Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Gurpreet Singh on 20 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS VRINDA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI
EAST DISTRICT / KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CBI V/s GURPREET SINGH
JUDGMENT
a). ID No. of the case : 0242R0215292009
b). Serial number of the case : 04/09/09
c). Date of commission of offence : During the year 199293.
d). Name of complainant , if any : Sh. D.C. Goyal, Chief Manager,
Service Branch, Parliament
Street, New Delhi.
e). Name & address of accused : 1. Sukhdev Singh
s/o Sh. Karnail Singh.
r/o Flat no. 129, Rohini, New
Delhi. (Convicted vide
judgment dated 29.09.2006 for
the offence u/s 120B,
419,420,471 IPC)
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 1/18
2. Dalip Singh.
s/o Sh. Kale Ram.
r/o Village Manjesar, P.O NIT,
Faridabad, Haryana.(Convicted
vide judgment dt. 29.09.2006
for the offences u/s 120B &
380 IPC)
3. Anwinder Singh,
s/o Sh. Sardar Jagjeet Singh.
r/o F230, Vishnu Garden,
New Delhi.(Convicted
vide judgment dt. 29.09.2006 for
the offences u/s 120B,
419,420,468 & 471 IPC)
4.Gurpreet Singh
s/o Sh. Sardar Jashwant Singh
Sachdeva
r/o D154, Rajori Garden,
New Delhi.
Permanent address: 1517/4,
SectorIV, Puchkula,
District Ambala, Haryana
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 2/18
f). The offence complained of : u/s 120B, 420,467 & 468 IPC.
g). The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h). Final order : Convicted.
i). The date of such order : 20.09.2011
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. The allegation of the prosecution is that accused Sukhdev Singh (convicted), Dilip (convicted), Anwinder Singh (convicted) and Gurpreet Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy pursuant to which they stole a bank draft book containing 24 blank drafts of MTL series containing bank drafts no. 995827 to 995850 from the State Bank of India, main branch Faridabad during the month of September, 1992 and got them encashed for a total value of Rs. 18.96 Lacs from various branches of Punjab National Bank, State Bank of India, Syndicate Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab and Sindh Bank by CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 3/18 opening various accounts in the fictitious names and by forging signatures of various officers of State Bank of India. The specific role of the accused Gurpreet Singh in the entire chain of conspiracy is that he forged the body writing of bank drafts no. 995840 (Ex PW9/B), 995841 (Ex P/W18/A), 995843 (Ex PW10/A), 995845 (Ex PW 42/B) to 995849 (Ex PW42/F).unlawfully.
2. Charge for the offence u/s 120B, 420 IPC r/w 120B, 467 IPC and 468 IPC. was framed against the accused Gurpreet Singh (G.P.Singh) on 06.11.1996. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 50 witnesses in its favour. PW1 is Sh. D.C. Goel who was posted as Chief Manager SBI, Parliament Street, New Delhi. He has proved his complaint dated 20.01.1994 as Ex PW1/A. On the basis of this complaint, the present FIR was registered. Sh. S.C.Dhingra, Deputy Manager SBI is PW2. He was posted as Passing Officer in C& I Division at Faridabad, Main Branch. He has proved that the SBI drafts number 995835, 995837, 995840, 995841, 995843, 995847, 995848, 995849, 995846 to 995845 were CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 4/18 found missing from the Branch. He has also narrated circumstances in which the Bank Officials at Faridabad Branch came to know of the missing Draft Book on 11.09.1992. PW3 is Sh. K.K.Mehta who was posted as Officer at Punjab and Sind Bank, Narayana from April 1993 to April 1998. He has proved the circumstances in which the Saving Bank Account no. 6949 was opened by a person by the name of Manjeet Singh. The account opening form is Ex PW3/A. The duplicate account opening form is Ex PW 3/A1. The credit requisition slip for opening Bank account is Ex PW3/B. The ledger sheet bearing his signatures is Ex PW3/C. The cheque of Rs. 1,60,000/ maintaining the reason for drawing such an amount is Ex PW3/D. The clearing approved voucher is Ex PW3/E. The cheque no. 399942 dated 01.07.1993 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ through which payment was received by one Sh. Paramjeet Singh is Ex PW 3/F. The cheque no. 399943 is Ex PW3/G. PW4 is Sh. K.V. Rao who was posted as Asst. Manager Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar, Delhi. He has proved the account opening form of one Sh. Manjeet Singh as Ex PW 4/A. The specimen signature card of the said account no. is Ex PW4/B. The paying slip of Rs. 500/ with which the account was opened is Ex PW4/C. The CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 5/18 account opening form in the name of Sh. Balvinder Singh is Ex PW4/D. The specimen signature card is Ex PW4/E. The paying slip is Ex PW4/F. The paying slip by which an amount of Rs. 10,000/ was deposited is Ex PW4/G. The cheque vide which a sum of Rs. 25,000/ was withdrawn is Ex PW4/H. The cheques worth Rs. 3 Lacs ,worth Rs. 2,50,000/ dated 23.07.1993, worth Rs. 30,000/ dated 29.07.1993, worth Rs. 27,000/ dated 30.07.1993 and cheque of Rs. 3 Lacs dated 30.07.1993 are Ex PW 4/J to Ex PW4/N. PW5 is Sh. P.C. Arora who was posted as Manager PNB at Tilak Nagar,Delhi. He has proved the account opening form of account no. 37083 which is Ex PW5/A. An amount of Rs. 8,000/ was withdrawn vide cheque dated 01.06.1993 which is Ex PW5/B. Cheque dated 17.06.1993 by which an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ was withdrawn is Ex PW5/C. Another amount of Rs. 65,000/ was withdrawn vide cheque which is Ex PW5/D. The receipt memo vide which the documents were handed over to the IO is Ex PW5/E. Sh. Ved Prakash Kharhanda, Deputy Manager, Draft Paid Section Service Branch, SBI, New Delhi is PW9. He has proved that the draft no. MTL/B995838 (Ex PW9/A) and draft no. MTL/B995840 (Ex PW9/B) were passed by him.
