in general, the material was to be issued to the government departments on the basis of the pass books issued to the said departments and relevant entries were made therein. The purchase orders were received from the governments departments either by representatives of the government departments or by post also. The signatures of the representatives of the government departments were attested by the indenting authority in most of the cases. If the quantity of the articles ordered was heavy, C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 55 / 82 some times the deliveries were also made in the vehicles of Kendriya Bhandar. The driver of the said vehicle used to carry copy of the bill with him at the time of delivery in case the order was received by post along with telephonic confirmation by the department and it was the duty of the driver to get a proper receipt of the articles so delivered. In other cases where the representatives had personally come to Kendriya Bhandar, the bills were prepared and receipt was taken from the representatives and later on the goods were to be sent in the vehicle of the Kendriya Bhandar.

He further stated that he was asked to bring some of the original undisputed purchase orders related to NPL but on inquiry it was told by the officials at Kendriya Bhandar that originals of these purchase orders were submitted to CBI and photocopies of the same were handed over to him which he had submitted in the Court as Mark X collectively running in 96 sheets.

On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that it was in his knowledge that charges has been framed against accused V.K. Gupta for which he is facing trial. He also stated that as per his knowledge gathered in his office, the Kendriya Bhandar had supplied goods to NPL for which payment was not received and thereafter, a letter was written by Kendriya Bhandar to NPL reminding about the payment and in response thereto NPL had informed that the goods were not received by them hence the present case was filed. He sated that he it is not in his knowledge whether on the purchase orders placed by NPL on Kendriya Bhandar, accused V.K. Gupta had forged signatures on the purchase C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 56 / 82 orders of the purchase officer but in most of the cases V.K. Gupta had received the material after signing in token thereof. As per practice if a person who has come with the purchase order request for sending the articles purchased by him through a vehicle of Kendriya Bhandar, only then the goods are sent in their vehicle. In case no request is made by person concerned, there is no question of sending the goods in Kendriya Bhandar's vehicle.

He also stated that in case any department wants to buy articles from Kendriya Bhandar on credit, a passbook is issued to the said department. As and when any person comes to Kendriya Bhandar to purchase articles on credit, on most of the occasions he will be carrying the said passbook with him. After seeing the bills Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/76 he stated that it appears that all these bills bear signatures of accused V.K. Gupta in token of receipt of articles. He also stated that after seeing these bills it cannot be stated as to which of the articles were sent by their vehicle and which of the articles were sent by their vehicle and which of the articles were taken by the accused himself in his own transport. He admitted that scanned copy of the signatures of the authorized purchase officer of the department is not maintained in the computer system of Kendriya Bhandar. He stated that he has no personal knowledge about 96 copies of the purchase orders marked X. He stated in his examinationinchief that these were undisputed purchase orders of NPL on the basis of the information supplied to him by officials of Kendriya Bhandar. He correctly identified accused V.K. Gupta who used to visit C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 57 / 82 Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL as authorized representative.

42. DW3 Sh. N.C. Sood, Retired GEQD, stated that he has received training in hand writing identification, detection of forgery and other allied subjects in the government of India Laboratory, Shimla.

He stated that in the present case certain documents were received from the office of Controller of Administration, National Physical Laboratory, CSIR, New Delhi on 18.11.2004 (Ex.PW4/DA) requesting for verification and handwriting on certain documents. The said documents were given a unique number i.e. CX450/2004. After perusal of the documents it was found that questioned documents were photocopies only so they had requested for originals of the same. He further stated that at the same time they had also requested NPL to send admitted handwriting of Sh. Brijesh Sharma in English for comparison purposes as the earlier admitted samples were in Hindi. He stated that they had also requested NPL to send samples of some admitted writing of accused V.K. Gupta for the purpose of comparison. He stated that with these observations they had returned the documents to NPL vide letter dated 11.12.2004 Ex.PW4/DB. He stated that the letter bears his signatures. He further stated that no response was received from NPL to their request and thereafter the file was closed. He stated that it is not in his knowledge whether any other expert from GEQD, Shimla had given his opinion om this case or not.

