Cbi vs Charan Singh & Another on 22 December, 2012

[Cites 43, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Charan Singh & Another on 22 December, 2012

                                                1

IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU MALHOTRA, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI(06), PC 

                               ACT, TIS HAZARI, DELHI. 

CBI Vs Charan Singh & Another
RC No. 41(A)/96/CBI/ACB.
CC No. 26/12.

Judgment:

                 This judgment shall dispose of the allegations levelled qua the charges 

framed   against   the   accused   Charan  Singh   S/o   Fateh   Singh,   Phone  Inspector   and 

Incharge of Section 22 MTNL New Delhi, a public servant during the period 1994 to 

1996 alleged to be in conspiracy with the co accused Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin 

S/o   Hafiz   Mohd.,   a   proclaimed   offender,   of   the   alleged   commission   of   offences 

punishable under section 419, 420, 468, 471 IPC 1860 read with Section 120 B of 

the   IPC  read with  Section  13(1)(d) read with  section  13(2) of the  Prevention  of 

Corruption Act 1988, as levelled in the charge sheet in RC No. 41(A)96/DLI dated 

15.05.1996, instituted on 01.06.1998 in Court.  

                 A perusal of the charge sheet indicates that the FIR was registered in 

this case on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the CBI on receipt of order dated 

14.03.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 998 of 1996 on a 

petition filed by Smt. Sudesh Vig W/o Shri Amarnath Vig against the respondents,

arrayed therein the Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India; the MTNL; the Accounts Officer of the MTNL and Shri Charan Singh JE of the MTNL Idgah Exchange, Delhi (the accused no.1 in this case before this Court). (Vide order dated 14.03.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi it was observed that the petitioner therein i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig had sought quashing of three bills and had submitted that she had applied to the MTNL for 2 installation of a telephone at her residence namely 11302, Gaushala Marg, Chowk, Tibia College, New Delhi and had received the requisite sanction for the same vide OB No. 3557108 dated 27.10.1994 but as she did not want to avail of the said facility, she decided to surrender the same and that Shri Charan Singh JE (the accused in the instant case and respondent No. 4 in that petition) approached her and told her that if she was not interested in getting the telephone installed at her residence she could transfer the same in favour of another person and that she agreed to the proposal and was given Rs. 1,000/ by Charan Singh (i.e. the accused herein ) in the amount which she had deposited with the MTNL for the new connection. It has further been submitted by the petitioner of that Writ Petition i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig, that the accused herein Mr. Charan Singh obtained her signatures on blank papers by representing that the same would be required for transfer of the telephone to the intending subscriber. As put forth before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, on January 29, 1996, the petitioner is said to have been informed by one Shri Y.D. Sharma of the MTNL that the telephone sanctioned in her favour had been installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - premises belonging to one Saifuddin (i.e. the coaccused No. 2 herein). It was not disputed before the Hon'ble High Court that the petitioner had received a notice for nonpayment of bills in respect of telephone No. 3557108, according to which the petitioner Smt. Sudesh Vig was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,77,105/ to MNTL. According to Smt. Sudesh Vig, she did not know Saifuddin (i.e. the coaccused No. 2 herein) and had appended her signatures on blank papers at the instance of Charan Singh, the accused No. 1 herein. It was also alleged in that petition that the petitioner had no connection with Saifuddin or premises No. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, i.e. the 3 premises belonging to one Saifuddin.

The learned counsel for the respondent MTNL admitted in that petition that the telephone No. 3557108 had been installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and produced before the Hon'ble High Court a file bearing No. ID/NG/50492 containing certain documents, and this file also contained two applications dated 19th July, 1995 (marked X & Y) addressed to the Divisional Engineer (Phones), which were shown to the petitioner, Smt. Sudesh Vig who was present in person. While admitting her signatures on the applications (marked X and Y), she stated that her signatures were obtained by Charan Singh on blank papers. It was observed by the Hon'ble High Court, the petitioner i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig appears to be a simple lady and it was possible that she may have walked into a trap.

As observed vide order dated 14.03.1996 in CWP No. 998 of 1996 it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that a bill in respect of telephone No. 3557109 appeared to have been issued in the name of Mohd. Sarfuddin, 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to the tune of more than Rs. 5,72,000/, and it appeared that this telephone was being used for making outstation and overseas calls.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed further that the questions which arose for consideration were:

(1) whether fraud has been committed in the matter of installation of telephone No. 3557108 at 10756, Manak Pura Karol Bagh, New Delhi? If so, by whom? (2) Whether there has been misuser of telephone No. 3557108? If so, by whom?

and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed further vide order dated 14.03.1996 that since the matter was of a serious nature it be investigated by the CBI which was directed to complete the inquiry at an early date, preferably within two months. The 4 report of the CBI was submitted and a copy of the said report was submitted by the CBI on 26.09.2012 on being directed by the Court, which report was to the effect:

"That scrutiny of the file received from the Delhi High Court was carried out and necessary enquiries/verification were made to ascertain whether any fraud had been committed in the installation of telephone No. 3557108, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said Shri Charan Singh, JE, is actually working as Phone Inspector (P.I.) at Idgah Telephone Exchange. The initial OB No. 56051037758, dated 271094, was issued in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig, 11302, Chowk Tibbia College, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The connection was STDbarred. On perusal of the red copy of this OB, it transpired that the address has been changed as 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the status of the telephone had been changed from STDbarred to with STD.

c) The alleged blank papers on which Shri Charan Singh had obtained signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig, marked X & Y, were used for preparing

i) typed application for the purpose of change of address, and,

ii) application for the purpose of provision of STD and ISD facility.

d) In application form No. 680412, which was deposited with MTNL by Smt. Sudesh Vig for registration of the new telephone connection, she had applied for STD facility.

e) That scrutiny of records of Idgah Telephone Exchange shows that Shri Charan Singh, who had been working as Phone Inspector of Section22 under which the areas of Gaushala Marg, and Manak Pura fall, obtained approval for change of address against OB No. 56051046030, dt. 160695, issued in the name of Mohd.

Sarfuddin, 8127, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 2, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and 5 against OB No. 56051037758, dt. 271094 issued in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig, 11302, Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Approval for both was obtained on the same day, i.e. 21.7.95, and the changed address in both the above mentioned OBs was the same, that is, 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

f) From the perusal of applications for the purpose of change of address and provision of STD/ISD against the above mentioned OB Nos., it appears that all the four applications have been typed out at the same time and place, on the same type writer.

g) That on perusal of the Idgah Telephone Exchange records, it is revealed that jumper letter Nos. 307 & 308 were issued by Sh. Charan Singh, PI, against the above mentioned OB Nos. in the name of Mohd. Sarfuddin and Smt. Sudesh Vig giving their address at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on 22.7.95. It is also revealed that Mohd. Sarfuddin, 8127, Chimni Mill, Gali No. 2, 3 rd Floor, Baya Hindu Rao, Delhi6, registered for a new telephone connection vide application No. 063290, dt. 28495, and this connection was released vide OB No. 56051046030. dt. 16695. This application also indicates that Shri Mohd. Sarfuddin had applied for STD facility. The change of address and provision of STD/STD facility has been made in red copy of OB by Shri. Charan Singh, JE/PI.

h) That Sh. Charan Singh, Phone Inspector (P.I) had been instrumental in the installation of telephone No. 3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig, and 3557109 in the name of Sh. Moh.d Sarfuddin at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, by completing the office formalities, including verification of bonafides of the above mentioned registerants as residents of 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where they had not been physically residing. He obtained approval, for change of 6 address on the basis of the bogus verification reports.

i) That Annexure "A" obtained by Shri Charan Singh under the signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig showing that she had been staying at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, seems to be forged because Smt. Sudesh Vig had never resided at the above address.

j) That it was also found that no person in the name of Shri Sarfuddin had been residing at 8127, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 2, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi.

k) That it was also found that someone had rented a small room on the 1st Floor of 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in the name of Sarfuddin, and had left the premises in Jan. 1996.

That the above facts and circumstances, primafacie disclose commission of offences of cheating and forgery for the installation telephone No. 3557108 at the changed address, 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, by Shri Charan Singh in collusion with Sh. Sarfuddin and others. Hence, regular case No. 41(A)/96 was registered and investigation is being carried out by the CBI.

During the investigation, raids were conducted at the following premises:

1) Residence of Shri Charan Singh at J20/4, Gali No. 5, Kartar Nagar, Shahdra, Delhi.

2) Residence of Sarfuddin at House No. 8127, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 2, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, and

iii) 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

That during the raid at the house of Shri Charan Singh, the following incriminating documents were recovered: 7 Annexure'A' duly signed by various registrants, blank Annexure Form 'A', transfer application forms, etc. showing that he was undertaking shifting/installation of phones in private capacity.

That during the search at 8127, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 2 Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, it was found that no person in the name of Shri Sarfuddin had been residing at this address. Shri S.M. Julfikar has been residing there since 1981.

That during the raid at the actual address where the telephone Nos. 3557108 & 3557109 were shown as functioning at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, it was found that a small room exists on the 1st Floor of the house. The land lord, Shri Uma Shankar Bhatnagar, has been residing in seperate premises bearing the same address. He informed that he had rented out the small room to one Shri Sarfuddin during July, 1995, but Shri Sarfuddin had left in Jan. 1996. He was not aware of his present whereabouts. However, he gave a clue that some of the relatives and acquaintances of Shri Sarfuddin are still residing in the Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi. On this clue Smt. Zarrina Khatoom, Mother of one Arshad Hussain was located and contacted at L36A. Loco Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. It was found that Shri Arshad Hussain and Sarfuddin are one and the same person.

That search of the residence of Smt. Khatoon was conducted and the following documents were recovered: Learner's Licence Form of Qamar Jamil, Ration Card, Blank Application Form for a telephone connection, photo identity cards, applications, photocopies of application forms for two telephone connections at RZA64, Jeevan 8 Park, Pankha Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, in the name of Shri Qamar Jamil under OYT category with photocopies of two bank drafts of Rs. 15,000/ each etc. Photograph of Shri Arsad Hussain duly fixed on learner's licence form in the name of Qamar Jamil was also recovered. This photograph was identified by Smt. Zarina Khatoom as being that of Arshad Hussain alias Sarfuddin. Local verification further confirmed that Shri Sarfuddin was none other than Shri Arsad Hussain, S/o Samsuzzoha, native of Raj Malmal Village, Distt. Madhubani, Bihar, and had been living at Delhi with his mother.

That during the searches, technical verification was got done by the MTNL staff to confirm whether telephone Nos. 3557108 & 3557109 had been installed at the small room of 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, as at the time of the search of this room, no telephone instrument could be recovered and no drop wire was found in that room. The technical report of MTNL shows that the drop wire had been removed from the D.P. pair and the numbers existed upto pillar No. ID 496. This confirmed that both the numbers had been connected from this pillar.

That during the investigation the regular mazdoor(RM), Shri Paras Ram, who had installed telephone Nos. 3557108 & 3557109, at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was also examined. He confirmed that these telephone Nos. were actually installed as per the orders of Shri Charan Singh, PI, who had given the particulars of these two telephones Nos. on a paper slip to him. Shri Paras Ram, R.M. produced the paper slip bearing OB Nos., names of the registrants, telephone Nos. and the changed address for these two telephones. He also informed that the drop wire of these two telephones had been removed by him as per the orders of Shri 9 Charan Singh around the month of Jan./Feb. 1996.

That Shri Charan Singh, PI, Idgah Telephone Exchange, Delhi was arrested and remanded and was later granted bail by the Court.

That vigorous efforts are underway to locate Shri Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin. During the investigation so far, Shri Sarfuddin has been evading arrest. Sources have been set up in the localities known to be frequented by him. Cooperation of neighbours and others from his native village, Raj Malmal, (Bihar) who are residing mostly in the Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, has been enlisted. Raids have been conducted at various places as and when credible information has been received, SP, CBI, Patna, has also been requested to locate him in Bihar through his relatives at Malmal Village, and other addresses communicated to him.

That the Supdt. of Police, CBI, Patna was also requested to locate him through his relatives at Malmal Village in Bihar. After conducting investigation, SP, CBI, Patna, informed that neither the accused Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin nor any other member of his family has been residing in village Raj Malmal. It has also been informed by SP, CBI, Patna that in the village of the mother of the accused, Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin. There is no movable and immovable property in his name.

That during investigation, records were collected from Idgah Telephone Exchange and the concerned officers were examined. During investigation, it is revealed that the application for the change of address in respect of OB No. 56051046030, dt. 16695, of Shri Sarfuddin were initiated by Charan Singh, P.I. and were recommended by SDO(P) and sanctioned by DET stating that 10 the change of address was approved subject to verification of the bonafides of the residents. Shri Charan Singh, P.I., got installed two telephones i.e. 3557108 & 3557109 at the same address, i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in a small room in the name of two different persons without verifying/reporting the correct bonafides.

That since efforts made to trace the accused, Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin, could not succeed, N.B.W. against him was obtained. During the period, raids were conducted at the known hideouts of the accused, Sarfuddin. Fresh N.B.W. was again obtained but the accused could not be arrested despite best efforts. Search for the other accused continues.

That from the computer printout collected from MTNL, it transpired that outstation calls were made from Tel. No. 3557108 & 3557109. These calls were made mostly to Bangladesh or to the Eastern States of India. It has also emerged, during investigation, that the accused Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin is running a firm in the name and style of M/s. Roopali Trading Corporation in Chittagong (Bangladesh). There is every likelihood that the accused, Sarfuddin, might have crossed over to Bangladesh. A letter has been sent to the AD (Interpol), CBI, for further action in this regard. Efforts are being made to trace out other persons, whose name figure in the information supplied by the MTNL, and who booked calls to Bangladesh from Telephone No. 3557108 & 3557109."

Where after on 04.10.1996 it was informed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent MTNL that in view of the report submitted by the CBI, the impugned notice dated 26.02.1996 incorporating details of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig was being withdrawn and thus it was observed by the 11 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in view of this statement of the counsel for respondent No. 1, no further proceedings were necessary in the writ petition which was thus disposed of.

A perusal of the photocopy of the certified copy of the application for review, RA No. 73/96 in CWP No. 998/96 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi indicates that the respondent No. 4 therein that the accused No. 4 Charan Singh herein filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC whereby he sought review of the order dated 04.10.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi disposing the petition in view of the MTNL having withdrawn the notice issued to Smt. Sudesh Vig for recovery of dues and the accused Charan Singh submitted vide the said application that the inquiry alleged to have been made by the CBI was not within the knowledge of the applicant and that the applicant had not been associated with the inquiry and the applicant had been made a scape goat on the petitioner's statement that he had got some papers signed by her and that the petitioner i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig had made a false statement to escape the liability of over Rs. 17 lacs and thus the respondent No. 4 Charan Singh i.e. the accused No. 4 herein sought the restoration of the writ petition to its original number to rebut the allegations made against him. On 07.11.1996 however the respondent No. 4 i.e. Mr. Charan Singh through counsel withdrew the review application No. 73/1996 in Civil Writ 998 of 1996 which was thus dismissed and withdrawn.

It has been submitted through the charge sheet that Smt. Sudesh Vig w/o Shri Amar Nath r/o 11302, Gaushala Marg, Chowk Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi had applied for a new telephone connection which sanctioned vide OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 and that (the present accused Sh. Charan Singh 12 in the instant case) approached Smt. Sudesh Vig for installation for a new telephone connection at her address 11302 Gaushala Marg, Chowk Tibia, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and Sh. Charan Singh was working as phone Inspector (P.I.) Idgah Telephone Exchange, Delhi and was incharge of section 22 the area of chowk Tibia College and Manak Pura were under him. Shri Charan Singh, P.I., approached Smt. Sudesh Vig for installation of new connection where he was informed by Smt. Sudesh Vig that she wanted to surrender this new connection. Sh. Charan Singh told her that he will surrender her telephone and return her Rs.1,000/ which she deposited at the time of registration. Consequently, Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. returned her Rs.1,000/ to Smt. Sudesh Vig and obtained her signatures on two blank papers with the pretext that same will be required for transferring this connection to some other person Smt. Sudesh Vig, being slightly educated, could not understand the intention of Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. and gave her signatures on two blank papers. In January, 1996 she came to know that an amount of Rs.17,77,105/ was outstanding against the telephone no.3557108 installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in her name. As per the charge sheet it is alleged that Smt. Sudesh Vig never got installed telephone no. 3557108 at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

As per the averments in the chargesheet filed in January, 1996, Smt. Sudesh Vig was informed by the MTNL that telephone no. 3557108 was sanctioned in her name and installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and has an outstanding bill of Rs.17,77,105/ and that another telephone bearing no.3557108 sanctioned in her name against OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and telephone bearing no.3557109 sanctioned against OB NO. 56051046030 dated 13.06.1995 at Gali No.2, Chimni Mill Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi in 13 the name of Sarfuddin had been installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 24.07.1995 and that both these telephone connections were used for making STD/STD calls and that an unpaid amount of Rs.17,20,277/ remained to be paid with reference telephone no. 3557109 as well and thereby wrongful loss had been caused in this case.

Smt. Sudesh Vig thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein pursuant to order dated 14.03.1996, whereupon the present FIR was registered and the report submitted by the CBI in CWP 995/96 which has already been adverted to herein above.

As per the averments in the chargesheet before installation of these two connections the addresses of both registrants were transferred to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and facilities of STD/ISD were got allotted with the alleged connivance of Sh. Charan Singh,accused no. 1 with Sarfuddin accused no. 2 and on 24.07.1995 telephone NO.3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and telephone no. 3557109 in the name of Safuddin were installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in a small rented room. According to the CBI OB no. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 was received by Sh. Charan Singh, PI on 21.01.1995 and the same was kept pending till the OB No.56051046030 dated 13.06.1995 was received by Sh. Charan Singh, PI on 19.07.1995 and it is stated that OB No. 56051046030 in the name of Sarfuddin was received in section 24 of the Idgah Telephone Exchange because the area of Bada Hindu Rao, Delhi fell under section 24, but accused no. 1 Charan Singh allegedly got transferred this OB of Sh. Sarfuddin to his section and received the same personally from section 24 on 1.07.1995 but he entered this OB in his OB registration of section 22 on 18.7.1995. It 14 has also been alleged that Sh. Charan Singh, PI had already taken up the change of address application dated 18.07.1995 of Sarfuddin where as the OB of Sarfuddin was received by Charan Singh on 19.07.1995 and Sh. Charan Singh moved an application for change of address of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sh. Sarfuddin on 21.07.1995 and that the accused no. 1 processed the applications of Sudesh Vig and Sarfuddin for provision of STD/ISD facilities, at the same time and all the four applications were typed in the same fashion.

As per the charge sheet, it is alleged that Sh. Charan Singh, PI accused no. 1 obtained approval of DE (P) for change of address and provision of STD/ISD facilities on 21.07.1995 personally and issued jumper letters on 22.07.1995 and got installed telephone no.3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and 3557109 in the name of Sarfuddin at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 24.07.1995 but he allegedly did not verify the bonafide of address of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sh. Sarfuddin at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, before installation of these telephone numbers because no person in the name of Sarfuddin either resided at 8127, 3rd floor, Gali No.2, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi or 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi and that Smt. Subash Vig never resided at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, and that the person Sarfuddin took a room at 10756, Manak Pura, on residential basis and was identified as being Arsad Hussain by Sh. Uma Shanka Bhatnagar, landlord of the property and that Arsad Hussain impersonated himself as Sarfuddin and that the accused no. 1 Charan Singh identified him as Sarfuddin and thereby abetted the offence of impersonation.

As per the charge sheet it is alleged that telephone no.3557108 and 3557109 were installed at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi with the order of 15 Charan Singh PI the accused no. 1 and were operated/misused by Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin for making STD/ISD calls resulting outstanding bill of Rs.17,17,105/ against telephone no.3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Rs.17,20,277/ against telephone no.3557109 in the name of Sarfuddin, causing loss of Rs. 34,97,382/ to MTNL, as the accused no. 2 Sarfuddin left the rented premises without paying the bill. As per the chargesheet whereabouts of Sarfuddin are not known and telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 were disconnected by Charan Singh, P.I. and drop wires were removed, without obtaining orders from the Senior Officers.

It is also submitted in the chargeshet that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin applied for installation of two telephone at A64, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Qamar Zamil and that OB of these connections were issued but later on the same were got cancelled on the application of Arsad Hussain @ Qamar Jamil, as Smt. Sudesh Vig had filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court by that time. It has further submitted by the CBI that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin was in the habit of taking telephone connections in fictitious names and had left the premises without payments.

As per the chargesheet the investigation was carried out in Bangladesh through Interpol, which allegedly indicates that Arshad Hussain had been residing in Bangladesh but since long his present whereabouts were not known but Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin had allegedly opened nine (9) bank accounts with fraudulent intent either in his own name or in the name of his family members (during the period when the racket of telephone STD/ISD calls was in existence i.e., 24.07.1995 to March, 1996). He opened accounts in South Eas Bank Ltd., and Grandlays Bank, 16 Dhaka Bank Ltd and in the name of M/s Zans Trading Corporation 206 Sardar Bahadur Nagar, Khalek Manjil, Pohartali, Chittaong as proprietor in Dhaka Bank Ltd. and South East Bank Ltd in account opening form and that he had mentioned his telephone no.as 617410 which also figured in the Computer print out of STD/ISD call detailed bills of telephone no. 3557108 and 3887109 and it has further been submitted in the charge sheet that photocopies of photographs of Arsad Hussain supplied by the Bangladesh Bank tallied with the photographs recovered from the house search at L36A, Loco Colony, Kishanganj, Delhi, from where his family left this after the raid and shifted to 9548, Nawab Ganj, Azad market, Delhi.

The accused Charan Singh was also charged with the substantive charges of commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act, and the accused no. 1 Sh. Charan Singh pleaded not guilty to all these charges.

In support of the prosecution version, the CBI filed a list of 30 witnesses, of whom 23 have been examined in the witness box. 17

On behalf of the prosecution it was contended that the allegations levelled against the accused Mr. Charan Singh stood wholly established in the instant case through the prosecution evidence that had been led and that the evidence led in defence by the accused did not suffice to disprove the prosecution version at all.

It was interalia submitted on behalf of the prosecution that OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig in relation to telephone No. 3557108 was received by the accused Charan Singh on 21.01.1995 and OB No. 56051046030 dated 13.06.1995 was received by the accused Charan Singh on 19.07.1995 qua telephone No. 3557109 applied by Safuddin (i.e. the accused No. 2) R/o 8127, IIIrd Floor, Gali No. 2, Chimni, Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi and that the available record established that Saifuddin was not resident at that address nor was any telephone installed there in his name and it has been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that both the OBs were kept pending by the accused Charan Singh fraudulently and on 24.07.1995, both the telephones were got installed by the Charan Singh PI at 10756 Manak Pura Karol Bagh New Delhi in connivance with Sarfuddin @ Arshad Hussain and that the application for change of address was received from Saifuddin on 18.07.1995 whereas the OB of Sarfuddin was received by Charan Singh on 19.07.1995 and that the accused Charan Singh processed the address for change of the address of the accused Sarfuddin and for providing STD and ISD at the same time and got the same approved and thereafter the accused Charan Singh issued a Jumper Letter on 27.07.1995 and got installed both the telephone connection number 3557108 and 3557109 at 10756 Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

It has further been submitted on behalf of the prosecution that after receiving the telephone bills of a total amount of Rs. 3477382 i.e. for phone number 3557108, the meter bill being Rs. 1777105 and the meter bill for phone No. 3557109 being Rs. 1720277, Smt. Sudesh Vig filed the petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereby the CBI was directed to conduct the probe vide order dated 14.03.1996.