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 6/18 PW10 is Sh. Din Dayal, Deputy Manager, SBI, Service Branch, New Delhi. He has proved the draft no. MTL/B985843 as Ex PW10/A and draft no. MTL/B985835 as Ex PW10/B. Sh. Avtar Singh, employee O.B.C. Tagore Garden Branch is PW14. He has proved the account opening form as Ex PW14/A. Sh. M. Singh, employee in Office of O.B.C.,Tagore Garden Branch is PW15. He has proved the ledger sheet of A/C no. 9206 as Ex PW15/A, cheque dated 08.07.1993 for Rs. 1,55,000/ as Ex PW15/B, Pay in slip as Mark B vide which Rs. 1.70 lacs was deposited in the A/C no. 9206. Sh. K.M. Gulati, Chief Manager, C& I Division, SBI Faridabad is PW16. He has proved that a draft book of TL series containing Drafts No. 995826 to 850 was stolen from the branch & he reported the same vide document Ex PW16/B. Sh. Arvind, Accountant, Boring Road Branch, Patna is PW18. He has proved the drafts no. 995838 (Ex PW9/A), 995840 (Ex PW9/B), 995841 (Ex PW18/A), 995843 (Ex PW10/A) and 995844 (Mark PW18/C). Sh. Manohar Lal, Operating Officer, SBI at Batala, Punjab is PW19. He has proved the Draft no. 995845 worth Rs. 1.75 Lakhs as Mark K12, Draft no. 995846 worth Rs. 1.75 Lakhs as Mark X11, Draft no. 995849 worth Rs. 1.80 Lakhs as Mark CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 7/18 X8, Draft no. 995847 worth Rs. 2 Lakhs as Mark X6 and Draft no. 995848 worth Rs. 2 Lakhs as Mark X4. Sh. Subhash Chander, Manager Personal Banking Divison, SBI Tilak Nagar, New Delhi from October, 199294 is PW20. Sh. Rachpal Singh, Manager Punjab and Sindh Bank at Calcuttta in the year 198789 is PW21. Sh. Harbans Singh, Peon in Punjab and Sindh Bank in the year 1973 is PW22. Sh. T.D. Arora, AGM in the State Bank of India, Faridabad Main Branch in the year 1992 is PW23. He has proved the letter dated 12.09.1992 addressed to controlling authority as Ex PW23/A and letter dated 18.09.1992 addressed to Controlling Authority as Ex PW23/B. Sh. K.K.Khatri, Clerk, Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch is PW24. He has proved the pay in slip dated 21.07.1993 for Rs. 2 Lacs, pay in slip dated 21.07.1993 for Rs. 1.80 Lacs,pay in slip dated 22.07.1993 for Rs. 1.75 Lacs, pay in slip dated NIC for Rs. 1.75 Lacs which are Ex PW24/A1 to A5 pertaining to A/C no. 25678 of Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch. Sh. Malook Singh, Head Cashier, Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bundala Branch, Distt. Jalandhar is PW27. He deposed that the accused G.P.Singh was employed as Clerk in the P& S Bank, Bundala Branch during 19901991. Sh.