Ld. Senior PP for CBI did not cross examine this C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 58 / 82 witness despite opportunity being given.

43. DW4 Sh. Sayed Sarfaraz Ahmed, stated that he has been a qualified handwriting expert and in the present case he has examined and has given detailed report dated 30.7.2012 Ex.DW4/X and 99 photographs and 99 negatives Ex.DW4/Y. On being cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI he stated that he has his own laboratory which is situated at his residence. He stated that he has undergone training at Institute of Forensic Science, Arrah, Bihar. He stated that he has never visited any Laboratory/GEQD. He further stated that he has examined documents of this case at the instance of accused V.K. Gupta and his Counsel and has charged his professional fees. He stated that the facts of this case are not in his knowledge. He has gone through the file only with the purpose of examination of the documents. He had seen copy of the GEQD opinion in this case at the time of inspection of file and he had gone through the same. He stated that the opinion expressed by GEQD in his report Ex.PW7/163 and his opinion contained in his report Ex. DW4/X are different.

44. DW5 Sh. Bhikaram Singh, stated that as per para no. 4 of affidavit filed by CW1 Sh. T.V. Joshua Ex. CW1/B, no register was maintained showing entry or exit of the staff members during the year 2001 and even thereafter. The concerned officials going out for official or personal work used to obtain written permission slips from their departments heads and those slips were to be handed over to C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 59 / 82 the security guard at the gate. Thereafter, the said slips were transferred by security officer to the general section of NPL. After the introduction of time keeping machines in the year 2009, this practice was discontinued. Those slips were maintained for a couple of years, 2009, this practice was discontinued. Those slips were maintained for s couple of years and thereafter, weeded out. It is not in his knowledge whether any record of those slips or approval of their sections was kept in the office or not.

This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Senior PP for CBI despite opportunity being given.

45. Defence Evidence was closed thereafter.

46. Final arguments were heard on behalf of Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have heard arguments at bar and have carefully gone through the case file.

47. Let me test the testimony of all the witnesses along with the relevant case law and the law under which accused has been charged by dealing with the contentions of the Ld. Senior PP for CBI, Sh. Akshay Gautam and the Ld. Defence Counsel, Sh. Satish Tamta.

48. Let me now go through the relevant sections of law under which accused has been charged.

49. Section 13 of the Act provides as under:

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 60 / 82 "(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, ..........................................

.............................................................. .............................................................. ........ (d) if he - (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest ............................ "

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven year and shall also be liable to fine."

50. Section 15 of P.C. Act punishes attempt to commit offences and provide that :

"Whoever attempts to commit an offence referred to in clause C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 61 / 82

(c) or clause (d) of subsection (1) of Section 13 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."

51. Section 417 of IPC provides :

"Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."

52. Section 420 of IPC provides :

"Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

53. Section 467 of IPC provides :

"Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 62 / 82 authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance of receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

54. Section 471 of IPC provides :

"Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record) which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged (document or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such (document or electronic record)."

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 63 / 82

55. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that as per the statement of PW Sh. B.A. Vaid, Handwriting Expert, he had asked for being provided with more specimen signatures and handwriting in Hindi which had not been provided by CBI and therefore, CBI has failed to prove that signatures on the bills pertain to the accused.

Ld. Senior PP for CBI, on the other hand, states that as far as signatures of accused in Hindi are concerned, most of the bills have been signed by accused in English and as far as opinion of the Expert regarding his signatures in English are concerned, he has given a positive opinion that they are of accused V.K. Gupta. Therefore, there was no need to prove further specimen handwriting and signatures of accused in Hindi.

