Delhi District Court
Cc No.182/19 State vs Vikas Rana 1 on 23 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. KIRAN BANSAL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT) ACB01, CENTRAL DISTRICT
ROUSE AVENUE COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLCT110008832019
CC No. 182/19
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
VERSUS
1. Vikas Rana
S/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh Rana
R/o D18/3, East Jyoti Nagar
Loni Road, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 04/09
U/S : 409/467/468/471 IPC R/w 13(1)(c)(d) PC Act
PS : Parliament Street
Date of institution : 18.04.2009
Judgment reserved on : 02.12.2019
Judgment delivered on : 23.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. K. Salil Kumar, Under Secretary (Admn.), South Block, Prime Minister Office (PMO), New Delhi sent a complaint regarding misappropriation/embezzlement of Government money, stating that on scrutiny of the salary bills of the officials of PMO for the month of December 2008, some error in the computer generated printout was noticed and it was found that the bills for the aforesaid month was prepared by accused Vikas Rana, UDC and salary was drawn in the names of four exemployees of PMO namely Jacob, Anil Kumar CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 1 M.V., Sooraj P. and Prakash. It is further stated that at the time of ECS transfer, these amounts were transferred to the accounts opened in the name of accused Vikas Rana. On preliminary enquiry, it has been found that this practice has been taking place since 2005 when Electronic Clearance System (ECS) was introduced in the PMO. On the complaint of Sh. K. Salil Kumar, the present FIR has been registered at PS Parliament Street. Subsequently on 19.01.2009, the present case was transferred to Cyber Cell, Economic Wing, Crime Branch, New Delhi and during the course of investigation on 02.04.2009, section 13(1)(c) and (d) POC Act were added. Statement of complainant was also recorded and some documents were also obtained from the complainant and on examination of the documents as well as the statements of the witnesses, it was revealed that the accused who was appointed as LDC and later on promoted as UDC in CSCS cadre of Ministry of Home Affairs was assigned duties of cash and general section of PMO and was deputed to prepare salary of the Ministerial1 staff category and used to prepare the monthly salary bills of the staff of the Ministerial1 through the computer software installed and maintained at NIC of PMO. The accused was assigned duty to prepare the salary bills utilizing the computer software. The accused and other clerk used to feed data in the software maintained at PMO, NIC server through internal computer network connection. The accused used to take the printout of the salary bills of Ministerial1 staff and then used to put up the same before the Section Officer/DDO of cash and General Section of PMO and Section Officer/DDO then used to authenticate them by signing the bills. DDO used to forward the bills to Pay and Accounts officer and PAO used to authenticate them and prepare a cheque and used to send the cheque to CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 2 PMO where it was received by cashier and the officials of the PMO were having the option of getting their salary deposited in the bank account number of their choice. The bank account number and other bank details of the each official were also maintained in the salary software so that the salary could be deposited in the respective bank account through ECS. All the details/data relating to the salary disbursement was downloaded in a CD in encrypted format at NIC Section of PMO where all the server computer of PMO were installed. CD alongwith the cheque of salary amount was then sent to Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and PNB then forwarded it to the ECS Department, Reserve Bank of India. In the RBI, the CD used to be loaded in the software maintained for the purpose and instant credit is afforded to the centralized clearing office of the various concerned bank and then forwarded to their respective branches for credit and thereafter, the salary was credited in the account of the respective officials. During the investigation, four hard disks installed in the Cash and General Section were seized on 23.01.2009 and also the hard disk of the NIC server in which salary records were kept and maintained was also seized. During investigation search of the house of the accused was conducted and following articles were seized :
(1) ATM card of UTI Bank in the name of Vikas Rana, no. 4688050070247958.
(2) ATM card of Syndicate Bank in the name of Vikas Rana, no. 4033989055031162.
(3) ATM card of Lord Krishna Bank no. 4213183523007465264 bearing no. name embossed.
(4) ATM card ICICI Bank no. 4667310343033394 in the name of Vikas CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 3 Rana.
(5) ATM Debit Card Vijaya Bank in the name of Vikas Rana no. 4213416011003319658.
(6) One cheque book of ICICI Bank Account no. 034301001623 in the name of Vikas Rana having cheque slips 342934 to 342950. (7) One Cheque Book of UTI Bank in the name of Vikas Rana Account no. 007010100268899 bearing cheque slips no. 494760 only. (8) One cheque book in semitorn condition of Syndicate Bank account no. 90552010083537 bearing cheque slips no. 916250 only. (9) One ICICI Bank EMI card no. 4477465201288009 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(10) One ICICI Bank Credit Card no. 4417469906075000 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(11) One ICICI True Value Card No. 4477466543595010 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(12) One ICICI Bank True Value Card No. 4477466543595010 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(13) One ABN Amro One Card no. 5415382400723862 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(14) One Deutsche Bank Card 4412841027713008 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(15) One ABN Amro Bank Card no. 5415382313957904 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(16) One ABN Amro Bank Card no. 5415382403335383 in the name of Vikas Rana.
(17) One SBI card no. 4317575027329581 in the name of Vikas Rana. (18) One HSBC Credit Card no. 4476929992585379 in the name of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 4 Vikas Rana.
(19) Photocopy of Sale Deed for a sum of Rs.16,50,000/ dated 5.6.2008 in respect sale of Built up HIG Dwelling unit no. D18/3 C, Plot no. D18, Dwelling Unit no. 3, Jyoti Nagar (East of Loni Road) in area of village Sikdarpur, Illaqa, Shahadara, Delhi110093.
2. On scrutiny, it was revealed that vide the registered sale deed in favour of mother of the accused, the accused had purchased a HIG Dwelling unit for a sale consideration of Rs.16,50,000/ and the payment of Rs. 15,00,000/ was made through cheque drawn on HDFC Bank, Surya Kishan Building and remaining amount of Rs.1,50,000/ was paid in cash. It was also revealed that the accused had purchased a Santro car bearing no. DL8CN3827 in his name for an amount of Rs.3,62,795/ and this car was financed by ICICI Bank Ltd. and the amount financed was Rs.3,05,595/ and payment of Rs.25,000/ was made for the purchase of the car from the account no. 90552010083537 of accused Vikas Rana at Syndicate Bank. The monthly installment of Rs.10,464/ of the loan of Santro car was also paid through the account of the accused at Syndicate Bank and in this account, the salary in the name of exemployees Prakash, Vikas Kashyap and Anil M.V. were deposited by the accused. The bank account statement of Syndicate Bank as well as loan document were seized during investigation and it was revealed that the payment of the installment of the loan of the car was made from the Syndicate Bank to the ICICI Bank. Further it was revealed that salary in the name of fictitious employee Surjit Singh was also prepared and the salary bill of the MinisterialII staff for the period June 2008 to August 2008 and this salary was also deposited in the bank account of Vikas Rana. The following documents were also seized CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 5 during investigation :
(i) Salary Bill of Ministerial1 staff of PMO for the period from 1.01.05 to 31.12.2008 from Pay and Accounts Officer, PMO.
(ii) Salary Bills received by Reserve Bank of India from PMO for salary payment to officials of PMO in ECS in their respective Bank Accounts in print format and in Electronic Format in CD.
(iii) Account statements of Vikas Rana from Five Banks.
(iv) Actual Salary for which Vikas Rana was entitled during the period.
(v) Salary Bills of MinisterialII staff for the period June 2008 to August 2008.
3. Audit work was done to analyze the bills and all the accounts and records from an approved CA, who after analysis of the documents and the investigation conducted and statement recorded, analyzed the monthly embezzlement done by the accused. The modus operandi of the accused is detailed below :
(1) Vikas Rana was employed as Upper Division Clerk in Cash and General Section of Prime Minister Office South Block, New Delhi in capacity of a Public Servant.
(2) He was assigned duty to prepare Salary Bills of officials of PMO coming in the category of Ministerial1. Following officials of PMO come under the category of Ministerial1 : Assistants, LDC, UDC, Senior Translator, Junior Translator, Accountant and Carpenter. Whenever a new official is posted at PMO coming under category of Ministerial 1, his posting/transfer order alongwith pay fixation orders were delivered to him by the Administration Branch of PMO in routine process. Vikas Rana was supposed to prepare the salary of such official after receipt of above orders. Whenever any official of Ministerial1 category is transferred out/removed from PMO, the orders in this respect were also sent to CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 6 Vikas Rana as he was the concerned dealing clerk.
After receipt of transfer orders of an official outside of PMO, it was duty of Vikas Rana to discontinue preparing the Salary of such official.
(3) The Salary Bills in PMO are prepared in the computer software prepared, maintained and installed by NIC section at PMO. Every dealing clerk assigned duty to prepare the salary is having computer terminal at his office table. These computers are connected with the main salary software server at NICPMO through internal networking. For official work and preparation of salary, each dealing clerk is having facility to enter into the software, the required data, names of officials, and respective salaries, deductions, respective bank account of officials in which salary is to be transferred/deposited and other required details.
(4) Vikas Rana used to prepare Salary bills of the officials of ministerial1 category of PMO through the computer placed on his table. It has been found after examination of salary bills prepared by Vikas Rana that in the salary bills he has inserted names of non existing officials.
(5) In the salary bills there is a column of destination bank account number. In this column the bank account number of the officials in which the salary amount is to be deposited is mentioned. There is a facility in PMO that the salary of an official could be deposited in any bank account as per the choice of such official.
(6) Vikas Rana while preparing salary in names of such fictitious officials inserted his own bank account number in the column of destination bank account number of salary bills. Thus the wrongful salary prepared in the name of non existent/fictitious officials of PMO used to get deposited in the respective accounts of Vikas Rana. (7) The salary bills contains names of several officials and it runs into several pages. Accused used to insert the names of fictitious officials in the list among the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 7 actual officials.
(8) He also used to make a wrong calculation in excess to the actual total of the bill. After taking out print of salary bill he used to put it before the DDO. The DDO then authenticates it, put his signature and stamp over it and forwards it to Pay and Accounts Officer, Cabinet Affairs, C1 Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi. The salary bills were sent through cashier of Cash and General Section giving it a bill number after making entries in Bill Register. The PAO then used to check it and prepare the cheque of the total salary amount mentioned in the salary bill. The salary bills were kept by PAO for records and the cheque of the total amount of salary bill is then sent to Cashier of Cash and General Section, PMO.
(9) After sending the salary bills to DDO/PAO, Vikas Rana used to change the name of fictitious officials, in whose name he has had wrongfully prepared the salary, to his name i.e. Vikas Rana. In addition, the excess amount in the wrong total of the salary bills was also adjusted by increasing the payable amount of his actual salary as well as in the salary of the said fictitious officials.
(10) Vikas Rana used to prepare salary bills of Ministerial1 officials. On the last page of these salary bills, the total sum of the payable salary amount of all the officials is to be mentioned. But Vikas Rana used to make wrong calculation of the Net total of the salary of these officials. He used to mention the total in excess of the actual amount. Then this salary bill was sent to Pay and Account Officer through DDO of PMO. The Pay and Account Officer used to issue cheque of the amount of the Total mentioned in Salary Bills. Thus in this way the cheque was issued of the excess amount. After the cheque is received from Pay and Account Officer by the cashier of PMO, then the salary bills in electronic format (CD) are to be sent to Punjab National Bank alongwith cheque received from PAO for disbursing salary into the respective bank account CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 8 of the officials. However, prior to preparing of this CD, Vikas Rana used to adjust the excess of salary amounts by increasing the payable salary in salary bills to himself and to the fictitious officials in electronic form in the software. He used to do this by changing records and data in the salary software from his computer in the NIC server of PMO.
Simultaneously, Vikas Rana used to change names of fictitious officials to Vikas Rana so that the wrongfully prepared salary gets deposited in his bank accounts.
(11) Thereafter the data of salary bills was got downloaded in a CD by accused Vikas Rana at NIC section of PMO from the computer server. The data of salary bills is downloaded from the salary bill software. It contains the name of employees, account numbers, bank name and branch location in which salary of employees are to be deposited and amount of salary. This CD was got sealed and sent to Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi with a forwarding letter and the corresponding cheque. (12) As per statements of witnesses and report of Sh. K. Salil Kumar, Under Secretary (Admn.), the task of getting the salary of bills downloaded in the CD and getting it sealed was assigned to accused Vikas Rana and the accused used to perform this task. (13) The Punjab National Bank is the sponsor bank for ECS of PMO. On receipt of Salary Bill Floppy/CD for ECS from PMO, the same is forwarded by Punjab National Bank to ECS Department, RBI, Jeewan Bharti Building through Regional Clearing Centre, 1st Floor, 5 Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Then it is processed by software of ECS Department of RBI. The contents of CD are downloaded in their system and instant credit is afforded to the Centralized Clearing office of the various concerned bank which then forwarded them to respective branches of PMO officials for salary credit. The task performed by sponsoring bank (Punjab National Bank) is to forward the CD of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 9 salary bills to RBI with the Mandate Form.
Thereafter, the salary is deposited in the bank accounts of respective officials in respective bank account including that of fictitious employees whose salary is deposited in the account of accused Vikas Rana. The accused used to withdraw the amount. (14) Thus the salary bills collected from PAO contains name of accused Vikas Rana and fictitious employees whereas the corresponding salary bills obtained from RBI have all these fictitious names altered into the name of accused Vikas Rana. Also the salary of Vikas Rana and fictitious employees is found to be increased in the bills collected from RBI visavis bills collected from PAO.
4. During investigation and examination of the documents collected and the salary bills prepared by the accused from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008, it was revealed that the accused Vikas Rana wrongfully prepared the salary in the names of Sooraj P., P.S. Jacob, Anil M.V., Prakash, Surjeet Singh and Vikas Kashyap. Though there were no such employees in PMO during that period. He also prepared his own salary by wrongfully inflating salary amount. The monthwise breakup of the salary prepared in the fictitious names by Vikas Rana and the beneficiary account number in which salary was deposited is as below :
Fictitious Name Period for which Bank Account in Account in which salary salary was which salary was Holder.
was prepared. prepared. deposited.
Prakash Feb. 2006 to May 90552010083537
2006. Syndicate bank
Prakash June 2006 to July 007010100268899
2008. Axis Bank
Prakash Aug. 2008 to Dec. ICICI Bank
2008. 034301001623
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 10
Vikas Kashyap Feb. 2006 Vijaya Bank
601101010017657
Vikas Kashyap March 2006 to May 007010100268899
2006. Axis Bank
Vikas Kashyap June 2006 to April 90552010083537 Vikas Rana
2007. Syndicate Bank. S/o Late Sh.
P.S. Jacob Jan. 2008 to July ICICI Bank Kartar Singh
2008. 034301001623
P.S. Jacob Sept. 2008 to Dec. Vijaya Bank
2008 601101010017657
Anil Kumar M.V. May 2007 to Dec. 90552010083537 2008 Syndicate Bank.
Surjeet Singh June 2008 to Aug. Vijaya Bank 2008. 601101010017657 Sooraj P. June 2007 to Dec. 138101000001308 2008. Centurion Bank (now HDFC Bank)
5. The salary of Vikas Rana prepared by him by inflating the amount was deposited in the following bank accounts :
Name in which Period Bank account in Bank account salary was which salary was holder.
prepared. deposited.
Vikas Rana Nov. 2005 to Feb. 007010100268899
2006. Axis Bank
Vikas Rana Mar. 2006 to May 138101000001308 Vikas Rana S/o
2007. Centurion bank Late Sh. Kartar
(now HDFC Bank) Singh
Vikas Rana Aug. 2008 to Dec. 007010100268899
2008 Axis Bank
6. It was thus, revealed that accused Vikas Rana had in total deposited an excess amount of Rs.40,84,052/ in wrongful way in his own accounts and the breakup of the said amount is as below :CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 11
S. No. Name in which salary was prepared. Total Amount in rupees.
1. Prakash 11,76,479/
2. Vikas Kashyap 3,79,254/
3. Anil Kumar M.V. 7,78,592/
4. Sooraj P. 7,42,506/
5. P.S. Jacob 3,76,280/
6. Surjeet Singh 1,00,689/ Excess salary drawn in name of Vikas 5,30,252/ 7. Rana.
Total : Rs.40,84,052/
7. It is further stated that after preparation of the salary bills containing the names of fictitious employee, accused used to get it approved from DDO and PAO and thereafter, a cheque was received from Pay and Accounts Officer by cashier, PMO and at this stage, accused Vikas Rana used to change the name of fictitious officials to his own name in the salary bill and increase the amount of payable salary adjusting the wrong total made by him in the NIC software. After that he used to get it transferred into his bank accounts. The accused was thus, entrusted and having dominion in capacity of public servant over the said amount and has committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the said amount as the accused used to make changes in the bills later on. The accused was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under section 409/420/467/468/471 IPC as well as section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Sanction from the competent authority for the prosecution of the accused under section 19 of POC Act was obtained.
8. Supplementary chargesheet was filed wherein it was stated that five hard disks of computers installed on the office tables of the clerks of Cash and General Section in PMO and server installed at NIC PMO were seized CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 12 alongwith the CD containing source code of software were sent to CFSL Hyderabad for analysis on 07.10.2009 and the report dated 06.06.2011 was received. The analysis of the digital evidence storage media revealed that the transactions of salaries in the names of P.S. Jacob, Prakash, Anil, Sooraj P. and Vikas Rana were made to account numbers 601101010017657 (Vijaya Bank), 34301001623 (ICICI Bank), 90552010083537 (Syndicate Bank), 138101000001308 (Centurion Bank) and 70101100268899 (Axis Bank). The CFSL result was, thereafter, handed over to Chartered Accountant Sh. Rishi Prakash Gupta who was official appointed for doing auditory work in the case. The analysis done by the Chartered Accountant was also enclosed with the supplementary chargesheet. It was revealed that the data which was extracted from the hard disk was not found equal to the data provided in the monthly salary bills and that the monthly salary bills for several months were missing. However, the overall analysis of the data of hard disk received from CFSL Hyderabad corroborates that the salary bills maintained in hard disks contains fictitious employee names and manipulated salary amount ultimately benefiting accused Vikas Rana.