Interalia it was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that all the documents on the record and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses specially the report of the handwriting expert PW17, corroborate the prosecution version in toto and bring forth the allegations levelled against the accused Charan Singh having entered into a criminal conspiracy with the co accused Arshad Hussain @ Saifuddin a proclaimed offender who applied for a telephone impersonating as Saifuddin with a false address and that the accused Charan Singh abused his official position as public servant and caused him undue favour to cause him wrongful gain and thereby caused wrongful loss to the government to the tune of Rs. 3477382/ and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the 13(1)(d) of the Prevention Act, 1988 and Section 120(b), 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC 1860 as substantive offences.

On behalf of the accused the major contentions raised were :

That the instant prosecution has been lodged by the CBI which has no legal authority to carry out police functions and that the CBI is a nonstatutory body which was constituted by way of an executive order dated 1st April, 1963, issued by the then Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs and has not been created under any law and that the Central Government may take a plea that it can issue such resolution 19 under Article 73 of Constitution of India but the same cannot permit the Central Government to issue such a resolution for the reasons:

a) That such a notification/order can be issued only by the President of India and that apart, as per Article 123(3)1 even an ordinance cannot be issued on the subjects that the Parliament is not competent to enact.

b) That the powers of the Central Govt. under Article 73 are coextensive with the legislative competence of the Parliament and the police being state subject (entry No. 2 of listII, State List), Paliament is not competent to make any law for any State on police and that the proviso to Article 73 specifically bars the Central Government from issuing any such notification/executive order on any of the subjects even on which a State legislature is also competent to make law and that only the State legislature has exclusive power to make law on police.

It has further submitted on behalf of the accused that in the absence of any law, the exercise of police powers i.e. to register FIRs, arresting the persons, filing charge sheet and to prosecute the offenders cannot be permitted as it offends the fundamental rights guaranted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which expressly says that no person can be deprived of his life and liberty except by the procedure established by law and is no law, under which, the CBI has been constituted.

Even if the CBI is a validly constituted authority under a valid law still the CBI cannot carry out the police functions as the constitutional scheme does not permit the Central Government to carry out police functions which is within the exclusive domain of the state.

That Section 150 of Delhi Police Act, 1978 ordains that the police forces 20 functioning in Delhi immediately before commencement of this Act (Delhi Police Act, 1978) are deemed to have come under that Act and the CBI is not a force functioning under Delhi Police Act, 1978.

That the framers of the constitution were aware that CBI is not ' police' and reference was made to the Constituent Assembly debates dated 29.08.1949 about the functions to be carried out by the "Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation for with observations to the effect.

"The point of the matter is, the word "investigation" here does not permit and will not permit the making of an investigation into a crime because that matter under the Criminal Procedure Code is left exclusively to a police officer. Police is exclusively a State subject. It has no place in the Union List. The word "investigation" therefore, is intended to cover general enquiry for the purpose of finding out what is going on. This investigation is not investigation preparatory to the filing of a charge against an offender which only a police officer under the Criminal Procedure Code can do."

It was further submitted on behalf of the accused no. 1 Charan Singh that the High Court had merely directed the CBI to investigate and report to the High Court which had not been done and instead a chargesheet had been filed in the Criminal Court and that even if the CBI was desirous to take further action then it could have filed the chargesheet but the CBI has also prosecuted the accused through its own prosecutor which is not permissible under the law.

It was further submitted on behalf of the accused no. 1 that this is a case of solitary witness PW1Smt. Sudesh Vij, whose testimony remains uncorroborated besides it is vague, sketchy and not reliable and that in her initial Writ Petition, she 21 put forth a story that the accused No. 1 got her signatures on two blank papers, but in the Court she has changed her stand and not did not talk about any blank papers. It was further submitted on behalf of the accused no. 1 that in her statement before the Court she had stated the year 1996 without any month or date of alleged signing the documents and had testified to signing two documents, which was belied by the report of handwriting expert who has confirmed her signatures on three documents including Ex. PW 17/A (AnnexureA) which is a printed proforma. It was further submitted onbehalf of accused no. 1 that the phone number 3557108 for which the signatures on two papers were alleged to have been taken in the year 1996 was already disconnected on 29.01.1996.

It was further submitted on behalf of accused no. 1 though the prosecution alleges that the telephone number 3557108 was installed at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi yet for oblique reasons, it had not lead any evidence that PW 1 Sudesh Vij never resided at the said address nor there is any evidence that she has not moved applications Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B for change of address and opening of STD/ISD facility respectively.

It was further submitted on behalf of accused no. 1 as per the rules (Ex. PW18/DX) and Ex. PW 1/2), if a subscriber is prepared to sign AnnexureA, then no other verification such as check of ration card or identity card/passport etc. is intended and that rather the field staff is prohibited from questioning the subscriber and demanding proof of bonafide from the subscriber; and that in the instant case, the subscriber Sudesh Vij has duly signed AnnexureA (Ex. PW 17/A).

It was also contended on behalf of accused no. 1 that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 are not free from doubt as they are interested witnesses with a view to 22 avoid their liability to pay the telephone bills had created a false story to implicate the accused.

It was also submitted on behalf of the accused that the applications for change of address as well as for opening of STD/ISD facilities had been received and processed in the complete official way and the same had been duly approved by the competent authorities after following the proper channel and that PW18 Mr. V.P. Sharma has specifically admitted that the entire procedure had been followed and the change of address and opening of STD/ISD facilities had been duly approved by the competent authority.

It was also submitted on behalf of the accused no. 1 that the prosecution had not led any evidence of conspiracy between the accused Charan Singh with any person nor was there any evidence that the Accused No. 1 had ever used any of the telephone connections, and that there is no proper sanction to prosecute the accused and that the sanction order was sent by the CBI to the sanctioning authority which merely put its signature, which fact was indicated from the testimony of the investigating officer PW 22 Inspector Azad Singh.

It was also submitted on behalf of the accused no. 1 that the MTNL on the basis of same set of facts which are the subject matter of the present prosecution had filed a Suit No. CS(OS) 1102/98 against the present accused as well as Saifuddin for recovery of the amount of alleged misuse before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 15.02.1998 (Ex. DW 1/3). It was submitted on behalf of the accused no.1 that the judgment of the Civil Court is binding on a Criminal Court and particularly, when it has been pronounced on the same set of facts and by a Court higher in authority. 23

It was also contended on behalf of accused no. 1 that the prosecution has implicated the accused merely on suspicion and has not led any cogent or credible evidence and had miserably failed to prove case its against the accused No.

1. In his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, the accused No. 1 Mr. Charan Singh admitted that he was working as Phone Inspector at the Idgah Telephone Exchange and was the Section Incharge of Section 22 in which the area of Gaushala Marg Chowk, Tibia College and Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh fell as mentioned in Ex. PW 16/A during the period 1994 to 1996 and also admitted that it was his duty to verify the bona fides in case of execution of a new telephone connection and installation for the same and maintenance of the telephones. The accused however categorically denied that he went to the house of the accused to Smt. Sudesh Vig and also denied that he had informed her that the telephone booked by her had been sanctioned and submitted that the letter of sanction had been sent by dak. The accused also denied that he had offered to get the telephone sold to someone when Smt. Sudesh Vig informed him that she did not want to install the telephone booked in her name and denied that he had insisted upon her to get the same booked. The accused has also denied that he went to the house of Smt. Sudesh Vig and denied that at that time he had taken the signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig on two pages on a folded condition at two places and denied that he had given her Rs. 1000/ stating that if she asked the department for refund of money it would take 3/4 months and denied that he had taken the signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig on Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/B. The accused however admitted that he had met Shri Amar Nath husband of Smt. Sudesh Vig in the year 1996 at his house and admitted that he 24 had enquired from Mr. Amar Nath what he wanted to do with the phone, the booking of which had matured in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig. The accused however denied that Mr. Amar Nath had told him that he did not want the second telephone installed and had asked for surrendering the phone. The accused also admitted that an application form Ex. PW 2/A No. 680412 of Smt. Sudesh Vig dated 12.10.1992 seeking installation of the telephone connection was registered on 14.10.1992 and admitted that the jumper letter No. 308 was issued by him with his specimen signature at point A on Ex. PW 17/B4 and also admitted his writing at point A4 thereon. The accused also admitted that he had obtained approval of the change of address from 103202 Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, to 10756 Nanak Pura Karol Bagh as per his note at 105C page N52 on Ex. PW 17/B2 in the file Ex. PW 18/C, subject to bona fidity of the new address. The accused also admitted that the application Ex. PW 1/A dated 19.07.1995 of the subscriber Smt. Sudesh Vig resident of 11032 Chowk Tibia College, Gaushala Marg, New Delhi for change of address for installation of new phone connection against OB No. 050651037758 dated 27.10.1994 to 10756 Nanak Pura Karol Bagh, New Delhi was put in the file by him for approval for change of the address as he was the Section Incharge of Section 22, on which Mr. V.P. Sharma PW 18, then SDO Telephones Idgah Telephone Exchange with the remarks of the "change of address may be approved subject to bona fide case at new address" which be sent to DE (Outdoor) of which was approved by the DE on Ex. PW 18/C1 in file D33 at 105/C at M52. The accused also admitted that his specimen handwriting and signature Ex.PW 11/A, PW 11/B, PW 11/C and PW 11/D were taken by the Investigating officer i.e. PW 22 Inspector Azad Singh.

Though the accused admitted that the words in carbon on Ex. PW 17/C were in his handwriting Ex. PW 1/C and the handwriting at Q9 in carbon on Ex. PW 17/D was in his handwriting, the accused stated that the word 'with' on Ex. PW 17/C was not in his handwriting. The accused further admitted that Ex. PW 17/B1, Ex. PW 17/B2, Ex. PW 17/B3 and Ex. PW 17/B4 were in his handwriting, but stated that the word "with" and the scoring of the word "barred" on Ex. PW 17/D had come like that from the office but stated that the word 'X' meaning 'and' 'ISD' on Ex. PW 17/E were in his handwriting. He also admitted that the new handwritten address 10756, Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5 and words 'X' meaning and 'ISD' all encircled as Q7 on Ex. PW 17/C i.e. OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 were in his handwriting as per Ex. PW 17/E, the report of the handwriting expert but stated that this was written by him after approval.

The accused Charan Singh admitted also that OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 was opened in view of application Ex. PW 18/F and as per OB register D34 i.e. Ex. PW 18/G at srl. No. 1300 page 226 and that the incharge of Section 24 entered the this OB which was received by the PI incharge of Section 22 on 19.07.1995 and that he the accused had signed at point B thereon. The accused also admitted that he had put up the file for change of installation address of Section 22 against OB No. 560051046030 dated 16.06.1995 from 8127, IIIrd Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao to 10756 Manak Pura Karol Bagh New Delhi for change of the installation address which was recommended for change of address by Mr. V.P. Sharma PW 18 subject to bona fide of the case at the new address and sent to the DE which was approved by Mr. O.P Mehta vide Ex. PW 17/D1. The accused also admitted that qua OB No. 56051046030 dated 28.04.1995 the portion entered 26 encircled as Q9 on Ex. PW 17/D with the words "x" "ISD" "10756 Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005" and C/D/A Approve' as per Ex. PW 17/E the report of the handwriting expert was in his handwriting but stated that he had written all this after approval.

The accused admitted that OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 was opened in view of application Ex. PW 18/F and as per OB Register D34 i.e. Ex.PW18/G at serial No. 1300 page 226 the Incharge of Section 24 entered the OB and this OB was received by him as he was the P.I. Incharge of Section 22 on 19.07.1995 and admitted that this entry had been encircled in red ink with his signatures at point B. The accused Charan Singh admitted that vide Ex. PW17/D the file for change of installation address of Section 22 against OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 from 8127, 3rd Chimini Mill, Bara Hindu Rao to 10756 Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, was put up by him for change of installation address, which was recommended for change of address by PW18 Mr. V.P. Sharma subject to bonafide of the case at new address and sent to DE which was approved by Mr. O.P. Mehta vide vide Ex.PW17/B1.

The accused Charan Singh admitted that OB No. 56051046030 dated 28.04.95, the portion encircled as Q9 on Ex.PW17/D with the words 'X ISD' and '10756 Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005' and C/D / A Approve' was in his handwriting, which was also indicated vide Ex.PW17/E the report of the handwriting expert. The said accused however stated that he had written all this after approval after all formalities.

The accused Charan Singh admitted that entry at serial No. 848A in 27 OB Register Ex.PW18/B(D11) for OB No. 564030 dated 16.06.1995 had been made by him regarding OB and address of Mohd. Sarfuddin, 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh New Delhi with jumper letter No. 307 dated 22.07 i.e. D14 whereby telephone No. 3557109 was opened. However, the accused Charan Singh stated that though the Jumper Letter Ex. PW 17/B3 No. 307 dated 22.07 was in his handwriting, he admitted that telephone No. 3557109 was opened thereafter and stated that even after preparing the jumper letter, the checking was done by the record supervisor.

The accused Charan Singh admitted that jumper letters Nos. 307(D14) and 308(D15) were issued by him in his handwriting with his signatures at point A thereon, i.e. Ex.PW17/B3 and Ex.PW17/B4.

The accused Charan Singh admitted that applications for change of address are received in the office or collected by the field staff i.e. Section Incharge i.e. Phone Inspector, JTO are to be put up in the change of address file by the Section Incharge to the SDO and to the competent authority for approval and the Section Incharge is to check the bonafides of the parties and is fully responsible for the bonafides of the case. He interalia stated that he had checked the bonafides in these cases.

The accused Charan Singh admitted that the slip Ex.PW10/A containing details of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1995 and OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 with open number 3557108 and 3557109 was in his handwriting.

The accused Charan Singh also admitted that the work is allotted by the Section Incharge which he was of Section 22 to the field party for installation of new connection after checking of address and bonafides. 28

The accused Charan Singh admitted that Ex.PW10/A on which the telephone connections 56051037758 dated 22.10.1994 in the name of Sudesh Vig 10756MP and 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 in the name of coaccused No. 2 Md. Sarfuddin 10756 (some portion being torn) was mentioned in his handwriting.

The accused Charan Singh however denied that the telephone connection numbers 3557108 and 3557109 were installed by Surajbhan Rai and Paras Ram at the address 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh New Delhi, in view of Ex.PW10/A issued by him.

The accused Charan Singh stated that he had no knowledge that on 16.05.1996 when a raid was conducted by the CBI at House No. 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh New Delhi belonging to Mr. Bhatnagar, one room rented to coaccused No. 2 Sarfuddin by him 8/10 months before 16.05.1996 which was locked on opening was found to contain two telephone drop wires though no telephone instrument was connected on these lines, and on these two lines on tracing through an incoming ring from the telephone exchange indicated that these two telephone wires were of telephone No. 3557108 and 3557109, for which memo Ex.PW3/A was prepared.

The accused Charan Singh stated that he did not have any knowledge of a raid having been conducted on 16.05.1996 by the CBI at house No. L6C, Railway colony, Kishan Ganj New Delhi under occupation of Mohd. Sajid Hussain where the ration card Ex.PW22/N10 was recovered in which the name of Mohd. Arshad Hussain is mentioned, which was seized vide search cum seizure memo Ex.PW3/B with photograph of Mohd. Arshad Hussain Ex.PW5/A, which photograph was identified by Mr. Bhatnagar owner of 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh as being 29 that of coaccused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin, i.e. that Sarfuddin to whom the room had been rented by Mr. Bhatnagar at 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi where the two telephone drop wires were traced through incoming rings from the telephone exchange to be of telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109. However, the accused stated that coaccused No. 2 Sarfuddin had shown him a passport in the name of co accused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin and admitted that the photograph Ex. PW 5/A was that of coaccused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin and further stated that the passport shown to him by coaccused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin was in the name of coaccused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin and not in the name of Mohd. Arshad Hussain.

The accused however stated that he had no knowledge that vide Ex.PW3/B, the slip of paper Ex.PW22/N11 with the name Zans Trading Corporation Importer/Exporter and Order Supplier 206, Sardar Nagar, Khaliq Manzil, (Ist Floor), P.O. PAHARTALICHITTAGONGBANGLADESH, with Dail:

31617410 was recovered from L6C Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, New Delhi during the raid conducted by the CBI on 16.05.1996, from which place Ex.PW5/A the photograph of the person purported to be coaccused No. 2 Mohd. Sarfuddin and identified to be Mohd. Arshad Hussain was recovered.

The accused also stated that he had no knowledge that the print outs of telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 for the period 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995 and 16.02.1996 i.e. Ex.PW22/W collectively indicated that telephone calls were made from these two numbers on telephone number 31617410 situated at Bangladesh, which number is mentioned on Ex.PW22/N11 seized vide Ex.PW3/B of which telephone numbers i.e. 3557108 and 3557109, the telephone drop wires were found to be there in 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in the room which had 30 been rented to coaccused No. 2 Sarfuddin by Mr. Bhatnagar and which had been so traced on tracing the incoming rings from the telephone exchange.

He also stated that he had no knowledge of the telephone bills dated 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995, 21.09.1996 and 30.01.1996 indicated outstanding payments due for telephone No. 3557108 as mentioned in Ex. PW9/A. He further stated that he had no knowledge that the outstanding payment for telephone No. 3557109 for cycle 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995, 29.09.1996 and 30.01.1996 as per Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E, were bills issued in the name of coaccused No. 2 Md. Sarfuddin 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

He further stated that he had no knowledge that a notice was sent to Mohd. Sarfuddin for outstanding bills Ex.PW9/HI noting page to Ex.PW9/H6 i.e. H2 and H5 at address 3rd Chimini Mill Bara Hindu Rao Delhi110006 and H3 and H4 at 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 which were received back unserved due to non availability of the addressee at the given address and stated that he did not get the information of non payment of bills.

The accused admitted that the note Ex.PW17/B1 i.e. A1 was in his handwriting, (which had also been so opined by the handwriting expert PW17 vide report Ex.PW17/E).

The accused however denied that A5, A6, A7 i.e. Ex.PW22/M1 and Ex.PW22/M and Ex.PW22/O were collected by PW22 Inspector Azad Singh from his office.

The accused further stated that he had no knowledge that vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A the account opening form Ex.PW20/A4 with documents 31 Ex.PW20/A5 for opening of account at the State Bank of Patiala branch Model Basti were seized from the Chief Bank Manager of the State Bank of Patiala.

The accused stated that he did not know whose photograph Ex. PW20/A4 was, but stated that it was not the photograph of Mohd. Arshad Hussain (accused No. 2 the proclaimed offender).

The accused further stated that the Incharge of the section is the JTO i.e. Junior Telecom Officer and that he was posted as a Phone Inspector and after receipt of the OB ie. Order Book of Sudesh Vig of her old address ,he checked her old address and that when I went to check at that old address , he met Mr. Amar Nath Vig the husband of Sudesh Vig, who told him that they were not interested in the opening of telephone at the old address i.e. 11302, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and that his son was going to start a new business and that thereafter they would get the new telephone opened.The accused no. 1 further stated that he received the application of Smt. Sudesh Vig for opening of the new telephone at the new address i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, from the office and he checked this new address at Manak Pura, Karol Baghand he met both Smt. Sudesh Vig and Shri Amar Nath at this address at 10756 , Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and after identifying Smt. Sudesh Vig, he made Smt. Sudesh Vig fill in Annexure A i.e. the annexure for opening of the telephone and bonafides and then he put up the change of address to the SDO i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer and the SDO sent that file to the DE i.e. Divisional Engineer and when that file came back to him from the Divisional Engineer, there was one more application in the file seeking installation of ISD and STD at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, this application was of Smt. Sudesh Vig and this application bore the signatures of the DE and after approval of the 32 Divisional Engineer of the change of address,he made the jumper letter. The accused no. 1 further stated that the jumper letter is to be given to the out door staff and he gave one jumper letter to Paras Ram and on the duplicate copy of the jumper letter after formalities where ever a cutting was required after change of address ,he made the cutting and it was sent to the record by him. The accused no. 1 further stated that the record supervisor checked the duplicate copy of the jumper letter and all documents and after checking the telephone number, the diary with the telephone number was sent to the switch room for starting the telephone connection and after the telephone connection was started and an entry was made by the record i.e. by the telephone operator that the telephone connection had been started i.e. done and that all this total work had been done by me after approval, checking and all formalities through proper channel only.

The accused no. 1 further stated that the OB of Sarfuddin with application of Sarfuddin was given to me by Section 24 for change of address and he checked this case also i.e. he checked the bonafides i.e. his identification and took the annexure A from Sarfuddin and then put up for change of address to the SDO. The application of Sarfuddin was for change of address from the address at Chimni Mill to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh that from the SDO's office the file was sent to the DE and when the file came back to me from the DE's office , there was an application for Sarfuddin on that file for ISD and STD connections and the signatures of the DE were on the application and he then made the jumper letter and made the necessary cutting and one copy of the jumper letter was given by him to Paras Ram the outdoor staff and the duplicate copy was sent by him after completion of all formalities to the record and that after checking of the records, 33 there was an objection by the record section on the cutting of the ISD and he then took the approval of the DE who approved the cutting of the ISD and then the record section checked the document and sent it to the switch room for opening the number and then the record section mentioned it as having been done. The accused no. 1 further stated that the connection was also opened after all approvals obtained and formalities done by him . By cutting he stated he meant the circling eg. on Ex.PW17/D which he had made after approval and stated that the signatures of approval by the DE are at point Z on Ex.PW17/D. (In reply to a specific Court question, the witness has stated that Ex.PW18/C2 is not the original of Ex.PW17/D)and stated that signatures at point C on Ex.PW17/C are of the DE and the encircling in carbon on Ex.PW17/C has been done my him after approval by the DE for change of address and that both Ex.PW17/C and Ex.PW17/D have the approval signatures of Mr. O.P. Mehta the then Divisional Engineer which he recognized as he had seen his signatures several times during the course of his duties.

In support of his defence, the accused no.1 put himself forth in the witness box as DW 1 and produced Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sub Divisional Officer with the MTNL at the Idgah Telephone Exchange Delhi as DW 2 and DW 1 denied that he had misused his position as a public servant to give undue favour to accused no.2 Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin and pleaded innocence, and reiterated that whatever had been done by him was in accordance with rules and in as per procedure and an approval of his Senior Officers . DW2 produced by accused no. 1: was Shri Kamlesh Kumar was Sub Divisional Officer with the MTNL at Idgah Telephone Exchange, Delhi and that he knew the accused Charan Singh who is working under him as a PI i.e. Phone Inspector. He further stated that Phone Inspector is also a field 34 staff member and stated that for the installation of a new telephone connection, there is general language for bonafide check and that he had seen Mark DW1/2 copy of which had also been brought by him and stated that the rules Mark DW1/2 were still in existence in the MTNL and there has been no amendment in the same. He further stated that if annexure A at portions X to X1 on page 3 of Mark DW1/2 is filled in by the subscriber, it amounts to sufficient compliance of bonafide check by the Phone Inspector. He testified to the attested true copy of the rules for verification of bonafides with his attestation as being Ex. DW2/1. He further stated that the field staff has to go to the spot where the subscriber has sought the installation of the telephone connection and the field staff has to get annexure A of Ex. DW 2/1 filled in by the subscriber and that the address is the same where the subscriber has sought the installation of the telephone connection and that the field staff is not to ask for any documents from the subscriber to check the bonafides of the subscriber and that the field staff cannot even ask the subscriber for the ration card, identity card or passport for a subscriber may complain that the field staff is harassing him/her if he asks for ration card, identity card or passport.