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 8/18 Inder Mohan Popali, Deputy Manager in SBI, Service Branch is PW28. He has proved the draft no. 995841 dated 19.06.1993 for Rs. 1.65 Lacs as Ex PW28/B in the name of Sh. Manjeet Singh. Sh. V.S. Shishodra, Senior Manager, OBC, Tagore Garden is PW30. He deposed that he had handed over the documents regarding the A/C no. 9206 in the name of Sh. Paramjeet Singh to the IO vide receipt memo (Ex PW15/D). Sh. R.K. Sarin is PW31. Sh. Deepak Kumar is PW32. He proved the account opening form (Ex PW32/A) in Syndicate Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch in the name of Manjeet Singh. PW33 is Sh. Y.P.S. Kundal. He deposed that from September,1993 to July, 1996 no person by the name Sh. V.K Saini was posted in SBI, Taran Branch. Sh. Om Prakash, Research Officer, Ministry of Environment, Paryavaran Bhawan is PW35. He proved the specimen signatures of accused G.P.Singh taken on Ex PW35/1 to Ex PW 35/8. Sh. Dinesh Kumar is PW 36. Sh. Kamal Gupta is PW 37. Sh. Avdhesh is PW38. Sh. S. M. Pandey, Accountant, Boring Road Branch , SBI is PW39. He has deposed that somebody had forged his signatures on the draft no. 995840, 995841 & 995843 for Rs. 2 Lacs, Rs. 1.65 Lacs and Rs. 1.70 Lacs respectively. He has CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 9/18 proved his specimen signatures taken by the IO on Ex PW39/1 to Ex PW39/5. Sh. D.L.Shahni, Chief Manager, Service Branch, SBI is PW41. He has proved his complaint as Ex PW41/A. Sh. Ram Lal Sardana is PW45. He deposed that he is doing the work of rubber stamp with Baljeet Printers and had prepared one stamp with impression like Sh. S.N. Pandey P3284 as shown at point 2/3 on Ex PW 28/A. Sh. Banarsi Lal, XRay technician is PW47. He deposed that Sh. Gurbachan Singh showed him one blank draft book six year back. IO/Retired Insp. Layak Singh is PW 48. He has proved that RC NO. 3(s)/94 CBI, SIU IX was registered on the basis of the complaint of Sh D.C.Goel and has proved the investigation conducted by him. Sh. S.K. Saxena, GEQD, Calcutta is PW 49.Sh. J.K. Semwal is PW50. He has proved his GEQD report as Ex PW50/6 apart from other documents.
4. Statement of accused Gurpreet Singh u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 09.09.2010. He preferred to lead defence evidence. Repeated opportunities were granted to the accused for leading DE. On 23.11.2010, Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that he did not want to lead DE. The DE was, therefore, CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 10/18 directed to be closed.
5. Final arguments were addressed on 02.08.2011, 04.08.2011, 25.08.2011 and 26.08.2011. I have perused the records carefully.
6. During his cross examination, PW48 Retired Insp. Layak Singh has stated "It is correct to suggest that during the investigation I have not come across any evidence whereby accused Gurpreet Singh had opened any account for realization of forged demand drafts in question. I cannot say whether the ill gotten money was ever shared by Gurpreet Singh. It is correct to suggest that in the challan filed by the CBI only allegation against the accused that he has forged the body writing of DDs in question and cheques."
7. The handwriting on the body of above mentioned drafts was compared with the admitted handwriting of the accused Gurpreet Singh and his specimen signatures. PW22 Sh. Harbans Singh was posted as a Peon in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bundala, District Jalandhar, Punjab. He has deposed that CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 11/18 accused G.P. Singh worked in the abovesaid branch of the Punjab and Sindh Bank for a short period of about 15 days in the year 199091. The joining report of the accused dated 05.12.1990, request for making payment dated 11.12.1990, the account opening form and the specimen card (Mark PW22/X to Mark X PW22/X3) are on record and constitute admitted writing/signatures of accused. These original documents were used to compare the handwriting of the accused with the handwriting on the body of the stolen bank drafts. No doubt these documents have been marked and not exhibited but there is nothing on record to believe that these documents are false documents. Veracity of these documents has not been questioned anywhere by the accused. The testimony of PW22 shows that he resiled from his earlier statement to the extent that he had seen the accused Gurpreet Singh writing and signing during the ordinary course of business. However, he has stood firm on his stand that in the year 199091, the accused worked as a clerk for a brief period of 15 days even though he could not say specifically the dates within which the accused worked as clerk in the abovesaid bank. During the cross examination of this witness, not even a single suggestion was put by the CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 12/18 accused that the accused never worked in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bundala, District Jalandhar, Punjab. PW27 Sh. Malook Singh has also testified that accused was employed as clerk at the Bundala branch of the Punjab and Sindh Bank. His testimony to this extent has not been challenged in cross examination. The IO retired Insp. Layak Ram (now retired) was examined as PW48. In his examination in chief, he has proved that he collected the documents marked PW22/X to PW 22/X3 under the letter dated 30.11.1994 which is Ex PW 48/C. Collection of these documents by the IO has not been disputed in cross examination by the accused. Merely because these documents have not been exhibited and have only been marked does not make them unreliable. These documents constitute the admitted signatures (A1 to A19) which were compared with the writings on the questioned documents, that is, bank drafts bearing no. 995840 (Ex PW9/B), 995841 (Ex P/W18/A), 995843 (Ex PW10/A), 995845 (Ex PW 42/B) to 995849 (Ex PW42/F). The GEQD report in this respect is Ex PW50/6. It has been mentioned in clause3 of this report that the person who wrote the enclosed writing stamped and marked A11 to A13 also wrote the red enclosed writings CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 13/18 similarly stamped and marked Q42 to Q46, Q48, Q49, Q51, Q52, Q54, Q55, Q57, Q58, Q60 (on the bank drafts which are exhibited as Ex PW9/B, Ex 18/A, Ex PW10/A, Ex PW 42/E, Ex PW 42/F, Ex PW 42/B, Ex PW42/C, Ex PW42/D).