9. Cognizance for the offence under section 13(1)(c)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and 420/467/468/471/409 IPC was taken on 21.04.2009. Ld. Counsel for the accused did not object for the framing of charge, as revealed from the order dated 03.07.2009 but charge could not be framed on that day as investigation was still pending and supplementary chargesheet was to be filed. Supplementary chargesheet was thereafter, filed on 11.11.2011 and vide order dated 01.02.2012, charge was framed against accused Vikas Rana for the offences punishable under section 409/467/468/471 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 13 IPC and section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10. Prosecution in support of its case has examined 31 witnesses and the accused in his defence has examined 11 witnesses. PW1 Sh. Salil Kumar is the complainant who deposed that in the year 2009 he was posted as Under Secretary in the PMO. He has forwarded the complaint against the accused whose duty was to prepare salary of the staff of Ministerial1. He further deposed that the accused has been withdrawing salary unauthorizedly in the name of four fictitious persons namely Jacob, Anil, Suraj Raj and K. Prakash during the year 2005 to 2008 and this fact came to their notice in the year 2009 and he had reported the matter by a complaint dated 05.01.2009 Ex.PW1/1. Further during investigation, he had forwarded the appointment letter and other documents relating to accused to the police vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW1/2. The appointment letter as LDC and suspension order of accused Vikas Rana are Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/4 respectively. He further deposed that the names of fictitious persons in whose name salary was drawn is Ex.PW1/5. Screenshots of fictitious accounts is Ex.PW1/61 to 5. He further deposed that he had also handed over to the police the appointment order Ex.PW1/7 and relieving order Ex.PW1/8 of Sh. K. Prakash. Order of joining of Vikas Rana in the PMO is Ex.PW1/9 and posting order of Vikas Rana from Ministry of Home Affairs is Ex.PW1/10. He has also forwarded the actual salary statement of the accused regarding salary due to him i.e. Ex.PW1/12 vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW1/11. Similarly, he had forwarded the statement of Cash Section of B.K. Sharma and other staff vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW1/13. He further deposed that query was also CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 14 made by the police as to whether any person was employed in the office in the name of Vikash Kashyap from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008 and the reply Ex.PW1/15 was given stating that there was no such person employed in their office. The report of Sh. Vijay S. Pandey is Ex.PW1/16. He has also forwarded confessional letter of accused Ex.PW1/18 through his forwarding letter Ex.PW1/17, to the IO.
11. During the crossexamination, he deposed that he came to know regarding embezzlement of funds in January 2009 and thereafter, he had informed his senior officer namely Sh. Akash Gupta, Director (Admn.) regarding this aspect. He further stated that he had no knowledge regarding any embezzlement of funds prior to 2005. He further stated that NIC is an independent unit and they used to give an employee code on the basis of the posting order sent by the administration from the PMO and that Rakesh Kumar Gupta was the Incharge of NIC Unit in December 2008 and B.K.Sharma was the DDO. He further stated that as per the procedure, without the signature of DDO, the salary amount of an employee cannot be drawn. He further stated that as salary bills are processed at the level of DDO and does not come to the Under Secretary, he had no scope for scrutinizing the same. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not given any oral order for working in the Cash Section. He further stated that accused used to take the data to the NIC Unit for preparing the CD of salary at NIC Unit and sponsored banks used to release the salary on the basis of said CD. He further stated that he came to know about the embezzlement from the DDO Sh. B.K.Sharma. He denied the suggestion that he had forwarded the complaint for registration of the FIR merely on the asking of the senior officers without any basis. He also denied the suggestion that the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 15 accused is innocent and has been implicated in this case and real offenders have not been chargesheeted. He further deposed that he had no personal knowledge and had deposed on the basis of the record.
12. PW2 HC Bir Singh is the duty officer who has recorded the present FIR Ex.PW2/A. The endorsement on the rukka is Ex.PW1/1.
13. PW3 Vinod Kumar is the personal banker, HDFC Bank (earlier Centurion Bank) and proved the account opening form of Vikas Rana Ex.PW3/A. The certificate under section 2 of Banker's Books of Evidence Act is Ex.PW3/B. Statement of account of accused Vikas Rana bearing account no. 0352001000024893 is Ex.PW3/C and the certificate under section 2A of Banker's Books of Evidence Act is Ex.PW3/D.
14. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he has stated that the account of Vikas Rana was not opened in his presence and that he has no personal knowledge about the transaction of the account of Vikas Rana.
15. PW4 Kamal Nain Sharma, Manager, Syndicate Bank has proved the record of accused Vikas Rana concerning the account no. 90552010083537. Account opening form having the photo of accused Vikas Rana is Ex.PW4/A. Statement of account from 19.01.2002 to 31.03.2012 is Ex.PW4/B. The statement of account handed over by AGM Sh. S.D. Mathur to the police is Ex.PW4/D. The specimen signature card of accused Vikas Rana is Ex.PW4/E. During the cross examination on behalf of accused he has stated that the account was not opened in his presence nor he can identify the signature of the bank official who had opened the account of accused Vikas Rana. He further stated that he has deposed on the basis of the record and he has no CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 16 personal knowledge about the account opening and transactions.
16. PW5 Ravi Prakash Jain, ICICI Bank has stated that on 22.01.2009, he had sent some documents to IO Insp. Vinay Malik through his letter Ex.PW5/A. He further stated that he had sent attested copy of the account opening form Ex.PW5/B of account no. 034301001623 , copy of all documents, application submitted by account holder, copy of all the cheques and withdrawal slips submitted by the account holder for withdrawal/transfer of money from the account, complete account statement from the day of opening of account. Copy of power of attorney is Ex.PW5/C, copy of checklist is Ex.PW5/D, copy of cheque given for opening of account is Ex.PW5/E, copy of KYC is Ex.PW5/F, photocopy of driving license of accused is Ex.PW5/G, copy of PAN card is Ex.PW5/H, copy of statement of Axis Bank is Ex.PW5/J, copy of client agreement is Ex.PW5/K, copy of account opening form of DeMat account is Ex.PW5/L. Copy of statement of account which was sent to Insp. Suraj Bhan is Ex.PW5/M. During his crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW5 deposed that the account was not opened in his presence. He denied the suggestion that Vikas Rana had not gone to their bank for opening of the account.
17. PW6 Sh. G.S. Sharma, Accounts Officer deposed that on 12.02.2009, he had sent the details of salary bills and cheque encashment vide letter Ex.PW6/A and the details of the salary bills and cheque encashment are Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/G. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he stated that salary bills are related to the staff of PMO and that he had no personal knowledge about these bills.
18. PW7 Ravi Vazirani, Section Officer deposed that in the year 2009, the documents Ex.PW7/A to Ex.PW7/J were supplied to the police.
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 17Ex.PW7/A reveals the posting details of P.S. Jacob, LDC and his period is w.e.f. 20.01.1997 to 31.08.1998, Anil Kumar M.V., UDC/LDC w.e.f. 01.12.2004 to 20.04.2005 as LDC w.e.f. 20.04.2005 to 13.05.2005, Sooraj Palayan, LDC w.e.f. 16.05.2005 to 10.11.2006, K. Prakash, private persons, personal staff of former prime Minister Sh. A.B. Vajpayee and his posting period 19.03.1998 to 05.11.1998. Appointment order of P.S. Jacob in the PMO is Ex.PW7/B and relieving order is Ex.PW7/C. Appointment order of Anil Kumar M.V. is Ex.PW7/D. Appointment order of Anil Kumar M.V. as LDC is Ex.PW7/E and relieving order is Ex.PW7/F. Appointment order of Sooraj P. is Ex.PW7/G and relieving order is Ex.PW7/H. The details of the accused is Ex.PW7/A showing the appointment of accused in PMO on 04.08.1997 in C&G Section, PMO and he continued on his promotion as UDC and he was relieved to join on promotion on paper w.e.f. 18.05.2007, however, he continued to discharge his duties in the C&G Section, PMO while drawing pay and allowance from Ministry of Home Affairs and he was formally taken on the strength of PMO from 09.07.2008. Ex.PW7/K is the details of leave record of accused Vikas Rana.
19. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he deposed that Ex.PW7/A was prepared by him and that he was posted in the PMO since 28.08.1998. The attested copy of the posting order of the accused is Ex.PW7/DA. He further stated that accused was formally relieved for availing promotion vide Ex.PW7/DB. However, accused continued to work in the C&G Section, PMO. He stated that no formal joining letter was issued by PMO regarding rejoining of the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 18 accused in the PMO as the accused had continued to work in PMO and his relieving was only on paper.
20. PW8 Vijay Shankar, Section Officer deposed that he has checked the record regarding the posting period of Vikas Kashyap between 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2008 and no such person was found to be posted as per the record of PMO during the said period. He further deposed that the Section Officer of the Cash and General, PMO used to be designated as DDO of PMO and he had provided some record to the IO i.e. appointment order dated 22.04.1998 of K. Prakash, private person appointed as UDC in the Personnel Staff of Prime Minister. He further deposed that the letter Ex.PW1/7 was attested by him and he has also provided relieving order Ex.PW1/8 dated 22.11.1998 and appointment order of Vikas Rana Ex.PW1/9 and the relieving order of Vikas Rana is Ex.PW8/A dated 30.05.2008 to the IO consequent to his promotion from LDC to GradeII, UDC and his posting in Ministry of Home Affairs. He further deposed that the order dated 10.07.2008 Ex.PW8/B vide which Sh. Vikas Rana was taken under the strength of PMO as UDC on informal basis was also provided by him. During the crossexamination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge of the documents provided to the IO and same was provided by him from the record. PW 8 denied the suggestion that he had prepared and attested the said documents at the instance of senior officials.
21. PW9 Binod Kumar Sharma deposed that he was posted at PMO as Section OfficercumDDO till 31.12.2008 and his section used to deal in preparing salary and general matters. He further deposed that the accused was also posted as UDC and was his subordinate and his duty was to prepare salary bills of MinisterialI i.e. Assistant, LDC, UDC, CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 19 Translator, Carpenter and employees of New Pension Scheme. He further deposed that accused had also prepared the bills of Ministerial StaffII and one server was installed in the office of NIC and the computers installed at the seat of dealing hands were attached with that server. Accused used to prepare the salary bills of the Ministerial StaffII and he used to take printout of salary bills and thereafter, put the salary bills printout alongwith office copy before him. He further deposed that as the section was big so he used to check the salary bill printouts prepared by the accused randomly and used to put his signatures and thereafter, the said printouts were taken away by the accused who used to go to NIC office to prepare the CD of the salary bills of all employees of PMO. He further deposed that thereafter, accused returned with the CD and used to direct the GroupD officials to seal the same in an envelope. He further deposed that it was the duty of the accused to produce the sealed CD before the cashier of PMO and the cashier used to send the CD with statement to Punjab National Bank for disbursing salary. Punjab National bank further forwarded it to RBI, Electronic Clearance Cell from where the amount/salary was credited into the respective accounts of employees. Salary bills of MinisterialII June 2008 is Ex.PW9/1, salary bills of MinisterialII July 2008 is Ex.PW9/2, salary bills of MinisterialII July 2008 is Ex.PW9/3, and salary bills of MinisterialII September 2008 is Ex.PW9/4, salary bills of MinisterialII, August 2008 is Ex.PW9/5, salary bills of MinisterialII August 2008 is Ex.PW9/6. Similarly, PW9 identified his signatures on various salary bills of the staff of Ministerial I as well for different months. The attested copies from January 2008 to December 2008 of ECS clearance statement and cheque details are CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 20 Ex.PW9/16. Procedure of preparing salary bills is Ex.PW9/17. The duty of Vikas Rana is Ex.PW9/20. Similarly, information about the salary and other payments of PMO is Ex.PW9/21 and the attested photocopies of registers is Ex.PW9/22, attested copies of salary bills of staff of Ministerial StaffI for the month of January 2009 is Ex.PW9/23. Attested copy of salary bills of MinisterialII for the period May 2008 to October 2008 and other information regarding salary details and deductions etc. of Vikas Rana as he was entitled for the period from January 2005 to December 2008 is Ex.PW9/24. Transfer order of Ram Niwas, UDC is Ex.PW9/26. The letter addressed to Director (Admn) written by accused Vikas Rana is Ex.PW1/18.
22. During the crossexamination, PW9 deposed that there were 1011 subordinate staff in Cash and General Section and the dealing hands were Jeevan Kumar, Vikas Rana, Priya Gautam, Satbir Singh were having computer and were using the same. He further deposed that as far as he remembers that the computer handled by Jeevan Kumar, Vikas Rana and Priya Gautam were connected with server of NIC. He further deposed that in case any of the dealing hands was on leave, no other person was handling his computer. He further admitted that Vikas Rana was given the work of cashier when cashier Satbir was on leave from 24.11.2008 to 16.12.2008 and during that period accused Vikas Rana handled his work. During his further crossexamination, he deposed that accused used to prepare salary bills even before his posting in Cash and General Section. He further deposed that the dealing hand prepared salary, take out printout of the monthly salary and placed before him. He further deposed that it was the duty of dealing hand to generate employee code and it is not the duty of the Administration CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 21 Section to generate the employee code. He further admitted it to be correct that the LPC, pay fixation order and transfer/posting order used to be received from Administrative Section to him and thereafter, the same used to be marked to the concerned dealing hand. However, he had not received the LPC or pay fixation order or the transfer and posting order of Anil. M.V., P.S. Jacob, Surjeet Singh, Vikas Kashyap and Suraj P. He further stated that the printout of the salary bills were not signed by the accused as it was not in practice in PMO and it is only after the signing of the DDO that the Pay & Accounts Office issued the cheques. He further stated that after his signature, the dealing hand used to take the bills and produce the same before the Cashier and entry was made in the bill register at the seat of cashier and thereafter, the cashier used to send the bills to the Pay & Accounts Officer. He denied the suggestion that the CD was given by NIC to the Cashier and not to the accused. He further deposed that he has no knowledge regarding the CD encryption and decryption. He denied the suggestion that the bills relating to MinisterialI were prepared by dealing hand Jivan Kumar and not by the accused or that of the MinisterialII were prepared by Dealing Hand P.K. Uniyal and Ram Niwas and not by the accused and further volunteered that the accused Vikas Rana had prepared the salary bills of MinisterialII from April 2008 to August 2008 and from September 2008 Ram Niwas prepared the salary bills of MinisterialII. He denied the suggestion that the embezzlement had not been committed by the accused but by somebody else.
23. PW10 Manish Suri, GM, Sales, Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. deposed that on 13.02.2009 he was posted with Himgiri Cars Pvt. Ltd. as Deputy GM Sales and the IO had made enquiries from him about the purchase of the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 22 car bearing no. DL8CL3827 and he had provided the details to the IO vide Ex.PW10/A. He further deposed that as per the ledger account, the car was sold to Vikas Rana for an amount of Rs.2,93,730/ Ex.PW10/B and the receipts of payments are Ex.PW10C, Ex.PW10/D and Ex.PW10/E. The insurance is Ex.PW10/G, the driving license is Ex.PW10/H, the photocopy of certificate given by Vikas Rana regarding his employment is Ex.PW10/J and his ID card is Ex.PW10/K. The invoice is Ex.PW10/L, copy of gate pass is Ex.PW10/M, the registration slip is Ex.PW10/N. During his crossexamination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding the present case and he has deposed on the basis of the record. He further deposed that approximately a sum of Rs.3,05,000/ was paid by the ICICI Bank and approximately around a sum of Rs.85,000/ was paid by Vikas Rana.
24. PW11 Madhav Bagai, Senior Manager, Axis Bank deposed that he was working in Axis Bank and proved the attested record regarding the account of accused vide savings account no. 007010100268899. The account opening form is Ex.PW11/A, the proof of identification of Vikas Rana is Ex.PW11/B and the statement of account is Ex.PW11/C. During the crossexamination, he deposed that he had no personal knowledge regarding the opening of the account.
25. PW12 Prabhu Dayal, Assistant Manager, Vijaya Bank proved the record regarding savings account no. 601101010017657 of Vikas Rana. Account opening form is Ex.PW12/B. ID proof is Ex.PW12/C, DL of the accused is Ex.PW12/D and the statement of account from 02.07.2003 to 13.02.2006 is Ex.PW12/E. During his crossexamination, he further deposed that the account was opened on 02.07.2003 and he had no personal knowledge about the said account and the ID proof were not CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 23 submitted by the accused in his presence.
26. PW13 Rishi Prakash Gupta, C.A. deposed that on 29.01.2009 he was appointed to do the audit work in this case vide order dated 29.01.2009 Ex.PW13/A and he was asked to find out the modus operandi and the amount misappropriated by the accused. He further deposed that he had analyzed and scrutinized the documents and found that the total net manipulated amount was to the tune of Rs.40,84,052/ during the period from January 2005 to December 2008. His report is Ex.PW13/B. He was further asked to analyze and compare the salary bills issued in the physical form with the data extracted from hard disks and to find out as to whether there is any change in the amount of manipulation. His detailed supplementary report dated 10.09.2011 in this respect is Ex.PW13/C. During the crossexamination, PW13 deposed that there is no difference in the amount of manipulation in the two reports, if the same are taken monthwise. But in the second report as some data was missing and due to missing of salary data, the amount could not be reconciled.
27. PW14 HC Rajinder deposed that on 09.10.2009, he had sent five sealed pulandas containing the hard disks sealed with the seal of 'HG' to CFSL Hyderabad through HC Raj Kumar and the entry in this respect is Ex.PW14/A.
28. PW15 S. Chaudhary, General Manager, RBI deposed that he had forwarded two CDs containing the data related to salary bills of PMO for the period of August 2005 to December 2008 in the ASCII format together with duly certified hard copy and his letter in this respect is Ex.PW15/A. He identified the CDs supplied to the IO as Ex.PW15/B. He further deposed that the CDs containing the data in the approved CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 24 format and in the encrypted manner were being sent to RBI as the account of the PMO was there at that time for being processed for disbursement of salary to the employees of PMO through the destination bank. During crossexamination, PW15 deposed that apart from the content and enclosure of letter Ex.PW15/A, he had not handed over anything else to the police.