It has been submitted though the charge sheet that Smt. Sudesh Vig w/o Shri Amar Nath r/o 11302, Gaushala Marg, Chowk Tibia College, Karol Bagh, New Delhi had applied for a new telephone connection which sanctioned vide OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 and that (the present accused Sh. Charan Singh in the instant case) approached Smt. Sudesh Vig for installation for a new telephone connection at her address 11302 Gaushala Marg, Chowk Tibia, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and Sh. Charan Singh was working as phone Inspector (P.I.) Idgah Telephone Exchange, Delhi and was incharge of section 22 the area of chowk Tibia College and 35 Manak Pura were under him. Shri Charan Singh, P.I., approached Smt. Sudesh Vig for installation of new connection where he was informed by Smt. Sudesh Vig that she wanted to surrender this new connection. Sh. Charan Singh told her that he will surrender her telephone and return her Rs.1,000/ which she deposited at the time of registration. Consequently, Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. returned her Rs.1,000/ to Smt. Sudesh Vig and obtained her signatures on two blank papers with the pretext that same will be required for transferring this connection to some other person Smt. Sudesh Vig, being slightly educated, could not understand the intention of Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. and gave her signatures on two blank papers. In January, 1996 she came to know that an amount of Rs.17,77,105/ were outstanding against the telephone no.3557108 installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in her name. As per the charge sheet nit is alleged that Smt. Sudesh Vig never got installed telephone no. 3557108 at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

As per the averments in the chargesheet filed in January, 1996, Smt. Sudesh Vig was informed by the MTNL that telephone no. 3557108 was sanctioned in her name and installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and has an outstanding bill of Rs.17,77,105/ and that another telephone bearing no.3557108 sanctioned in her name against OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and telephone bearing no.3557109 sanctioned against OB NO. 56051046030 dated 13.06.1995 at Gali No.2, Chimni Mill Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi in the name of Sarfuddin had been installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on 24.07.1995 and that both these telephone connections were used for making STD/STD calls and that an unpaid amount of Rs.17,20,277/ remained to be paid with reference telephone no. 3557109 as well and thereby wrongful loss had been 36 caused in this case.

Smt. Sudesh Vig thereafter filed a Civil Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein pursuant dto order dated 14.03.1996, whereupon the present FIR was registered and the report submitting by the CBI in CWP 995/96 which has already been adverted to herein above.

As per the averments in the chargesheet before installation of these two connections the addresses of both registrants were transferred to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and facilities of STD/ISD were got allotted with the alleged connivance of Sh. Charan Singh,accused no. 1 with Sarfuddin accused no. 2 and on 24.07.1995 telephone NO.3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and telephone no. 3557109 in the name of Safuddin were installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in a small rented room. According to the CBI OB no. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 was received by Sh. Charan Singh, PI on 21.01.1995 and the same was kept pending till the OB No.56051046030 dated 13.06.1995 was received by Sh. Charan Singh, PI on 19.07.1995 and it is stated that OB No. 56051046030 in the name of Sarfuddin was received in section 24 if Idgah Telephone Exchange because the area of Bada Hindu Rao, Delhi fee Section section 24, but accused no. 1 Charan Singh allegedly got transferred this OB of Sh. Sarfuddin to his section and received the same personally from section 24 on 1.07.1995 but he entered this OB in his OB registration of section 22 on 18.7.1995. It has also been alleged that Sh. Charan Singh, PI had already taken up the change of address application dated 18.07.1995 of Sarfuddin where as the OB of Sarfuddin was received by Charan Singh on 19.07.1995 and Sh. Charan Singh moved an application for change of address of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sh. Sarfuddin on 37 21.07.1995 and that the accused no. 1 processed the applications of Sudesh Vig and Sarfuddin for provision of STD/ISD facilities, at the same time and all the four applications were typed in the same fashion.

As per the charge sheet it is alleged that telephone no. 3557108 and 3557109 were installed at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delh with the order of Charan Singh and were operated/misused by Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin for making STD/ISD calls resulting outstanding bill of Rs.17,17,105/ against telephone no. 3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Rs.17,20,277/ against telephone no. 3557109 in the name of Sarfuddin, causing loss of Rs.34,97,382/ to MTNL, became 38 Sarfuddin left the rented premise without paying the bill. The whereabouts of Sarfuddin are not known. The telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 were disconnected by Charan Singh, P.I. and drop wires were removed, without obtaining orders from the Senior Officers.

During investigation efforts were made to trace accused Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin in India and Bangladesh, but his whereabouts could not be traced. It reveals during the investigation that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin in connivance with Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. intentionally got installed telephone no. 3557108 and 3557109 at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi for misusing these telephone for providing STD/ISD calls and leaving the premises leaving behind the outstanding bills. It also reveals that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin applied for installation of two telephone at A64, Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi in the name of Qamar Zamil. OB of these connections were issued but later on the same were got cancelled on the application of Arsad Hussain @ Qamar Zamil, because Smt. Sudesh Vig had filed a Writ Petition in Hon'ble High Court by that time, Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin was in the habit of taking telephone connections in fictitious names and left the premises without payments.

Charan Singh, P.I. MTNL obtained signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig on blank papers with criminal intention and made false/forged documents, on the basis of which telephone number 3557108 was installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig. He also entered into criminal conspiracy with Arsad Hussain who had been impersonating himself as Sarfuddin and installed telephone NO.3557109 in the name of Sarfuddin at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi in the same room and on same date and time without verifying the 39 bonafide of Sarfuddin and dishonest means and cheated her. He paid Rs.1,000/ to Smt. Sudesh Vig as registration fee, which he was not competent authority in MTNL to return the registration fee from his own pocket.

Charan Singh P.I. MTNL was aware that the application of Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sarfuddin for change of address and provision of STD/ISD facilities put up before DE (P) were false/forged. But he passed on the same as genuine, knowing the same as false/forged. It is also established that Charan Singh and Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin made an agreement to run the racket of providing STD/ISD calls to customers and not paying the outstanding bills of MTNL. That is why Charan Singh, P.I. collected the OB of Sarfuddin from section 24 to his own section 22 on 1.07.1995 but he made entry in the OB register on 18.07.1995 because he has already processed the case of Sarfuddin. He did not verify the bonafide of Sarfuddin because there was no person in the name of Sarfuddin and only Arshad Hussain impersonated himself as Sarfuddin.

Investigation was carried out in Bangladesh through Interpol, which reveals that Arshad Hussain had been residing in Bangladesh but since long his present whereabouts not known. He married Nagma Khanam D/o L. Bashar Khan who was an employee of Bangladesh Railway. Further investigation at Bangladesh also reveals that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin might have opened nine (9) bank accounts with fraudulent intent either in his own name or in the name of his family members. All these accounts were opened during the period when this racket of telephone STD/ISD calls was in existence i.e., 24.07.1995 to March, 1996. He opened accounts in South Eas Bank Ltd., and Grandlays Bank, Dhaka Bank Ltd. He also opened account in the name of M/s Zans Trading Corporation 206 Sardar 40 Bahadur Nagar, Khalek Manjil, Pohartali, Chittong as proprietor in Dhaka Bank Ltd. and South East Bank Ltd in account opening form he has mention his telephone no. 617410. This telephone number also figured in the Computer print out of STD/ISD call detailed bills of telephone no. 3557108 and 3887109. The statements of account collected in Bangladesh show that Arsad Hussain @ Sarfuddin had been investing the proceeds of these illegal STD/ISD call racket in Bangladesh. Although he had deposited some amount in the name of his mother and in his own name in the State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti, Delhi but that is nominal. The photographs supplied by State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti, Delhi and photocopies of photographs of Arsad Hussain is supplied by Bangladesh Bank tallied with the photographs recovered from the house search at L36A, Loco Colony, Kishanganj, Delhi.

Further investigation in India reveals that family of Arsad Hussain @Sarfuddin was residing at L36A, Loco Colony, Kishanganj, Delhi on rental basis and left this after the raid. They shifted to 9548, Nawab Ganj, Azad market, Delhi.

During the course of the proceedings the coaccused Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin @ Hafix Mohd. was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 06.01.2000 and it was expressly directed thereby that the evidence produced by the prosecution which recorded in the absence of the said accused would be read against him. The charge of allegations was framed against the accused Charan Singh S/o Fateh Singh on 09.10.2002 to the effect that during th year 19941996 whilst the said accused was working as a Phone Inspector Incharge of Section 22 in which area of Gaushala Marg Chowk, Tibia College falls at Nanakpura Karol Bagh, Delhi, entered into a criminal conspiracy with your coaccused Arshad Hussain (since declared Proclaimed Offender) and got two plain papers signed from Smt. Sudesh Vig on 41 promise that you would return Rs. 1000/ which she had deposited with the telephone department at the time of application against surrendering her telephone connection which was to be installed at her residence bearing No. 11302 Gaushala Marg Chowk, Tibia College and you by abusing your official position fraudulently and dishonestly used those blank papers duly signed by Smt. Sudesh Vig as genuine installed telephone No. 3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and telephone No. 3557109 in the name of Sarfuddin resident of 8127, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 2, Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi, at Premises 10756 Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and bill for telephone No. 3557108 was raised to the tune of Rs. 17,70,105/ and bill against telephone No. 3557109 to the tune of Rs. 17,20,277/ was also raised by the telephone department which could not be recovered because Smt. Sudesh Vig claimed in the Hon'ble High Court that she never had got installed telephone No. 3557108 in her name and thereby you caused a loss of Rs. 34,97,382/ to the telephone department and thereby you committed an offence punishable u/s. 120B r/w Section 420, 468, 471 of IPC and punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 25 of Indian Telegraph Act.

In support of the prosecution version, the CBI filed a list of 30 witnesses, of whom 23 have been examined in the witness box.

At the outset before adverting to the merits or demerits of the 42 prosecution version it is considered essential to consider the submissions made on behalf of the accused that the instant prosecution could not have been initiated, in as much as the CBI is a non statutory body and has not been constituted validly and in the alternative in terms of the constitution, the CBI cannot carry out the police functions. In relation to this contention, it is essential to observe that the instant case has been registered on the basis of an inquiry conducted on receipt of order dated 14.03.1996 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition No. 1998/96. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of West Bengal and Others V/s Sampat Lal and Others, AIR 1985 SC 195 and in the case Maniyeri Madhwan V/s Sub Inspector of Police and Others 1994 Criminal Law Journal 3063, the requisite sanction of the State Govt. in terms of the Delhi Special Establishment Act 1946 is not necessary and is not a condition precedent when a Court has given a direction to the CBI to conduct an investigation. The contention raised on behalf of the accused that the CBI could only have investigated the matter in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and could not have filed the charge sheet, can also not be accepted in view of Section 2 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, as in terms of Section 2(2)(3), Members of the police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 has powers of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station of the area and in terms of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have to be investigated by the Commission i.e. the Central Vigilance Commission and thus filing of the charge sheet by the CBI on investigation conducted by it, cannot be denied.

Reliance was placed on behalf of the CBI on the verdict of the Hon'ble 43 Supreme Court in the case Vadivelu Thevar & Ors. Vs. The State of Madras 1957 Cri.L.J, 1000 (Vol. 58, C.N. 394)(1), to contend that the solitary testimony of Smt. Sudesh Vig was sufficient to bring forth the allegations levelled against the accused of the commission of offences punishable U/S 419/420/468/471 r/w 120B r/w S. 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Reliance is also placed on behalf of CBI on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Moosa Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 654, in support of the same contention.

On behalf of the accused, reliance was placed on the constitutional debates in the Constituent Assembly of India published on 29.08.1949 also to contend that the charge sheet in the instant case could not have been filed by the Investigating Agency i.e. CBI, qua which it is already been observed hereinabove that personnel of the CBI above the rank of Sub Inspector are invested with powers as a Station House Officer.

Reliance was placed, on behalf of prosecution on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Ms Sheriff and Anr. V. State of Madras and Others, AIR 1954 Supreme Court 397, to contend that the domain of Civil and Criminal Law was different in view of the following observations: "As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule case be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal Courts is a 44 relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of the Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.

Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interest demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust.

This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under S.476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished." 45

Reliance is also placed on behalf of CBI on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s NEPC India Ltd & Ors. Appeals (Crl) 833 & 834 of 2002, vide Judgment dated 20th July 2006 to contend that as the nature and scope of the civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceeding. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.

Reliance is also placed on behalf of CBI on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Kishan Singh (D) through LRs Vs. Gurpal Singh & Ors. AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3624, wherein it has been observed that: "We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issue as to whether the findings recorded by Civil Court are binding in criminal proceedings between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter, is no more Res Integra. In M/s. Karamchand Ganga Pershad and Anr. V. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1244, this Court, while dealing with the same issue, held as under: "It is well established principle of law that the decisions of civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true."

The said Judgment was delivered by a threeJudge Bench of this Court without taking note of the Constitution Bench 46 Judgment in M.S. Sherrif V. The State of Madras and Ors., AIR 1954 SC 397 on the same issue, wherein this Court has held as under: "As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. 47

This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just.."

In V.M. Shah v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (1995) 5 SCC 767 : (AIR 1996 SC 339 : 1995 AIR SCW 4140), this Court has held as under: "As seen that the civil court after fulldressed trial recorded the finding that the appellant had not come into possession through the Company but had independent tenancy rights from the principal landlord and, therefore, the decree for eviction was negatived. Until that finding is duly considered by the appellate court after weighing the evidence afresh and if it so warranted reversed, the findings bind the parties. The findings, recorded by the criminal court, stand superseded by the findings recorded by the civil court. Thereby, the findings of the civil court get precedence over the findings recorded by the trial court, in particular, in summary trial for offences like Section 630. The mere pendency of the appeal does not have the effect of suspending the operation of the decree of the trial Court and neither the finding of the civil court gets disturbed nor the decree becomes inoperative." The correctness of the aforesaid judgment in V.M. Shah (AIR 1996 SC 339 : 1995 AIR SCW 4140) (supra) was doubted by this Court and the case was referred to a larger 48 Bengh in K.G. Premshankar v. Inspector of Police and Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3372 : (2002 AIR SCW 3930). In the said case, the Judgment in V.M. Shah (supra) was not approved. While deciding the case, this Court placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazair Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18, wherein has been held as under: "It is conceded that the findings in a civil proceeding are not binding in a subsequent prosecution founded upon the same or similar allegations. Moreover, the police investigation was stopped and it cannot be said with certainty that no more information could be obtained. But even if it were not, it is the duty of a criminal court when a prosecution for a crime takes place before it to form its own view and not to reach its conclusion by reference to any previous decision which is not binding upon it."

While deciding the said case, reliance has been placed by this Court on Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr., (2005)4SCC 370 : (2005 AIR SCW 1929), wherein this Court held as under: "Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are 49 entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein." In P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana alias Hari Babu, AIR 2008 SC 1884 : (2008 AIR SCW 2106), this Court has held as under: "It is, however, well settled that in a given case, civil proceedings and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously. Whether civil proceedings or criminal proceedings shall be stayed depends upon the fact and circumstances of each case.... Filing of an independent criminal proceeding, although initiated in terms of some observations made by the civil court, is not barred under any statute....... It goes without saying that the respondent shall be at liberty to take recourse to such a remedy which is available to him in law. We have interfered with the impugned order only because in law simultaneous proceedings of a civil and a criminal case is permissible." In Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Anr. v. State 50 (Delhi Admn.) and Anr., (2009) 5 SCC 528 : (AIR 2009 SC 3232 : 2009 AIR SCW 3251), this Court considered all the earlier Judgments on the issue and held that while deciding the case in Karam Chand (AIR 1971 SC 1244) (supra), this Court failed to take note of the Constitution Bench Judgment in M.S. Sherrif (AIR 1954 SC 397)(supra) and, therefore, it remains per incuriam and does not lay down the correct law.

A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Prasad, (2009) 13 SCC 729 : (2009 AIR SCW 5341), wherein it has been held by this Court that the decision in Karamchand (supra) stood overruled in K.G. Premshankar (AIR 2002 SC 3372 : 2002 AIR SCW 3930) (supra).

Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and viceversa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the 51 same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration."

Reliance was placed, on the other hand, on behalf of accused on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case V.M. Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another. (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 767, decided on 25.08.95. to contend that where there are conflicting finding of civil and criminal courts, findings recorded by the civil court prevail until reversed by the Appellate Court after duly considering the same and weighing the evidence afresh.

Reliance was placed, on the other hand, on behalf of accused on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad and another V. Union of India and Others, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1244 (V 58 C 251) decided on 12.10.1970, to contend that it is a well established principle of law that decisions of the civil courts are binding of the criminal courts and that the converse is not true.

As regards this contention of the accused that in view of the Civil Suit No. i.e. CS (OS) 1102 of 1998 filed by the MTNL against Saifuddin accused No. 2 (accused No. 2) herein as defendant No. 1 and Shri Charan Singh (defendant No. 1 arrayed as accused No. 2 herein) for recovery of the amount for alleged misuse of the telephone having been dismissed vide judgment dated 15.02.2008 i.e. Ex. DW 1/3, the same is binding on the criminal Court, being a judgment of a civil 52 Court and of a Court higher in authority, it is essential to observe as brought forth through the catena of verdicts relied upon on behalf of either side as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3624 in the case Krishan Singh (D) to LRs Vs. Gurpal Singh and others vide para 19 thereof that the law on the issue stands crystallized to the effect that the findings of the fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as a criminal case is concerned and vice versa and that there is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the Court either in Civil or Criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and that both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. Thus, in the instant case taking into account the factum that CS (OS) No. 1102 of 1998 was filed by the MTNL against accused Saifuddin, a proclaimed offender in the present case and Charan Singh accused No. 1 in this case for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,83,056/ on account of the principal and Rs. 99,262/ on account of interest till 31.05.1998 with pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum till the date of realization in which case the judgment Ex. DW 1/3 indicates that the petitioner Smt. Sudesh Vig on whose Civil Writ petition No. 998 of 1996 filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the FIR in the instant case was registered in view of direction dated 14.03.1996, was not produced in the witness box by the MTNL, the plaintiff in CS (OS) 1102 / 1998, but the said Smt. Sudesh Vig has been examined as PW 1 in the instant case i.e. RC No. 41(A)/96/CBI/ACB.

Furthermore, the available record indicates that the judgment in CS (OS) 1102 / 1998 of which Ex. DW 1/3 is the certified copy, is dated 15.02.2008 and the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ of 1998/96 dated 53 04.10.1996 brings forth that Civil Writ Petition 1998/96 was disposed off with the following observations: "04.10.96 Present: Mr. N.L. Choudhary for the petitioner Mr. Sailesh Kapoor for the respondentMTNL Mr. S. Lal for the CBI.

C.M. 3133/96 & C.W. 998/96 The learned counsel for the respondent - MTNL states that in view of the report submitted by the CBI the impugned notice dated February 26, 1996, filed as AnnexureP1 to the writ petition incorporating details of the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner is being withdrawn. In view of this statement, no further proceedings are necessary in the writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of. The report of the CBI as submitted in the Court today is taken on record.

sd/ which brings forth that the claims of the MTNL against Smt. Sudesh Vig examined as PW 1 in the present Criminal Prosecution of a liability of a sum of Rs. 17,77,105/ on account of non payment of telephone bills in relation to telephone No. 3557108 was withdrawn by the MTNL on 04.10.1996 i.e. even before the institution of CS (OS) 1102 / 98 filed by the MTNL against the two accused of the present criminal prosecution, which thus explains the absence of Smt. Sudesh Vig in the Civil Proceedings in CS (OS) 1102/98. In the circumstances, and in view of the verdict in Kishan Singh (D) through LRs Vs. 54 Gurpal Singh & Ors. AIR 2010 Supreme Court 3624, the present proceedings in RC No. 41(A)/96/CBI/ACB are held to be maintainable.

Another aspect that cannot be overlooked is that though CS (OS) 1102 / 98 was decided on 15.02.1998, the accused No. 1 Shri Charan Singh did not choose to raise this contention from 1998 till 2012 i.e. till this stage of final arguments.

As regards the charges framed against the accused No. 1 Shri Charan Singh it is essential to advert to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined in the instant case.

PW 1 examined in the witness box by the prosecution was Mrs. Sudesh Vig wife of Shri Amar Nath who in her testimony on oath corroborated the averments made in the charge sheet to the effect that the accused Charan Singh had come to her house and had informed her that her telephone booked in her name had been sanctioned and that she had informed him that she did not want to install the telephone but that the accused offered to get a telephone sold to someone which she refused, but he insisted and also insisted upon her husband to sell the telephone to which he also refused. Interalia PW 1 stated that one day when she was alone in her house in the absence of her family members, the accused had come with two pages which were in a folded condition and obtained two her signatures at two places and gave her Rs. 1000/ saying that if he would she would ask the department for refund of money it would take 3 to 4 months whereas he was giving the money here. Interalia PW 1 testified to Ex. PW 1/A and Ex. PW 1/D bearing her signatures. Ex. PW 1/A is the letter of PW 1 to the Divisional Engineer (Phone) MTNL for change of address against OB Number 56051037758 whereby she sought for change of 55 address of her connection to 10756 Manak Pura Karol Bagh, New Delhi from 11032, Chowk Tibia College, Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi of the new telephone applied by her on 14.10.1992. Ex. PW 1/D is the letter dated 19.07.2005 of Smt. Sudesh Vig requesting the Divisional Engineer (Phones) MTNL Idgah Exchange, Delhi for STD and ISD facility in her new telephone against OB No. 5651037758 with the address 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi she further testified that a bill was received from the Department that she did not know the amount of the bill and a man from the department came to the house and told that two telephones were working in the small room in the area and informed that one of the telephones there was installed in her names and other in the name of some other person and that she PW 1 had sent a number of letters to the concerned department but no response was received and that the application forms for booking the telephone in her name were filled by her husband but the witness however denied that annexure Mark PW 1/X to the application bore her signatures. She interalia testified to that effect that her specimen signatures were obtained by the CBI on Ex. PW D/1 to Ex. PW D/4. The witness also testified that a case had been filed but she did not know where it had been filed (an apparent reference to the Civil writ petition number 998 / 96 filed in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi). On being cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the witness denied that she had sold out her telephone to some other person and not to the accused and stated that she had agreed to sign as the accused was insisting and offering Rs. 1000/ to which she agreed. Interalia PW 1 denied that she had sold the telephone on receiving a high premium. Though PW 1 has in her cross examination admitted that in her statement before the CBI she had application form had been signed by her son 56 Sanjay and in her testimony in her cross examination she had stated that the form was filed by her son but signed by her and she stated that she could not say that she signed the application or her son.