I, after hearing the Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. Senior PP for CBI, find force in this contention of the Ld. Senior PP for CBI. I have gone through the bills in question filed on record. On the bills where the signatures of the accused appear in English, the report of the handwriting expert has supported the claim of prosecution that these signatures in English pertain to accused V.K. Gupta and also support the claim that signatures of PW Sh. Brijesh Sharma have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta. When the testimony of the handwriting expert is read with testimony of PW Sh. Brijesh Sharma, the complainant, who has also stated in his examinationinchief that the signatures on the bills are of accused V.K. Gupta, and on purchase orders also the signatures are not his but have been forged, I reach opinion C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 64 / 82 that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the signatures appearing on the bills vide which the stock had been taken by the accused from Kendriya Bhandar are of accused V.K. Gupta only.

PW Brijesh Sharma has also clearly mentioned in his testimony that the signatures appearing on the purchase orders allegedly of Brijesh Kumar Sharma, are actually not his signatures but have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta and appear to be in his handwriting. The handwriting expert in his report has also stated that the signatures of Brijesh Kumar Sharma which appear on the purchase orders have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta. He has specified that upon perusal and comparison with his specimen handwriting and signatures it is proved that they are not of Brijesh Kumar Sharma but have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta. This opinion has been given by the expert after examining the specimen signatures of V.K. Gupta and Brijesh Kumar Sharma with the questioned signatures.

Therefore, in my opinion the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma on the purchase orders have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta.

56. There are few bills upon which the signatures of the accused appear in Hindi. The Ld. Counsel states that the prosecution has not been able to prove the signature of accused on these bills, since the handwriting expert has not given his opinion on the signatures appearing in Hindi due to nonreceipt of further handwriting and signatures of accused C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 65 / 82 in Hindi.

I do not agree with this contention of the Ld. Counsel since on the connected purchase orders qua which the bills on which the signatures appear in Hindi, the handwriting expert opinion has proved that on the purchase orders the signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta as signatures on the connected purchase orders of Sh. Brijesh Sharma are in English, which have been proved to have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta.

57. PW Ms. Nirmal Gupta has clearly mentioned in her testimony after identifying accused V.K. Gupta correctly in the Court that accused V.K. Gupta is the same person who used to receive the stock from Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL and used to show the passbook issued to NPL by Kendriya Bhandar. It is thus clear from her testimony that accused V.K. Gupta had forged the signatures of the complainant i.e. Sh. Brijesh Sharma on the Purchase orders and had received the stock against the same causing undue loss to NPL after abusing his official position in NPL as Assistant (S&P) Grade - I. DW2 Sh. Malay Chandra Acharya has also stated in his testimony that accused V.K. Gupa used to come to Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL as authorized officer after correctly identifying him in the Court.

58. PW Ms. Nirmal Gupta has stated in her testimony that she being Manager, Officer InCharge, Kendriya Bhandar used to obtain the signatures of the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 66 / 82 authorized persons of NPL on the bills and she has identified accused V.K. Gupta in the Court correctly and stated that he is the same person who had signed the bills on behalf of NPL in token of having received the material on behalf of NPL in her presence. She has further supported the case of prosecution by stating that the signatures appearing on the bills are of accused V.K. Gupta and it was accused V.K. Gupta only who had brought the indents on behalf of NPL and had received the materials against the bills. She clarified during her cross examination that she could not identify his signatures during her examinationinchief but after seeing the accused in the Court, she had recollected his signatures. She stated that she had compared the signatures of the accused with the passbook also being the authorized official on behalf of NPL who could receive the material on behalf of NPL.

59. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also stated that the Defence Witnesses have stated that they had not seen accused Vijay Kumar Gupta bringing the material from Kendriya Bhandar in official vehicle. He also states that the material could be brought from Kendriya Bhandar by anyone else also on behalf of accused and therefore, prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had received material against forged purchase orders from Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL by abusing his official position and by fraud.

60. I, however do not agree with this contention since the testimony of PW Sh. H.K. Verma shows that he has stated in his testimony that he was Technical Officer, NPL in C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 67 / 82 R & D Section and his duties included receiving and dispatching goods which were to reach there against purchase orders supplied by different suppliers and an entry is made in the Daily Receipt Register in this regard. However, qua the receiving of the goods as mentioned in the bills in question by accused Vijay Kumar Gupta, there is no entry in the Daily Receipt Register or in any other corresponding record maintained by NPL.