29. PW16 Ashish Gupta deposed that he was working as Director in PMO on 17.04.2009 and on that day file pertaining to the present case alongwith the relevant documents was produced before him for according sanction for prosecution of the accused and he had gone through the same and after applying his mind had accorded sanction Ex.PW16/A as he was competent to remove him from services. During the crossexamination, he deposed that he was shown the documents relating to the MinisterialI. He denied the suggestion that he had passed the sanction order mechanically without due application of mind.
30. PW17 Sanjeev Bakshi, Manager, Legal, ICICI Bank proved the documents Ex.PW17/A relating to the car loan of the accused. During the crossexamination, he deposed that the car loan was disbursed on 16.06.2006 and monthly installment was of Rs.10,464/. He further deposed that the last payment was in January 2009 and the said loan was cleared by the accused and the payments were made through ECS.
31. PW18 Harkesh Gauba deposed that on 23.01.2009 when he was posted at Cyber Cell, EOW, Crime Branch, he has joined the investigation with the IO Insp. Vinay Malik and had gone to the office of PMO alongwith IO Insp. Vinay Malik where K.G. Dharmeshwar also joined them and produced one hard disk of the server having the salary record of the staff of PMO which was converted into a parcel with the help of clothe and CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 25 sealed with the seal of HG and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A. He further deposed that K.G. Dharmeshwar also produced four hard disks which were from Cash and General Section of PMO before the IO containing the salary record of the staff. All these four hard disks were also kept in parcels and were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B and were sealed with the seal of HG. He further deposed that on 24.01.2009, he again joined the investigation alongwith the IO and the accused had reached office of the IO who was interrogated and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/C and personal search memo is Ex.PW18/D. PW18 also identified the hard disk Ex.P2 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A as well as four hard disks Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. The hard disks were having the seal of GEQD, Hyderabad when the same were opened during the testimony of PW18 and having the description as mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B.
32. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW18 deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the hard disks as seized by the IO and further stated that the seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B were prepared in his presence through the computer in the office of PM. He further stated that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused Vikas Rana in his presence.
33. PW19 ASI Leeladhar deposed that on 25.01.2019, he joined the investigation with the IO and Ct. Ravinder had also joined the investigation. Disclosure statement Ex.PW19/A of the accused was recorded by the IO. He further stated that thereafter, they went to the house of the accused and took search of the house of the accused in the presence of Harbhajan Singh, father in law of accused as well as his CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 26 mother. Five ATM cards, three cheque books, ten credit cards and one photocopy of sale deed as well as the articles as mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW19/B were recovered from his house. Further disclosure statement Ex.PW19/C of accused dated 26.01.2009 was recorded in pursuance to which Santro car was recovered from the house of accused which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. On 28.01.2009, in the presence of PW19 specimen signature of accused on some plain papers were taken which were also signed by him. The accused was interrogated and further disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW19/E was recorded. He also identified the car Ex.PW1 which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B.
34. During the crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he had put his signature on the disclosure statement later on at the instance of the IO or that no such disclosure statement was recorded. He also denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the house of the accused or that nothing was recovered from the house of the accused in his presence.
35. PW20 Ct. Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 24.01.2009, he joined the investigation alongwith the IO when Vikas Rana was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW18/C and information of his arrest was given to his mother. He further stated that on 25.01.2009, he again joined the investigation and Vikas Rana was further interrogated and he alongwith the IO and accused etc. had gone to his house in Shahdara where mother of the accused was present and father in law of accused arrived later on. He further stated that five ATM cards, three cheque books, ten credit cards and one photocopy of sale deed were taken into possession and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B.
36. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he denied the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 27 suggestion that no disclosure statement was recorded in his presence or that he had put his signature on the disclosure statement later on. He also denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered from the house of the accused in his presence.
37. PW21 K.J. Dharmeshwar deposed that in January 2009 he was posted as scientist "C" at NIC Section of PMO. He further stated that at NIC Section they maintained server computer of the Cash and General Section of PMO and all the salary record were stored and maintained in software called "PAY ROLL". He further deposed that on 23.01.2009, IO of the case met him and he had handed over one hard disk of server computer to him which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and sealed with the seal of HG. He further deposed that on the same day he also handed over four hard disks which were from the computer of the officials who were working in Cash and General Section of PMO and the said hard disks were also kept in separate parcels which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/B and specifications of the hard disk are mentioned in the seizure memo. He further deposed that the said hard disks were taken out from the computer on 05.01.2009 and remained in safe custody of Rakesh Gupta, Senior Technical Director, NIC, PMO and back up of the data of those hard disks were taken on 19.01.2009 and 20.01.2009. He also identified the hard disk Ex.P2 vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A as well as four hard disk Ex.P3 to Ex.P6 vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A.
38. During the crossexamination on behalf of the accused, he deposed that he used to visit PM office and used to solve any hardware problem in the system of PMO. He further stated that he had taken out the hard disk Ex.P2 from the server computer and handed over the same to the IO. He CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 28 further stated that the seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B were prepared in the office.
39. PW22 P.N. Srivastava deposed that in February 2009, he was posted as Chief Manager in PNB and on 24.09.2009, the IO of the case met him as their bank was sponsor bank of PMO for the purpose of salary. He further stated that the process of the ECS was that on receipt of a floppy from the PMO alongwith the mandate was forwarded to RBI through Regional Collection Centre. Floppy was loaded in the software of the RBI for the purpose of release of salary. The credit of the amount of salary is given to the different regional collection centre of different banks from where the salaries were credited to the respective branches. He further stated that the role of PNB was very limited to the extent that floppy containing details of salary received from the PMO was simply forwarded to the RBI through Regional Collection Centre of PNB alongwith the mandate. His written report handed to the IO in this respect is Ex.PW22/A.
40. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he deposed that their Regional Collection Centre was at first floor, Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, New Delhi and that he used to receive only the floppy of salary and no hard copy was received in this regard. He further stated that the said floppy could not be opened in their software.
41. PW23 Ram Niwas, UDC, Cash & General Section at PMO deposed that the duties of preparing salaries and other payment bills of MinisterialII staff of PMO was assigned to him. He further deposed that the accused was also posted in the said office as UDC for last ten years prior to 2008 and that the accused was assigned the duties of preparation of salary and other bills in respect of official coming under CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 29 MinisterialI Staff i.e. Assistant, UDC, Carpenter, Translator, LDC etc., besides making of CD for transfer of salary to all officers and staff in PMO by their bank accounts through ECS. He further deposed that the procedure in Cash & General Section was that the concerned dealing clerk prepared the salary bills of the relevant staff assigned to him. The salary bill was then placed before the SO/DDO who used to put his signature after checking it and then the salary bill was sent to Pay & Accounts Officer, PMO thereafter, the cheque of the consolidated net total amount of salary bill was received from PAO, then a CD was prepared at NIC Section, PMO from software, so installed for maintaining salary data. He further deposed that the server of the salary software was maintained at NIC Section, PMO whereas it is connected with the terminal of dealing clerk of Cash & General Section through networking and the dealing clerk who prepared the salary bills in C&G Section can enter the data, check the names in salary bills, the figure of salary as per requirement in the salary software from their respective computers installed on their table and take out print for the salary bills. He further stated that there was facility that the officials could get their salary deposited in the bank account of their own choice. In the salary bill, the bank account number of the concerned official is also mentioned in front of their names. He further stated that the CD of all staff of PMO was prepared by downloading salary bills then CD alongwith the cheques was sent to Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg for disbursement of salary and thereafter, PNB froward it to ECE Department of RBI, Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi through Regional Clearing Centre and RBI then credited the salary in the bank account of the concerned official through their mechanism. He further CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 30 stated that the duty of getting the salary bill downloaded in the CD by NIC Section was assigned to Vikas Rana at that time and salary bill was downloaded in encrypted form into the CD. He further stated that in December 2008, bills were prepared by respective concerned dealing hands including accused Vikas Rana, UDC and thereafter, the bills were put up to DDO and then the Pay & Accounts Officer, PMO. Thereafter, separate cheques were received from Pay & Accounts Officer and accused used to prepare the CDs for ECS for all the cheques and then CDs were made by NIC which were handed over to accused and after sealing the said CDs by GroupD staff in supervision of accused Vikas Rana and then sent to PNB for making payment through ECS. The brief note of procedure was handed over to the IO in this regard is Ex.PW9/17. He further deposed that after the embezzlement committed by Vikas Rana came into notice, internal audit of the accounts was conducted and payment actually due to Vikas Rana on account of salary from January 2005 to December 2008 was analyzed and the monthwise breakup is Ex.PW1/12.
42. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he deposed that he had given his statement to the IO and was working in PMO since 18.11.2003. He further stated that the accused had handed over the charge to him. He further deposed that the accused was given additional duty as cashier in December 2008 when the cashier Satbir went on leave for certain days. He further deposed that he does not remember if the accused Vikas Rana had worked as cashier for 20 days during November/December 2008. He further stated that Last Pay Certificate of joining official with PMO used to be received at Administration Section and thereafter, the copy of the same used to be sent to Incharge CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 31 of Cash Section for preparation of salary bills and the SO or DDO of Cash Section used to mark the same to the concerned dealing hand for preparation of salary bills who used to prepare the salary bills accordingly. He further stated that he had not prepared any CD of MinisterialII staff and that after the preparation and taking out of the salary bills of MinisterialII staff, the same were sent to SO/DDO for signatures. He further deposed that accused used to obtain the CD from NIC. He denied the suggestion that there was no code and anyone can freely access and make any alteration in the entry. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had not made any false entries.
43. PW24 SI Sandeep Kumar deposed that on 05.01.2009, the investigation was entrusted to him after registration of the case and on 06.01.2009, the complainant handed over to him some documents as mentioned in the covering letter dated 06.01.2009 Ex.PW1/2 and thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Insp. Suraj Bhan.
44. PW25 P.K. Mishra, DCP deposed that on 04.04.009, he was posted with Economic Offences Wing, Crime Branch, Delhi as ACP and during investigation he got extended the judicial remand of accused Vikas Rana. He further deposed that he obtained sanction of POC Act against accused from PMO and filed the same on record and thereafter, the chargesheet was filed in the court. During the crossexamination, he deposed that the sanction order has been received in the office of DCP, EOW and he had taken the same from DCP office.
45. PW26 IO Insp. Vinay Malik deposed that on 19.01.2009 further investigation of the case was assigned to him and on 23.01.2009 he alongwith Insp. Vijay Gehlawat, SI Harkesh Gauba visited PMO and seized a hard disk from the server of NIC produced by K.J. CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 32 Dharmeshwar, Scientist, NIC, PMO vide seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and same was sealed with the seal of HG. Thereafter, K.G. Dharmeshwar produced four hard disks which were seized vide memo Ex.PW18/B and were sealed with the seal of HG. He further stated that the case property was deposited with the Malkhana, PS Parliament Street and thereafter, on 24.01.2009 the accused was arrested and produced in the court, his PC remand was obtained from the court. The disclosure statement of the accused Ex.PW18/E, Ex.PW19/E, Ex.PW19/C, Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW26/A were recorded and on 25.01.2019 search of the house of accused was conducted and ATM cards, cheque books, photocopy of sale deed, bank deposit receipts were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. Thereafter, on 26.01.2009, Santro car bearing no. DL 8CN3827 of the accused Vikas Rana was seized from his house through seizure memo Ex.PW19/D. PW26 further deposed that he made a request to K. Salil Kumar, Under Secretary, PMO for providing salary bills, posting orders, duty responsibilities of the accused and other staff and appointment letter of accused and all these documents were received. The documents of the purchase of the car were also collected. He further stated that on 05.02.2019, he received a letter from K. Salil Kumar Ex.PW1/17 alongwith a handwritten statement of accused Vikas Rana Ex.PW1/18. He further deposed that on 24.02.2009, he visited the Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg as well as Reserve Bank of India and office of Comptroller of Accounts and recorded statements of bank officials. IO PW26 also visited PMO and recorded statements of the witnesses. He further stated that on 05.03.2009, he received documents from Pay & Accounts Office for analysis and he handed over the salary bill, bank account statements, account opening forms of bank and other CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 33 documents to Rishi Gupta, empaneled Chartered Accountant. The report of the Chartered Accountant Ex.PW13/B was received on 12.03.2009. PW26 further deposed that on 17.03.2009, he visited the PMO and collected some more documents from the complainant alongwith his letter dated 17.03.2009. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Rishi Gupta, C.A. He further deposed that on 04.04.2009, provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act were added and further investigation was assigned to ACP P.K. Mishra and IO handed over the file to ACP P.K. Mishra. IO also identified the hard disk Ex.P2 as well as hard disk Ex.P3 to Ex.P6.
46. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he deposed that the seal of HG was of SI Harkesh Gauba who was posted at Cyber Cell during his tenure. He further admitted that he was told that the hard disks were taken out from the computer and remained in the custody of Rakesh Gupta, Senior Technical Director, NIC, PMO and that he had sent the hard disks to the FSL for examination. He denied the suggestion that he had not sent the hard disks taken out from the computer of Vikas Rana to FSL and FSL result was obtained regarding the other hard disk and not of the hard disk as taken out from the computer of accused Vikas Rana. He denied the suggestion that he had manipulated the pulanda containing the hard disk subsequently. He further admitted that there was no signature of the accused on any salary bills and that the salary bills were having the signature of the concerned DDO and were also certified by the concerned DDO. He further admitted it to be correct that the salary bills were signed and certified by the DDO. He admitted that during the investigation, audit report from 2005 to 2008 were not made available to him. He further stated that he does not remember CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 34 whether he had taken specimen signatures of the accused during investigation and he admitted that he had not sent any specimen signatures of the accused to FSL for examination. He denied the suggestion that the seizure memo Ex.PW19/B has been prepared while sitting at his office and no articles as mentioned in the seizure memo were seized. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not posted at PMO from May 2007 to July 2008 and he was posted at MHA and was drawing salary from MHA. He denied the suggestion that he had not investigated the case regarding the role of cashier fairly and properly or that he had left the main accused and implicated the present accused falsely.
47. PW27 HC Naresh Kumar deposed that on 05.06.2011, he left for CFSL, Hyderabad alongwith authority letter to collect the result and collected the CFSL result Ex.PW27/B and he handed over the same to the IO on 08.06.2011. He further deposed that 10.06.2011, the IO had handed over him the exhibits in six sealed parcels alongwith the copy of the result and deposited the same in Malkhana of PS Parliament Street. PW27 has not been crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel and his statement remained unrebutted.
48. PW28 M.A. Rizvi deposed that in May 2009, investigation of the case was marked to him and during investigation he collected source code of the PMO and thereafter, the hard disc which was seized by the previous IO was sent to the CFSL, Hyderabad and the CFSL report Ex.PW27/B was also received during investigation. He also identified the CD Ex.PW28/A which was received from CFSL alongwith the FSL report and annexures. He further stated that CFSL report alongwith the annexures were sent to Government approved C.A. for analyzing the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 35 documents and report and he had received the report of CA Ex.PW13/C. During the crossexamination, he deposed that he cannot say as to which hard disk was recovered from the computer of accused Vikas Rana as it was recovered by the previous IO. He further deposed that he had not done the investigation with regard to encryption and decryption by the NIC. He further stated that he did not receive any report with regard to annual audit of the PMO.
49. PW29 Vikram K. Porwal deposed that on 15.09.2011, further investigation of the case was marked to him and he prepared the supplementary chargesheet regarding submitting the CA report and FSL report in the court and thereafter, supplementary chargesheet was filed. During the crossexamination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that he had filed the CFSL report Ex.PW27/B alongwith the chargesheet as the same was received by him.
50. PW30 HC Raj Kumar deposed that on 09.10.2009, he on the directions of ACP M.A. Rizvi, had carried the sealed exhibits from the MHC(M), PS Parliament Street and deposited the same with Government Examiner of Questioned Document, Hyderabad on 12.10.2009. He further deposed that so long as the exhibits remained in his custody, the same were not tampered with.
51. PW31 HC Samarjeet deposed that on 10.06.2011, HC Naresh had produced the copy of CFSL report alongwith the six sealed pulandas and had deposited the same vide Ex.PW31/A in the Malkhana.
52. PW32 Krishna Sastry Pendyala, Retired Assistant Government Examiner, CFSL, Hyderabad deposed that the original exhibits of the present case were received in six sealed covers in their office on 12.10.2009 and the case was allotted to him. He further stated that the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 36 exhibits i.e. five hard disks marked as Q1 to Q5 and one CD marked as Q6 were forensically imaged and analyzed by him as well as by his colleague Ch.E. Sai Prasad, Assistant Central Intelligence Officer. He further stated that both of them came to the same opinion and their opinion is sent in the form of report containing five pages supported by AnnexureA consists of 311 pages and one CD marked as CCH16909 CD. The report is Ex.PW27/B. PW32 also identified the signature of Ch.E. Sai Prasad on the report Ex.PW27/B. The result of the examination is as under :
(1) analysis of data base file "paydata18092008145527' present in the folder 'pmo' of path 'C/pmo' of the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q1 reveals that the transaction of salaries in the names of 'P S JACOB, PRAKASH, ANIL, SOORAJ P, VIKAS RANA' with employee IDs '5067, 522, 523, 499 and 259' made to account numbers '601101010017657, 34301001623, 90552010083537, 138101000001308, 7010100268899' respectively. The hard copy of the data retrieved with the fields "YEAR, MONTH, NETPAY, NET_PAYABLE, SAL_BILL NO., EID, EMP_F_NAME, SB_ACCTNO" is given at AnnexureA (Page Nos.2127).
(2) The hard copy of the relevant files retrieved from the suspected digital evidence storage media marked Q1, Q4 and Q5 alongwith file attributes is given at AnnexureA (Page Nos. 28311). The softcopy of these files is given in CD marked CCH16909CD and the same is already Ex.PW28/A bearing my signature at point A."