PW 2 put forth in the witness box was Mr. Amar Nath, the husband of PW 1 who testified to the effect that they had booked two telephone in the name of Sanjay Vig and his wife Sudesh Vig i.e. son and wife respectively and the application were filled by her son Sanjay and application Ex. PW 1/A Sanjay had signed as Sudesh Vig and has also given his specimen signature form Ex. PW 2/C also signed in the name of his wife and has also submitted the specimen signatures form. This a witness further testified to the effect that they had got installed one telephone booked in the name of Sanjay and when in the second telephone in the name of Sudesh Vig matured, they asked for the surrender of the phone. PW 2 further testified to the effect that accused Charan Singh came to them they told him that they did not want a telephone as they had one at their shop and one at house and thus he should surrender the telephone and thereafter the accused left and came once and twice again to enquire what he PW 2 wanted to do, and that he PW 2 replied that he did not want the telephone to be installed but one day when he returned home, his wife informed that the accused had given her Rs. 1000 and had obtained her signatures on two pages and after some times the officials of the MTNL came to their office and informed that a bill of very heavy amount was outstanding the name of his wife Smt. Sudesh Vig against the telephone installed in her name and he PW 2 informed the MTNL official that they had not got installed any telephone in the name of his wife at their residence and that they were also informed by the MTNL that this telephone was working at Manak Pura where 57 another telephone in the name of some Muslim. Interalia PW 2 has testified to the effect that thereafter he wrote to the MTNL, to the CBI and to the Commissioner of Police but no response was received and thereafter he filed a writ in the High Court and the CBI then investigated the matter.

On being cross examined the witness testified to the effect that two telephones were booked for his residence and one for the office his son and but denied that from the very beginning the second telephone was booked to sell it at a premium and denied that for this purpose forgery had been done by Sanjay by signing as Sudesh.

This witness denied that the accused never got the signatures of his wife on any paper. The witness denied that in order to avoid payment of the excess telephone bill he had made the complaint against the accused. On behalf of the accused it was submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the accused Mr. L.S. Choudhary that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 are not free from doubt and that they are interested witnesses and they have the responsibility to pay the telephone bills and there is every possibility that with a view to avoid their liability they have created a false story to implicate the accused. Qua this submission made on behalf of the accused it is essential to observe that on 04.10.1996 it was informed by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent MTNL in Civil Writ Petition No. 998 of 1996 that in view of the report submitted by the CBI in the said writ, the impugned notice dated 26.02.1996 incorporating details of the amount allegedly due from the petitioner i.e. Smt. Sudesh Vig was being withdrawn and thus it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in view of this statement counsel for respondent No. 1, no further proceedings were necessary in the writ petition which was thus disposed off. 58

PW 3 put forth in the witness was Shri K.K. Naiyyar Assistant Vigilance Officer of the MTNL who testified to having been part of the team which conducted the raid on 16.05.1991 at house No. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, where they met the owner of the house Mr. Bhatnagar who informed that one room of the first floor had been rented by him Mr. Saifuddin about 8 to 10 months ago but he had already vacated the premises in November withing him. PW 3 further testified that he had also informed the CBI the room which were rented to Mr. Saifuddin was still in a possession and was lying loud. PW 3 further stated that it was informed by Mr. Bhatnagar that the room rented out to Saifuddin was still in his possession and was lying locked. PW 3 also testified that he had informed the CBI personnel that during his stay in the room, the accused No. 2 had got two telephones installed for his use but that the PW 3 did not know the numbers of those telephones.

Interalia PW 3 testified to the effect that when they entered the room they found two telephone wires were lying in the room but no telephone was connected to those lines. He further testified to the effect that during this period the CBI officials got the information that Saifuddin was residing some where in the /Railway Colony, Krishan Ganj and the CBI till alongwith himself and Shri Yadav JTO then went to the Railway Colony Krishan Ganj at house No. LC - 6A and a lady was there and on inquiry was made about Saifuddin but she informed that no person with the said name was residing at that house and on further inquiry the CBI team the lady showed one photograph of her son whose name she gave as being Arshad to the CBI team whereafter the CBI team went to the landlord of the Manak Pura House, Mr. Bhatnagar and had showed him the photograph of Arshad and Mr. 59 Bhatnagar confirmed that this Arshad was the same person named Saifuddin who had taken his premises on rent, whereafter the team went to the Kishan Ganj house and made further inquiries and went to the house No. 36 A of the same locality where after a search was conducted and documents were recovered from there i.e. an application form filled for obtaining a driving licence containing the photograph of Arshad of the address of Jeevan Park New Delhi. It has further been testified by the witness that one / two CBI officers alongwith the MTNL staff went back to the premises 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and searched the room which had been rented to Sarfuddin and the two telephone lines which were lying in the room were further traced for verifying the telephone numbers which were obtained by Sarfuddin, and an incoming ring was taken from the telephone exchange number and it was confirmed that these were the two telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109. Interalia PW3 testified to Ex. PW 3/A as being the memo prepared by the CBI team of the proceedings conducted in his presence at 10756, Manka Pura, Karol Bagh on which he had singed on each page and testified to Ex. PW 3/D as being the memo prepared regarding proceeding conducted at the Railway Colony, on which too he identified his signatures on each page. Interalia, PW 3 identified the photograph with the memo Ex. PW 3/D as being that of Sarfuddin that was seized during the search cum seizure proceeding.

Interalia PW 3 testified to the effect that the documents recovered during the house search at Railway Colony also included one slip bearing the name of ZANS trading Corporation of Bangladesh with telephone Nos. 31617410 and that he had handed over the printouts of telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109 for the period 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995 and 16.02.1996 to Inspector Azad Singh vide memo 60 Ex. PW 3/C on which he PW 3 identified his signatures. This witness further testified to this that these prints out of both the telephone revealed that a number of times calls were made from both the telephones on telephone Nos. 31617410 and the code revealed that telephone No. 31617410 belonged to Bangladesh. The testimony of this witness has not been challenged by the accused Charan Singh.

PW 4 put in the witness box by the prosecution was Mr. R.S. Yadav JTO MTNL New Delhi who testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996 he was posted as JTO Vigilance in the office of the GM (Vigilance) Khurshid Lal Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi and on having been deputed on duty with the CBI by the Senior Officers he reported to the CBI office with Mr. K.K. Nayyar JTO (PW3) and was present with the CBI team throughout the search cum seizure procedure conducted at house No. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and L36A Railway Colony. Interalia, PW 4 testified to having signed the proceedings recorded in the memos Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/E which he stated were correctly recorded qua proceedings conducted in his presence. The witness also testified to having handed over the documents detailed in Ex. PW 4/A the production cum seizure memo (dated 17.05.1996) to the CBI and he also identified the documents which had handed over to the CBI, which documents are:

(i) OB Register of Section 22 Idgah Ex. w.e.f. 1/10/94 to 15/2/96

(ii) Change of address file of Section 22 Idgah Ex. containing N/1 to N/55 and I/C.

(iii) Comt. file of T.N. 3557108, OB No. 56051046030 dated 16/6/95 containing N/1 and 1/C to 9/C.

(iv) Jumper letter No. 307 dt. 22/1/95 of Md. Sarfuddin vide OB No. 61 56051046030 ldl 16/6/95.

(v) Jumper letter No. 308 odl 22/7/95 against OB No. 56037758 odl 27/10/94 of Santosh i.e.

(vi) A hordel photo copy of Hirdey stood register in r/o T.N. 3557108, 3557109 and 3551833.

(v) D. List file of list - 3557109 for billing eye is 16/10/1995 containing 1/N to 2/N as SN1 to 23 on correspondence side.

(vi) Log boot of list 355 for billing eye to 16/8/95 containing S.No. 1629 to 3401.

(vii) Fault control register of Section 22 w.e.f. 14/10/95 to 2/12/95.

(viii) Fault control register of Section 22 w.e.f. 3/12/95 to 10/1/96.

(ix) Fault control register of Section 22 w.e.f. 25/9/95 to 13/10/95.

He further identified the said document stating that they were records maintained during the ordinary course of business. The testimony of this witness has not been challenged on behalf of the accused Charan Singh.

PW 5 put forth in the witness box were Shri K.K. Singh, Assistant Director, NDMC, Horticulture Department who testified to having been posted on 16.05.1996 as a Section Officer in the Horticulture Department of the NDMC New Delhi and testified to the effect that on that date he was deputed as witness to the CBI office, where he met Inspector Mr. Kapoor and that he was briefed that he had to accompany the CBI team to Manak Pura Karol Bagh. This witness stated to the effect that at house No. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh at the house of Uma Shankar Bhatnagar, they found two telephone drop wires in a room which were connected with a pool and it was revealed that the room had been given on rent @ 62 750 per month to some Muslim person named perhaps Saifuddin and Sahabuddin and that they also came to know that he had left that room and was residing in a house at Kishan Ganj. The witness testified further that at Kishan Ganj at house No. 6, Railway Quarter they met a person named Sajjid who on inquiries informed that the person about whom the team was inquiring was residing at house No. L36 Kishan Ganj and a photograph was shown at that premises to a lady present there who stated that the photo was not of her family or son saying (yeh photo hamare aadmi ki nahi hein). The witness further testified to the effect that they again went to the house of Mr. Bhatnagar at Manakpura who on seeing the photograph identified it to be of the same person to whom he had let out the room.

PW 5 has testified to the effect that they again visited L36 Kishan Ganj and on the search of the premises articles mentioned at Srl. No. 1 to 15 found there, were seized vide memo Ex. PW 3/B which documents include a Learner licence of Mohd. Arshad Hussain with his photograph in the name of Qumar Jamil for address RZ-A-64 Jeevan Park, New Delhi on passport application of Arshad Hussain, and telephone indexes of Mohd. Arshad Hussain, and 1005 Bangladesh Takka Notes interalia.

Interalia PW 5 identified a photograph Ex. PW 5/A as being the photograph shown by the CBI team to Mr. Bhatnagar and also at L36, Kishan Ganj. PW 5 further testified to the effect that the entire proceedings of the test check of wires at the Manak Pura house took place in the house. This witness was cross examined on behalf of the accused but he has in no manner retracted from the prosecution version.

PW 6 examined was Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sr. Assistant Establishment 63 (Architecture and Horticulture) NDMC New Delhi who too testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996 while he was posted as Junior Assistant, he was deputed for CBI duty on that day and at the CBI office he met a duty officer who briefed him about the purpose of the visit to CBI office and from the CBI office they went to the Idgah Telephone Exchange and thereafter to Manak Pura Karol Bagh where there was a raid to be conducted at some unauthorized STD Booth which was being used for making illegal calls. Interalia, PW 6 testified that after some time some CBI officers remained at Manak Pura where he also stayed and a team went to Kishan Ganj.

PW 6 also admitted that Mr. Bhatnagar identified Ex. PW 5/A as being the photo of Sarfuddin whom he identified to having let the room in his house at Manakpura. Interalia PW 6 admitted to having signed the memo Ex. PW 3/A on all pages after going through its contents. On being cross examined by the counsel of the accused PW 6 stated that he had not seen any one personally running STD at Manakpura and had learnt about the same of the conversation between the CBI and MTNL official. Interalia the witness stated that he did not remember if the telephone instrument found in that room could be used for dialling the number and stated that it was heard that the instrument was of Mr. Sarfuddin. According to this witness the CBI personnel took the instrument and wire to the PB box and checking was done.

PW 7 examined by the prosecution was Shri Daryav Singh, Section Officer NDMC who testified to having been posted in the enforcement department of the NDMC and stated that he had accompanied the CBI team in the area of Trans Yamuna where a search was conducted in its premises by the CBI and testified to Mr. Shiv Kumar being present with him i.e. PW 7 as a witness at the time of the 64 search. He further stated there were blank papers seized and stated that he could not give.

PW 8 examined by the prosecution was Shri Shiv Kumar, Deputy Director (Horticulture) who testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996, he was posted as the Section Officer at the NDMC and that he had been directed by his Director (Vigilance) to report to the CBI and on 16.05.1996 when, PW 8 accompanied the CBI team in the Kartar Nagar Area of Trans Yamuna where a search was conducted in his presence and one Mr. Darayav Singh was also present at the time of the search and testified to Ex. PW 7/A bearing his signature at point B. The witness on being cross examined by counsel for the accused admitted that as per the record the statement was record on 16.05.1997 but denied that he was not present at the time of the present that he had signed the document subsequently, in the CBI office.

PW 9 put forth in the witness box by the prosecution was Shri Om Prakash Chief Accounts Officer MTNL, who testified to the effect that during the year 1995 he was working as AO (TR) III in the office of the General Manager (East) 10, Daryangaj, New Delhi and stated that the telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 were under his jurisdiction for accounting purpose and he sent the details dated 26.02.1996 in respect of telephone number 3557108 reflecting the outstanding bills dated 16.10.1995, 16.12.1996, 29.01.1996 and 30.01.1996. He further stated that payments for this telephone were not coming forward and details of the outstanding payments were Ex. PW 9/A bearing his signature and stated that Ex. PW 9/A indicates a total amount of Rs. 17,77,105/ as being due from Smt. Sudesh Vig in relation to telephone No. 3557108 installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi for the period 16.10.1995, 16.12.1996, 29.01.1996 and 65 30.01.1996. PW 9 also testified to the effect that the bills Ex. PW 9/B, Ex. PW 9/C, Ex. PW 9/D and Ex. PW 9/E for the cycle 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995, 29.01.1996 and 30.01.1996 in relation to the telephone number 3557109 had also not been paid. Ex. PW 9/B, Ex. PW 9/C, Ex. PW 9/D and Ex. PW 9/E were testified to be all bills of the MTNL issued to Mohd. Sarfuddin 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in relation to telephone No. 3557109 for outstanding amounts of Rs. 6,42,700/, Rs. 6,03,253/, Rs. 77,936/ and Rs. 39,200/ respectively.

Interalia PW 9 testified to the effect that the disconnection file Ex. PW 9/F of level 3557 indicated the details of arrears of the first cycle of telephone number 3557108 and 3557109 as indicated in Ex. PW 9/G. It was further testified by PW 9 that since the ringing cum disconnection list was received late from the in house computer cell headquarters, the disconnection could not be done in time and the telephones were disconnected on 29.01.1996.

It was also testified by PW 9 that TR (Telephone Revenue files) of both the telephones were handed over by him to the CBI and stated that due to decentralization of the Nehru Place exchange the disconnection could not be issued in time and by that time the bills of the cycle dated 16.12.1995 were issued.

PW 9 testified to the effect that the documents Ex. PW 9/H1 to Ex. PW 9/H6 placed in the telephone revenue file Ex. PW 9/H bore his signatures and testified that the notice sent to Sarfuddin was received back unserved due to non availability of the addressee at the given address. It was further testified by the witness that the notice issued to the subscriber of telephone No. 3557108 for non payment of bills had been received at that address. The witness on being cross examined in reply to a specific query put forth on behalf of the accused whether he 66 aware the telephone No. 3557108 had an ISD facility replied to the effect "the OB issued for releasing new telephone connections was fed on computer by the telephone exchange staff not by the Accounting Wing. After disconnection of telephone No. 3557108 due to nonpayment of outstanding telephone bill dated 16.10.1995 on 29.1.1996, the TRI verified the commercial file which was under the custodian of commercial officer and intimated that this telephone was booked under general category as nonQYT category but later on the original address was found changed from the original address and STD plus ISD facility was sanctioned/approved by the concerned DE, telephone exchange Idgah."

This witness admitted that till verification of the commercial file by the TRI it was not known to him nor by his account section that this telephone No. 3557108 had STD plus ISD facility and stated that his section does not dispatch bills to the subscriber and they are dispatched by the headquarter. He further stated that no copy of the bill sent to the subscriber for a telephone reaches the accounting section (TRA) in which he was working and that whatever bills are raised and dispatched to the subscriber are not known to the Account Section. He further stated that the subscriber of this telephone was Smt. Sudesh Vig and that bills are not sent fortnightly in every telephone connection with STD/ISD facility but in cases of PCOs with STD and ISD facility the bills are sent regularly every fortnight and further stated that the telephones are disconnected after receipt of the disconnection from the in house computer section of the TRA Section. He further stated at the relevant time the system of disconnection was manual and the disconnection cum ringing time took up to 19 days from the cycle date. He further stated that the subscriber is personally liable to pay the bills raised against a 67 telephone and stated that in the instant case the STD and ISD facility of telephone No. 3557108 was ordered to be opened on the direction of the DET but that he was not sure if the DET was the Competent Authority to allow such facility. He further stated that he was not aware whether the JE and SDO are supposed to visit the consumer before opening of the facility of STD and ISD and also stated that he was not aware whether such facility was granted only on written request of the consumer. He further stated that he had submitted that record to the Vigilance Section who had further submitted the same to the CBI and has also stated that the telephone inspector had visited the site when the subscriber Sudesh Vig gave a slip to the vigilance section but that he did not remember if he had narrated this aspect to the CBI or not.

PW 10 examined by the CBI was Mr. Suraj Bhan phone mechanic of the MTNL who testified that in the year 1994 he was working as a daily wager mazdoor at the Idgah Telephone Exchange Delhi and that SI Girdhari Lal, Paras Ram Regular Mazdoor, Phone Inspector Charan Singh (the accused who was identified by PW 10 in Court) were working in the office at that time and he further stated that he, PW 10 used to assist Paras Ram the Regular mazdoor at the time of installation of telephone connection or at the time of rectification in already installed telephone connections. It has further been testified by PW 10 that the phone Inspector or JE used to direct the regular mazdoor for installation of new connection and prior to installation of the new telephone connection the PI or JE used to verify the address of the subscriber and after subscriber used to issue direction for installation. PW 10 identified a hand written paper slip D22 Ex. PW 10/A to be that written by the accused Charan Singh and stated that this slip was given by the 68 accused Charan Singh to Paras Ram for installation of two telephone connection number 3557108 and 3557109 at house No. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and that he and Paras Ram both went to this address and installed these two said connections. PW 10 further stated that he identified the handwriting of Charan Singh as he had worked under him and has seen him writing and singing. On being cross examined the witness has stated that the telephone number and address of the subscriber were deposed by him after seeing the paper slip Ex. PW 10/A and stated that the paper slip was not written in his presence nor was it handed over by Charan Singh to Paras Ram in his absence. This witness stated that he was unable to recall the exact number of telephone connections which he and Paras Ram installed during the year 1994 to 1995. He further stated that this paper slip had never been in his possession and had been given to Charan Singh to Paras Ram and not to him. The witness however denied that he has testified falsely.

PW 11 put forth in the witness box was Shri Pradeep Kumar who testified to Ex. PW 11/ A to Ex. PW 11/B i.e. four sheets of specimen signature and handwriting S1 to S4 taken of the accused Charan Singh in the CBI office in his presence. The cross examination conducted of this witness on behalf of the accused Charan Singh does not indicate any challenge to the veracity of the testimony of the witness qua Ex. PW 11/A to Ex. PW 11/B being the specimen signature of the handwriting of the accused Charan Singh.

PW 12 put for forth in the witness was Shri Uma Shankar Bhatnagar the owner of the house No. 10756 Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi where the two telephones in question were allegedly found installed at the time of search 69 conducted by the CBI team. This witness corroborated the prosecution version in toto in relation to his having let out one room at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh to Mr. Mohd. Sarfuddin i.e. the co accused No. 2 since a (proclaimed offender). He interalia testified that the rent was fixed at Rs. 750/ per month and that the accused Mohd. Sarfuddin gave a rent agreement which he PW 12 had handed over to the CBI Inspector Mr. Azad Singh and which was so seized vide the seizure memo dated 12.06.1996 (i.e. Ex. PW 12/B), on which he PW 12 identified his signature at point A. Interalia PW 12 testified to the effect that the room was rented out Mr. Sarfuddin (accused No. 2) through one Mr. Amzad who was the tenant in the same house in portion of their uncle.

PW 12 also testified to the effect that the accused No. 2 Sarfuddin had installed two telephones in the same said room in which he resided for 5/6 months. PW 12 further testified to the effect that the CBI officials had taken a search of that room but nothing had been found in the room and that a search memo was prepared at that spot on which he had signed at point E on the search memo Ex. PW 3/A. PW 12 also stated that after the search of the said room had been conducted, the CBI team had gone to the Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj for taking the search of the house of the mother of the accused Sarfuddin from where interalia the two telephone and photographs were recovered and both the telephones and instrument were shown to PW 12 Mr. Bhatnagar by the CBI official, which had been identified by PW 12 who had also identified the photograph of the accused No. 2, Sarfuddin. Interalia PW 12 testified to having identified the photograph of accused Sarfuddin and identified the photograph on the learner license D39 of the accused Mohd. Sarfuddin. However, the witness PW 12 stated that he was not 70 present at the house of the mother of the accused Sarfuddin at the time of conducting of the search of her house nor had he signed that search memo.

PW 13 put forth in the witness box was Inspector Shehnaz Khan of the CBI, who testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996 when she was posted in the ACB Branch Lodhi Road New Delhi, she alongwith Inspector D.K. Pradhan had gone to conduct the search of the house of Saifuddin bearing property No. 8127, Third Floor, Gali No. 2, Bara Hindu Rao New Delhi but found that Saifuddin was not residing there and on inquiries made by Inspector D.K. Pradhan about his whereabouts, a person name Zulfekar was found whose statement was recorded by Inspector D.K. Pradhan whereafter the search team proceeded to 6L Railway Colony Kishan Ganj where the search was conducted and search cum seizure was prepared there and some document was seized vide a search cum seizure memo Ex. PW 3/B on which she identified her signatures. Ex. PW 13/A was testified by PW 13 to be the list prepared by Inspector D.K. Pradhan and she also testified to Ex. PW 13/B being the statement of some Sayyed Mohd. recorded by Inspector D.K. Pradhan whose signatures were identified by PW 13. On being cross examined by counsel for accused No. 1, PW 13 denied that she did not visit Kishan Ganj for conducting the search and denied that Ex. PW 13/A and Ex. PW 13/B were not prepared in her presence though she admitted that the said documents were not signed by her. PW 13 further stated that she had mentioned the names of the parties after perusing the documents.

PW 14 examined by the CBI was Inspector D.K. Pradhan who testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996, he visited premises No. 8127/8131 Gali No. 2, Chimni Street, Bara Hindu Rao Gali for the house search of one Saifuddin 71 under Section 161 Cr. PC on reaching there Saifuddin was not residing their which fact was confirmed by Shri Zulfikar, owner of the said house. Interalia PW 14 testified to Ex. PW 13/A being the list of occupants in the said premises with their telephone Nos and the duration for which they were residing there. PW 14 testified to having recorded the statement Ex. PW 13/B of S.M. Zulfikar owner of the said house in relation thereto, which he testified to have been signed at point A. Interalia PW 14 testified to the effect that on inquiries made by him from Zulfikar about the installation of telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109, he was informed him that no such telephone were installed in the said premises. PW 14 also testified to the effect that the witness Zulfikar on inquiries also informed that no such person of the name of Amzad Khan nor by the name of Sudesh Vig had ever resided at the said premises. On being cross examined on behalf of accused No. 1 Charan Singh it is stated by the witness that he met each and every person mentioned in the list personally before recording their particulars and stated that Ex. PW 13/A had been prepared in his own handwriting which he however admitted did not bear his signatures. The witness further stated that he did not obtain the signature of any person mentioned in the list from whom inquiries were made as he did not consider it necessary and further stated the telephone Nos. mentioned in Ex. PW 13/A were the telephone connections installed in the premises and no other telephone connection except those connections were there. Interalia PW 14, on being cross examined testified to the effect though he has not been the Investigating Officer of the case, he had been authorized by the Investigating Officer to conduct the search in writing.

PW 15 examined by the CBI was Inspector A.K. Kapoor who 72 testified to having been posted in the Anti Corruption Branch, CBI as Inspector in May 1996 and testified to the registration of the FIR in the instant case in 15.05.1996 and identified the signature of the then SP Mr. V.S. Kaumudi on the said FIR Ex. PW 15/A. PW 15 further testified to the effect that he was authorized under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Inspector Azad Singh of the CBI vide a authorization letter Ex. PW 15/B and that on 16.05.1996 a CBI team comprising of himself, two independent witnesses and two MTNL Vigilance Officers and Inspector Shehnaz and officials of the CBI was formed and who testified to the search having been conducted at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi at the house of one Sarfuddin where he PW 15 found the owner of the house who informed that he had given the first floor room on rent to Mr. Sarfuddin in June 1995 and who had got two telephones installed in the said premises and left/abandoned the said room in November 1995.