8. At the time of writing the abovesaid GEQD opinion, specimen signatures of the accused were also compared and it has also been opined in clause 3 of the report that the specimen signatures of the accused (S56 to S63)( Ex PW 35/1 to Ex PW 35/8) match with the writing on the abovesaid bank drafts. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the procedure u/s 311A Cr.P.C was not followed by the IO before taking the specimen signatures of the accused and therefore this portion cannot be read in testimony against the accused. In case Bhupender Vs. State (Govt. of NCT), MANU/DE/1085/2011, V AD (DELHI) 181, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has referred to case title as Insp. Police and others Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate (2004)5 SCC 729 wherein it was held that the admissibility of evidence or a piece of evidence has to be judged having regard to the provisions of the Evidence Act. It was further observed CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 14/18 that the Evidence Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure or for that matter any other law in India does not exclude relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure. In the present case, the specimen signatures of the accused were taken during investigation in presence of PW35 Sh. Om Prakash, Research Officer, Ministry of Environment, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex. He has proved that the specimen signatures of the, on the other hand, accused were taken during investigation in the presence of PW35. Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has argued that the specimen signatures were not taken in the presence of PW 35 and he merely appended his signatures on the sheets containing the specimen signatures at the instance of the IO who was on friendly terms with him. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out that during his cross examination, PW35 has stated that he was called by the IO through a messenger whereas PW48 has stated in his cross examination that he had given the notice to Sh. Om Prakash on the same day. On one side, PW35 has stated that he had gone to the IO in the evening, the IO has stated that the specimen signatures of the accused were taken at about 9.00 p.m in CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 15/18 the night. While considering the abovesaid discrepancies, the question put to both these witnesses in the cross examination must be examined. No doubt, PW35 has stated that it was evening time and it being a time off, he went to the IO Layak Singh. But the question as to at what time, the signatures of the accused were taken has not been put to this witness. Similarly, the question to the IO pertains to the time when specimen signatures of accused were taken and not regarding the time when the PW35 was called by him. Therefore, there is neither any contradiction in the testimonies of PW35 & PW48 nor is this discrepancy sufficient to shake the testimony of PW35 to the extent that the specimen signatures of the accused for comparison were taken in his presence.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that no conviction can be based solely on the basis of the opinion of handwriting expert. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied up on Magan Bihari Lal Vs. Sate of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 1091 where in it has been held that "It is now well settled that the expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 16/18 more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precendential authority which holds that it is unsafe to pass a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law." Ld. Counsel has also argued that in absence of any corroborative evidence, the opinion of handwriting expert alone will not help the prosecution.
10. The facts in the present case are, however, different. The role of the accused Gurpreet Singh cannot be viewed in isolation as it is a part of long chain of conspiracy. Conspiracy is hatched in darkness and there may not be any witness who would have actually seen the accused filling up the body of the bank drafts. Each act done in furtherance of a conspiracy is corroboration of other such acts. The role of three other accused (now convicts) in the conspiracy has already been proved. The evidence against the accused Gurpreet Singh is conclusive in nature and excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. It completes all the links in the chain of acts constituting conspiracy in the present case.
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 17/18
11.The prosecution has, thus, proved that the stolen bank drafts were filled in by the accused Gurpreet Singh and that the purpose of such preparation of these bank drafts was to encash them wrongfully and they were also so encashed. Thus, the role of the accused in conspiracy as well as his act of forging documents which purport to be valuable securities for purpose of cheating in furtherance of conspiracy has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused is, accordingly, convicted of offence u/s120B, 420 IPC r/w 120B, 467 IPC and 468 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on this 20th day of September, 2011.
(VRINDA KUMARI)
ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI
EAST/KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CBI Vs. Gurpreet Singh Page no. 18/18