53. He also identified the hard disks Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and the CD Ex.P7.
54. During the crossexamination on behalf of accused, he deposed that he had received the parcels in sealed condition and no tampering was done CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 37 in the exhibits so long as they remained in their custody. He further deposed that the serial numbers of the hard discs are the same which were received by their office and the relevant data was in hard disk Ex.Q1, Q4 and Q5 i.e. Ex.P2, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. He further deposed that in the hard disk Q2 i.e. Ex.P3, no relevant related to this case was found. He denied the suggestion that his report is silent with respect to Q4 and Q5 related to five fictitious persons. He denied the suggestion that the names of the five fictitious employees are existing in Q2 and Q3 also and he had deliberately skipped it. He further stated that the Page no. 28 to 35 of the annexure are related to Q1, Page no. 36 to 107 of the annexure are related to Q4 and Page no. 108 to 311 of the annexure are related to Q5. He denied the suggestion that he has deliberately not given report regarding Q2 and Q3 in his conclusion. He denied the suggestion that he has prepared the report at the instance of the IO and had not given the correct report.
55. After completion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied to be false and incorrect and further stated that he is innocent. He further stated that he was never independently assigned the duties of preparation of salary of Ministerial I I.e.Assistant, LDC, UDC, Translator, Car Painter and employee of New Pension Scheme. He further stated that there were four bill clerks including the accused and their names are Jeevan Kumar, Ram Niwas, Priya Gautam who used to prepare salary bills under the directions of DDO. He further stated that no one was given any independent computer or desk and all of them used to prepare bills of MinisterialI, II, Gazetted Officers and GroupD employees alongwith New Pension CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 38 Scheme bills. He further stated that entries of new staff coming to PMO were made on the basis of employee code generated by Administration Section alongwith employees joining order and last pay certificate and the said documents were sent to DDO of their section by Section Officer of Administration Section who used to endorse the same for preparation of the salary bills. No salary bills could be prepared without these documents. He further stated that all the staff used to enter only those documents which were endorsed by DDO. He further stated that after preparation of the bills, it was DDO who used to certify the correctness of the bills prepared by the staff on each and every bill and also used to sign ECS mandate for preparation of CD and release of salary to the staff. The CD was prepared by NIC section of PMO which is a separate section. He further stated that the CD was got prepared by cashier of their section. Disbursement of the salary was also duty of the cashier and DDO. He further stated that his duty ended at the preparation of the salary bills and handing over the same to his senior Jeevan Kumar, Senior Bill Clerk.
56. Thereafter, the accused examined 11 witnesses in his defence and examined himself as DW1 who deposed that he was working as LDC since 04.08.1997 to 05.01.2009 and being LDC his duty was to assist Jeevan Kumar, UDC in Cash Section, PMO and to work under the directions of DDO and as per the list of orders provided by Administration Section, PMO. He further stated that it was for the DDO to decide whether the salary bills generated were fake or genuine because DDO was the signing and certifying authority and overall incharge of entire payments. He further deposed that being the DDO, he was solely responsible for any act or omission regarding CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 39 payment of salary bills and at the relevant time DDO was Rakesh Kumar Jain. Accused further deposed on oath that in May and June 2005, NIC, PMO had launched a new salary software for composite payroll system in which all the details of the existing employees of PMO were updated with the help of Administration Section. He further deposed that in December 2005, process of ECS salary was started. At that time, NIC with the help of Cash Section, filled up all the bank details of the existing employees of PMO and thereafter, it was the practice that whenever a new employee would join PMO, his employee code was generated by Administration Section with the help of NIC and after filling the necessary information, the same would be sent to Cash and General Section. He further stated that being an LDC he was never entrusted with the duties of creating new employee code. He further stated that salary bills were not processed by a single person at that time but was processed by a number of persons. The employee code was created by administration section and same was sent to Cash Section for processing of salary and thereafter, concerned bill clerk submits the bill to the DDO for his verification/certification and signatures and thereafter, the salary bills used to be sent to cashier who after entring the bill in the bill register, used to send to Pay and Accounts Office for issuance of cheques against the salary bill. The cashier after receipt of the cheques and after tallying with the bill register used to send two blank CDs to NIC Sectin for encryption of salary data and thereafter, the cashier used to prepare the mandate form in which the DDO gives the declaration to the effect that he has checked and verified the data as contained in the CD. He further deposed that thereafter the cashier used to take the CD in sealed condition alongwith the cheques, ECS mandate CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 40 form and one hard copy of ECS statement and deliver the same to the sponsor bank i.e. PNB, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The bank then used to send the encrypted CDs to RBI, ECS Clearance Cell and retained the other documents and thereafter, the RBI used to decrypt the said CD and thereafter, credit the amount of respective salary bills in the account of the concerned persons. Accused has further stated that in February 2006, the Administration Section has created two new employee codes of Prakash and Vikas in MinisterialI staff and the joining order of these employees were not sent to Cash and General Section. The accused further deposed that Jeevan Kumar, Senior Bill Clerk started preparing their salary bills despite reminder of the accused that their joining orders have not been sent to Cash and General Section. Accused further deposed that the salary bills of these two employees were not generated from his computer system and he has no role in the preparation of encryption of CD, preparation of data for salary bills etc. Accused has further deposed that in the year 2007, NIC, PMO had launched intra PMO programme in which the NIC with the help of Administration Section had updated the data of all the employees of PMO. He further deposed that in NovemberDecember 2008, Satvir Singh, regular cashier was on leave, therefore, Sh. P.K. Roy, Under Secretary assigned the accused to look after the work of Satvir Singh and the rest three bill clerks namely Priya Gautam, Ram Niwas and Jiwan Kumar will look after the work of the seat of accused. He further deposed that during these two months, he had not assisted Jivan Kumar for preparation of the salary bills. He further deposed that on 22.02.2006, on asking of R.K. Jain he had given him the details of his two bank accounts as Sh. R.K. Jain intended to use the bank account of accused for deposit of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 41 some money and did not want to reflect the same in his own account. He further deposed that R.K. Jain also obtained his ATM card to withdraw money from his accounts and later on in November/December 2008, he came to know that R.K. Jain had used his accounts for the purpose of transfer of fake salary bills. He further deposed that on 28.11.2008, he had made complaint in this regard to Kamal Dhyani, the then Director, PMO and P.K. Roy, Under Secretary and enquiry was conducted and the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
57. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that after release on bail in this case, he had not given any complaint to Commissioner of Police or to any higher authority narrating the facts regarding his false implication and exoneration of other accused persons. He further admitted that he had not written any complaint to the Commissioner of police or to any higher authority to the effect that his signatures were obtained forcibly on letter dated 06.01.2009 Ex.PW1/18.
58. DW2 R.K. Jain, Under Secretary deposed that he was posted as DDO, PMO since 2006 to 2008. He identified his signatures on salary bill dated 19.06.2007 Ex.DW2/A, salary bill dated 24.01.2006 Ex.DW2/B, the salary bill dated 21.02.2006 Ex.DW2/C, salary bill dated 18.05.2007 Ex.DW2/D.
59. DW3 Sh. Priya Gautam, UDC deposed that he was posted in Cash and General Section, PMO in the year 19992000 and remained there upto February 2009 as a Bill Clerk, GroupD and his duty was to prepare the salary bill of GroupD and thereafter, to put up the salary bill before DDO. He further stated that his duty was not to sign the bills or to prepare the CD. He further stated that there were 3/4 bill clerks at that CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 42 time and he cannot tell about their duty. He further stated that no other duty except preparing bills was assigned to him. He further stated that he cannot comment upon whether any computer code was issued to him or not. He further stated that whenever a new person of GroupD joined the PMO, copy of the joining order was sent to Cash Section by administration. He further stated that the joining order was put up before the Section Officer and their office did not diarize the joining order of GroupD. The last payment order was also not attached with the joining order. He further stated that Jeevan Kumar was the UDC and Satbir Singh was the cashier at that time and whenever cashier was on leave, the accused used to work as cashier and he further stated that the accused worked as cashier for one month till the cashier was on leave. He further stated that Satbir was not preparing the salary bill when he was posted as cashier. He further stated that he cannot tell whether the accused had prepared the salary bill when he was working as cashier in place of Satbir. He further stated that he does not have any knowledge about the entry of the bills in the dispatch register. The certified copy of Dak Receipt and Dak Dispatch Register are Ex.DW3/DA. He further stated that he does not know about the entries of bills in the Dak Dispatch and Dak Receipt Registers Ex.DW3/DB, Ex.DW3/DC, Ex.DW3/DD and Ex.DW3/DE. He further stated that he cannot identify the signature of R.K. Jain in the ECS Mandate Form Ex.DW3/F from 2005 to 2008, who was DDO on 25.11.2005. He further stated that he cannot identify the signatures of B.K. Sharma, R.K. Jain and Ravi Vizirani in ECS Mandate Form Ex.DW3/DF. He further stated that he does not know whether Intra PMO Programme regarding checking of salaries of employees of PMO staff was launched in his tenure. During the crossexamination by CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 43 Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that none of the documents from Ex.DW3/DA to Ex.DW3/DF was prepared by him or handled by him.
60. DW4 P.K. Uniyal deposed that he was posted in Cash and General Section, PMO in the year 2002 as Bill Clerk upto February 2008 and thereafter, he was posted on the seat of procurement. He further stated that his duty was to prepare bills of Stenographers, P.A., Staff Car Drivers, photocopy operators etc. He further stated that after preparing bills, the bills were put up on the seat of DDO and his duty was not to prepare the CD nor to prepare the ECS mandate form. He further stated that there were many computers in their section and he cannot tell the exact number of computers and department did not issue any code for operating the computer. He further stated that he does not recollect whether any code number was provided to him to operate his computer. He further stated that whenever a new person of PA and Steno Group joins the PMO, his order of joining was sent to their office and last pay certificate of a new person was also used to be received in their office. He further stated that whenever any person of PA & Steno Group retired from the service, the document relating to his retirement were sent to their office by administration. He further stated that he was not maintaining any diary/register in this regard. He further stated that he cannot tell whether his department was maintaining any diary/register in this regard or not. He does not recollect whether before preparing the bills every month, he used to prepare the list of serving employees alongwith the bills. He further stated that he cannot comment upon the duties of the DDO and he cannot tell whether Satbir Singh was the cashier upto February 2008. He further stated that he had no personal money transaction with the accused. He further stated that Ex.DW3/DA, CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 44 Ex.DW3/DB, Ex.DW3/DC and Ex.DE3/DD are related to his section. He further stated that Sh. R.K. Jain was posted as DDO during his tenure but he cannot identify his signature/initial. He further stated that Ravi Vizirani also used to perform duty as DDO in absence of R.K. Jain and B.K. Sharma. He does not recollect whether B.K. Sharma, R.K. Jain and Ravi Vizirani used to issue ECS Mandate form alongwith bills. He further stated that Intra PMO programme regarding checking of salaries of employees of PMO staff was launched in his tenure. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that during the period from 20042005 to February 2008, he had prepared the bills of Stenographers, PA Staff, car drivers, photocopy operators etc. of MinisterialII Staff. He further stated that he had not prepared any document in the Ex.DW3/DA to Ex.DW3/DF.
61. DW5 Satbir Singh deposed that he was posted as Cashier in Cash and General Department of PMO since April 2008 to July 2009 and his duty was to put bill number and date on front page of salary bill which were received from the seat of DDO and thereafter, he used to make entries in the bill register. He further stated that he used to receive bills from the seat of DDO of Cash and General Department and thereafter, the bills were sent to Pay & Accounts Office through GroupD employee. He further stated that his duty was not to see the Disclaimer Certificate or any other document. He further stated that his duty was not to prepare the CDs of bills. He further stated that blank CDs were not issued to him from the computer section of PMO. He further stated that he does not recollect whether he went on leave w.e.f. 21.11.2008 to 17.12.2008 or whether he handed over his duty to accused. He further stated that Ex.DW5/DA cashbook for the period of 200809 is pertaining to his CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 45 department. He further stated that he cannot comment upon the Audit Report MarkDW5/DA to Ex.DW5/DD as he had joined the said section in April 2008. DW5 identified his signature on page no. 89 of Ex.DW5/DA regarding handing over the charge to the accused on 21.11.2008 as DW5 was proceeded on leave. He further stated that he took over the charge on 17.12.2008. He further deposed that as a Cashier, it was not his duty to prepare bills and that the bills were not accompanied with CD or floppy when produced before him. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed that he has no concern with the embezzlement of this case.
62. DW6 Rakesh Kumar Gupta deposed that in the year 2005, he was posted in PMO in NIC as Head of the Department and his role was to provide all computerization work to PMO. He further stated that Ex.DW6/A was issued by him in respect of drawing and disbursing the salaries of employees of PMO. He further deposed that his department was providing the blank CDs to all the departments of all sections in PMO and the work of their department was to help Cash and General Branch employees to generate ECS Statements and burn the CD of both text and ECS encrypted file into CDs which was done in the presence of employees of C&G Section. He further deposed that after encryption of the CDs (coding) the same was handed over to the employees of C&G Section and the encrypted CD was decoded (acceded) by the bank.
63. DW7 C. Ramakrishna Sharma, TradesmanE, National Informatics Centre, PMO deposed that he had joined NIC office on 21.07.1977 and retired on 31.08.2014. He further deposed that his duty was to encrypt the CDs relating to the salary bills of C&G Section and the software for this purpose was provided to them by PNB sponsor bank of salary of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 46 employees of PMO. He further deposed that he had no access to decode the CD and it could be only done by the sponsor bank. He further deposed that no official of PMO could decode the CD and there is no possibility of tampering of CD after coding or encryption. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he admitted that in case a person learns the method of decoding, in that case he cannot say whether decoding is possible by any employee of C&G Section.
64. DW8 K.P. Udai Kumar deposed that he had joined the PMO in 1987 as a Programme Assistant and Intra PMO portal programme was introduced in the year 200607 with the help of which an employee can see all the official circulars and his own employee details including salary and its calculation sheets and leave details. He further deposed that all the employees of the PMO were given training about this programme by E Office Division of NIC and the details of all the existing employees were provided by Administrative Section. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed that he has no knowledge if any wrong entry about the employment of employee was entered by the member of Administrative Section.
65. DW9 A.V.S.S. Kaladhar, deposed that during 20062009, he was posted as Stenographer attached with the Under Secretary (Administration). He further deposed that his duty was not to handle or maintain strength register, preparation of budget of PMO staff. He further deposed that the cashier did not bring the bills before him and he might have helped the administration staff for preparation of budget. He further deposed that budget proposals were prepared once in a year and he might have helped in preparing budget proposals once or twice. He further deposed that his duty was not to keep or maintain the service CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 47 book of employees of PMO. He admitted that the administration staff maintained the service book of employees of PMO. He admitted that every employee who join duties with PMO used to report at administration section.
66. During the crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed that he knew the accused who was posted in Cash Section in the year 2006. He further deposed that he does not know about the nature of his duties. He further deposed that he does not have any knowledge about preparation of bills by the Cash and General Section of PMO.
67. DW10 Satendra Agrawal, Officer, Punjab National Bank deposed that they do not maintain Encryption Code Issue Register in their branch. User/Account Holder used to send a letter containing the encryption code alongwith the CD in the sealed envelope. He deposed that it is not the duty of their bank to provide encryption code.
68. DW11 Ashok Kumar deposed that he was posted in PMO since 1985 to 2013. He further deposed that he used to get the identity cards and parking passes of employees and officials of PMO prepared between 2006 to 2008 through Special Scrutiny Group and MHA. He further deposed that he used to get photographs of PMO employees through the photographer provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
69. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has referred the facts of the case in detail and argued that accused Vikas Rana was posted as LDC in Ministry of Home Affairs w.e.f. 04.08.1997 and he was assigned duty in the Cash and General Section of PMO in diverted capacity and his duty was to prepare salary of employees/ministerial staff during the relevant period and he was dutybound to prepare correct salary bills but he prepared salary bills in the names of fictitious employees and exemployees namely CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 48 Prakash, Vikas Kashyap, Anil Kumar M.V., Suraj, P.S. Jacob and Surjeet Singh and he also prepared his own salary by inflating his actual salary and transferred the said amount in his bank accounts and in this manner, he misappropriated Rs.40,84,052/.
70. It is further argued that prosecution witnesses have proved the salary bills mentioning the details of fictitious employees and inflated salary of accused which were got approved by accused himself from the competent authoirty/DDO etc. and thereafter, he prepared compact disc containing alteration by entering his name and account number in place of fictitious employees and forwarded the same to concerned bank for disbursement of the salary amount in the indidividual account of employee. He had admitted his guilt vide his confession letter Ex.PW1/18 which was proved by PW1 Sh. K. Salil Kumar, Under Secretary, PMO vide forwarding letter Ex.PW1/17 to investigating agency.
71. It is further argued that CFSL report Ex.PW27/B and forwarding letter Ex.PW27/A has been proved by CFSL expert PW32 Sh. Krishna Sastry Pendyala and also identified the hard disk/exhibits examined by him. It is further argued that Sh. Rishi Prakash Gupta, Chartered Accountant was appointed in the present case to do audit work and after examining entire material provided to him, he had given his report Ex.PW13/B and Ex.PW13/C and has proved each and every minor details in respect of salary bills, data of hard disk and statement of bank account of accused Vikas Rana and concluded in respect of embezzlement committed by accused.
72. It is further argued that sanctioning authority has also proved sanction under section 19 of PC Act against accused. Accused has made the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 49 payment of installment of purchase of his Santro car from the government money which was credited dishonestly by him in his account.
73. It is further argued that concerned officials of the banks wherein accused Vikas Rana had opened several accounts in which salary was credited, have proved the account opening form of accused, statement of bank account alongwith certificate under section 2(a) of Banker's Book Evidence Act and accused has not given any plausible explanation in respect of amount transferred to his bank accounts. It is further argued that IO Insp. Vinay Malik and ACP P.K. Mishra have deposed about the detailed investigation carried out by them and proved the documents prepared by them.