Interalia PW 15 testified to the effect that the owner led the CBI team to the first floor room and the MTNL Vigilance Officer present there verified and confirmed the presence of the said two telephone numbers which were used fraudulently in the presence of independent witnesses. Interalia PW 15 testified to the effect that he inquired about the whereabouts of Sarfuddin from the owner and nearby tenants who informed that the family and relatives of Sarfuddin reside in an adjoining locality of Krishna Nagar Railway Colony and after leaving two members of the CBI team at the residence, they proceeded to Railway Colony Kishan Nagar alongwith independent witnesses and other CBI members, and went to a house to inquire about Sarfuddin and the occupant of the house informed that Sarfuddin lived in a railway quarter on rent alongwith his mother. He further stated that at that 73 house on inquiry about the whereabouts of the Saifuddin the lady informed that Sarfuddin was not residing there but stated that she was residing with her son at that house and supplied a photograph of her son i.e. Ex. PW 15/A and the PW 15 went back to the main premises at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and showed it to the owner of the house who confirmed the photograph as being that of Sarfuddin and not of the name mentioned by his mother. Interalia the witness stated that he prepared a memo Ex. PW 3/A at the spot bearing the exact name and changed name of Sarfuddin in the same. He further testified to the effect that there after, after completing the formalities of search at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, alongwith the CBI team PW 15 proceeded to the house of Sarfuddin and conducted the search vide a search cum seizure memo dated 16.05.1996 i.e. Ex. PW 3/B which bore his signatures thereon. PW 15 further stated that he had visited another address of Sarfuddin recovered during the house search and could not find him there and returned back to the CBI office and handed over the documents to Inspector Azad Singh alongwith the authorization form and stated that his statement was recorded by Inspector Azad Singh on 17.05.1996.

On being cross examined by the counsel of the accused Charan Singh, the witness denied that he had prepared the memos of Ex. PW 3/A and 3/B at his connivance. PW 15 however stated that he had not recorded the statement of the witness of the tenants mentioned in examination in chief.

PW 16 examined by the prosecution was Mr. A.K. Kalia, Deputy Director General Department of Telecom Communication, New Delhi who testified to the effect that in February 1998 he was posted as Deputy General Manager Administration at MTCE, NTR, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi and was looking after 74 the work of the administration of North Telecom Region and was also the cadre controlling authority of the MTNL staff upto junior telephone officers and testified to the effect that on perusal of the record put up before him in relation to accused No. 1 Charan Singh and after applying his mind and that he had found sufficient evidence on the record to accord sanction for prosecution against Shri Charan Singh, accorded be sanctioned vide sanction order Ex. PW 16/A which bore his signature and seal of his office at point A on each page.

On being cross examined by counsel for the accused Charan Singh the witness testified to the effect that he was not aware whether the accused Charan Singh was looking after the work of Section 22 of 24, nor was he aware whether there was any shortage of staff, nor did he remember in how many cases he had granted sanction for prosecution. Interlia, PW 16 denied that he had not applied his mind and denied that he signed the sanction order Ex. PW 16/A in a mechanical manner and stated that he had granted the sanction after applying his mind and that the sanction order was prepared in his office and denied that the sanction order Ex. PW 16/A was prepared by the CBI officer. Interalia, PW 16 denied that he had deposed at the instance of the CBI.

PW 17 put forth in the witness box was Shri V.K. Khanna Retd. Principal Scientific Officer and Incharge documents division CFSL CBI, New Delhi who testified to his having been a Sr. Scientific Officer Grade II at the CFSL Sr. Scientific Officer GradeI and Principal Officer of the CFSL and testified to having received training in all aspects of documents such as handwriting and signature identification, typewriting and printing and stated that he had given reports in more than 2500 cases received from various cases involving a lakh of exhibits of various 75 kinds and had attended about 1400 Courts as an expert witness throughout India. He testified to the effect that documents had been submitted for examination by the SP CBI ACB New Delhi vide memo No. DLI/AC/CR/III/41(A)/96/6651 dated 14.05.1997 which have been examined by him carefully with scientific aids and he had given the opinion to the effect: "In the present case, certain documents had been submitted for examination by the SP, CBI, ACB, New Delhi, vide memo No. DLI/AC/Cr/3/41(A)/96/6651 dated 14.05.1997. These documents of this case had been examined by me carefully with Scientific aids and the following opinions had been arrived at: I. Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the specimen English signatures marked S5 to S8 which are already exhibited as Ex. PW1/D1 to Ex. PW1/D4, being the person responsible for writing the questioned English Signatures Marked Q1 to Q3. The Q1 is now Exhibited as Ex. PW17/A. The Q2 is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The Q3 at point A, the same is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B. Due to the reasons given in details in my report. II. The questioned English Signatures marked Q1 to A3. The Q1 is now Exhibited as Ex. PW17/A. The Q2 is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The Q3 at point A, the same is already exhibited as Ex. PW1/B, could not be connected with the Specimen English writings marked S1 to S4. The S1 to S4 are already exhibited as Ex. PW11/A to PW11/D respectively. Due to the reasons given in details in my report.

III.Handwriting evidence points to the writer of the Admitted English writings marked A1 to A4 and A8. The same are Ex. PW17/B1 to Ex. PW17/B4. 76 The A8 is already exhibited as Ex. PW10/A, being the person responsible for writing the questioned carbon English writings Marked Q7 and Q9. The Q7 is now exhibited as Ex. PW17/C and Q9 is now exhibited as Ex. PW17/D. Due to the reasons given in details in my report.

IV.The questioned English Zerox writing Marked Q4 is at the document which is already Ex. PW17A could not be connected with the admitted English Writings Marked A1 to A4, which is already exhibited in Ex. PW17/B1 to Ex. PW17/B4 and A8 which is already exhibited as Ex. PW10/A. Due to the reasons given in details in my report.

My detailed report dated 31.07.1997 is now Ex. PW17/E running into 6 pages, which bears my signatures at point A on each page. My report is correct. Last page of the report is also bears the official seal. The report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, CBI/ACB/New Delhi, vide forwarding letter dated 04.08.1997, which bears the signatures of Dr. S.R. Singh, the then Acting Director, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi. I identfy his signatures at point A on the forwarding Letter Ex. PW17/F".

He further testified to the effect that his report Ex. PW 17/E dated 31.07.1997 in six pages bore his signature at point A on each page and that his report is correct and bears his official seal of the last page and testified that this report had been sent under the signatures of Dr. S.R. Singh the then Acting Director CFSL, CBI, New Delhi vide forwarding letter Ex. PW 17/F on which he PW 17 identified the signature of Dr. S.R. Singh and testified to the effect that the said report was sent to the SP CBI ACB New Delhi vide forwarding letter dated 04.08.1997.

PW 18 examined by the CBI was Mr. V.P. Sharma SDO who was posted as SDO Telephone at Idgah Telephone exchange w.e.f 1994 to 1997 as testified by him. He identified the accused Charan Singh as the Phone Inspector and stated that Charan Singh the accused was Section Incharge of Section 22 and had the jurisdiction area of Manak Pura, Tibiya College, Gaushala Road and the area in front of Filmistan and his duty was to verify the bonafidity in case of execution of new telephone connection and installation of the same and maintenance of telephone lines. PW 18 further testified to the effect that as he had seen the accused writing and signing during the course of his official duties and could identify the handwriting and signature of the accused. Ex. PW 18/A shown to the witness was identified by the witness as being the OB dak register of his office, in which OB No. 5605107758 Ex. PW 18/B in read ink on the back of page 51 was testified to having been received by the accused Charan Singh Phone Inspector on 21.10.1995 vide his initials at point A as identified by PW 18 and it was further stated by PW 18 that this entry in the OB register by the accused at Srl. No. 369 pertained to Sudesh Vig - 11302, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh.

This witness also testified to having seen the office file Ex. PW 18/C containing D15 i.e. Ex. 17/D4, a jumper letter for opening of new telephone connection in the name of Sudesh Vig r/o 10756, Manka Pura, Karol Bagh vide OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 and testified that this indicated the telephone No. 3557108 was opened and a jumper letter No. 308 was issued to Shri Charan Singh and his signature are there at point A on Ex. PW 17/D4. The witness stated that he identified the signature at point A on Ex. PW 17/D2 of the accused and also testified to the notesheet 105C. PW18 further testified to the effect that Section 78 Incharge Charan Singh got approval of the said change of address from 11302 Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh to 10756, Manka Pura, Karol Bagh subject to bonafidity at the new address and testified to the said note sheet being the handwriting of the accused Charan Singh and testified to the noting Ex. PW 17/B2 approved by the DE/OD Idgah Exchange also exhibited as Ex. PW 18/C1 having been signed at point A by the accused Charan Singh and also stated that this note sheet was in the handwriting of the accused Charan Singh. It was stated by PW 18 that he recommended the noting Ex. PW 18/C subject to bonafide at new address.

PW 18 testified to PW 18/D (D36) as being the MTNL file in relation to telephone No. 3557108 installed in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and testified to Ex. PW 1/A (page 9C of Ex. PW 18/D forming part of D36). As being the application by the subscriber Smt. Sudesh Vig r/o 11032, Chowk Tibiya College, Gaushal Marg, New Delhi for change of address for installation of new telephone connection against OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 to 10756, Manka Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Interalia, PW 18 testified to the effect that this application was received in the office of Divisional Engineer (Phones), Outdoor I, Idgah Division new Delhi with initials of Shri O.P. M DE at point B on Ex. PW 1/A. It was stated by the witness that this application did not bear any diary number and was put for change of address by the accused Charan Singh Phone Inspector incharge of Section 22 and he further stated that he recommended the "change of address with the remarks change of address may please be approved subject to bona fides of a case". and stated that he signed on the same and it was also signed by Mr. O.P. Mehta DE at point C. It is considered essential to reproduce his testimony which is: 79 "I am shown another application dt. 19.7.95 which is already Ex. PW 1/B which is available in file D36 at page 8/C. The photocopy of this application is available in the file Ex. PW 18/C (D33). This application pertains to request of provision of STD * ISD facilities on telephone number to be opened against OB No. 5651037758 dt. 27.10.94. This application was signed by O.P. Mehta Divisional Engineer dt. 22.7.95 at point B of Ex. PW1/B. This has no approval except signatures of Sh. O.P. Mehta D.E. Photocopy of this application is available at page 8/C in the file D33 (Ex. PW 18/C). I am shown the file of MTNL (D36). This file contains OB No. 56051037758 dt. 27.10.94 at page 11/C which is already Ex. PW 17/C. Old address is typed as 11302, Chowk Tibia College Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh Circled and new handwritten address i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110 005 in handwriting of Shri Charan Singh. This handwirtten portion is underlined with red ink on Ex. PW 17/C. This OB also shows change of address approved with the signatures of Sh. O.P. Mehta at point C. It is also seen word "with" in handwriting is added before STD and word "barred" has been scored and added in handwriting ISD. The added portion "with" is marked as X and the word "and ISD" is marked X1 on Ex. PW 17/C. I am shown the file D33 (Ex. PW 18/C) and say after seeing pg. 5/C that OB No. 56051046030 dt. 16.06.95 is in the name of Sarfuddin at the address 8127, 3rd, Chimney mill, Gali No. 2, Bara hindu Rao, Delhi. It is now Ex. PW 18/C2. This telephone was booked by Mohd. Sarfuddin. This OB made over to incharge of Section No. 24 because area falls in Section 24. I have seen an application dt. 18.07.95 at pg. 7/C in the file D33 from Sarfuddin regarding change of address for installation of new telephone connection from 8127, 3rd, 80 Chimney mill, Gali No. 2, Bara Hindu Rao, Delhi to 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi received in D.E. Office with no diary number. I marked this application for Section Incharge 24 with the remakrs that please put up for change of address. I signed below my endorsement at point B. This application is Ex. PW 18/E. It also bears signature of Shri O.P. Mehta DE at point C. I am shown another application dt. 18.7.95 at pg. 8/C in the same file for provision of STD/ISD facility required for telephone number to be opened against OB No. 56051046030 dt. 16.6.95. This application bears signatures of Sh. O.P. Mehta D.E. at point C without any remarks. It is now Ex. PW 18/F. I am shown the OB register (D34) which is now Ex. PW 18/G and say after seeing Sl. No. 1300 pg. 226, Incharge of Section 24 entered the OB. It is also seen that this OB was received by Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. Incharge of Section 22 on dt. 19th July. The entry is encircled in red ink and signatures of Charan Singh is at point B. I have been shown a file for change of address of Section 22, Sh. Charan Singh put up file for change of installation address against OB No. 56051046030 dt. 16.06.95 from 8127, 3rd Chimney mill, Bara Hindu Rao to 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi vide Ex. PW 17/D. I recommended the case for change of address with the remakrs that change of address may please be approved subject to bonafide the case at new address and sent to D.E.. My noting is at portion X3 and my signatures are at point B. Sh. O.P. Mehta has approved S/B/F o.k at new address. His endorsement is at portion X4 and signature at point C. This note sheet Ex. PW 17/B1 is at pg. (104/C in the file D33 Ex. PW 18/C). I am shown OB register Ex. PW 18/B (D11) and seen the entry at Sl. No. 848A that OB No. 5646030 dt. 16.06.95 is made by Sh. Charan Singh regarding OB and address of Mohd. Sarfudding, 10756, Manakpura, Karol 81 Bagh, New Delhi with jumper letter No. 307/227 and telephone number 3557109 was opened. This entry is encircled with red ink and the portion is mark as X4. I am shown jumper letter No. 307 (D14) & 308 (D15) were issued by Sh. Charan Singh, P.I. Section incharge 22 in his own handwriting and signed at point B on both the letters. Both these letters are already Ex. PW 17/B3 and PW 17/B4 respectively. The signatures of Charan Singh are at point A on both the letters.

Applications for change of address are received in office or collected by field staff i.e. Section Incharge i.e. Phone Inspector, JTO and are to be put up in change of address file by Sectio Incharge to SDO and competent authority for approval of (O/D). Section Incharge is supposed to check the bonafidity of the partty. He is fully responsible for bonafidity of the case.

I am shown the slip which is already Ex. PW 10/A. It is in the handwriting of Sh. Charan Singh containing the details of OB No. 56051037758 dt. 27.10.95 and 56051046030 dt. 16.06.95 with open number 3557108 and 3557109 respectively. There is no bar to installation of two telephone in one premises. (Vol. we have to see bonafides of the parties).

I am shown fault control register (D19) of Section 22 w.e.f. 14.10.95. Telephone number 3557109 (10756, Manakpura) booked and made set right and for confirmation after dialing ROTSS by Mohd. Usman."

"This entry is encirlced in red ink Mark X5 in the fault control register which is now Ex. PW 18/H. I have been shown another fault control register of MTNL which is D20 and now marked Ex. PW 18/J. This pertained to section22 w.e.f. 03.12.95. Telephone No. 3557108 booked on 06.12.95 and made set right on the same day ROTSS Sarfuddin was speaking on the said telephone and 82 not Sudesh Vij. This entry is encircled with red ink and MarkX6 in the register Ex. PW 18/J. Court Observation: Lot of numerals in this entry seem to have been written by different dark coloured pen and also bears cutting and corrections.

Telephone No. 3557109 was booked on 03.10.95 working at 10756 Manakpura, not shown regarding set right. It is encircled in red ink and the portion is marked X7 of fault control Register of Section - 22 w.e.f. 25.09.95 (D21) now Ex. PW 18/K."

On being cross examined by counsel for the accused the witness stated that at the relevant time when these two telephone were applied, the waiting period for connections was 2/3/4 years and a time even took 8/10 years for connection to materialize. Interalia, the witness stated that the OB letter does not contain a photo or signature of a subscriber and stated that for providing ISD and STD facility and for effecting change of address the written request of subscriber is necessary and denied that the request for change of address is verified by the SDO and then sent to the DE(Outdoor) and stated that a subscriber gives the letter to change the address to section incharge and letter is placed in change of address file with remarks of the section incharge and it is sent to the SDO and the SDO sends then to the DE who is the Competent Authority for approval. PW 18 admitted that such an application can be moved directly in the office of DE (Outdoor). He further admitted that it was the duty of the Section Incharge, i.e. of the accused Charan Singh in the instant case for getting approval in the competent authority for installation of new connection and that it was a duty of the accused for getting approval of STD and ISD being provided. (Furthermore, the witness stated that the procedure had been followed by the accused in the instant case that i.e. (he 83 had obtained the approval from the competent authority in case of installation of new connection). Interalia, PW 18 stated that the procedure had been followed by the accused in the present case and that the application was also signed by the competent authority i.e. the Divisional Engineer Shri O.P. Mittal and the same amounted to approval. The witness further stated that it was the duty of the accused to carry out necessary correction in terms of the approval. It was further stated by PW 18 and it was the duty of the accused to make the necessary correction in terms of the approval by the Competent Authority but denied that the observation "subject to bonafidity check the new address was a general official terms views in official notings". PW 18 further stated that he could neither admit nor deny whether signature / initials at point A and B on Ex. PW 17 were those of the Competent Authority but admitted that the competent authority had approved the application Ex. PW 1/B, and the details mentioned in Ex. PW 17/C and it was further testified by this witness that at the initiation of the Section Incharge (in the instant case the accused No. 1), by sending a jumper letter to the concerned OB for the new telephone connection for Record Section then Record Section send it to switch room for opening of the number given by the Section Incharge in the jumper letter). Interalia it was stated by the witness that as per the procedure work is alloted by the Section Incharge to a field party for installation of new connection or to checking of address of bonafidity by the Section Incharge. Interalia this witness admitted that the UO No. 21/14 Mark PW 18/DX was issued by the department for providing of new connection and inter exchange shift of telephones. It was admitted by PW 18 that as per the said UO mark PW 18/DX if the subscriber filed the annexure form no such verification such as check of 84 Ration Card or identity card or passport was required. But is was stated that in this case the change of address by providing of new connection for approval by the competent Authority was with the condition subject to bonafidity of a new address. Interalia PW 18 denied that the UO prohibited the field staff from questioning the subscriber and demanding proof of bonafidity if they filled the annexure form. It was admitted by the witness that in this case Ex. PW 17/A the annexure form had been filled in. It was also admitted by the witness that the accused had received the case of the telephone connection in the name of Sarfuddin from Section 24 for execution of the OB work. He further stated that accused had received the OB work in Section 22 on 19.07.1995 vide entry Ex. PW 18/1 at point X on Ex. PW 3/G. It was also testified by PW 18 that during his tenure he had not received any complaint against the accused but that he could not say whether the accused had performed his job in accordance with rules or that he was a victim of circumstances of illegality if any has committed by the subscribers. PW 18 however denied that the accused had been falsely implicated.

PW 19 examined by the prosecution was Shri Mohd. Ahmed a book binder residing at house No. 10756, Gali Nale Wale, Nanak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi during the year 1995. This witness has testified to the effect that in the year 1995 a person name Arshad had been introduced by him to a person named Uma for taking a room on rent in his locality and thereafter this person residing in the house of Uma (the witness also stated that a sound of ringing of telephone was heard many times by him and also admitted that a person from the telephone department had come alongwith telephone bill and had asked about the address given in the bill and that the CBI officials had admitted him that his actual name was Arshad as 85 Saifuddin.

PW 20 examined by prosecution by Mr. S.K. Bhasin, Chief Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Model Basti, New Delhi as he was posted on the date 28.08.1997, who testified to having handed over the document mentioned in the seizure memo Ex. PW 20/A i.e. D35 to Inspector Azad Singh of the CBI ACB. PW 20 also identified the original specimen signature card of Zarina Khatoon bearing a photograph of account No. 14347/96 a saving account bearing the signature of Shri P.S. Rawat, Accountant of the Branch whose signatures he identify. PW 20 also testified to the original account opening form of the said account in the name of Zarina Khatoom bearing her photograph as being Ex. PW 20A2 bearing signatures of the Manager/Accountant Shri P.S. Rawat which he recognize. He also testified to having been handed over the original specimen signature card of Arshad Hussain of Saving account No. 14584/98 alongwith the original account opening form of the said account for the period 18.03.1986 to 09.07.1997. Interalia PW 20 testified to the specimen signature card of Shri Arshad Hussain bearing his photograph having been verified by Mr. Kamlesh Garg Immediate Supervisor and testified to the specimen signature card being Ex. PW 20/A4. The testimony of this witness was not challenged by the accused No. 1 through cross examination.

PW 21 examined by the CBI was Shri Nand Kishore Singh who testified to the effect that there were no immovable or movable assets in the name of the accused Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin and found even at a native place of the accused No. 1 the testimony of the witness was not challenged on cross examination on behalf of the accused No. 1.

PW 22 examined by the prosecution was Retd. Inspector Azad Singh 86 the Investigating Officer of the case who testified to the effect that the present case was registered on the basis of directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 14.03.1996 vide order copy of which is Ex. PW 22/A and on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW 15/A was registered on 15.05.1996 by Shri V.S.K. Kaumaudi SP CBI, who entrusted the investigation of this case to PW 22 who also deputed Inspector V.K. Pradhan vide authorization i.e. Ex. PW 22/C. PW 22 testified to Ex. PW 13/B being a list of resident of 8127/8131 Gali No. 2, Chimney Gali, Bara Hindu Rao prepared by Inspector V.K. Pradhan who also recorded the statement of Syyad Mohd. Zulfikar Ex. PW 13/B. Interalia PW 22 testified to the effect that he had also authorized Shri A.K. Kapoor Inspector CBI to conduct the search under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. PW 22/D, signed by him. PW 22 testified to Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B as being the report submitted by Inspector A.K. Kapoor after conducting the search. PW 22 also testified to having conducting the search vide search cum seizure memo Ex. PW 7/A and stated that a copy of the same was given the accused Charan Singh who signed at the memo at point D in token of having received the copy. Interalia PW 22 testified to the effect that the accused No. 1 was interrogated and arrested and a personal search was conducted by personal search memo Ex. PW 22/E. Ex. PW 12/B was testified by PW 22 to be the rent agreement dated 09.07.1995 of one room of the first floor of premises N. 10756 Manak Pura Karol Bagh New Delhi executed between Dhan Devi Bhatnagar W/o V.S. Bhatnagar and Mohd. Sarfuddin S/o Late Mohd. Sarfuddin. Interalia PW 22 testified that he also collected documents from Mr. R.S. Yadav vide production cum seizure memo dated 17.05.1996. He also testified to having collected the documents from Smt. Sudesh 87 Vig vide a seizure memo Ex. PW 9/A on 28.05.1996 and mentioned that in the same amounts of outstanding bills were of Rs. 17,17,015/. He testified to Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW 22/F being the DNB reports of telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109.