Therefore, when the testimony of PW H.K Verma is read along with testimony of PW Ms. Nirmal Gupta, it becomes clear that accused V.K. Gupta had received the stock mentioned in the bills in question from Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL on the strength of forged purchase orders since the goods so received by accused V.K. Gupta were never received by NPL as they do not find mention either in the Daily Receipt Register or in any corresponding record such as Stock Register etc. where as it is mandatory to make receipt entry of any goods received by NPL after being bought from any agency including Kendriya Bhandar.

61. Ld. Counsel for accused also states that if the accused had brought goods from Kendriya Bhandar on the respective dates against the bills in question, there should have been entry in the log book of the vehicle in which he would have brought the goods to NPL.

I, however, do not agree with this contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel since PW Harish Chander Bhatt (examined in other connected cases) has stated in his testimony that when the order used to be in bulk the vehicle C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 68 / 82 of Kendriya Bhandar used to deliver the goods to the respective departments, otherwise when the materials used to be in small quantity, the delivery used to be made on the Counter itself to the authorized official. It is thus clear that it is not essential that the goods which were brought by accused from Kendriya Bhandar on behalf of NPL should have been brought by the official vehicle, thereby necessitating an entry in the log book since a perusal of the bills shows that the goods have not been taken in bulk from Kendriya Bhandar by accused V.K. Gupta, but were in small quantity which could have been taken on the Counter itself by the accused. In any case, if the accused was taking the goods as alleged against forged purchase orders, why will he send them by official vehicle as it would have brought it to the notice of the NPL authorities that he was getting goods from Kendriya Bhandar and their entries were not being made in the relevant registers.

62. The Ld. counsel for the accused also states that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt since many witnesses have stated that the signatures on the bills seem to be of the accused V.K. Gupta but they are not sure about it and moreover it could not be proved that it was accused only who had received the goods and qua all the bills in question some other official may have received the stock on his behalf. Though, I have already dealt with this contention partially regarding identification of the signatures by a nonexpert, however, to deal with the present contention of the Ld. counsel for the accused, it will be relevant to refer to Section C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 69 / 82 15 of the Indian Evidence Act as has been submitted by Ld. Senior PP for CBI.

63. I have gone through Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act. The section reads as under : "When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, [or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant."

64. After going through Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act and after hearing Ld. Senior PP for CBI I am of the opinion that the act of the accused was not a single isolated incident of forgery, abuse of position, cheating and use of forged documents known to be forged so as to justify the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused. Rather it was a continuous chain and series of similar overt acts which were done by the accused with a particular knowledge and intention that he was indulging in acts of forgery, abuse of position, cheating and use of forged documents known to be forged and thus they are squarely covered under Section 15 of the Indian Evidence Act and is thus relevant and cannot be lost sight of. It is impossible to presume or hold that qua all the purchase orders or bills someone else had signed or received goods as Vijay Kumar Gupta, especially when the C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 70 / 82 report of handwriting expert is against accused.

65. The Ld. counsel also states that the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of handwriting expert.

The Ld. Senior PP for the CBI, however, states that the testimony of the handwriting expert is duly corroborated by the independent Official witnesses of NPL and Kendriya Bhandar and therefore, this contention be rejected.

I do agree with this contention of the Ld. Senior PP for CBI. The testimony of the handwriting expert is corroborated by testimony of PW1 i.e. the complainant Sh. Brijesh Sharma and PW Ms. Nirmal Gupta as well as many other witnesses, and it becomes a substantive piece of evidence. The testimony of the witnesses mentioned above could not be shaken during their crossexamination. It has also not come on record that these witnesses had any grudge against the accused to depose falsely against him. Thus the only piece of evidence against accused is not the sole testimony of Handwriting Expert but supportive testimony of Independent witnesses of Prosecution strengths the testimony of Handwriting Expert.