74. It is further argued that there is no material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and there is sufficient evidence against accused Vikas Rana for his conviction and prayed for his conviction and placed reliance upon the following citations :
(i) Ram Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 577/2010 decided on 03.10.2018 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(ii) State through SPE & CBI, AP Vs M. Krishna Mohan & Anr., Crl.
Appeal No. 13941395/2004 decided on 12.10.2007 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iii) Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of H.P. & Anr., Crl. Appeal No. 1362/2003 decided on 04.04.2011 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(iv) Antony Cardoza Vs State of Kerala, Crl. Appeal No. 19/2013 decided on 14.11.2014 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(v) Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Ors., Crl. Appeal No. 1482/2013 decided on 20.10.2016 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 50(vi) Hema Vs State through Insp. of Police, Madras, Crl. Appeal No. 31/2013 decided on 07.01.2013 by Hon'ble Supreme Court. (vii) Bank of India Vs Yeturi Maredi Shankar Rao & Anr., 1987 SCC (1) 577 decided on 28.01.1987 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
SANCTION :
75. Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued there is no valid prosecution sanction against the accused and that the sanction Ex.PW16/A is not valid sanction order, as the CFSL result as well as the supplementary report of C.A. Ex.PW13/C dated 10.09.2011 were not produced before the sanctioning authority for his perusal. Therefore, it is evident that sanctioning authority had not applied his mind and had accorded the sanction mechanically. It is argued that the sanction is thus, invalid.
76. The argument of Ld. Defence counsel is also that sanctioning authority could not have applied his mind on the material placed before him as CFSL report were never placed before the sanctioning authority for perusal. Perusal of the record reveals that CFSL report is dated 25.04.2011 and the sanction order is dated 17.04.2009.
77. As far as the fact that the sanctioning authority had not gone through the CFSL result and the supplementary report of C.A. is concerned, in the judgment of State Vs R.C. Anand & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 615, it was held that :
".............The counteraffidavit of the present appellant before the High Court clearly indicated that relevant aspects were noted by the Governing Body before arriving at its decision. The High Court seems to have proceeded on the basis that since the basic CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 51 material or evidence i.e. alleged taped conversation, was not looked into by the Governing Body to form its own independent opinion to depart from the view of the President, the sanction was contrary to law. In Kalpnath Ravi Vs State, (1997) 8 SCC 732 it was clearly observed by this Court that the sanctioning authority is not required to wait for the report of the experts. The sanctioning authority has only to see whether the facts disclosed in the complaint prima facie disclose commission of an offence or not. The actual production of the tapes, etc. are matters for proof during trial and are not necessarily to be undertaken at this stage..............."
78. In view of the above case of R.C. Anand, it is immaterial if the sanctioning authority has not waited for the CFSL report before according sanction, as the same is matter of proof during trial.
79. On the issue of sanction, in Vinod Kumar Garg Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl. Appeal No. 1781/2009 decided on 27.11.2019 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been observed as under :
"The appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs State of A.P. (1979) 4 SCC 172 and State of Karnataka Vs Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273, to challenge the sanction order. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed (supra), it was observed that a valid sanction is the one that is granted by the Sanctioning Authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction is made out constituting the offence.
It is important to be mindful of the observations made by the Court as reproduced below :
"3[...] what the court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority at that time of giving sanction was aware of the facts constituting the offence and applied its mind CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 52 for the same...."
Similarly, in Ameerjan (supra), it was observed :
"10. [...] Ordinarily, before passing an order of sanction, the entire records containing the materials collected against the accused should be placed before the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic to) the materials placed before the said authority before the order of sanction was passed, the same may be produced before the court to show materials had in fact been produced."
Therefore, what the law requires is the application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority on the material placed before it to satisfy itself of prima facie case that would constitute the offence. On the said aspect, the later decision of this court in State of Maharashtra Vs Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8 SCC 119, has referred to several decisions to expound on the following principles of law governing the validity of sanction :
"14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before it and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution. 14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before it. 14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prime facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence.CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 53
14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7 The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
The contention of the appellant, therefore, fails and is rejected........... "
80. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, decided on 03.09.1997 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it has been observed that :
"The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority.
Since the validity of "Sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 54 necessarily follows, that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force by acting upon it to take decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution."
81. Also, in CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, decided on 31.10.2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held that : "(a) The prosecution must send the entire relevant record to the sanctioning authority including the FIR, disclosure statements, statements of witnesses, recovery memos, draft charge sheet and all other relevant material. The record so sent should also contain the material/document, if any, which may tilt the balance in favour of the accused and on the basis of which, the competent authority may refuse sanction.
(b) The authority itself has to do complete and conscious scrutiny of the whole record so produced by the prosecution independently applying its mind and taking into consideration all the relevant facts before grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give or withheld the sanction.
(c) The power to grant sanction is to be exercised strictly keeping in mind the public interest and the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 55 protection available to the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
(d) The order of sanction should make it evidence that the authority had been aware of all relevant facts/materials and had applied its mind to all the relevant material.
(e) In every individual case, the prosecution has to establish and satisfy the court by leading evidence that the entire relevant facts had been placed before the sanctioning authority and the authority had applied its mind on the same and that the sanction had been granted in accordance with law."
82. Certainly, it is the duty of the prosecution to send entire record of the case to the sanctioning authority. Though, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the entire material was not sent to the sanctioning authority but he has not been able to show which of the material which was not sent to the sanctioning authority would have tilted the balance in favour of the accused or could have formed basis for refusing sanction. Also, the accused has also not been able to show that the discretion vested in the sanctioning authority was affected by any extraneous consideration or that the mind of sanctioning authority was under pressure from any corner.
83. Relevant portion of testimony of PW16 Sh. Ashish Gupta, I.G. dated 20.04.2013 to show that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind, is reproduced hereinbelow :
".......... On that day the file of this case containing the statements of witnesses and other relevant documents were produced before me for according sanction for prosecution as against the accused Vikas Rana who was posted as UDC in Cash & General Section of the Prime Minister Office and I had gone through the same carefully and after applying my mind I accorded sanction CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 56 to prosecute the said accused Vikas Rana as I being the competent authority to remove him from services..............."
XXXXXXX by Sh. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the accused Vikas Rana.
"I was shown the document relating to the MinisterialI concerning the case.........."
".......... I am conversant with the process of preparation of salary bills and disbursement of the same. I had seen various relevant documents and considering the same I had passed the Sanction order against the accused. It is wrong to suggest that I have passed the Sanction order mechanically without the proper application of mind..........."
84. Grant of sanction is an administrative function and only prima facie satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is needed. The adequacy or inadequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order and when there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. Also, flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of accused.
85. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the order of sanction for prosecution of accused is not valid or illegal.
SALARY / ACTUAL AMOUNT DUE TO ACCUSED :
86. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that the accused was posted in MHA but no witness has been examined from MHA as to what was the actual pay of the accused. The salary to which the accused was CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 57 entitled has been proved by PW1 as Ex.PW1/12. Even PW23 has stated that Ex.PW1/12 is the salary to which the accused was entitled. PW23 has clearly stated that the payment actually due i.e. the salary due to the accused from January 2005 till December 2008 was analyzed in monthwise breakup and he has prepared the Ex.PW1/12 which bears the signature of PW23 Ram Niwas. Ex.PW1/12 states the salary actually due to the accused from January 2005 till May 2007 and from August 2008 to December 2008. The accused has not crossexamined PW1 and PW23 at all on this aspect. No suggestion has been given to PW1 or PW23 that Ex.PW1/12 is incorrect or does not state the payment actually due to the accused. Even no suggestion was given to PW1 and PW23 that a witness from MHA could only depose about the actual pay of the accused. In such circumstances, the document i.e. salary actually due to the accused from January 2005 to May 2007 and from August 2008 to December 2008 Ex.PW1/12 remained undisputed. Though Ex.PW1/12 does not states about the salary from June 2007 to July 2008 but that would not affect the merits of the case as the Bank Account Statement of Axis Bank Ex.PW11/C reflect that double salary was credited in the account of accused through ECS for the period June 2007 to July 2008. This fact that from June 2007 to 31.07.2008, salary of Vikas Rana was drawn from MHA Department is also mentioned in the report of the C.A. Ex.PW13/B in AnnexureV, Page2. The relevant entries of salary which are reflected in Ex.PW11/C, but are not in Ex.PW15/A (RBI), reveal that this salary was received by accused from MHA and not PMO. The said entries are given in tabular form below :
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 58(TABLEI) Date Amount of Relevant entry in Ex.PW11/C Salary Credited 16.07.07 7855.00 AA1 for the month of June07 02.08.07 7855.00 AA2 for the month of July07 31.08.07 7855.00 AA3 for the month of August07 28.09.07 8215.00 AA4 for the month of September07 31.10.07 8215.00 AA5 for the month of October07 30.11.07 7215.00 AA6 for the month of November07 31.12.07 7215.00 AA7 for the month of December07 31.01.08 7215.00 AA8 for the month of January08 29.02.08 7215.00 AA9 for the month of February08 02.04.08 6215.00 AA10 for the month of March08 30.04.08 6575.00 AA11 for the month of April08 30.05.08 6811.00 AA12 for the month of May08 30.06.08 6811.00 AA13 for the month of June08 31.07.08 6811.00 AA14 for the month of July08 (Points AA1 to AA14 have been put by the court during judgment dictation)
87. Thus, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that no person from MHA was examined as to the actual pay to which the accused was entitled is without any merit as the salary from January 2005 to May 2007 and from August 2008 to December 2008 is given in Ex.PW1/12 and for the period from June 2007 to July 2008 is reflected in the account statement of Axis Bank Ex.PW11/C pertaining to account no. 1007010100268899 of the accused.
BANK ACCOUNTS : WHETHER PERTAINED TO ACCUSED ?
88. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that there is no evidence on record to substantiate this fact that the handwriting on the account CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 59 opening forms of the various banks is of the accused and the accounts of Axis Bank (PW11) and ICICI Bank (PW5) and Centurion Bank (HDFC) (PW3), were of the accused. Though, during the final argument Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused admits that bank account of Vijaya Bank having account no. 1601101010017657 (PW12) and Syndicate Bank (PW4) having account no. 90552010083537 pertained to the accused. However, the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the accused during the final arguments has been made orally. As far as the testimony of bank witnesses is concerned, the accused has crossexamined all these witnesses of the banks i.e. PW3 Vinod Kumar, HDFC Bank, PW4 Kamalo Nain Sharma, Syndicate Bank, PW5 Ravi Prakash Jain, ICICI Bank, PW11 Madhav Bagai, Axis Bank and PW12 Prabhu Dayal, Vijaya Bank on similar lines and on the aspect as to whether the bank account was opened in their presence or not. During the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the accused has not stated that the bank account of Axis Bank, ICICI Bank, Centurion Bank did not pertain to him. When the evidence of PW3 (Centurion Bank) and the account opening form Ex.PW3/A etc. were put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., he only stated that he does not know. Similar was the answer in response to the evidence of PW4 (Syndicate Bank), PW5 (ICICI Bank) as well as PW11 (Axis bank) and PW12 (Vijaya Bank).
89. Learned defence counsel for the accused has argued that the sample handwriting and signatures of the accused was never compared with the signatures on the account opening forms of the various banks i.e. Ex.PW3/A (HDFC Bank), Ex.PW4/A (Syndicate Bank), Ex.PW5/B (ICICI Bank), Ex.PW11/A (Axis Bank), Ex.PW12/B (Vijaya Bank) and CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 60 thus, there is nothing to suggest that the accused had opened these bank accounts or that the above said bank accounts pertained to the accused. All the witnesses of the banks have clearly deposed that the account opening form was not filled in their presence. However, even if no expert opinion is available in this respect, the court can in such circumstances compare the signatures of the accused with his admitted signatures. The relevant observations in the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajinder Bajaj Vs The Indian Tanning Industries and ors. in RFA no. 548/2005 dated 17 Dec, 2007 are reproduced below:
"The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the Evidence Act expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid that it is one of the hazards to which judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and the voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the courts own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 61 with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar and Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh were where the court itself compared the writings.
The Supreme Court again in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank held it is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writing can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three Sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and
73. Both under Section 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the Handwriting Expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of Handwriting Expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when experts evidence is not there, Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter.
Applying the principles laid down in the above noted judicial pronouncements, it would be seen that in the instant case no expert evidence was available and the trial court CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 62 examined the signatures on the purported appointment letter and compared the same with the admitted signatures of Mr. Juneja in the written statement and the affidavit. The Trial Court was perfectly justified in doing so."
90. The signatures of the accused are available on three pages in the charge framed on 01.02.2012, 21 pages in the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.. on 30.05.2014 and on two pages on the additional statement of accused under section 313 recorded on 23.08.2019. On comparison of the admitted signatures of accused with the alleged signatures on the account opening forms i.e. Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW12/B with bare naked eye also, it can be concluded without any doubt that the accused has also signed the above said account opening forms. As far as the account opening form of ICICI Bank is concerned, the same is Ex.PW5/B and is a scanned copy. The signatures are not clearly visible. However, the signatures of the accused are appearing on the Power of Attorney Ex.PW5/C as well as on cheque Ex.PW5/E, on KYC Ex.PW5/F, on the copy of driving license Ex.PW5/G, on the copy of PAN card Ex.PW5/H, on the statement of account of Axis Bank Ex.PW5/J, on the client agreement Ex.PW5/K, copy of account opening form of DMAT account Ex.PW5/L and on comparison of the signatures of accused appearing on these documents with his signatures on the court record, it can be safely concluded without any doubt that the accused had signed the said documents and had also opened the account with the ICICI Bank bearing account no. 1034301001623. It is also noticed that at the time of opening bank account in ICICI Bank, he had furnished the statemnt of account of Axis Bank having account no. 1007010100268899. The photograph on all the documents i.e. CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 63 Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW12/B are also of the accused Vikas Rana. The specimen signature card of Syndicate Bank Ex.PW4/E also bears the signature of Vikas Rana and his photograph and on comparison of these signatures with the signatures of accused on the court record, it can be said without doubt that the same pertained to the accused.
91. Moreover, the accused himself has entered in the witness box as DW1 and during his statement on oath also he had not stated that the bank accounts of Centurion Bank (HDFC Bank), Axis Bank and of ICICI Bank did not belong to him. The only defence taken by accused is that on asking of Sh. R.K. Jain, accused had given him the details of his two bank accounts, as Sh. R.K. Jain intended to use the bank accounts of accused for deposit of some money. He further deposed that Sh. R.K. Jain also obtained his ATM card to withdraw money from his accounts and later on in November/December 2008, he came to know that Sh. R.K. Jain had used his accounts for the purpose of transfer of fake salary bills. Though the accused has stated that Sh. R.K. Jain obtained his two ATM cards but he failed to disclose as to which of the ATM cards and the details of which bank accounts, were obtained by Sh. R.K. Jain or had been used by Sh. R.K. Jain for the purpose of transfer of fake salary. When the accused had entered the witness box as DW1 then he should have clearly stated as to which accounts were used by Sh. R.K. Jain. A vague statement that two of his bank accounts were used by Sh. R.K. Jain is of no help to the accused unless the details and specifications of such bank accounts is stated by him. Again the accused has nowhere stated as to which of the bank accounts did not belong to him. He has also not deposed while in the witness box that he had not opened the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 64 bank accounts mentioned below :
(i) Account no. 1007010100268899 in Axis Bank.
(ii) Account no. 1138101000001308 in Centurion Bank.
(iii) Account no. 1034301001623 in ICICI Bank.
(iv) Account no. 190552010083537 in Syndicate Bank.
(v) Account no. 1601101010017657 in Vijaya Bank.
92. Moreover, during search of the house of the accused, ATM cards, cheque books, credit cards of UTI Bank, Syndicate Bank, ICICI Bank and Vijaya Bank were recovered from his house. Except for the suggestion given to the witnesses PW19 and PW20 in whose presence, ATM cards were recovered, that nothing was recovered from the house of the accused, nothing has come on record to doubt the testimony of PW19 and PW20 who were the witness to search of the house of the accused and in whose presence, ATM cards, credit cards and photocopy of sale deed etc. were recovered. When the ATM cards as well as the Credit cards were recovered from the house of the accused, then the statement of the accused that the ATM cards were used by Sh. R.K. Jain to withdraw the amount and that ATM cards of two of his bank accounts were with Sh. R.K. Jain cannot be believed. Moreover, the said Sh. R.K. Jain, who according to the accused was using his ATM cards and bank accounts, is DW2. Nothing has come in the testimony of DW2 that he was using the bank accounts or ATM cards of accused to deposit and withdraw some amount. Even this suggestion that Sh. R.K. Jain was using the bank account to withdraw the money has not been given to any of the PWs or to the IOs.
93. The accused has got his vehicle Santro car released on Superdari vide order dated 02.09.2009. In the application for Superdari for Santro Car CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 65 bearing no. DL8CN3827, he stated that he is the registered owner of the same and that the vehicle be released to him as the same is required for the needs of his family. It is thus, not disputed that the Santro card bearing no. DL8CN3827 belonged to to the accused, for which a loan was obtained by the accused from ICICI Bank. Statement of ICICI Bank car loan Ex.PW17/1 reveals that the payments have been made from the Syndicate Bank account bearing no. 190552010083537. Statement of account of Syndicate Bank Ex.PW4/B also corroborates this fact that installment of Rs.10,465/ was paid to ICICI Bank from July 2006 till January 2009. This fact also clearly establishes that the Syndicate Bank account bearing no. 190552010083537 belonged to accused Vikas Rana. On analysis of the bank account statement of Syndicate Bank Ex.PW4/B as well as enclosure to Ex.PW15/A furnished by RBI, it is revealed that the following payments were credited to the account bearing no. 190552010083537 (Syndicate Bank) of Vikas Rana. List of Amount Credited in Syndicate Bank account of Mr. Vikas Rana Found on Analysing the attested hard copy received from RBI alongwith Ex.PW15/A (part of Ex.PW15/A), During the Period 01.11.2005 to 31.12.2008 as well as the various bank account statements Ex.PW4/B, from which the installment of car loan of accused was paid :
(TABLEII) Month Amount Credited Relevant entry in attested hard copy of enclosures to Ex.PW15/A received from RBI.