PW 22 further testified to the effect that a letter dated 13.08.1996 was addressed to the Assistant Director (Interpol) CBI New Delhi by the SP Mr. V.S. Kamudi for conducting investigation in Bangladesh in relation to Sarfuddin @ Arshad Hussain S/o Mohd. Samsuzoha and his other family members and their stay and business etc. vide letter Ex. PW 22/G, to which the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) Bangladesh sent their investigation report vide memo No. Interpol/141996/122 dated 12.05.1997 comprising of 38 pages i.e. Ex. PW 22/H1 to H38, which report indicates that Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin was not traceable since long at Bangladesh. Though the exhibition of this document has been opposed during the course of recording of testimony of PW 22, as it has been testified to having been received officially pursuant to a letter Ex. PW 22/G having been sent by the CBI to the Interpol Bangladesh, the exhibition of the said document Ex. PW 22/H1 to Ex. PW H38 is within the contours of law. PW 22 further testified to the effect that on 16.05.1996 he collected the slip of PW 10/A from Paras Ram, Regular Mazdoor. Idgah Telephone Exchange Delhi vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/1 and that he also collected to pay in slips for preparing bank drafts dated 22.08.1996 for Rs. 15,000/ each in the name of the MTNL from Brahm Singh, Record Keeper Central Bank of India alongwith the letter dated 12.05.1997, the said seizure memo dated 14.05.1997 i.e. Ex. PW 22/J, the letter Ex. PW 22/J1 and the pay in slips Ex. PW 22/J2 and Ex. PW 22/J3.

PW 22 testified to having taken the specimen and writing of the signature of accused Charan Singh vide Ex. PW 11/A to Ex. PW 11/D and testified to having taken the specimen handwriting and signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig vide Ex. PW D1 to D4 bearings his signatures thereon.

Ex. PW 22/K1 was testified by PW 22 to be list of questioned documents sent with Ex. PW 22 K2 the list of admitted document, Ex. PW 22/K3 the specimen document, Ex. PW 22/K4 is annexure C and the questionare annexure D i.e. Ex. PW 22/K5 sent vide letter Ex. PW 22/K of the SP Mr. Sandhu to the Director CFSL qua which the report of the CFSL CBI Ex. PW 17/E was forwarded to the SP CBI vide letter Ex. PW 17/F. Ex. PW 22/L1 Ex,. PW 22/L was testified by PW 22 to be the letter dated 20 May 1996 signed by Mr. V.S.K. Kamudi SP CBI sent to SP CBI Patna to carry out further investigation and to arrest the accused Arshad Hussain @ Sarfuddin s/o Shamsudoha and also to recover the documents as per the list attached Exc. PW 22/L1, to which a report Ex. PW 21/A3 was received.

PW 22 testified to Ex. PW 17/B1 and Ex. PW 17/B2, on the notesheet, Ex. PW 17/B3 and Ex. PW 17/B4 on the jumper letter, and typewriting at Mark Ex. PW 17/B5, Ex. PW 17/B6 and Ex. PW 17/B7 on Ex. PW 22/M1 to M3 having been collected from the office of the accused Charan Singh as being the admitted writing of the accused Charan Singh. PW 22 also testified to other seizure effect from Shri S.K. Bhasin Chief Manager State bank of Patiala, Model Basti Delhi vide Ex. PW 22/A. Interalia PW 22 testified to the effect that he had authorized Inspector Harish Karmiyal to conduct the search under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. at house 89 No. 7840 New Basti Bara Hindu Rao New Delhi vide authorization Ex. PW 22/O, which bore the signatures. He also testified to the Learner's licence Ex. PW 22/P in the name of Quamar Jamil having the photograph of Arshad Hussain at point B having been seized during the search of premises bearing No. RZ - 864 Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and also testified to Ex. 22/Q being the application in original address to the Divisional Engineer MTNL New Delhi Janakpuri purported be written Kamal Zamil which was also recorded from the said house at Uttam Nagar.

PW 22 testified to having seized the original TR files of telephone Numbers 3557108 and 3557109 from Shri Om Prakash AO TR East Darya Ganj vide memo Dated 12.06.1996 i.e. Ex. PW 9/H/PW 22/S and testified to seizure of the file of the MTNL Ex. PW 4/A / Ex. PW 22/T Colly with regard to change of address pertaining to telephones under the jurisdiction of Section 22.

Ex. PW 22/U Colly was testified by PW 22 to be the file pertaining to OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 with telephone Number 3557109 pertaining to self applications for change of address and installation of STD/ISD facility seized vide memo Ex. PW 4/A. Ex. PW 18/A and 18/G were testified by PW 22 to be the original register of Section 24 (Old) now 2113 of Idgah Telephone Exchange and original OB Dak register of SDE (phones) of Idgah Telephone Exchange from Shri G.D. Sharma SDE (Phones) Idgah Exchange vide seizure memo Ex. PW 22/V signed by him.

PW 22 testified to seizure of the file Ex. PW 9/F pertaining to disconnection list file of label 355 for billing cycle 16.09.1995 vide memo dated 17.05.1996 i.e. Ex. PW 4/A and also seized the log sheet 22/X Colly of label 355 90 from billing cycle 16.08.1995 through the said seizure memo. Ex. PW 22/W Colly was testified by PW 22 to be computer print out of STD calls statements of telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 for the billing cycle 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995 and 16.02.19995 seized vide seizure memo dated 04.06.1995 from Shri K.K. Nayyar JE Vigilance MTNL. PW 22 further testified to the effect that after collection of documents, recording of statements of witness and obtaining of expert opinion and analysis of evidence on record he applied for sanction for prosecution against the accused and on receipt of the same filed the chargesheet. It was admitted during cross examination PW 22 that for STD/ISD facilities and change of address, the written request of the subscriber is mandatory.

As regards the contention raised on behalf of the accused that there was no appropriate sanction for prosecution of the accused and that the sanction order was sent to the CBI by sanctioning authority which merely put its signature and brought forward the testimony of the Investigating Officer PW 12 Inspector Azad Singh, it is essential to advert to testimony of PW 16 A.K. Kalia posted as Deputy General Manager Administration at the MTS Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi during February 1998 who testified to Ex. PW 60/A running into six pages as being the sanction order bearing his signature and seal of his office on each page whereby sanction for prosecution of the accused Charan Singh dated 20.08.1998 whereby sanction for prosecution of the Charan Singh S/O Fateh Singh Phone Inspector Idgah Telephone Exchange, MTC New Delhi was accorded for alleged sanction for prosecution was accorded under Section 19(1)(c) on the Prevention of Corruption Act' 1988 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 120B IPC r/w 420 IPC r/w 420, 428, 468, 471 of the 1860 (1)(d) 13(2) of the Prevention of 91 Corruption Act and Section 25 of the Indian Telegraphs Act, qua which it was also testified by PW 16 Shri A.K. Kalia that he had perused the record presented to him and applied his mind and had found sufficient evidence on the record to accord sanction for prosecution of the accused. This witness also categorically denied that he had merely signed the sanction order Ex. PW 16/9 in a mechanical manner, and rather categorically stated that he accorded sanction after applying his mind and also testified to the effect that the sanction order was prepared in his office and denied that the same was prepared by the CBI officer. Thus this contention raised on behalf of the accused that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the accused Charan Singh in terms of Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act' 1988 for want of application of mind of the competent sanctioning authority cannot be accepted.

As regards the contention raised on behalf of the accused that the solitary testimony of the witness Smt. Sudesh Vig not reliable, it is essential to advert to the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vadivelu Thevar & Ors. Vs. The State of Madras 1957 Cri.L.J, 1000 (Vol. 58, C.N. 394)(1), "On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:

(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.

(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness 92 itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.

(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is 992 much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that " no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact." The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses.

In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's I Law of Evidence 9th Edition, at pp. 1 100 and 1 101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in s. 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that " Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of 93 uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for, proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either wayit may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court, equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for 94 corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.

There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict,if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have, therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution".

The following analysis of documents submitted by the prosecution to ascertain their evidentiary value thus in the instant case is very essential: "

 EXHIBIT            DETAIL OF DOCUMENT                   DOCUM           REPORT OF THE 
                                                         ENT             HANDWRITING 
                                                         NUMBER          EXPERT
 Pw1/D1to  Specimen signature of                       D33            Tallied with S5 to S8 
 D4         Sudesh Wig (S5 to S8)
 PW17/A Q1 AnnextureA                                  D36            Tallied with S5 to S8
                                                95

 PW1/A      Letter allegedly written by              D36           DO
 Q2 and Q5 sudesh Wig for change of 
             address
 PW1/B      Letter allegedly written by              D36
 Q3,Q6     Sudesh Vig for  STD and                                 DO
             ISD
 PW11/A     Specimen of Charan Singh                 D33           Tallied with S1 to S4 
 to D        (S1 to S4)
 PW17/B1  A1 to A4 and A8,                       D33           Tallied with S1 to S4
 to17/B4    Admitted sign  of Charan 
             Singh
 EX PW 10/A A8 Admitted Sign of                      D22           Tallied with S1 to S4
             Charan Singh
 EX PW 17/C  OB dated 14.10.1992 fur                  D36           Tallied with S1 to S4
 Q7         Sudesh Vig
 EX PW       OB dated 28.04.1995 fur                  D33           Tallied with S1 to S4
 17/D1 Q9  Sudesh Vig
 EX PW 17/A  Annexure A                               D36           Could not be connected 
 Q4 &Q5    Body of Annexure A is                                   with A1 to 
             Q4,Q5                                                 A4(Admitted Sigh of 
                                                                     Charan Singh)
 EX PW 17/E  Expert's Report                          D33
 EX PW 17/F Forwarding letter of CFSL                 D33
             forwarding the Expert's 
             Report

                                                                                             "

It is also essential to advert to the questionnaire sent by the CBI to the CFSL vide Ex. PW 22/K a letter No. DLI/Ac/Cr/3/41(A)/96/6651 dated 14.05.1997 i.e. Ex. PW 22/K asking for an opinion qua the questionnaire in relation to the following: Annexure A (List of questioned documents) Annexure B (List of admitted documents) 96 Annexure C (List of specimen documents) Annexure D (Questionnaire) The said annexures are exhibits PW 22/K1 to PW 22/K4 and are very material in the instant case, specially as the accused has not cross examined Mr. V.K. Khanna PW 17 i.e. the handwriting expert. The said annexures are reproduced herein below for an effective analysis of the entire evidence on the record.

"AnnexureA (Ex. PW 22/K1) List of questioned documents.

Q1 and Q4. Annexure A available in commercial file of Telephone No. 3557108. Q2 and Q5 Typed application of Smt. Sudesh Vig available in commercial file of this phone NO. 3557108.

Q3 and Q6. Typed application of Smt. Sudesh Vig available in commercial file of telephone No. 3557108.

Q7. Copy of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.94 available in commercial file of Tel. No. 3557108.

Q8. Copy of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.94 available in commercial file of Tel. No. 3557108.

Q9. Copy of OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.95 in commercial file of Tel. No. 3557109 with changed address.

Q10. Typed application of Sh. Sarfuddin available in commercial file of Tel. No. 357109.

Q11. Typed application of Sh. Sarfuddin available in commercial file of Tel. No. 3557109.

Q12. Copy of OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.95 available in commercial file of Tel. No. 3557109.

Annexure - B (Ex. PW 2/K2) List of Admitted documents Q1 to A2. Para 104 and para 105 of note sheet page 51N and N52 available in change of address file of section 22 of Idgah Telephone Exchange written by Shri Charan Singh.

A3 and A4. Jumper letter No. 307 and 308 dated 22.7.95 issued by Sh. Charan Singh.

A5, A6 & A7. Typed applications in the name of Qmar Jamil recovered from the house of Shri Sarfuddin during house search.

A8. Paper slip produced by Shri Paras Ram R.M. containing details of Obs, name and address of subscribers of telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109.

Annexure - C (Ex. PW 22/K3) List of Specimen Writings.

S1 to S4. Specimen writings/signatures of Sh. Charan Singh S/o Sh. Fateh Singh.

S5 to S8. Specimen signatures/writings of Smt. Sudesh Vig W/o Sh. Amar Nath.

Annexure - D (Ex. PW 22/K4) QUESTIONNAIRE.

Question 1. Please opine whether the signature/writing marked Q1, has been written/signed by the same person. Who has signed/written the 98 signatures/writings marked S1 to S4 or S5 to S8.

Question - 2. Please opine whether the signatures marked Q2 and Q3 have been signed by the same person, who has signed the signatures marked S1 to S4 or S5 to S8.

Question 3. Please opine whether the writings marked Q4 has been written by the same person, who has written the writings marked A1 to A4 and A8.

Question 4. Please opine whether the typed material marked Q5, Q6 and Q 10 and Q11 have been typed from the same type writing machine, where A5, A6 and A7 have been typed.

Question5. Please opine whether the writinga marked Q7, Q8, Q9 and Q 12 have written by the same person, who has written A1 to A4 and A8."

The response of the accused to the evidence led and claimed by the prosecution to be incriminating against him through the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 is tabulated herein below: 99 "

Ex. Evidence Reply of the accused Ex.PW16/A It is in evidence against you that It is correct during the period 1994 to 1996, you are working as Phone Inspector (P.I) at the Idgah Telephone Exchange and were the Section Incharge of Section 22 in which the area of Gaushala Marg, Chowk Tibia College and Manakpura, Karol Bagh fell as mentioned in Ex.

PW16/A?

               It is    in evidence against  you that  It is correct
               your duties were to verify the bona
               fides   in   case   of   execution   of   new 
               telephone   connection   and 
               installation   for   the   same   and 
               maintenance   of   telephone   working 
               lines (as testified by PW18)

It is evidence against you that in the It is incorrect. I did not go to the year 1996 you went to the hosue of house of Mrs. Sudesh Vig, nor Mrs. Sudesh Vig at 11302, Chowk, did I inform her that the Divya College, Gaushala Marg telephone booked by her had Delhi and informed her that the been sanctioned. Rather the telephone booked by her in her letter of sanction had been sent name had been sanctioned? by Dak.

It is in evidence against you that It is incorrect Smt. Sudesh Vig informed you that she did not want to install the telephone booked in her name, upon which you offered to get the telephone sold to someone, which Smt. Sudesh Vig refused but you insisted 100 It is in evidence against you that It is incorrect you went again to the house of Smt. Sudesh Vig and at that time there was no other family members of her in the house and he went to Smt. Sudesh Vig with two pages in a folded condition and took her signatures at two places and gave her Rs.1,000/ stating that if she asked the department for refund of money, it would take threefour months and that you were given the money then and it is further in evidence against you that those two papers are Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B with the signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig at points A on each of them?

It is in evidence against you that in Ans. I had met Mr. Amarnath the year 1996 when you went to the at his house. And it is correct house of Smt. Sudesh Vig you have that I had enquired from Mr. met Mr. Amarnath husband of Smt. Amarnath what he wanted to do Sudehs Vig and had enquired him with the phone, the booking of also as to what he wanted to do which had matured in the name with the phone the booking of of Smt. Sudesh Vig.

which had matured in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig?

It is in evidence against you that It is incorrect Mr. Amarnath had told you that he did not want that second telephone installed and had asked for surrendering of the phone?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

Ex.PW18/A is the OB Dak Register of the Id Gah Telephone Exchange?

101

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

OB No. 56051037758 of which the no. mentioned on the back of page 51 underlined in red was received with your signatures at point A on 21.01.1995?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

OB   no.   5605     mentioned   on   the 
back of page 51 received with your 
signatures at point A on 21.1.1995 
is in Ex.PW18/A
It   is   in   evidence   against   you   that   It is correct
you   made   the   entry   of   OB   No. 
56051037758   at   serial   no.   369 
pertaining   to   Smt.   Sudesh   Vig 
11302, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, 
at point X2 in Ex.PW18/B , the OB 
register in your handwriting. 
  It is  in evidence against  you that  It is  correct.
jumper   letter   D15   i.e. 
Ex.PW17/D4   was   issued   by   you 
with your signatures at point A for 
opening   of   new   telephone 
connection   in   the   name   of   Sh. 
Sudesh Vig r/o 10756, Manak Pura, 
Karol   Bagh   vide   OB   No. 
56051037758 dt. 27.10.94 and that 
telephone no. 3557108.
                                102

It is in evidence against you that the  It is correct.
application   form   no.   680412 
Ex,PW2/A of Smt. Sudesh Vig for 
a   telephone   connection   is   dated 
12.10.92 seeking installation of the 
telephone   connection   at   11302, 
Chowk   Tibia   College,   Gaushala 
Marg,   Karol   Bagh,   New 
Delhi110005, which was registered 
on 14.10.92? 
It is in evidence against you that the  It is correct.
jumper letter No. 308 was issued by 
you with your signatures at point A 
on   Ex.PW17/B4   and   the 
handwriting   at   A4   on 
Ex.PW17/B4 is yours?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct. I took the approval. note sheet 105C at page N52, with your signatures at point A on Ex.PW17/B2 in file Ex.PW18/C is in your handwriting, whereby you got approval for change of address from 10302 Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh to 10756 Manakpura, Karol Bagh subject to bonafidity of at new address?

103

It is in evidence against you that the It is correct. I put up Ex.PW1/A application Ex.PW1/A dated for approval.

19.07.1995 of the subscriber of Smt. Sudesh Vig R/o of 11032, Chowk Tibia College Gaushala Marg Delhi for change of address for installation of new phone connection against OB No. 056051037758 dated 27.10.1994 to 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh New Delhi was put in the file for change of address by you, the Section Incharge of Section 22 and on which Mr. V.P. Sharma PW18 recommended the change of address with the remarks that the change of the address may be approved subject to bonafide case at new address which be sent to DE (outdoor) office which was approved by the DE on Ex.PW18/C1 in file D33 at 105/C at N52?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

your   specimen   handwriting   and 
signatures                    Ex.PW11/A, 
Ex.PW11/B,   Ex.PW11/C   & 
Ex.PW11/D   for   taken   by   the 
investigating   Officer   PW22 
Inspector Azad Singh.
                                  104

It is in evidence against you that On Ex.PW17/C the words in your admitted handwriting and carbon are in my handwriting.

signatures were sent vide The word "with" is not in Ex.PW22/K as per Annexure B i.e. my handwriting. It is correct that Ex.PW22/K2 to the handwriting the handwriting at Q9 in carbon expert and as per Ex.PW17/E, the on Ex.PW17/D is my report of the handwriting expert handwriting. The words "with" Ex.PW17/B1, Ex.PW17/B2, is also in my handwriting on Ex.PW17/B3, Ex.PW17/B4 are in Ex.PW17/D. The word "barred" your handwriting when compared on Ex.PW17/D has been cut off with admitted English writing Mark by me. It is correct that A1 to Mark A4 and Mark A8 and Ex.PW17/B1, Ex.PW17/B2, Q7 and Q9 questioned carbon Ex.PW17/B3 and Ex.PW17/B4 English writing on Ex.PW17/C and are in my handwriting. I now Ex.PW17/D respectively are in your want to state that the word 'with' handwriting as per Ex.PW17/E? on Ex.PW17/D is not in my writing. The word 'barred' has not been struck off by me on Ex.PW17/D. I stated the same by mistake earlier. The word 'with' and the scoring of, of the word barred on Ex.PW17/D had come like that from the office. The words 'Gali No.2' on Ex.PW17/D are not in my writing.

It is in evidence against you that I want to state that the word word "with" in handwriting is 'with' on Ex.PW17/D is not in added before STD and word my writing. The word 'barred' "barred" has been scored and added has not been struck off by me on in handwriting ISD which 'X Ex.PW17/D. The word 'X' (meaning 'and') ISD' is in your 'meaning and' 'ISD' on handwriting as per Ex.PW17/E, the Ex.PW17/E are in my report of the handwriting expert for handwriting.

these words i.e. Q9?

105

It is in evidence against you that It is correct that the words 10756 OB No. 56051037758 dated Manakpura, K. Bagh ND5 and 27.10.1994 at page 11/C i.e. the words X meaning and ISD Ex.PW17/C mentions old address on Ex.PW17/C are in my typed as 11302, Chowk Tibia handwriting. This was written College Gaushala Marg Karol Bagh after approval.

ND and new hand written  address 
i.e.   '10756,   Manakpura     K.Bagh, 
ND5'   and   also   the   words   'x 
(meaning   and)   ISD'     in   your 
handwriting, all encircled in red as 
Q7, which as per Ex.PW17E the 
report   of   the   handwriting   expert 
also   is   in   your   handwriting   which 
portion is underlined with red ink ?
It   is   in   evidence   against   you   that  It is correct.
OB   No.   56051046030   dated 
16.06.1995 was opened in view of 
application   Ex.PW18/F   and   as   per 
OB register D34 i.e. Ex.PW18/G at 
serial   No.   1300   page   226   the 
Incharge of Section 24 entered the 
OB   and   this   OB   was   received   by 
you P.I. Incharge of Section 22 on 
19.07.1995   and   this   entry   is 
encircled   in   red   ink   with   your 
signatures at point B?
                                    106

It   is   in   evidence   against   you   that  It is correct
vide Ex.PW17/D the file for change 
of installation address of Section 22 
against OB No. 56051046030 dated 
16.06.1995 from 8127, 3rd  Chimini 
Mill,   Bara   Hindu   Rao   to   10756 
Manakpura,   Karol   Bagh,   New 
Delhi,   was   put   up   by   you   for 
change   of   installation   address, 
which   was   recommended   for 
change   of   address   by   PW18   Mr. 
V.P. Sharma subject to bonafide of 
the case at new address and sent to 
DE   which   was   approved   by   Mr. 
O.P.   Mehta   vide   vide 
Ex.PW17/B1?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct. I have written all qua OB No. 56051046030 dated this after approval after all 28.04.95, the portion encircled as formalities.

Q9 on Ex.PW17/D with the words 
'X   ISD'   and   '10756   Manakpura, 
Karol   Bagh,   New   Delhi110005' 
and   C/D   /   A   Approve'     as   per 
Ex.PW17/E   the   report   of   the 
handwriting   expert   is   in   your 
handwriting?
                                  107

It is in evidence against you that The jumper letter No. entry at serial No. 848A in OB Ex.PW17/B3 No. 307 dated Register Ex.PW18/B(D11) for OB 22.07 is in my handwriting. It is No. 564030 dated 16.06.1995 has correct that telephone No. been made by you regarding OB 3557109 was opened thereafter and address of Mohd. Sarfuddin, but even after my preparing the 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh New jumper letter the checking is Delhi with jumper letter No. 307 done by the record supervisor. It dated 22.07 i.e. D14 whereby is correct that the entry at serial telephone No. 3557109 was No. 848A in OB Register opened? Ex.PW18/B (D11) is in my handwriting.

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

jumper letter No. 307(D14) and 308(D15) were issued by you in your handwriting with your signatures at point A thereon, i.e. Ex.PW17/B3 and Ex.PW17/B4?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct. I have checked the applications for change of address bonafides in these cases. are received in the office or collected by the field staff i.e. Section Incharge i.e. Phone Inspector, JTO are to be put up in the change of address file by the Section Incharge to the SDO and to the competent authority for approval and the Section Incharge is to check the bonafides of the parties and is fully responsible for the bonafides of the case?

108

It is in evidence against you that the It is correct.

slip Ex.PW10/A containing details of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1995 and OB No. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 with open number 3557108 and 3557109 is in your handwriting?

It is in evidence against you that the It is correct.

work is allotted by the Section Incharge which you were of Section 22 to the field party for installation of new connection after checking of address and bonafides?

It is in evidence against you that It is correct.

Ex.PW10/A on which the telephone connections 56051037758 dated 22.10.1994 in the name of Sudesh Vig 10756MP and 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 in the name of Md. Sarfuddin 10756 (some portion is torn ) is mentioned is in your handwriting?

It is in evidence against you that the It is incorrect.

telephone connection numbers 3557108 and 3557109 were installed by Surajbhan Rai and Paras Ram at the address 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh New Delhi, in view of Ex.PW10/A issued by you?