66. A perusal of the testimony of the defence witnesses shows that they have not stated any fact which could disprove the case of prosecution nor they have stated any fact which can throw veil of doubt on the prosecution case as to entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 71 / 82

67. The Ld. Defence Counsel has also submitted that the witnesses who have deposed against the accused have deposed under the pressure of CBI and are interested witnesses.

The Ld. Senior PP for CBI, however, states that none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has been shown to be either the stock witness or a witness who frequently and generally associates with CBI and therefore, it cannot be stated that the witnesses who have deposed against the accused have deposed under pressure of CBI and therefore, their testimony be discarded.

I have heard the Ld. Senior PP for CBI as well the Ld. Defence Counsel and have also gone through the relevant case law. After going through the same I am of the opinion that nothing has been brought on record which can discredit the integrity of the witnesses examined as independent witnesses. There is no material on record to suggest that the witnesses frequently associate with CBI as witnesses or are otherwise under pressure of CBI. Unless there is specific material against witnesses they cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses or not independent of the prosecution. There is no material on the judicial record to impeach their credit as independent witnesses. In law, every witness is deemed to be independent unless proved otherwise.

Further the accused has not lead any evidence to bring on record that the witnesses examined are inimical to him and have therefore, deposed falsely with a motive.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 72 / 82

68. The Ld. Counsel also states that there are discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses which make the prosecution case doubtful and therefore, the accused be given benefit of doubt on that account. He states that even otherwise the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but in the present case the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden.

The Ld. Senior PP on the other hand has stated that discrepancies if any in the statements of the witnesses are minor in nature and therefore, do not entitle the accused to benefit of doubt.

69. I have heard arguments on this aspect addressed by the Ld. Senior PP as well as the Ld. Defence Counsel and after going though their arguments as well as the testimony of the material witnesses I do not find any discrepancy which either discredits the substantial testimony of the material witnesses and goes to the root of the charged offence or makes the case of prosecution doubtful.

70. As observed in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and Anr. {1981 (2) SCC 752}, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however, honest and C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 73 / 82 truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."

71. Accused has lead defence evidence, however, none of the witnesses who have been examined, have deposed that the signatures appearing on the bills/ purchase orders are not of accused V.K. Gupta. Even otherwise, no ordinary person, who is not a Handwriting Expert, can comment positively upon the fact as to whether the signatures on a document are of a particular person or not. This is to be proved by a handwriting expert. The prosecution has proved the handwriting expert's report which has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the signatures of Sh. Brijesh Sharma on the purchase orders have been forged by accused V.K. Gupta and accused V.K. Gupta's signatures appear on the bills vide which stock had been received from Kendriya Bhandar and the witnesses from Kendriya Bhandar have correctly identified accused Vijay Kumar Gupta to be the person who used to receive the stock on behalf of NPL and therefore, he is guilty of the charged offences.

72. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that while C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 74 / 82 working as a public servant, i.e. as Assistant (S&P) Grade - I in Central Stores of National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi during the period 200102 abused his official position as public servant and obtained stores amounting to Rs. 1,31,362/ from the Kendriya Bhandar Stationary Division, R.K. Puram, New Delhi in the name of National Physical Laboratory by submitting forged purchase orders and thereby cheated the Kendriya Bhandar to the tune of Rs.1,31,362/.

73. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under Section Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

74. Before I part with this judgment, I want to place on record my appreciation for Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP for CBI and Sh. Satish Tamta, Ld. Defence Counsel for cooperating and making it possible to conclude evidence in a short span of about eight months.

75. To come up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 17.5.2013 at 2:00 pm. Announced in the open court on 14th Day of May, 2013.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 14.05.2013 C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 75 / 82 IN THE COURT OF MS. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI05, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.



CC No. :   82/12

FIR no.  :  RC11(A)/2005

Unique Case ID no. : 02403R0062512012

Title :     State (CBI)
                       Vs.

     1. Vijay Kumar Gupta
        S/o Late Sh. K.L. Gupta
        R/o 9D/7, NPL Colony, 
        New Rajinder Nagar,
        New Delhi110060.