15768.00 At point R5 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 945 which Feb06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Prakash point S1) CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 66 21128.00 At point R8 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 945 which Mar06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Prakash point S2) 21503.00 At point R11 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 945 which Apr06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Prakash point S3) 25503.00 At point R11A (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 945 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B which is the emp. Code of at point S3A) Prakash May06 (inadvertently missed by CA in his report Ex.PW13/B AnnexureI. However, the same is mentioned in AnnexureII) 25190.00 At point R17 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jun06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S4) Kashyap 25220.00 At point R20 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jul06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S5) Kashyap 27220.00 At point R23 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Aug06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S6) Kashyap 26640.00 At point R26 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Sept06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S7) Kashyap 27640.00 At point R29 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Oct06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S8) Kashyap Nov06 26940.00 At point R32 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 67 point S9) Kashyap 26670.00 At point R35 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Dec06 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S10) Kashyap 27670.00 At point R38 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jan07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S11) Kashyap 28640.00 At point R41 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Feb07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S12) Kashyap 28640.00 At point R44 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Mar07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S13) Kashyap 30210.00 At point R47 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Apr07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Vikas point S14) Kashyap 33210.00 At point R50 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which May07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S15) M.V.
35210.00 At point R53
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jun07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of point S16) Anil Kr. M.V. 35210.00 At point R56 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jul07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S17) M.V.
35210.00 At point R59
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Aug07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S18) M.V.
Sep07 35750.00 At point R62
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 68
point S19) M.V.
35750.00 At point R65
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Oct07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S20) M.V.
35750.00 At point R68
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Nov07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S21) M.V.
35750.00 At point R71
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Dec07 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S22) M.V.
35750.00 At point R74
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jan08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S23) M.V.
35790.00 At point R78
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Feb08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S24) M.V.
35790.00 At point R82
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Mar08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S25) M.V.
36330.00 At point R86
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Apr08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S26) M.V.
36330.00 At point R91
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which May08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S27) M.V.
36330.00 At point R95
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Jun08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S28) M.V.
Jul08 36330.00 At point R100
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 69
point S29) M.V.
41630.00 At point R105
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Aug08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S30) M.V.
50618.00 At point R110
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Sep08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S31) M.V.
50618.00 At point R115
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Oct08 Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S32) M.V.
Nov8 50618.00 At point R120
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S33) M.V.
Dec08 50618.00 At point R125
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp. Code 946 which Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at is the emp. Code of Anil Kr.
point S34) M.V. (Points S1 to S34 & R5 to R125 have been put by the court during judgment dictation)
94. Thus, an amount of Rs.11,63,174/ was credited in the Syndicate Bank account of accused from which his car loan installment was paid.
Analysis of the salary bills reveal that the employee code 945 was of Prakash, employee code 946 was of Vikas Kashyap till April 2007 and employee code 946 was of Anil Kumar M.V. from May 2007 till December 2008 and RBI record reveals that salary of Prakash, Vikas Kashyap and Anil Kumar M.V. was credited in the Syndicate Bank Account. The accused was paying his car loan installment from this account and thus, he cannot disown the account at Syndicate Bank.
95. The above detailed analysis reveals that an amount of Rs.11,63,174/ CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 70 was credited in the syndicate bank account of the accused during the period February 2006 to December 2008, from which the installment of car loan of accused was also paid. The employee code for which the salary was credited as per the document of RBI, i.e. the enclosure to Ex.PW15/A, are 945, 946 and 946 which is of employee Prakash, Vikas Kashyap, again 946 of Anil Kumar M.V. as per the various salary bills and not of the accused.
96. It is thus, established that the bank accounts i.e. (i)Account no. 1007010100268899 in Axis Bank, (ii) Account no. 1138101000001308 in Centurion Bank, (iii) Account no. 1034301001623 in ICICI Bank, (iv) Account no. 190552010083537 in Syndicate Bank and (v) Account no. 1601101010017657 in Vijaya Bank pertained to the accused on the following basis :
(i) Comparison of signature on the account opening forms and other documents with the admitted signatures of accused by court.
(ii) Vague statement by accused that two of his account ATM cards used by Sh. R.K. Jain, not believable.
(iii) Repayment of car loan of accused from his Syndicate Bank Account.
(iv) Credit of salary of accused from MHA for the month of June 2007 till July 2008 in the Axis Bank Account.
(v) No clear statement by the accused that the said five accounts did not belong to him when he entered the witness box as DW1.CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 71
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE & ADMISSIBILITY :
97. It is argued that the number of hard disks as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/A is different from the number of hard disks in the CFSL report Ex.PW27/B and therefore, the hard disk examined by the FSL expert is not the same as seized vide memo Ex.PW18/B. In this respect, the case property was summoned by the court during final arguments to clarify as to whether the number of the hard disk is one mentioned in the seizure memo or as mentioned in the CFSL report. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.11.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Present:Shri Manoj Kumar Garg, Ld. Additional PP for the State.
Accused with Ld. Counsel Sh. Paramjeet Singh. IO/Insp. Vinay Malik is also present. MHC(M) HC Khemraj is present alongwith case properties from concerned PS in pursuance to the notice issued to him for producing the case properties.
An application has been moved on behalf of the accused for recalling the order dated 24.10.2019, 31.10.2019, 19.11.2019, 22.11.2019 and 26.11.2019. Copy supplied to the Ld. Addl. PP for State, however, Ld. Addl. PP for state submits that he would not file any reply to the application and would straightway argue on the above said application. It is stated on behalf of the applicant/accused that matter is at the stage of final arguments and material available on record is to be seen and right which has accrued to the accused could not be taken away without following due process of law. It is further stated that IO as well as PW23, PW6 and DW5 should not have been called for the assistance of the Ld. Addl. PP for state. It is also stated that case properties should not be called at this stage and the case should be decided as per the material available on judicial file.
Case properties i.e. hard discs are already exhibited CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 72 as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and they are already part of the record.
Merely, because hard discs are lying with MHC(M) does not mean that hard discs are not the part of record. Hard discs are case properties in the present case and are required to be perused at the stage of final arguments and therefore, MHC(M) was directed to produce case properties through IO. Also, to understand the documents i.e. accounts and bill etc. which are more than a trunk load, the assistance of DW5, PW6 and PW23 was sought as they were concerned persons posted in the Cash and General Sections of PMO. No doubt, the case has to be decided as per the material available on record, but case property is part of record. Application has no merit and is accordingly disposed off.
(1) At this stage, MHC(M) produced one parcel sealed with the seal of court bearing particulars of the CFSL. The same contains hard disc Ex.P2 which is Q1 as per report of CFSL. With permission of the court, seal is removed.
Q1 has been perused, the same bears the particulars as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/A as well as report of the CFSL Ex.PW27/B. The envelope has been sealed back with the court seal.
(2) At this stage, MHC(M) produced another parcel sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini, Delhi bearing particulars of the present case. The same contains one hard disc Ex.P3 in another cut off brown envelope which is Q2 as per report of CFSL. With permission of the court, FSL seal is removed.
Q2 has been perused, the same bears the particulars as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/B as well as report of the CFSL Ex.PW27/B. The envelope has been sealed back with the court seal.
(3) At this stage, MHC(M) produced another parcel sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini, Delhi bearing particulars of the present case. The same contains one hard disc Ex.P4 in another cut off brown envelope which is Q3 as per report of CFSL. With permission of the court, FSL seal is removed.
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 73Q3 has been perused, the same bears the particulars as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/B as well as report of the CFSL Ex.PW27/B. The envelope has been sealed back with the court seal.
(4) At this stage, MHC(M) produced another parcel sealed with the seal of court bearing particulars of the CFSL. The same contains hard disc Ex.P5 which is Q4 as per report of CFSL. With permission of the court, seal is removed.
Q4 has been perused, the same bears the particulars as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/B as well as report of the CFSL Ex.PW27/B. The envelope has been sealed back with the court seal.
(5) At this stage, MHC(M) produced another parcel sealed with the seal of court bearing particulars of the CFSL. The same contains hard disc Ex.P6 which is Q5 as per report of CFSL. With permission of the court, seal is removed.
Q5 has been perused, the same bears the particulars as per seizure memo Ex.PW18/B. In the CFSL report Ex.PW27/B, the serial number (S/N) of hard disc is stated to be K147A8SGZ9999.
Perusal of the hard disc shows that number K147A8SG is visible, however, Z9999 could not be seen by the court. The brown colour cut off envelope of CFSL, Hyderabad also bears S/N:
K147A8SGZ9999.
At this stage, another sticker on side of hard disc having bar code and the No. K147A8SGZ9999 is pointed out to the court by the Ld. Addl. PP for state. The same has been perused by the court as well as accused and Ld. Defence Counsel. The envelope has been sealed back with the court seal. The report number CCS169/2009 is mentioned on all the five hard discs.
Further final arguments heard at length till 04:20 PM.
Now, to come up for remaining final arguments on 29.11.2019 at 02:00 PM.CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 74
IO, MHC(M) with case property and PW23 Sh. Ram Niwas to remain present in the court on the next date of hearing for assistance."
98. Perusal of the hard disks Ex.P2 (Q1), Ex.P3 (Q2), Ex.P4 (Q3), Ex.P5(Q4) and Ex.P6 (Q5), revealed that they had the same particulars as mentioned in seizure memo Ex.PW18/A as well as in the report of CFSL Ex.PW27/B. In view of the fact that both the numbers were available on the hard disks when the same were produced before the court on 28.11.2019, this argument that the number mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW18/A and CFSL report Ex.PW27/B is different, is devoid of any merits.
99. Ld. Counsel for the accused has further argued that there is no certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act qua hard disk Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 and therefore, the said hard disks and the date contained therein are not admissible in evidence.
100. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the hard disks are primary evidence and not secondary evidence and there is no requirement of certificate under section 65 B Indian Evidence Act as far as hard disks Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are concerned. The court is in agreement with the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the hard disks are primary evidence and there is no requirement of any certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act as far as hard disk Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 are concerned as they are not copies or secondary evidence. Though Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act is required for hard disk but he has not argued that the two CDs Ex.PW15/B which was handed over by PW15 Sh. S. Chaudhary, General Manager, RBI to the IO is also inadmissible for want of certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act, but in the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 75 interest of justice, the issue being legal is discussed hereinafter.
101. In the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer, AIR 2015, SC 180, it has been observed that :
"Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under subsection (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act :
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 76 computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.
Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied :
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc. pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 77 proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A Opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.
The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India."
102. The above judgment was again discussed in the case Shafhi Mohammad Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2303 of 2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 30.01.2018 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :
"We may, however, also refer to judgment of this Court in Anvar P.V. Vs P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473, delivered by a ThreeJudge Bench. In the said judgement in para 24 it was observed that :
"Electronic evidence by way of primary evidence was covered by Section 62 of the Evidence Act to which procedure of Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not admissible. However, for the secondary evidence, procedure of Section 65 B of the Evidence Act was required to be followed and a contrary view taken in Navjot Sindh (supra) that secondary evidence of electronic record could be covered under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, was not correct. There are, however, observations in para 14 to the effect that electronic record can be proved only as per Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Though in view of ThreeJudge Bench judgments in Tomaso Bruno and Ram Singh (supra), it can be CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 78 safely held that electronic evidence is admissible and provisions under Section 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act are by way of a clarification and are procedural provisions. If the electronic evidence is authentic and relevant the same can certainly be admitted subject to the Court being satisfied about its authenticity and procedure for its admissibility may depend on fact situation such as whether the person producing such evidence is in a position to furnish certificate under Section 65B (h). Sections 65A and 65B of the evidence Act, 1872 cannot be held to be a complete code on the subject. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this Court in para 24 clarified that primary evidence of electronic record was not covered under Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act.
The applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Section 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory.
Accordingly, we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 79 Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act. The applicability of requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by Court wherever interest of justice so justifies."
103. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case of Shafhi Mohammad, after discussing the judgment in Anvar P.V. Case held that requirement of certificate under section 65(B) is not mandatory and applicability of the requirement of certificate being procedural can be relaxed by the court wherever interest of justice so justifies. Though, one of the situation where requirement of certificate can be dispensed, as discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment, is where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of original device. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not stated that it is only in such a case, where a party is not in possession of original device that the requirement of certificate under section 65B can be dispensed with and thus, person producing electronic device being not in possession of original device is one of the instances wherein the requirement of the certificate being procedural can be relaxed. In the present case, the primary device i.e. the hard disks were seized by the IO. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the requirement of certificate under section 65B Evidence Act is not always mandatory and the applicability of the requirement of certificate under section 65B can be relaxed whenever interest of justice so justifies. Therefore, in view of the above judgment, let us analyze the evidence brought on record in the present case to see whether the requirement of certificate under section 65B(H) should be relaxed in the present case in the interest of justice qua the CDs Ex.PW15/B. CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 80
104. The requirement of certificate under section 65B Evidence Act is to rule out any tampering with the electronic evidence produced on record. Source and authenticity are the two hallmarks pertaining to any electronic record sought to be used as evidence. As far as source is concerned, PW15 Sh. S. Chaudhary, G.M., RBI has categorically deposed that he had sent the two CDs containing the data related to salary bills of PMO to the IO alongwith certified hard copy. The certified hard copy of the same is also available on record and is enclosure to letter Ex.PW15/A. The entries in the enclosure to Ex.PW15/A have been crosschecked with the statement of account of various bank accounts i.e. Ex.PW3/C (Centurion Bank), Ex.PW4/B (Syndicate Bank), Ex.PW5/B (ICICI Bank), Ex.PW11/C (Axis Bank) and Ex.PW12/E (Vijaya Bank). All the entries have been corroborated with the corresponding entry in the statement of account of respective bank, leading to an inference that the enclosure to document Ex.PW15/A and the CDs Ex.PW15/B contain authentic data. The data in the certified hard copy has also been analyzed and is given in tabular form below :
List of Amount Credited in Different Bank Accounts of Mr. Vikas Rana Found on Analysing the attested hard copy received from RBI alongwith Ex.PW15/A (part of Ex.PW15/A), During the Period 01.11.2005 to 31.12.2008 as well as the various bank account statements Ex.PW11/C (Axis Bank), Ex.PW4/B (Syndicate Bank), Ex.PW12/E (Vijaya Bank), Ex.PW3/C (Centurion Bank) and Ex.PW5/M (ICICI Bank).CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 81
(TABLEIII) Month Account Name of Amount Relevant entry Bank in attested hard copy of enclosures to Ex.PW15/A received from RBI.
5797.00 At point R1 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Nov05 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A1) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
5797.00 At point R2
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
Dec05 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A2) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
10797.00 At point R3
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
Jan06 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A3) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
Feb06 4797.00 At point R4
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A4) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
15768.00 At point R5
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 945 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S1) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
1601101010017657 Vijaya 11861.00 At point R6
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946
Ex.PW12/E at point V1) which is emp.
Code of Vikas
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 82
Total: 32426.00 Kashyap
7297.00 At point R7
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C1) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
21128.00 At point R8
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 945
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S2) which is the
emp. Code of
Mar06 Prakash
20020.00 At point R9
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Ex.PW11/C at point A5) is the emp.
Total: 48445.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 11044.00 At point R10 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C2) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
21503.00 At point R11
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 945 which
Apr06 190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S3) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
20390.00 At point R12
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Ex.PW11/C at point A6) is the emp.
Total: 52937.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 20528.00 At point R13 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C3) is the emp.
May06
Code of Vikas
Rana
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 83
25503.00 At point R11A
(Corroborated as per showing emp.
Bank Account Statement Code 945
Ex.PW4/B at point S3A) which is the
emp. Code of
Prakash
(inadvertently
Syndicate missed by CA
190552010083537
Bank in his report
Ex.PW13/B
AnnexureI.
However, the
same is
mentioned in
AnnexureII)
25190.00 At point R14
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Ex.PW11/C at point A7) is the emp.
Total: 45718.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 24287.00 At point R15 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C4) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
25533.00 At point R16
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Jun06 Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A8) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
25190.00 At point R17
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S4) is the emp.
Total: 75010.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
Jul06 1352001000024893 Centurion 25287.00 At point R18
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 84
Ex.PW3/C at point C5) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
25533.00 At point R19
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A9) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
25220.00 At point R20
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S5) is the emp.
Total: 76040.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
27460.00 At point R21
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C6) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
27533.00 At point R22
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A10) is the emp.
Code of
Aug06 Prakash
27220.00 At point R23
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S6) is the emp.
Total: 82213.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
Sep06 27740.00 At point R24
Centurion (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Bank Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C7) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
1007010100268899 28208.00 At point R25
Axis Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW11/C at point A11) is the emp.
Code of
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 85
Prakash
26640.00 At point R26
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which Syndicate 190552010083537 Ex.PW4/B at point S7) is the emp.
bank Total: 82588.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 26740.00 At point R27 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which
1352001000024893
Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C8) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
27795.00 At point R28
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Oct06 Ex.PW11/C at point A12) is the emp.
Code of Prakash 27640.00 At point R29 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S8) is the emp.
Total: 82175.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
31064.00 At point R30
Centurion (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Bank Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C9) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
27795.00 At point R31
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Nov06 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A13) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
26940.00 At point R32
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which
190552010083537
bank Ex.PW4/B at point S9) is the emp.
Total: 85799.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
1352001000024893 Centurion 31740.00 At point R33
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 86
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C10) is the emp.
Code of Vikas Rana 27795.00 At point R34 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Dec06 Ex.PW11/C at point A14) is the emp.
Code of Prakash 26670.00 At point R35 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which Syndicate 190552010083537 Ex.PW4/B at point S10) is the emp.
bank Total: 86205.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 30740.00 At point R36 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 509 which 1352001000024893 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C11) is the emp.