109

It is in evidence against you that on I do not know.

16.05.1996   when   a   raid   was 
conducted by the CBI at House No. 
10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh New 
Delhi belonging to Mr. Bhatnagar, 
one  room   rented  to   Sarfuddin     by 
him 8/10 months before 16.05.1996 
which was locked on opening was 
found to contain two telephone drop 
wires   though   no   telephone 
instrument was connected on these 
lines,   and   on   these   two   lines   on 
tracing   through   an   incoming   ring 
from   the   telephone   exchange 
indicated   that   these   two   telephone 
wires   were   of   telephone   No. 
3557108   and   3557109,   for   which 
memo Ex.PW3/A was prepared?
                              110

It is in evidence against you that on I had been shown the passport by a raid being conducted on Sarfuddin in the name of Mohd. 16.05.1996 by the CBI at house No. Sarfuddin. It is correct that L6C, Railway colony, Kishan Ganj Ex.PW5/A is the photograph of New Delhi under occupation of that Mohd. Sarfuddin. I do know Mohd. Sajid Hussain the ration card anything about the raid, Ex.PW22/N10 was recovered in however. The passport shown to which the name of Mohd. Arshad me by Mohd. Sarfuddin was in Hussain is mentioned, which was the name Mohd. Sarfuddin and seized vide search cum seizure not in the name of Mohd. Arshad memo Ex.PW3/B with photograph Hussain.

of Mohd. Arshad Hussain Ex.PW5/A, which photograph was identified by Mr. Bhatnagar owner of 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh as being that of Mohd. Sarfuddin, i.e. that Sarfuddin to whom the room had been rented by Mr. Bhatnagar at 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi where the two telephone drop wires were traced through incoming rings from the telephone exchange to be of telephone Nos. 3557108 and 3557109?

111

It is in evidence against you that I have no knowledge.

vide   Ex.PW3/B,   the   slip   of   paper 
Ex.PW22/N11 with the name Zans 
Trading                        Corporation 
Importer/Exporter   and   order 
supplier 206, Sardar Nagar, Khaliq 
Manzil,   (Ist   Floor),   P.O. 
PAHARTALICHITTAGONG
BANGLADESH,   with   Dail: 
31617410     was   recovered   from 
L6C   Railway   Colony,   Kishan 
Ganj,   New   Delhi   during   the   raid 
conducted   by   the   CBI   on 
16.05.1996,   from   which   place 
Ex.PW5/A   the   photograph   of   the 
person   purported   to   be   Mohd. 
Sarfuddin   and   identified   to   be 
Mohd.   Arshad   Hussain   was 
recovered. 
                            112

It is in evidence against you that the I have no knowledge print outs of telephone numbers 3557108 and 3557109 for the period 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995 and 16.02.1996 i.e. Ex.PW22/W collectively indicated that telephone calls were made from these two numbers on telephone number 31617410 situated at Bangladesh, which number is mentioned on Ex.PW22/N11 seized vide Ex.PW3/B of which telephone numbers i.e. 3557108 and 3557109, the telephone drop wires were found to be there in 10756, Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi, in the room which had been rented to Sarfuddin by Mr. Bhatnagar and which had been so traced on tracing the incoming rings from the telephone exchange ?

It is in evidence against you that the I have no knowledge. telephone bills dated 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995, 21.09.1996 and 30.01.1996 indicated outstanding payments due for telephone No. 3557108 as mentioned in Ex.PW9/A?

113

It is in evidence against you that I have no knowledge.

outstanding payment for telephone No. 3557109 for cycle 16.10.1995, 16.12.1995, 29.09.1996 and 30.01.1996 as per Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D and Ex.PW9/E, which bills issued in the name of Md. Sarfuddin 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi?

It is in evidence against you that a I have no knowledge. I do not notice was sent to Mohd. Sarfuddin get information of non payment but for outstanding bills Ex.PW9/H of bills.

I noting page to Ex.PW9/H6 i.e. H2 and H5 at address 3rd Chimini Mill Bara Hindu Rao Delhi110006 and H3 and H4 at 10756 Manakpura Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 which was received back unserved due to non availability of the addressee at the given address?

It is in evidence against you that the It is correct.

note Ex.PW17/B1 i.e. A1 is in your handwriting was written by you as also opined by the handwriting expert PW17 vide report Ex.PW17/E?

It is in evidence against you that It is incorrect.

A5, A6,A7 i.e. Ex.PW22/M1 and Ex.PW22/M and Ex.PW22/O were collected by PW22 Inspector Azad Singh from your office?

114

It is in evidence against you that I have no knowledge.

vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A the account opening form Ex.PW20/A4 with documents Ex.PW20/A5 for opening of account at the State Bank of Patiala branch ModelBasti were seized from the Chief Bank Manager of the State Bank of Patiala?

It is in evidence against you that the I do not know whose photograph photograph on Ex.PW20/A4 is of this is. It is not the photograph of Mohd. Arshad Hussain and whether Mohd. Arshad Hussain. you identify the photograph?

115

Do you have anything to say? The Incharge of the section is the JTO i.e. Junior Telecom Officer.

I was posted as a Phone Inspector. After receipt of the OB ie. Order Book of Sudesh Vig of her old address, I checked her old address. When I went to check at that old address, I met Mr. Amar Nath Vig the husband of Sudesh Vig. He told me that they were not interested in the opening of telephone at the old address i.e. 11302, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and that his son was going to start a new business and that thereafter they would get the new telephone opened. Thereafter, I received the application of Smt. Sudesh Vig for opening of the new telephone at the new address i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, from the office. I checked this new address at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh. I met both Smt. Sudesh Vig and Shri Amar Nath at this address at 10756 , Manak Pura, Karol Bagh. After identifying Smt. Sudesh Vig, I made Smt. Sudesh Vig fill in Annexure A i.e. the annexure for opening of the telephone and bonafides and then I put up the change of address to the SDO i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO sent that file to the DE i.e. 116 Divisional Engineer. When that file came back to me from the Divisional Engineer, there was one more application in the file seeking installation of ISD and STD at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, this application was of Smt. Sudesh Vig and this application bore the signatures of the DE. After approval of the DE of the change of address, I made the jumper letter. The jumper letter is to be given to the out door staff and I gave one jumper letter to Paras Ram and the duplicate copy of the jumper letter after formalities i.e. I put annexure A to the OB and where ever a cutting was required after change of address , I made the cutting was sent to the record by me. The record supervisor check the duplicate copy of the jumper letter and all documents and after checking the telephone number, the diary with the telephone number was sent to the switch room for starting the telephone connection and after the telephone connection was started and entry was made by the record i.e. by the telephone operator that the telephone connection has been started i.e. done.

117

All this total work has been done by me after approval, checking and all formalities through proper channel only. The OB of Sarfuddin with application of Sarfuddin was given to me by Section 24 for change of address.

      I   checked   this   case     also   i.e.   I 
      checked   the   bonafides   i.e.   his 
      identification   and   took   the 
      annexure A from Sarfuddin and 
      then put up for change of address 
      to the  SDO. The application  of 
      Sarfuddin   was   for   change   of 
      address   from   the   address   at 
      Chimni   Mill   to   10756,   Manak 
      Pura,   Karol   Bagh.   From   the 
      SDO's office the file was sent to 
      the DE. When the file came back 
      to   me   from   the   DE's   office   , 
      there   was   an   application   for 
      Sarfuddin   on   that   file   for   ISD 
      and   STD   connections   and   the 
      signatures of the DE were on the 
      application.   I   then   made   the 
      jumper   letter   and   made     the 
      necessary   cutting.   One   copy   of 
      the   jumper   letter   was   given   by 
      me   to   Paras   Ram   the   outdoor 
      staff  and the duplicate copy was 
      sent   by   me   after   completion   of 
      all   formalities   to   the   record. 
      After   checking   by   the   records, 
      there   was   an   objection   by   the 
      record section on the cutting of 
      the   ISD   and   I   then   took   the 
      approval of the DE who 
                                        118

                                                 approved the cutting of the ISD. 
                                                 Then the record section checked 
                                                 the document and sent it to the 
                                                 switch   room   for   opening   the 
                                                 number   and   then   the   record 
                                                 section   mentioned   it   as   having 
                                                 been done. This connection was 
                                                 also   opened   after   all   approvals 
                                                 obtained and formalities done by 
                                                 me.   By   cutting   I   mean   this 
                                                 circling   for   example   on 
                                                 Ex.PW17/D which I have made 
                                                 after approval. Those signatures 
                                                 of   approval   by   the   DE   are   at 
                                                 point Z on Ex.PW17/D. (In reply 
                                                 to a specific Court question, the 
                                                 witness   has   stated   that 
                                                 Ex.PW18/C2 is not the original 
                                                 of   Ex.PW17/D).   Signatures   at 
                                                 point C on Ex.PW17/C are of the 
                                                 DE and the encircling in carbon 
                                                 on   Ex.PW17/C   has   been   done 
                                                 my me after approval by the DE 
                                                 for   change   of   address.   Both 
                                                 Ex.PW17/C   and   Ex.PW17/D 
                                                 have the   approval signatures of 
                                                 Mr.   O.P.   Mehta   the   then 
                                                 Divisional   Engineer   which   I 
                                                 recognize   as   I   have   seen   his 
                                                 signatures   several   times   during 
                                                 the course of my duties.

On a consideration of the evidence led on record by the CBI through Ex. PW 17/E and Ex. PW 22/K1 to Ex. PW 22/K4 sent vide Ex. PW 22/K by the CBI to the CFSL, it is brought forth that qua the questioned documents sent by the 119 CBI for comparison with the admitted documents and specimen writings qua the questionnare as in annexure D i.e. Ex. PW 22/K4 qua : Q1 the alleged signature of PW 1 Smt. Sudesh Vig on annexure A to the application dated 19.07.1995 of Smt. Sudesh Vig for change of address against OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 and registration number 030466498 dated 14.10.1992 with reference to Q2 the alleged signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig on the said application, and qua the application dated 19.07.1995 of Smt. Sudesh Vig to the MTNL seeking installation of STD/ISD facility in the new telephone against OB No. 030466498 dated 14.10.1992 with reference to Q3 the alleged signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig, as per the report of the Principal Scientific Officer (Documents) of the CFSL CBI New Delhi i.e. Ex. PW 17/E, Q1 to Q3 are in the handwriting of the person writing S5 to S8 i.e. in the writing of Smt. Sudesh Vig i.e. PW 1, i.e the petitioner of Civil Writ of 998 of 1996. Smt. Sudesh Vig has admitted her signatures at Q2 and Q3 the applications for change of address from 11032 Chowk Tibiya College, Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh New Delhi and has also admitted her signature at Q3 on the letter to the MTNL for installation of STD/ISD facility qua OB No. 5605103778 at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5. The allegation of the prosecution and of Smt. Sudesh Vig is that these signatures Q2 and Q3 were obtained by the accused No. 1 Charan Singh from her fraudulently by insisting that he would get the new telephone booked in her name which had been sanctioned, sold to somebody, as she had informed that she did not want the telephone to be installed and these signature were taken by the accused on two pages in a folded condition when the husband of Smt. Sudesh Vig i.e. Shri Amar Nath Vig examined as PW 2 was not at home due to hospitalization of 120 his niece and who had also refused to get the telephone sold on an earlier occasion on insisting by the accused, Smt. Sudesh Vig has however denied her signatures at Q1 which is Ex. PW 1/X i.e. Annexure A to the application dated 10.07.1995 for change of address which is a statement for bona fide verification for provision of a new telephone giving the address of Smt. Sudesh Vig as 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Smt. Sudesh Vig has also admitted that has specimen signature were obtained by the CBI on sheets Ex. PW 1/D1 to Ex. PW 1/D4. On being cross examined by the accused No. 1 Smt. Sudesh Vig has stated that she did not make any complaint to the CBI or the police that the accused had obtained her signature by insisting repeatedly. Despite the CFSL expert opinion being that Q1 on Annexure A is in the handwriting of Smt. Sudesh Vig i.e. the person responsible for the handwriting S5 to S8, in terms of Ex. PW 22/K3, Annexure C to Ex. PW 22/K, Smt. Sudesh Vig has stated that she has not signed at Q1. The signatures at Q1, Q2 and Q3 all appear to be similar and of the same person and there appears no reason to disbelieve the report of the handwriting expert that the signature at Q1, Q2 and Q3 are of the same person. This makes the testimony of Smt. Sudesh Vig in the category of 'neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable', in terms of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Vadivelu Thevar & Ors. Vs. The State of Madras 1957 Cri.L.J, 1000 (Vol. 58, C.N. 394)(1), and the Court has thus to be circumspect and to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.

There is no prosecution witness produced by the CBI to show that Smt. Sudesh and Shri Amar Nath Vig were not residing at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5. The verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 121 1102 / 1998 dated 15.02.2008 i.e. Ex. DW 1/3 observes at paragraph 21 that the allegations of Smt. Sudesh Vig that her signatures were obtained on blank papers by the second defendant in that suit ie. the accused No. 1 herein remained uncorroborated in as much as no statement on oath of Smt. Sudesh Vig had been recorded in civil wit petition No. 998.1996 and further more it cannot be overlooked that even in this Court it has not been stated by Smt. Sudesh Vig that her signatures were taken on blank papers by the accused. Undoubtedly, on behalf of the CBI the Ld. PP vehemently contended that even though the witness Smt. Sudesh Vig had not stated in her testimony on oath had not stated that the accused No. 1 had taken her signatures on blank papers the same could be presumed to have been so taken in the circumstances of the case. Such a presumption however cannot be drawn when the accused is facing a criminal trial and where the allegations levelled against the accused have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other aspect which cannot be overlooked is that as observed in para 22 of the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (OS) 1102 / 1998 dated 15.02.2008 no evidence was led to indicate that Smt. Sudesh Vig was not residing at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi where the telephone had been shifted and installed. Likewise, in the instant prosecution too, the CBI has not led any evidence to indicate that Smt. Sudesh Vig was not residing at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

As per the prosecution version the note sheets 51 N and 52 N i.e. Ex. PW 17/B1 and Ex. PW 17/B2 are in the writing of the accused No. 1 Shri Charan Singh, which has not been denied by the accused No. 1 and who has admitted the 122 same in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and as per Ex. PW 17/E the said documents A1 and A2 are in the handwriting of the person writing of the person who is the author of the questioned writings Q7 on Ex. PW 17/C and Q9 on Ex. PW 17/D. Q7 is the copy of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 available in the commercial file of telephone number 3557108 with the changed address 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5 changed from 11302, Chowk Tibiya College, Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The accused has admitted in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that the words in Carbon on Ex. PW 17/C are in his handwriting but that the words 'with' on Ex. PW 17/D and on Ex. PW 17/C which relates to the facility of STD connection and striking of the word 'barred' on both Ex. PW 17/C and Ex. PW 17/D for the barring of the STD facility were not in his handwriting. Placed at page 6C of the file Ex. PW 18/D which is the file of the MTNL i.e. D36 relating to telephone No. 3557108 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig, is the document with OB date 27.10.1994 with the address of Smt. Sudesh Vig 11302 Chowk Tibiya College, Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh written in type with the words 'STD BARRED' in type, and the word 'with' in ink before 'STD BARRED' of which the word 'BARRED' is struck off in ink and the word 'with' has been sent by the CBI vide Ex. PW 22/K1 as a questioned document to the CFSL for comparison as per question No. 5 of Annexue D Ex. PW 22/K4 to ascertain whether the writing Q7, Q8, Q9 and Q12 had been written by the same person who had written A1 to A4 and A8. Through the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, A1 to A4 and A8 have been admitted by the accused Charan Singh to be in his writing. Q7 and Q9 have also been admitted by the accused to be in his handwriting qua the words in carbon writing & 'ISD 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 123 110005 and the words C/O/A Approve' also to be in his handwriting on exhibits PW 17/C and PW 17/E i.e. the copies of OB dated 27.10.1994 for telephone number 56051037758 in the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig and dated 16.06.1995 qua telephone number 56051046030 in the name of Md. Sarfuddin showing change of address in both of them to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110005, the accused has denied that the word 'with' STD on both Ex. PW 17/C and 17/D to be in his handwriting. Qua this word 'with' specifically as Q8 on page 6/C of Ex. PW 18/D i.e. D36 the file of the MTNL it has been opined by the CFSL vide report Ex. PW 17/E: 'VI'. It has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the rest of the questioned items on the basis of the material at hand'.

It is significant that the accused Charan Singh in his statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. of 1993 also stated that the word with on Ex. PW18/C2 i.e. Q12, the word with on Q9 i.e. PW17/D and the word with in Q7 on Ex. PW17/C were not his in handwriting i.e. in relation to the facility of STD and ISD being provided to Mohd. Sarfuddin and to Smt. Sudesh Wig the accused in his statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. 1973 also stated that the word with and the scoring of, of the word 'Barred' on Ex. PW17/D had come from the office. The accused has also stated that whatever was done by him was done after approval and after all formalities and through proper channel only and the accused has further stated that in relation to the application of Smt. Sudesh Vig for the opening of the new telephone and the new address i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, from the office, he, the accused had checked his new address at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh where he met Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sh. Amar Nath at this address and after identifying Smt. Sudesh Vig, he had met Smt. 124 Sudesh Vig and she filled in annexure A i.e. the annxexure for opening of the telephone and bonafide and then he had put up the change of the address to the SDO i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer and the SDO had sent that file to the DE i.e. Divisional Engineer and when that file came back to him from the Divisional Engineer, there was one more application in the file seeking installation of ISD and STD at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and this application was of Smt. Sudesh Vig and bore the signatures of the DE. The accused fruther stated in his statement U/s 313 of cr.P.C. of 1973 and after approval of DE of the change of address, he made the jumper letter and stated that the jumper letter is to be given to the out door staff and he gave one jumper letter to Paras Ram and the duplicate copy of the jumper letter after formalities i.e. after he the accused at put annexure A to the OB and whereaver cuttings are required after change of address, he made the cutting and it was sent to the record by him. the accused has further stated the record of supervisor check the duplicate copy of the jumper letter and all documents and after checking the telephone number, the diary of the telephone number was sent to the switch for starting the telephone connection and after the telephone connection was started and the entry was made by the record i.e. by the telephone operator that the telephone connected had been started that is 'done' and that all the total work had done by him after approval and checking and all formalities were done through proper channel only.

Through his testimony on oath as DW1 the accused Charan Singh corroborated his stated U/s 313 of Cr.P.C. 1973 and reiterated that he had followed all procedures in this case and all verification was conducted by the Record Section and only thereafter the telephone connections was installed in this case after approval 125 of the Senior Officer.

The accused further stated that he had never paid any money to Smt. Sudesh Vig and stated that apart from taking the signature of smt. Sudesh Vig on annexure A i.e. PW17/A he had not taken the signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig on any other documents. it is significant that it is only on Ex. PW17/A i.e. annexure A i.e. the statement for bonafide verification of the address of Smt. Sudesh Vig i.e. the changed address 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi that Smt. Sudesh Vig has claimed that the signatures thereon at Q 1 are not her. The report of the CFSL expert Ex. PW17/E is categorical that the signatures at Q1 (i.e. the signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig on Ex. PW17/A i.e. annexure A, i.e the statement for bonafide verification of the address at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi05) are those of the writer of the specimen English signatures S5 to S8 i.e. of Smt. Sudesh Vig as per Ex. PW22/K3 i.e. Annexure C to the forwarding letter of the SP, CBI to the CFSL i.e. Ex. PW22/K dated 14.05.1997.

It is further significant that the witness Smt. Sudesh Vig on being cross examined by the accused stated that they had not surrendered the telephone due to paucity of time as the niece of her husband was admitted to hospital and he was not finding time and in the mean time the accused visited them and told Smt. Sudesh Vig that he was obtaining her signatures as he wanted to sell the telephone and she agreed to sign and the accused was insisting and offered Rs. 1000/, to which she agreed. She further stated that she did not make any complaint to the CBI or the police that the accused had obtained her signatures by insisting repeatedly.

PW2, Sh. Amarnath, the husband of PW1 testified to the effect that 126 they had booked two telephones in the name of Sanjay Vig his son and Smt. Sudesh Vig his wife and the application form were filled him by his son Sanjay and he is signed as Sudesh Vig Ex. PW2/A and also the duplicate form Ex. PW2/B and on the specimen signature form Ex. PW2/C and stated that they had got installed one telephone in the name of Sanjay and when the booking of the second telephone in the name of Sudesh Vig matured, they asked for surrendering that phone and when the accused Charan Singh came to them they told him that they did not want the telephone as they had one telephone in their shop and one at their house and he should surrender it and thereafter the accused left and the accused visited once a twice again to inquire what he i.e. Sh. Amarnath Vig wanted to do with phone and he replied that he did not want it to be installed but one day when he returned home, his wife informed that Charan Singh has given her Rs. 1000/ and obtained her signatures at two pages and after some time the official of MTNL came to their office and informed that the bill of heavy amount was outstanding in the name of his wife Smt. Sudesh Vig against the telephone installed in her name and that he Sh. Amarnath informed the MTNL official that they had not got installed any telephone in the name of his wife and their residence and they were informed that this telephone was working at Manak Pura where another telephone was installed in the name of some Muslim. Significantly Sh. Amarnath PW2 has stated that thereafter he wrote to the MTNL, CBI and the Commissioner of Police but no response were received and thereafter he filed a writ in the High Court and as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the CBI investigated the matter. Significantly PW2 during cross examination stated that he had asked the accused to surrender the telephone to which the accused agreed, but he PW2 did not write any letter to the 127 MTNL informing that they wanted to surrender the telephone. He denied that he had sold the telephone to some third party and had booked the second telephone to sell it at a premium. Equally important is the fact that PW2 Sh. Amarnath stated that he did not handover the copies of the letters sent by him to the MTNL and to the Delhi police to the CBI.

In his cross examination PW2 has denied that he had stated to the CBI, that when Charan Singh the accused had obtained his signatures of his wife, he PW2 was present. The statement U/s 161 of Cr. P.C. 1973 of this witness dated 04.11.1996 put forth that in October 1994 he received information from the MTNL of a telephone connection having being sanctioned in the name of his wife and thereafter Inspector Charan Singh, the accused form the Eid Gah, Telephone Exchange came to him for completion of documentary formalities for installation of the telephone in the name of his wife and then he Sh. Amarnath and his wife informed the accused that they already have two telephones at their address and they did not want a new telephone at this address whereupon the accused Charan Singh had left and subsequently he, Sh. Amarnath received a notice for cancellation of the telephone, to which he and his wife gave no reply and after some days the accused Charan Singh came and asked that if they wanted to that telephone cancelled it would take time and Rs. 1000/ of theirs would continue to remain blocked and they could take Rs. 1000/ from him and that he would himself get the telephone transferred in the name of another person and despite Mr. Amarnath declining the proposal, the accused insisted upon them to take Rs. 1000/ whereupon his wife took Rs. 1000/ from the accused and the accused took the signatures of his wife on two blank papers.