U/s : Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of P.C. Act 1988 (Appearances) Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior P.P. for CBI.

Sh. Satish Tamta, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for accused Vijay Kumar Gupta along with accused.

18.5.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE.

1. Vide my separate judgment dated 14.5.2013, accused V.K. Gupta has been convicted.

2. I have heard arguments on point of sentence at bar and have carefully gone through the case file.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 76 / 82

3. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that accused has suffered great mental agony because of this case. It is pointed out that accused is sixty years of age and has two unmarried children. It is also stated that accused is suffering from various serious ailments and his wife is also suffering from multiple medical complications. It is therefore, stated that a lenient view may kindly be taken.

4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. PP that accused has committed a series of acts of forgery and frauds and has misused his official position for causing undue loss to the Government of India and undue gain to himself. It is submitted that he may be punished severely.

5. After hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that while dealing with the question of sentence, in an authority reported as State of UP Vs. Sattan @ Satyendra and Others 2009 III AD (SC) 492 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 14, as under:

"Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle, and in spite of errant notions, it remains a strong influence in the determination of sentences. The practice of punishing all serious crimes with equal severity is now unknown in civilized societies, but such a radical departure from the principle of proportionality has C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 77 / 82 disappeared from the law only in recent times. Even now for a single grave infraction drastic sentences are imposed. Anything less than a penalty of greatest severity for any serious crime is thought then to be a measure of toleration that is unwarranted and unwise. But, in fact, quite apart from those considerations that make punishment unjustifiable when it is out of proportion to the crime, uniformly disproportionate punishment has some very undesirable practical consequences."

6. Similarly, in a recent authority reported as Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2009II AD (SC) 589, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under: (7) "Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public servants is on the increase. Large scale corruption retards the nation building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 78 / 82 politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post".

(8) "Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the custodial sentences of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet the ends of justice".

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel, the accused is sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 ½ years under Section 420 IPC along with fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of which to Rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

8. I also sentence the accused to Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years under Section 467 IPC along with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 79 / 82

9. I also sentence the accused to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 ½ years under Section 468 IPC along with fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days.

10. I also sentence the accused to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 ½ years under Section 471 IPC along with fine of Rs. 10,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for One Month.

11. I also sentence the accused to Rigorous Imprisonment for two years under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act along with fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of which to Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

12. All the sentences shall run concurrently as they arise from the same transaction of offence.

13. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the accused as per law.

14. Bail Bond of accused is hereby cancelled and his surety stands discharged. The documents, if any, of the surety be returned against proper receipt after getting the endorsement, if any, cancelled.

15. Documents seized in the case be returned to the concerned Department on proper receipt by the IO after the time of filing of appeal is over.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 80 / 82

16. Fine of Rs.10,000/ has been deposited by the accused. He states that he is not able to arrange funds and seeks a weeks time to deposit the remaining amount of fine imposed. At his request, a weeks time is granted to deposit the remaining fine amount. Let the same be deposited on 24.5.2013.

17. At this stage, an application u/s. 389 Cr.P.C. is moved by Sh. Sh. Satish Tamta, Ld. Counsel for Accused. Copy supplied to Sh. Akshay Gautam, Ld. Senior PP.

18. Heard on the application moved. It is stated that applicant/accused would be preferring an appeal against the judgment of this court and it is requested that order on sentence may be suspended and the accused may be granted bail till filing of appeal.

19. Considering the fact that he has been regularly appearing during the trial, the application is allowed and sentence is suspended till 16.7.2013 subject to the applicant/accused V.K.Gupta furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bonds are furnished and accepted.

20. Copy of the judgment and order be given to the accused free of cost immediately.

21. File be consigned to Record Room.

C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 81 / 82 Announced in the open court on 18th May, 2013.

(SWARANA KANTA SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI05), NEW DELHI/ 18.5.2013 C.C. NO. 82/12 State (CBI) Vs. Vijay Kumar Gupta Page no. 82 / 82

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Vide My Separate Judgment Dated ... vs . on 14 May, 2013