Code of Vikas Rana 28795.00 At point R37 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Jan07 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A15) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
27670.00 At point R38
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S11) is the emp.
Total: 87205.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap 31740.00 At point R39 Feb07 Centurion (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Bank Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C12) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
1007010100268899 Axis Bank 28795.00 At point R40
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 87
Ex.PW11/C at point A16) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
28640.00 At point R41
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S12) is the emp.
Total: 89175.00 Code of Vikas
Kashyap
Centurion 31240.00 At point R42
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C13) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
28765.00 At point R43
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A17) is the emp.
Mar07
Code of
Prakash
28640.00 At point R44
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which Syndicate 190552010083537 Ex.PW4/B at point S13) is the emp.
bank Total: 88645.00 Code of Vikas Kashyap Apr07 Centurion 31575.00 At point R45 Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C14) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
29605.00 At point R46
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A18) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
190552010083537 Syndicate 30210.00 At point R47
bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which
Ex.PW4/B at point S14) is the emp.
Total: 91390.00 Code of Vikas
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 88
Kashyap
34575.00 At point R48
Centurion (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Bank Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C15) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
33605.00 At point R49
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank May07 Ex.PW11/C at point A19) is the emp.
Code of Prakash 33210.00 At point R50 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S15) is the emp.
Total:101390.00 Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 35010.00 At point R51 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893 Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C16) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 35105.00 At point R52 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Jun07 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A20) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35210.00 At point R53
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S16) is the emp.
Total:105325.00 Code of Anil
Kr. M.V.
Jul07 35010.00 At point R54
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893 Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C17) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 1007010100268899 Axis Bank 35105.00 At point R55 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 89 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW11/C at point A21) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35210.00 At point R56
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S17) is the emp.
Total:105325.00 Code of Anil
Kr. M.V.
Centurion 35010.00 At point R57
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Account Statement Code 922 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C18) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj
P.
35105.00 At point R58
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Aug07 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A22) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35210.00 At point R59
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S18) is the emp.
Total:105325.00 Code of Anil
Kr. M.V.
Centurion 35550.00 At point R60
Sep07 Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Account Statement Code 922 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C19) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj
P.
35915.00 At point R61
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A23) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
190552010083537 Syndicate 35750.00 At point R62
bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 90
Ex.PW4/B at point S19) is the emp.
Total:107215.00 Code of Anil
Kr. M.V.
35550.00 At point R63
Centurion (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893
Bank Account Statement Code 922 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C20) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj
P.
35915.00 At point R64
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Oct07 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A24) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35750.00 At point R65
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S20) is the emp.
Total:107215.00 Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 35550.00 At point R66 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1352001000024893 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C21) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 35915.00 At point R67 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Nov07 1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A25) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35750.00 At point R68
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S21) is the emp.
Total:107215.00 Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 1352001000024893 Centurion 35550.00 At point R69 Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 922 which
Ex.PW3/C at point C22) is the emp.
Dec07 Code of Sooraj
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 91
P.
35915.00 At point R70
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A26) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35750.00 At point R71
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S22) is the emp.
Total:107215.00 Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 35550.00 At point R72 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1352001000024893 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C23) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 35915.00 At point R73 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A27) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
Jan08
35750.00 At point R74
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S23) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 8468.00 At point R75 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I1) is the emp.
Total:115683.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
Feb08 35590.00 At point R76
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
1352001000024893 Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C24) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 1007010100268899 Axis Bank 35985.00 At point R77 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 92 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW11/C at point A28) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
35790.00 At point R78
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S24) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 25790.00 At point R79 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which 1034301001623 Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I2) is the emp.
Total:133155.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
35590.00 At point R80
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 922 which Centurion 1352001000024893 Ex.PW3/C at point C25) is the emp.
Bank Code of Sooraj P. 35985.00 At point R81 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A29) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
Mar08
35790.00 At point R82
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S25) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 25790.00 At point R83 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I3) is the emp.
Total:133155.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
1352001000024893 Centurion 36130.00 At point R84
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 922 which
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 93
Ex.PW3/C at point C26) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj
P.
36795.00 At point R85
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A30) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
36330.00 At point R86
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Apr08 Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S26) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 26330.00 At point R87 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I4) is the emp.
Total:135585.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
May08 36130.00 At point R88
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 922 which
1138101000001308 Centurion
Ex.PW3/C at point C27) is the emp.
Bank
Code of Sooraj
P.
26330.00 At point R89
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I5) is the emp.
Code of P.S.
Jacob
36795.00 At point R90
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A31) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
190552010083537 Syndicate 36330.00 At point R91
bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which
Ex.PW4/B at point S27) is the emp.
Total:135585.00 Code of Anil
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 94
Kr. M.V.
36130.00 At point R92
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C28) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 26330.00 At point R93 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I6) is the emp.
Code of P.S.
Jacob
36795.00 At point R94
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Jun08 Ex.PW11/C at point A32) is the emp.
Code of Prakash 36330.00 At point R95 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S28) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 22958.00 At point R96 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Vijaya Account Statement Code 959 which 1601101010017657 Bank Ex.PW12/E at point V2) is the emp.
Total:158543.00 Code of Surjeet
Singh
Jul08 36130.00 At point R97
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C29) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 36330.00 At point R98 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 929 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I7) is the emp.
Code of P.S.
Jacob
1007010100268899 Axis Bank 36795.00 At point R99
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 95
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW11/C at point A33) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
36330.00 At point R100
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which Syndicate 190552010083537 Ex.PW4/B at point S29) is the emp.
bank Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 35578.00 At point R101 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Vijaya Account Statement Code 959 which 1601101010017657 Bank Ex.PW12/E at point V3) is the emp.
Total:181163.00 Code of Surjeet Singh 42630.00 At point R102 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C30) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 42245.00 At point R103 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Aug08 ICICI Account Statement Code 945 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I8) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
34966.00 At point R104
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A34) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
41630.00 At point R105
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S30) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 1601101010017657 Vijaya 42153.00 At point R106 Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 959 which
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 96
Ex.PW12/E at point V4) is the emp.
Total:203624.00 Code of Surjeet
Singh
50349.00 At point R107
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C31) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 51912.00 At point R108 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 945 which
1034301001623
Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I9) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
46352.00 At point R109
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which 1007010100268899 Axis Bank Sep08 Ex.PW11/C at point A35) is the emp.
Code of Vikas Rana 50618.00 At point R110 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S31) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 49478.00 At point R111 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Vijaya Account Statement Code 929 which 1601101010017657 Bank Ex.PW12/E at point V5) is the emp.
Total:248709.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
Oct08 50349.00 At point R112
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C32) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 1034301001623 ICICI 51912.00 At point R113 Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW5/M at point I10) is the emp.
Code of
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 97
Prakash
44352.00 At point R114
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A36) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
50618.00 At point R115
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S32) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 49478.00 At point R116 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Vijaya Account Statement Code 929 which 1601101010017657 Bank Ex.PW12/E at point V6) is the emp.
Total:246709.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
50349.00 At point R117
Nov08 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 922 which
1138101000001308 Centurion
Ex.PW3/C at point C33) is the emp.
Bank
Code of Sooraj
P.
1034301001623 ICICI 51912.00 At point R118
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 945 which
Ex.PW5/M at point I11) is the emp.
Code of
Prakash
1007010100268899 Axis Bank 44352.00 At point R119
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
Ex.PW11/C at point A37) is the emp.
Code of Vikas
Rana
190552010083537 Syndicate 50618.00 At point R120
bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 946 which
Ex.PW4/B at point S33) is the emp.
Code of Anil
Kr. M.V.
1601101010017657 Vijaya 50978.00 At point R121
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 98
Bank (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 929 which
Ex.PW12/E at point V7) is the emp.
Total:248209.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
50349.00 At point R122
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Centurion Account Statement Code 922 which 1138101000001308 Bank Ex.PW3/C at point C34) is the emp.
Code of Sooraj P. 51912.00 At point R123 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
ICICI Account Statement Code 945 which 1034301001623 Bank Ex.PW5/M at point I12) is the emp.
Code of Prakash 44352.00 At point R124 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Account Statement Code 509 which
1007010100268899 Axis Bank
Ex.PW11/C at point A38) is the emp.
Dec08
Code of Vikas
Rana
50618.00 At point R125
(Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Syndicate Account Statement Code 946 which 190552010083537 bank Ex.PW4/B at point S34) is the emp.
Code of Anil Kr. M.V. 50978.00 At point R126 (Corroborated as per Bank showing emp.
Vijaya Account Statement Code 929 which 1601101010017657 Bank Ex.PW12/E at point V8) is the emp.
Total:248209.00 Code of P.S.
Jacob
(Points A1 to A38, V1 to V8, S1 to S34, I1 to I12, C1 to C34 & R1 to 126 have been put by the court during judgment dictation)
105. Thus, in view of the fact that authenticity and source : two hallmarks, of the same have been clearly established on record, CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 99 certificate under section 65B Indian Evidence Act qua CDs Ex.PW15/B is dispensed with in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shafhi Mohammad CONFESSION OF ACCUSED :
106. PW1 the complainant has stated that he had forwarded the confession letter of the accused which was received from the PMO. Confession Letter Ex.PW1/18 being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
"To, The Director (Admn.) PMO, South Block, New Delhi.
Sir, With ref. to letter no. C14013/1/09PMA dt. 05.01.2009. I hereby admit that nobody was involved in this case & I take responsibility for it. I hereby undertake that I will pay all dues to the office in due course (60 days).
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully (Vikas Rana) UDC"
107. No suggestion has been given to PW1 that the confession letter Ex.PW1/18 was obtained from the accused under any inducement or threat. The accused during his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that PW1 has got written the letter Ex.PW1/18 under duress and that he had not written the said letter voluntarily. However, the accused during his crossexamination has also admitted that he had not written any complaint to any authority or Commissioner of Police that his CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 100 signatures have been obtained forcibly on the letter Ex.PW1/18.
108. In Ram Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 577/10 and Crl. Apeal No. 578/10, decided on 03.10.2018 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the appellant had assailed the confessional statement contending that he did not voluntarily make any confession statement and the confessional statement could not have been made the basis for conviction. The duty of the Peon/appellant was only to clean up the office and other work in the office like moving files etc. and there was no office order in writing authorising the appellant to perform the duties of Clerical Cadre. Contention of the appellant was that the confession statement was not voluntary and PWs 2 and 3 were persons in authority who had pressurized the appellant to make the confession and therefore, Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW2/A cannot be said to have been made voluntarily and cannot form the basis for conviction. It was further contended that extrajudicial confession can only form basis of conviction if it is voluntary and person to whom confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to the accused. Counsel for accused further contended that extrajudicial confession of accused should not have been obtained by coercion, promise of favour and should be voluntary in nature acknowledging the guilt. Learned counsel had also submitted that the officers who obtained extrajudicial confession of the appellant (Ex.PW3/A and PW2/A) had other vested interest to act upon and the appellant being a Peon must have been allured by the false hope of being absolved from the charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that :
"..............Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 101 prosecution evidence. In order to accept extra judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence. If the court is satisfied that the extrajudicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the conviction. Considering the admissibility and evidentiary value of extrajudicial confession, after referring to various judgments, in Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, this court held as under: "In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 this Court stated the principle that: An extrajudicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. 15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 stated the principle that:
An extrajudicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The Court further expressed the view that: 19. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. 15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extrajudicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604 held that:
There is no absolute rule that an extrajudicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extrajudicial confession CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 102 should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902, Sivakumar v. State By Inspector of Police (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and
42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad alias Shamin v. State of W.B. (2008) 15 SCC 449] 14.
It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extrajudicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that the evidence of an extrajudicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough; in the courts opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. As pointed out by the trial court and the High Court, though the confession statement has been initially made in the presence of R.C. Chhabra (PW
3) and M.P. Sethi by the appellant, no question was put to R.C. Chhabra (PW3) that extra judicial confession (Ex.PW3/A) was an outcome of any threat, inducement or allurement. The statement which runs to eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily. Likewise, confession statement (Ex.PW2/A) made before R.K. Soni (PW
2) was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the presence of R.K. Soni (PW2) and H.O. Agrawal, the then Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to R.K. Soni (PW2) that Ex.PW2/A was outcome of some threat or pressure. The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held that the confession statements (Ex. CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 103 PW3/A and PW2/A) were voluntarily made and that the same can form the basis for conviction. We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the said concurrent findings............"
109. In the present case also, the confession statement of accused Ex.PW1/18 is voluntary and can be acted upon. There is nothing to suggest that the confessional letter Ex.PW1/18 was written under any threat, duress or inducement. The said statement is also corroborated with the various salary bills proved on record as well as the documents furnished by RBI and the various bank account statements i.e. Ex.PW11/C (Axis Bank), Ex.PW4/B (Syndicate Bank), Ex.PW12/E (Vijaya Bank), Ex.PW3/C (Centurion Bank) and Ex.PW5/M (ICICI Bank). In the said letter, accused has clearly taken the responsibility for embezzlement and had even sought 60 days time for repayment. The confession Ex.PW1/18 thus, can also be relied upon for arriving at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused.
DUTIES OF ACCUSED :
110. It is argued that the CD was prepared at NIC Section of the PMO which was a separate department and it was the duty of the NIC Section to prepare the CD which was then sent to PNB and the accused had no role in the preparation of CD.
111. The document Ex.PW9/20 i.e. the duties of accused being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow :
"...............(i) Duties assigned to Shri Vikas Rana, UDC in C&G Section prior to his suspension :
Preparation of salary and other bills in respect of Assistant, UDCs, LDCs, Carpenter, Translators CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 104 and staff appointed under New Pension Scheme besides making of CD for transfer of salary of all officers and staff in PMO in their respective bank accounts through ECS....."
112. The above document has been proved by PW9 Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Section Officer. No question has been put to PW9 that the document Ex.PW9/20 does not list the duties of the accused correctly. The only crossexamination of PW9 in this respect is reproduced hereinbelow :
".................It is wrong to suggest that the accused was never given Blank CD by NIC. It is correct that CD was not provided by me to the accused. It is wrong to suggest that CD was given by NIC to the Cashier and not to the accused. The concerned Record might be available with the NIC................"
113. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the duties of accused did not include making of CD for transfer of salary.
114. It is also argued that the DDO used to give a certificate regarding his satisfaction at the end of every salary bill and used to certify that the amounts claimed in the bill are actually due to the persons concerned and the conditions attached to the payment of various allowances have been duly complied with in all cases and all persons whose names are omitted from, but whose pay has been drawn in the bill have actually been employed during the month, that full details of the emoluments drawn for them working up to the total included in the bill have been duly shown in the Pay Bill Register and that the emoluments are according to the rules and orders; and thus, it was the DDO who was liable and whose CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 105 duty was to ensure that the salary bills were drawn as per the entitlement and the salary of the persons who were actually employed is prepared. Certainly, it was the duty of the DDO to ensure that the salary bills were correctly prepared, however, if he has failed in his duties he can only be liable for departmental action. As far as criminal liability is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that it was the accused who used to prepare the salary bills and thereafter, get the same approved from the DDO, thereafter, make changes while making the CD and alter the salary, thus adjusting the excess total and was the ultimate beneficiary. The criminal liability can thus, be fastened only on the accused and not on the DDO despite the fact that the concerned DDO has also failed in his duties.
FORGED SALARY BILLS, MISAPPROPRIATION, BREACH OF TRUST ETC. :
115. The accused has been charged for the offence under section 409/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as the case of the prosecution is that the accused who was posted as LDC and thereafter, as UDC in PMO, used to prepare the salary bills and at the time of preparation of salary bills used to insert the names of exemployees and prepared their salaries and also wrongly calculated the total and thereafter, at the time of preparation of CD for ECS clearing, he would adjust the excess total in his own salary as well as in the salaries of the exemployees namely Prakash, Vikas Kashyap, Anil Kumar M.V., Sooraj P., P.S. Jacob and Surjeet Singh and had thus, forged the salary bills and had misappropriated an amount of Rs.40,84,052/ during the period January 2005 to December 2008 and CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 106 had caused wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to public ex chequer and had thus, obtained pecuniary advantage for himself while holding office as a public servant.
116. Section 467, 468 and 471 being relevant are reproduced herein below :
"467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc. Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with (imprisonment for like) or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating - Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
"471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 107 document or electronic record."
117. Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC leads us to section 463. As per section 463 :
"463. Forgery - Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
118. Thus, the accused can be said to have forged a document, if he makes any false document with intent to commit fraud. As far as false documents are concerned, section 464 IPC being relevant is reproduced herein below :
"464. Making a false document - A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First - who dishonestly or fraudulently
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any (electronic signature) on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the (electronic signature), with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 108 document, electronic record or (electronic signature) was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly - Who without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with (electronic signature) either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly - Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix has (electronic signature) on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
119. It is not disputed that the accused is a public servant. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there was no entrustment to the accused and therefore, the accused cannot be made liable for misappropriation. The essential ingredients for the offence of criminal breach of trust defined in Section 405 and punishable under Sections 406 and 409 IPC are :
a) Entrustment of property in any manner or creation of dominion over property;
b) Dishonest misappropriation, conversion to his own use of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 109 disposal of the said property;
(c) Misappropriation etc. in violation of any legal contract touching the discharge of such trust;
d) Misappropriation either by the Person entrusted with property or through any other person.