128

Qua the telephone installed in the name of Mohd. Safuddin, it has been stated by the accused No. 1 in his statement U/s 313 of Cr.P.C., 1973 that the OB of Sh. Sarfuddin with the application of Sh. Sarfuddin for change of the address was given to him by Section 24 and that he checked the bonafides i.e. his identification and took the annexure K from Sarfuddin and put up the same for change of address to the SDO and the application of Sarfuddin was for the change of address from the address at Chimni Mal, 210756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and from the SDO office the file was sent to the DE and the file came back to him from the DE, there was an application of the Sarfuddin on that file for ISD and STD connections and the signatures of the DE were on the application and that he made the jumper letter and made the necessary cutting. The accused further stated the one copy of the jumper letter was given by him to Parasram , the out door staff and the duplicate copy was sent by hims after completion of all formalities to the record and after checking the records there was an objection of the record section on the cutting of the ISD and he the accused took the approval of the DE to approve the cutting of the ISD, where after the record section check the document and sent it to the switch room for opening the number and the record section mentioned it as having being done. The accused further stated that this connection was also opened after all approvals obtained and formalities done by him. He further stated the there were signatures of approval of Divisional Engineer on point Z on Ex. PW17/D. The accused further stated that Ex. PW17/C and Ex. PW17/D both bore the approval signatures of Mr. O.P. Mehta the then Divisional Engineer.

In his evidence in defence also, the accused has categorically stated that he had followed all procedures in this case and all verification was also 129 conducted by the record section and only thereafter the telephone connections were installed. He further categorically stated that apart from Ex. PW17/A i.e. the annxure 'A', he had not taken the signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig on any other document and he never paid any money to Smt. Sudesh Vig. He further stated that there was a waiting period of approximately 5 years during those days for installation of new connection and people used to get the telephone installed in their name and allowed others to use the same. The accused has further stated that CBI never made any inquiries from him in this case and that the sanctioning authority from his department also did not make any inquiry form him in this case.

On being cross examined by the Ld. Public Prosecutor from the CBI, the accused categorically stated that he had conducted the verification of the address mentioned in the application of Smt. Sudesh Vig and he had gone to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh where he met Amarnath and Sudesh Vig. The accused accepted that the residential address of Smt. Sudesh Vig was 11302, Chowk Tibya College, Gaoshala Road, Karol Bagh but stated that Smt. Sudesh Vig wanted the telephone connection at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh and thus he had gone to conduct the verification and had met Smt. Sudesh Vig and Sh. Amarnath Vig at Manak Pura and denied that he did not meet Smt. Sudesh Vig at 10756, Manapura Karol Bagh and also categorically stated that the SDO gave him the application for change of address from Gaoshala Marg to Manak Pura and denied that the SDO had not given the application for change of the address from Gaoshala Marg to Manak Pura.

The accused denied that Smt. Sudesh Vig had told him that she did not want the telephone installed at that time and thus he had taken Rs. 1000/ from her to process the closer of her application. The accused further denied that he 130 had taken the signature of Smt. Sudesh Vig of Ex. Pw17/A at 11302, Gaoshala Road, Karol Bagh and denied that he had not taken the signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig of Ex. PW17/A at 10756, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

It was testified by the accused no.1 that there was no diary number on Ex.PW1/A page 9/C, but he stated that it was not necessary that a diary number was put on every document received in the office of the SDO but stated that if documents are filed otherwise in the MTNL, a diary number is put. The accused further denied that he had obtained signatures of Smt. Sudesh Vig on a blank paper and had placed Ex.PW1/A himself directly after getting its contents typed and for that reason, Ex.PW1/A did not bear any diary no. He categorically denied that the application Ex.PW1/A seeking change of address was not moved by Smt. Sudesh Vig and stated that there was an approval by the Divisional Engineer for installing the STD and ISD connection in the telephone connection of Smt. Sudesh Vig and the signatures of the Divisional Engineer were there. He testified further that there was no rule that the telephone connection was installed initially 'with' STD barred' at the relevant time but there was perhaps such a rule now and he denied that Ex.PW17/C had been received 'with STD barred' initially and there had been an overwriting and cutting done on the same by writing "with STD & ISD" and stated that rather, STD could have been installed initially also. DW1 i.e. the accused Charan Singh denied further that the telephone connection is installed initially always with 'STD barred'. He further testified to the effect that there were signatures at PointB of the Divisional Engineer on Ex.PW1/B and that there was an approval of installation of ISD connection in this case.

The accused no.1 further denied that as the red OB was not there in 131 the file Ex.PW22/U (Colly) and as there was no Annexure A in that file Ex.PW22/U (Colly). which relates to telephone no.3557109 with reference to OBNo.56061046030. He had not verified the address of Sarfuddin and rather stated that the address of Sarfuddin at Manak Pura, Karol Bagh was verified by him. The accused no.1 further denied that the OB for change of address with the name of Smt. Sudesh Vig at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was deliberately kept pending by him as it was a false application and the accused further denied that thus on the accused no.2 Arshad Hussain filing an application for shifting the telephone connection to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, the same was processed by him on the same day in connivance with the accused no.2. The accused no.1 categorically denied that Smt. Sudesh Vig had not sought any change of address from Goshala Road to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and denied that Smt. Sudesh Vig had not sought any STD/ISD facilities.

The accused no.1 also denied that there was no person by the name of Sarfuddin and denied that in connivance with the accused no.2 Arshad Hussain, the accused no.1 had got the telephone connection installed with ISD/STD connection at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the accused further stated that whatever he had done was in accordance with rules and approval. The accused no.1 further stated that Sarfuddin had shown him his passport for his identity and stated that he did not know whether he had a passport in different name and stated that it was only on the last date i.e. the date in Court prior to his statement u/s 313 of CrPC, 1973 that he learnt that Arshad Hussain had passports in several names including that of Sarfuddin. The accused no.1 further stated that when he went for verification of the address of the telephone to be installed in the name of Sarfuddin, he met 132 Sarfuddin at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The accused no.1 further stated that he had never installed any telephone connection without making it sure and without verifying the identity of the person in whose name the telephone connection was to be installed. He further stated that he did not know whether there was no person residing at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and did not know whether there was no person by the name of Arshad residing there. The accused no.1 further denied that he knew that Sarfuddin was accused Arshad Hussain i.e. accused no.2 and denied that in order to save Arshad Hussain i.e. accused no.2 and himself, he has deliberately testified falsely. He further denied that the portion in black in Ex.PW1/.PW 17/D was in his handwriting, though he admited that the portion at Q9 'XISD' and '10756 , Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 11005' on Ex.PW17/D is in his handwriting. The accused no. 1 further denied that he had misused his position as a public servant in connivance with accused no.2 to give him undue favour.

Inter alia DW1 i.e. accused no.1 testitied to mark PW 18/DX as being the departmental rules of the verification and bonafides and testified to mark DW1/ 2 being the copy of the verification of bonafide rules of the MTNL.

DW2 produced by the accused no.1 in his defence was Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Sub Divisional Officer with the MTNL who testified to the effect that accused no.1 Charan Singh was working under him as a phone inspector and stated that for the installation of a new telephone connection there is general language for bonafide check and that the rules Mark DW 1/ 2 are still in existence in the MTNL and there has been no amendment in the same and stated that if Annexure A to Mark DW1/ 2 is filled in by the subscriber, it amounts to sufficient compliance of bonafide 133 check by the phone inspector and he stated that he had so stated due to the portions Y to Y1 on page 2 of Mark DW1/ 2. The witness also produced an attested true copy attested by him as SDO (P)VI) Idgah of Mark DW1/ 2 produced by the accused as being the rules of verification of bonafides, of which the relevant portions are as below :

'Verification of Bonafides As per DOT circular No.22/86, PHA dated 26.06.95 (enclosed annexure1) 'Verification of bonafides of the subscriber at the time of providing a new telephone connection under NonOYTSS NonOYTGen, OYT(Gen) and OYT Special categories will not be necessary and the telephone connection will be provided at the address given by the subscriber.

Check of bonafide will be carried out only to check the address of the subscriber and to see that in case of default of payment correspondence can be made at the last registered address. For this purpose, a certificate cfrom the subscriber in the standard proforma (copy enclosed as annexureII) to be supplied by the department stating that the telephone connection is for his bonafide use, will be sufficient. This certificate may be sent back with the completed copy of the advice note by the SDE (External) to the Commercial Officer who will verify from records the signature on the certificate. If any unauthorised use of telephone is detected, stringent action should be taken under Indian Telegraphs Rules................' and the witness also referred to the portion 'For this purpose, a certificate from the subscriber in the standard proforma (copy enclosed) to be supplied by the department stating that the telephone connection is for his bonafide use' Marked Y to Y1 of Mark DW1/ 2 which is the 134 same as mentioned in Ex.PW1/.DW 2/1 brought by the witness DW2, Sub Divisional Officer with the MTNL at Idgah Telephone Exchange, who had also testified to the effect that accused was the phone inspector working under him. The witness DW2 further testified to the fact that the field staff has to go to the spot where the subscriber had sought the installation of the phone connection and the field staff has to get Annexure A portion Y to Ex.DW 2/1 filled in by the subscriber and that the address is the same where the subscriber had sought the installation of the telephone connection. DW2 further stated that the field staff is not to ask any documents from the subscriber to check the bonafides of the subscriber for example, the field staff cannot even ask the subscriber for the ration card, identity card or passport and that a subscriber may complain that the field staff is harassing him or her, if he asks for ration card, Identity card or passport. This witness on being cross examined by the Ld. Public Prosecutor for CBI, admitted that it was not mentioned in Ex.DW2/1 that the subscriber can complain that the field staff is harrasing her if he asks for ration card or identify card, but he stated that it has been seen that the subscribers come and complain that the filed staff is harassing them when they ask for identification and for this reason the field staff has been instructed to get the Annexure A to Ex.DW2/1 filled in by the subscriber, which is then sent to the Commercial Officer for verification.

PW18 Sh. V P Sharma working as SDO Telephones in Idgah Telephone Exchange w.e.f. 1994 to 1997 stated that he had recommended the change of address in the name of Sudesh at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.94 with the remarks that 'the change of address may approved subject to bonafide at new address' and stated that Shri O P Mehta, 135 Divisional Engineer has approved the change of address subject to bonafide of new address i.e. 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He further stated that the application Ex.PW18/B bore the signature of Shri O P Mehta, the Divisional Engineer. He further stated that the OB also showed 'change of address approved' with the signatures of Shri O P Mehta. PW18 further stated that the file for change of address of Section 22 in relation to change of installation address against OB no. 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 from 8127, 3rd Chimni Mill, Bara Hindu Rao to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, Delhi had been put up by the accused vide Ex.PW17/D and he, PW18 recommended the case for 'change of address' with the remarks that 'change of address may please be approved subject to the bonafide of the case at new address' and sent to the DE which was approved by Sh. O.P. Mehta, S/B/F ok at new address.

This witness further testified that the application for change of address are received in the office or collected by the field staff i.e. Section Incharge i.e. Phone Inspector, JTO and are to be put up in the change of address file by the Section Incharge to the SDO and competent authority for approval and the Section Incharge was supposed to check the bonafidity of the parties and is fully responsible for the bonafidity of the case. The witness had also testified to the effect that Ex.PW10/A the slip which he identified to be in the handwriting of the accused Charan Singh showed the details of OB No.56051037758 dated 27.10.1995 and 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 with open no.35571083557109 and that there was no bar to installation of two telephones at one address, but the bonafide of the parties has to be seen.

PW18 testified to having seen the Fault Control Register (D19) of 136 Section 22 w.e.f. 14.10.1995 and stated that telephone no.3557109 (10756, Manak Pura) was booked and made set right for confirmation after dialing ROTSS by Mohd. Usman. PW18 also testified that telephone no.3775108 booked on 06.12.1995 was made set right on the same day ROTSS Sarfuddin and stated that Sarfuddin must be on the said telephone and not Smt.Sudesh Vig. He further stated that telephone no.3557109 was booked on 03.10.1995 working at 10756, Manak Pura and was not shown regarding set right. On being cross examined by the counsel for the accused, this witness stated at the time when these connections were applied for, the waiting period for these connection was 2/3/4 years and time even took 8 to 9 years for the connection to materialize. This witness admitted that the OB letter did not contain a photo of signatures of the subscriber and also admitted that the accused was only provided with an OB and no photograph or signatures of the subscriber were taken at the time of installation of the phone. The witness admitted that the application for change of address could be made to the Section Incharge or could even be moved directly to the office of DE outdoor. PW18 has stated during cross examination that it is the duty of the Section Incharge to get the approval from the Competent Authority in case of installation of the new connection and it is the duty of the Phone Incharge in case of application for opening the STD and ISD by a subscriber to do so for getting approval for providing of STD and ISD before the DET. During cross examination on behalf of the accused no.1, this witness PW18 has admitted that this procedure had been followed by the accused in the present case and further stated that in the instant case, the application was signed by the Competent Authority i.e. Divisional Engineer and the same amounted to approval.

This witness stated that as the competent authority had approved the 137 application Ex.PW1/B, the details mentioned in Ex.PW17/C were also approved by signatures on the application.

On a perusal of the record it was considered essential by the Court on 20th December 2012 to examine the accused. Further, in terms of 313(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 qua the factum that the note 104/C dated 21.07.1995 i.e. Ex. PW 17/E 1 and the note 105/C dated also 21.07.1995 A2 i.e. Ex. PW 17/B2 were in his handwriting whereby the accused No. 1 had mentioned that the subscribers Mohd. Sarfuddin and Sudesh Vig sought change of address to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was admitted by the accused qua which a specific query was put to the accused whether the accused did not consider it essential to ascertain as to how two persons were seeking change of address of their telephone connection to the same address as mentioned in Ex. PW 17/B1 and Ex. PW 17/B2 in his handwriting, it was stated by the accused No. 1 that it was not necessary for him to ascertain as several persons got telephone connection at the same address. In relation to this aspect the testimony of PW 18 as essentially to be adverted to, who in his examination in chief on 31.03.2011 had been shown Ex. PW 10/A in the handwriting of the accused No. 1 containing the details of OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1995 and 56051046030 dated 16.06.1995 with open numbers 3557108 and 3557109 respectively but he has categorically stated "that there is no bar to the installation of two telephone in some one prima facie, "though he volunteered that the bona fide of the parties ought to be seen" coupled with the testimony of PW 18 who has categorically stated in examination in chief on 31.03.2011 that there is no bar to installation of two telephones in one premises taking into account the factum that Ex. PW 10/A i.e. D22 bearing the admitted writings of the accused i.e. A8 138 mentioning both the names of Sudesh Vig and Sarfuddin which PW 10 Mr. Suraj Bhan stated had been given by the accused No. 1 Charan Singh to Paras Ram which was also stated by the accused as DW 1 in his statement as also under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 on 24.02.2012 that he had given the one jumper letter with a duplicate copy coupled with the factum that the accused No. 1 has also stated that the jumper letters had been given by him to Paras Ram the outdoor staff after approval of the Divisional Engineer of the change of addresses, coupled with the repeated categorical statement of the accused No. 1 that all the total work had been done by him only after approval, checking and of formulate through the proper channel only, though undoubtedly there is grave suspicion that arises against the accused No. 1 Charan Singh, it is essential to observe that it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion however grave does not amount to proof and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the instant case as already observed here in above the factum that the prosecution version through the testimony of PW 17 the handwriting expert Mr. V.K. Khanna and his report Ex. PW 17/E indicates that qua the word 'with' on Ex. PW 17/C the jumper letter in relation to OB No. 56061037758 dated 27.10.1994 in relation to telephone communication having been allowed to be installed at the changeed address of Smt. Sudesh Vig at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi

- 110 005 with STD and ISD on approval by the Divisional Engineer, and likewise in addition to Ex. PW 17/D qua the word 'with' in relation to STD and ISD qua jumper letter in relation to OB No. 560 51046030 dated 16.06.1995 for installation of the telephone communication in favour of Mohd. Sarfuddin at the changed 139 address at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and Ex. 17/D the categorical report of PW 17 in relation to Q8 i.e. the handwriting expert i.e. vide Ex. PW 17/E is at "VI it has not been possible to express any opinion regarding the authorship of the rest of the question items on the basis of material at hand", coupled with the factum that vide Ex. PW 22/K1 annexure A i.e. the list of questioned documents sent by the CBI vide forwarding letter Ex. PW 22/K to the Director CFSL for comparison and opinion qua Q8 i.e. the OB No. 56051037758 dated 27.10.1994 in favour of Sudesh Vig at 110302 Chowk Tibia College, Gaushala Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, a specific query in relation to the word 'with' Delhi written before the word STD barred, was specifically sent by the CBI for opinion of the handwriting expert for comparison with the handwriting of the accused No.1 that is admitted signature A1 to A4 and A8 in addition to which the handwriting expert vide his report Ex. PW 17/E clause VI has categorically stated that he is unable to given any opinion in relation thereto to, coupled with the factum that the accused has categorically denied that the words "with" in relation to STD and ISD facility on Exhibits PW 17/C and 17/D being in his handwriting, coupled with the factum that though there are questioned markings Q7 A and Q9A qua OB No. 56051037758 in relation to the telephone connection qua Smt. Sudesh Vig at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi qua the word "with" on Ex. PW 17/C and qua "Q 9/A" in relation to OB No. 56051046030 in relation to the OB qua Mohd. Sarfuddin also at the changed address as per Ex. PW 17/D/word the 'with' relates to the facilities of 'with STD and ISD' and the word 'barred' having been struck for from both of them, in relation to the word 'with' having been written thereon, there is no report of the handwriting expert in relation to the said word 'with' on Ex. PW 17/C nor in relatio to the word 'with' at 140 Q9 A on Ex. PW 17/D nor has the prosecution chosen to place the same on record, which corroborates the version of the accused as stated by him, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 on 17.02.2012 that the word 'with' and the scoring of, all the words "barred" on Ex. PW 17/D had came from the office and that the words "with" on Ex. PW 17/C were also not in his handwriting, in relation to the supply of the facilities of the "STD and ISD" to the subscribers.

As regards the allegation against the accused Charan Singh that he had conspired with the co accused No. 2 Arshad Hussain in installation of the telephone communication at the address 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the fictitious name of Sarfuddin, it is essential to observe that the testimony PW 15 indicates that the accused Arshad Hussain, accused No. 2 was allegedly living in the assumed name of Sarfuddin at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi which was also not known to the owner of the said house Shri Uma Shankar Bhatnagar PW 12, and that Shri Uma Shankar Bhatnagar the owner of the said house had rented the room to Sarfuddin through one Mr. Amzad a tenant in the house of the uncle of Uma Shankar Bhatnagar in the same house. Furthermore, the testimony of Uma Shankar Bhatnagar brings forth that the Learner's license (D39) bearing the photograph of Mohd. Sarfuddin from the said i.e. Ex. PW 22/P recovered from the search of the premises at RZ 864 Jeewan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi was in the name of Qamal Jamil i.e. which photograph was of accused No. 2 Arshad Hussain was identified by Uma Shankar Bhatnagar as being that Sarfuddin, the submission of the accused Charan Singh that he had taken the identification and had checked his bona fides and only thereafter put up the application for change of address to the SDO from Chimni Mill to 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi as Sarfuddin had 141 shown him a passport in the name of Mohd. Sarfuddin and not in the name of Arshad Hussain and that he had no mode of knowing that Sarfuddin was Arshad Hussain and not Mohd. Sarfuddin, appears to be plausible. As already observed hereinabove, the prosecution has led no evidence to show that Smt. Sudesh Vig was not residing at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Another factor that cannot be over looked is that the witness Paras Ram who as per the inquiry report submitted by the CBI to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition 1998 of 197 had allegedly removed the drop wires of the two telephones 35571083557109 installed at 10756, Manak Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi allegedly around the months of January/February 1996 was not produced in the witness box by the prosecution having been reportedly repeated to be not traceable.

Another aspect which cannot be overlooked is that according to the prosecution version the applications filed to the MTNL of Sudesh Vig and Sarfuddin for provision of STD and ISD and change of address from their previous residences were typed in the same font and allegedly got typed by the accused No. 1 Charan Singh which are alleged to have been got typed by the accused Charan Singh from the same typewriter qua which it is essential to advert to Ex. PW 22/K the letter dated 14.05.1997 sent by the SP/CBI to the Director CFSL alongwith annexure thereto i.e. Ex. PW 22/K1 with questioned documents Q2 and Q5 i.e. the typed application of Smt. Sudesh Vig available in commercial file of telephone No. 3557108 and; Q3 and Q6 i.e. typed application of Smt. Sudesh Vig available in commercial file of telephone No. 3557108 and; Q10 typed application of Saifuddin available in commercial file of telephone No. 3557108 and; Q11 typed application of Saifuddin available in commercial telephone No. 3557109 read with the 142 questionnaire sent to the CFSL by the CBI i.e. Ex. PW 22/K4 with question No. 5 therein the asking for an opinion from the CFSL whether the typed material Mark Q5, Q6 and Q10 and Q11 had been typed from the same type writing machine where Q5, Q6, Q7 had been typed in relation to which it is the report of the handwriting expert in Ex. PW 17/E at 'V' to the effect "The questioned English typed writings marked Q5, Q6, Q10 and Q11 have been compared with the admitted English typed writings marked A5 to A7 and after comparison it was not possible to arrive at any opinion" and the handwriting scientific expert has expressed no opinion, and thus the said allegation that the applications for change of address and for installation of STD/ISD facilities by Smt. Sudesh Vig and by Mohd. Sarfuddin were got prepared and forged and fabricated by the accused No. 1 Charan Singh are not borne out to be established. Furthermore, in view of the testimony of DW 2 which corroborates the version put forward by the accused No. 1 that till date the circular of verification of bonafides Ex. DW 2/1 is in existence whereby the certificate from the subscriber stating that the telephone communication is for his bonafide use would suffice and that the circular Mark PW 18/DX of the MTNL is also in existence according to which the annexure filled by the subscribers giving their address for shifting of telephone would suffice and no other verification was required by the telephone officials, the plea and contention raised by the accused No. 1 that he had checked the bonafidity of the subscribers as per rules, also appears plausible, and cannot be ignored.

Thus on a consideration of the entire available record, the accused No. 1 Charan Singh S/o Fateh Singh is acquitted in relation to the charge of allegations framed against him of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 143 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 and of the alleged commission of substantive offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act as the CBI has not been able to establish the said charges against the accused No. 1 Shri Charan Singh in RC No. 41(A)/1996/CBI/ACB/ND beyond a reasonable doubt. The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused No. 1 and his surety are discharged and his surety is also discharged.

The accused No. 2 Arshad Hussain being a proclaimed offender, the file is consigned to the Record Room with the directions to the Branch Incharge of the Record Room (Sessions) that the file is to be retained to be put up on the arrest/appearance of the accused Arshad Hussain.

Announced in open Court,                                                         (Anu Malhotra)        
today the 22  day of December 2012.
                nd
                                                                  Special Judge CBI (PCAct)06
                                                                        Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.    
                                                     144

CBI Vs Charan Singh & Another
RC No. 41(A)/96/CBI/ACB.
CC No. 26/12.


22.12.2012

Present :          Inspector Layak Ram Pairvy Officer of the CBI.

Ld. Counsel Shri Bhupender Singh proxy for Ld. Counsel Shri Ajay Choudhary for the accused.

Vide a separate judgment of even date, the accused No. 1 Charan Singh S/o Fateh Singh is acquitted in relation to the charge of allegations framed against him of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 and of the alleged commission of substantive offences punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act as the CBI has not been able to establish the said charges against the accused No. 1 Shri Charan Singh in RC No. 41(A)/1996/CBI/ACB/ND beyond a reasonable doubt. The bail bonds and surety bond of the accused No. 1 and his surety are discharged and his surety is also discharged.

(Anu Malhotra) Special Judge CBI (PCAct)06 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

Cbi vs Charan Singh & Another on 22 December, 2012