120. In The Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal Vs. S.K. Roy 1971 (4) SCC 230, it has been held that :
"...........There are, however, two distinct parts involved in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created. In the case of an offence by a public servant punishable under Section 409, I.P.C. the acquisition of dominion or control over the property must also be in the capacity of a public servant. This is not the same thing as having the authority, as a public servant to get the control or dominion over property annexed with an obligation. The gravamen of the offence is the dishonest misappropriation of the money or property which comes into the possession or under the control of a public servant who has the ostensible authority to receive it even though, technically speaking, from the point of view of the distribution of departmental duties under internal rules of an offence, it may not be within the scope of his authority or duty to accept the money. The fact that a public servant acts fraudulently in the exercise of his duties as a public servant to get dominion or control over some property will be an aggravating and not an exculpating circumstance. The "entrustment" results from what the person handing over money or property to a public servant, servant, and believe about the purpose for which he hands over money or property is made to think, CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 110 understand and believe about the purpose for which he hands over money or property to a public servant. It this place because of and due to the exercise of the official authority the requirements of Section 409, IPC, are satisfied. Ordinarily, it is the ostensible or apparent scope of a public servant's authority when receiving property and not its technical limitations, under some internal rules of the department or office concerned, and the use made by the servant of his actual official capacity which determine whether there is a sufficient nexus or connection between the acts complained of and the official capacity so to bring it within the ambit of Section 409 IPC. To constitute an offence under Section 409, IPC it is not required that misappropriation must necessarily take place after the creation of a legally correct entrustment of dominion over property. The entrustment may arise in "any manner whatsoever", That manner whatsoever", may or may not involve fraudulent conduct of the accused. Section 409, IPC covers dishonest misappropriation in both types of cases; that is itself fraudulent or improper and those where the public servant misappropriation what may have been quite properly and innocently received. All that is required is what may by described as "entrustment" or acquisition of dominion over property in the capacity of a public servant who, as a result of it, becomes charged with a duty to act in a particular way, or, at least honestly. The obligation to act in a certain manner with regard to or to deal honestly with property, over which a public servant obtains dominion or control the use of his official capacity may arise either expressly or impliedly........."
121. Accused was having dominion over the public fund being a clerk in the Cash and General Section. The expression "whoever being in any manner entrusted with property or with any dominion over property", clearly negatives the contention that since physical possession was not exclusively transferred to the accused , there can not be a case of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 111 entrustment. If the offence under Section 405 IPC is interpreted in the aforesaid manner, it will open the flood gate for frauds, corruption amongst public servants and will endanger the smooth flow of trade and commerce.
122. It was the duty of the accused being a public servant to ensure that the salary bills of the employees on the payroll of the PMO were prepared correctly and the funds were properly utilized for the purpose for which the amount was allotted. He was also under duty to raise the salary bills as per the entitlement.
123. In the light of the above broad principles, let us examine the facts of the case to find out whether the accused had committed misappropriation of public money. In this respect the analysis of the salary bills, Bank Account Statements and document from RBI, being relevant is reproduced below :
Analysis of the Salary Bills (monthwise) and the Statement of Accounts of various banks i.e. Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW12/E, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW5/M. February2006 : Ex.DW2/C (Salary Bill) Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.DW2/C Code 945 Prakash 15768.00 At serial no. 50 & at point Z1 946 Vikas Kashyap 11861 At serial no. 194 & at point Z2 Total : 27629.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Vikas Ranha Account Account Statement CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 112 Vijaya Bank 17657 11861.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V1) Axis Bank 268899 4797.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A4) Syndicate Bank 83537 15768.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S1) Total 32426.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 4797.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record : Rs. 27629.00 32426.00 4797.00 27629.00 Thus, in February 2006, the salary of Prakash and Vikas Kashyap having employee code 945 and 946 respectively was prepared and the amount was credited in the accounts of the accused. March2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 30 432517.00 430898.00 1619.00
11 of 30 470989.00 464681.00 6308.00
21 of 30 798737.00 804545.00 5808.00
22 of 30 840784.00 824376.00 16408.00
23 of 30 857419.00 873827.00 16408.00
24 of 30 911172.00 888764.00 22408.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totalling error : 24527 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13201.00 At serial no. 50 & at point Z3
946 Vikas Kashyap 9420.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z4
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 113
Total : 22621.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 47148.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Rana Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 7297.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C1)
Axis Bank 268899 20020.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A5)
Syndicate Bank 83537 21128.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S2)
Total 48445.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 1297.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 47148.00 48445.00 47148.00 1297.00 Though the salary bill for March 2006 has not been exhibited during evidence but that would not make any difference, as the corresponding data has been proved by RBI and also through various Bank Account Statements of the accused. The relevant entries in the RBI record have been given in the TableIII under the heading "Electronic Evidence and Its Admissibility" and are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. It is also revealed that though the salary approved for Prakash in salary bills is Rs.13201/ but the amount credited under his employee code 945 is Rs.21,128/. Similarly, the salary approved of Vikas Kashyap having employee code 946 is Rs.9420/ but the amount credited in the Axis Bank account of the accused for the employee code 946 is Rs.20,020/. Thus, the salary figures were altered after the same were approved by the DDO in the salary bills, clearly establishing forgery. Same is the situation in respect of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 114 the remaining bills from April 2006 to December 2008 which are given hereinafter :
April2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 479855.00 471800.00 8055.00
21 of 30 812079.00 820139.00 8060.00
22 of 30 859848.00 840998.00 18850.00
23 of 30 871779.00 890629.00 18850.00
24 of 30 931772.00 903922.00 27850.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 27845 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.48 & at point Z5
946 Vikas Kashyap 9600.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z6
Total : 23048.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 50893.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 11044.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C2)
Axis Bank 268899 20390.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A6)
Syndicate Bank 83537 21503.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S3)
Total 52937.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2044.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.50893.00 52937.00 50893.00 2044.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 115 May2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 30 440342.00 440416.00 74.00
11 of 30 489343.00 477214.00 12129.00
21 of 30 819165.00 834174.00 15009.00
22 of 30 876074.00 845475.00 30599.00
23 of 30 883852.00 914451.00 30599.00
24 of 30 959859.00 914995.00 44864.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 41910.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.48 & at point Z7
946 Vikas Kashyap 9600.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z8
Total : 23048.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 64958.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 20528.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C3)
Axis Bank 268899 25190.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A7)
Syndicate Bank 83537 25503.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S3A)
Total 71221.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 6263.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 64958.00 71221.00 6263.00 64958.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 116 June2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 30 444780.00 444230.00 550.00
11 of 30 494665.00 483130.00 11535.00
21 of 30 820227.00 831762.00 11535.00
22 of 30 880985.00 853860.00 27125.00
24 of 30 910996.00 938121.00 27125.00
25 of 30 990445.00 942320.00 48125.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 48675.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.47 & at point Z9
946 Vikas Kashyap 9600.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z10
Total : 23048.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 71723.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 24287.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C4)
Axis Bank 268899 25533.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A8)
Syndicate Bank 83537 25190.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S4)
Total 75010.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 3287.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 71723.00 75010.00 3287.00 71723.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 117 July2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 30 450065.00 450296.00 231.00
11 of 30 500731.00 488415.00 12316.00
21 of 30 829234.00 841550.00 12316.00
22 of 30 891144.00 863208.00 27936.00
24 of 30 922633.00 950569.00 27936.00
25 of 30 1004893.00 954957.00 49936.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 49705.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.47 & at point Z11
946 Vikas Kashyap 9600.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z12
Total : 23048.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 72753.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 25287.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C5)
Axis Bank 268899 25533.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A9)
Syndicate Bank 83537 25220.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S5)
Total 76040.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 3287.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 72753.00 76040.00 3287.00 72753.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 118 Aug2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
12 of 31 548363.00 534278.00 14085.00
21 of 31 844098.00 858183.00 14085.00
22 of 31 910322.00 878617.00 31705.00
24 of 31 938219.00 969923.00 31704.00
25 of 31 1026247.00 970543.00 55704.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 55705.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.51 & at point Z13
946 Vikas Kashyap 9600.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z14
Total : 23048.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 78753.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 27460.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C6)
Axis Bank 268899 27533.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A10)
Syndicate Bank 83537 27220.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S6)
Total 82213.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 3460.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 78753.00 82213.00 3460.00 78753.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 119 September2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 549765.00 535418.00 14347.00
20 of 30 867010.00 881357.00 14347.00
21 of 30 936131.00 905044.00 31087.00
23 of 30 964916.00 996003.00 31087.00
24 of 30 1054435.00 999348.00 55087.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 55087.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13861.00 At serial no.50 & at point Z15
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z16
Total : 23761.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 78848.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 27740.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C7)
Axis Bank 268899 20208.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A11)
Syndicate Bank 83537 26640.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S7)
Total 82588.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 3740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 78848.00 82588.00 3740.00 78848.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 120 October2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 576109.00 561762.00 14347.00
21 of 30 916442.00 930791.00 14349.00
22 of 30 982497.00 950408.00 32089.00
23 of 30 976631.00 1008720.00 32089.00
24 of 30 1067297.00 1011208.00 56089.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 56087.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.49 & at point Z17
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 106 & at point Z18
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 79435.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 26740.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C8)
Axis Bank 268899 27795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A12)
Syndicate Bank 83537 27640.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S8)
Total 82175.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs. 79435.00 82175.00 2740.00 79435.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 121 November2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 546339.00 531992.00 14347.00
21 of 30 881741.00 896088.00 14347.00
22 of 30 945763.00 914376.00 31387.00
23 of 30 940235.00 971622.00 31387.00
24 of 30 1030705.00 970994.00 59711.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 59711.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.49 & at point Z19
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z20
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 83059.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 31064.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C9)
Axis Bank 268899 27795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A13)
Syndicate Bank 83537 26940.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S9)
Total 85799.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.83059.00 85799.00 2740.00 83059.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 122 December 2006 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 527571.00 513224.00 14347.00
21 of 30 860766.00 875113.00 14347.00
22 of 30 926148.00 895031.00 31117.00
23 of 30 920510.00 951627.00 31117.00
24 of 30 1013476.00 953359.00 60117.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 60117.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.49 & at point Z21
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z22
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 83465.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 31470.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C10)
Axis Bank 268899 27795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A14)
Syndicate Bank 83537 26670.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S10)
Total 86205.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.83465.00 86205.00 2740.00 83465.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 123 January 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 510074.00 494727.00 15347.00
21 of 30 841247.00 856684.00 15437.00
22 of 30 910339.00 877132.00 33207.00
23 of 30 904686.00 937893.00 33207.00
24 of 30 998056.00 936849.00 61207.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 61117.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.49 & at point Z23
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 105 & at point Z24
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 84465.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 30740.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C11)
Axis Bank 268899 28795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A15)
Syndicate Bank 83537 27670.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S11)
Total 87205.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.84465.00 87205.00 2740.00 84465.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 124 February 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 508582.00 493235.00 15347.00
21 of 30 840338.00 855685.00 15347.00
22 of 30 908764.00 874677.00 34087.00
23 of 30 920202.00 954289.00 34087.00
24 of 30 998732.00 935645.00 63087.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 63087.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.50 & at point Z25
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 106 & at point Z26
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 86435.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 31740.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C12)
Axis Bank 268899 28795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A16)
Syndicate Bank 83537 28640.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S12)
Total 89175.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2740.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.86435.00 89175.00 2740.00 86435.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 125 March 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 534180.00 518863.00 15317.00
22 of 30 908751.00 924068.00 15317.00
23 of 30 974221.00 940164.00 34057.00
24 of 30 967211.00 1001268.00 34057.00
25 of 30 1057650.00 994593.00 63057.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 63057.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13448.00 At serial no.50 & at point Z27
946 Vikas Kashyap 9900.00 At serial no. 108 & at point Z28
Total : 23348.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 86405.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 31240.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C13)
Axis Bank 268899 28765.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A17)
Syndicate Bank 83537 28640.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S13)
Total 88645.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2240.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.86405.00 88645.00 2240.00 86405.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 126 April 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 30 557329.00 541667.00 15662.00
22 of 30 935209.00 950871.00 15662.00
24 of 30 1062515.00 997903.00 64612.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 64612.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.50 & at point Z29
946 Vikas Kashyap 10260.00 At serial no. 107 & at point Z30
Total : 24203.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 88815.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 31575.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C14)
Axis Bank 268899 29605.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A18)
Syndicate Bank 83537 30210.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S14)
Total 91390.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2575.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.88815.00 91390.00 2575.00 88815.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 127 May 2007 : Ex.DW2/D Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 12 of 29 611115.00 591453.00 19662.00 21 of 29 920325.00 940487.00 20162.00 23 of 29 1059370.00 984758.00 74612.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 74612.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.DW2/D Code 945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.52 & at point Z31 946 Vikas Kashyap 10260.00 At serial no. 107 & at point Z32 Total : 24203.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 98815.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 24893 34575.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C15) Axis Bank 268899 33605.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A19) Syndicate Bank 83537 33210.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S15) Total 101390.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 2575.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.98815.00 101390.00 2575.00 98815.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 128 June 2007 : Ex.DW2/A Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 12 of 28 613192.00 592030.00 21162.00 22 of 28 958401.00 979563.00 21162.00 23 of 28 1061960.00 991098.00 70862.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 70862.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.DW2/A Code 945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.52 & at point Z33 Anil Kumar 10260.00 At serial no. 113 & at point Z34 946 MV 922 Sooraj P. 10260.00 At serial no. 109 & at point Z35 Total : 34463.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 105325.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 24893 35010.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C16) Axis Bank 268899 35105.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A20) Syndicate Bank 83537 35210.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S16) Total 105325.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs.00 .00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.105325.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 129 July 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
12 of 28 604784.00 583622.00 21162.00
22 of 28 952067.00 973690.00 21623.00
23 of 28 1055996.00 984673.00 71323.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 70862.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.52 & at point Z36
Anil Kumar 10260.00 At serial no. 113 & at point Z37
946
MV
922 Sooraj P. 10260.00 At serial no. 109 & at point Z38
Total : 34463.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 105325.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35010.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C17)
Axis Bank 268899 35105.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A21)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35210.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S17)
Total 105325.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.105325.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 130 August 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 28 548408.00 547808.00 600.00
12 of 28 604310.00 583748.00 20562.00
21 of 28 916236.00 936798.00 20562.00
23 of 28 1056835.00 986573.00 70262.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 70862.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.51 & at point Z39
Anil Kumar 10260.00 At serial no. 112 & at point Z40
946
MV
922 Sooraj P. 10260.00 At serial no. 108 & at point Z41
Total : 34463.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 105325.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35010.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C18)
Axis Bank 268899 35105.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A22)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35210.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S18)
Total 105325.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.105325.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 131 September 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
11 of 28 617429.00 595457.00 21972.00
21 of 28 993286.00 1015258.00 21972.00
23 of 28 1145692.00 1073300.00 72392.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 72392.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 13943.00 At serial no.50 & at point Z42
Anil Kumar 10260.00 At serial no. 111 & at point Z43
946
MV
922 Sooraj P. 10620.00 At serial no. 107 & at point Z44
Total : 34823.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 107215.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35550.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C19)
Axis Bank 268899 35915.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A23)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35750.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S19)
Total 107215.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.107215.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 132 October 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 26 537702.00 516225.00 21477.00
19 of 26 882247.00 903724.00 21477.00
23 of 26 1023411.00 951874.00 71537.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 71537.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 14438.00 At serial no.44 & at point Z45
946 Anil Kumar MV 10620.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z46
922 Sooraj P. 10620.00 At serial no. 100 & at point Z47
Total : 35678.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 107215.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35550.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C20)
Axis Bank 268899 35915.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A24)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35750.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S20)
Total 107215.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.107215.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 133 November 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 27 530840.00 509393.00 21477.00
19 of 27 862107.00 883554.00 21477.00
21 of 27 1003131.00 931594.00 71537.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 71537.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 14438.00 At serial no.43 & at point Z48
946 Anil Kumar MV 10620.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z49
922 Sooraj P. 10620.00 At serial no. 99 & at point Z50
Total : 35678.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 107215.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35550.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C21)
Axis Bank 268899 35915.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A25)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35750.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S21)
Total 107215.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.107215.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 134 December 2007 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
10 of 27 512613.00 491166.00 21477.00
19 of 27 838450.00 859897.00 21477.00
21 of 27 983688.00 912151.00 71537.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 71537.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 14438.00 At serial no.43 & at point Z51
946 Anil Kumar MV 10620.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z52
922 Sooraj P. 10620.00 At serial no. 98 & at point Z53
Total : 35678.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 107215.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35550.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C22)
Axis Bank 268899 35915.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A26)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35750.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S22)
Total 107215.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.107215.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 135 January 2008 : Ex.PW9/12 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 10 of 27 526914.00 505437.00 21477.00 20 of 27 890826.00 912303.00 21477.00 21 of 27 1000477.00 928940.00 71537.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 71537.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/12 Code 945 Prakash 14438.00 At serial no.43 & at point Z54 946 Anil Kumar MV 10620.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z55 922 Sooraj P. 10620.00 At serial no. 98 & at point Z56 929 PS Jacob 8468.00 At serial no. 131 & at point Z57 Total : 44146.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 115683.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 24893 35550.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C23) Axis Bank 268899 35915.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A27) Syndicate Bank 83537 35750.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S23) ICICI Bank 01623 8468.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I1) Total 115683.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.115683.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 136 February 2008 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
8 of 26 406755.00 385308.00 21477.00
19 of 26 849338.00 870785.00 21477.00
21 of 26 1009434.00 922767.00 86667.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 86667.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 14508.00 At serial no.42 & at point Z58
946 Anil Kumar MV 10660.00 At serial no. 101 & at point Z59
922 Sooraj P. 10660.00 At serial no. 96 & at point Z60
929 PS Jacob 10660.00 At serial no. 97 & at point Z61
Total : 46488.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 133155.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35590.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C24)
Axis Bank 268899 35985.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A28)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35790.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S24)
ICICI Bank 01623 25790.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I2)
Total 133155.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.133155.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 137 March 2008 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
9 of 26 478687.00 457210.00 21477.00
19 of 26 840234.00 861711.00 21477.00
21 of 26 997775.00 910908.00 86867.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 86867.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 14508.00 At serial no.40 & at point Z62
946 Anil Kumar MV 10660.00 At serial no. 99 & at point Z63
922 Sooraj P. 10660.00 At serial no. 94 & at point Z64
929 PS Jacob 10660.00 At serial no. 95 & at point Z65
Total : 46488.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 133355.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 24893 35590.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C25)
Axis Bank 268899 35985.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A29)
Syndicate Bank 83537 35790.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S25)
ICICI Bank 01623 25790.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I3)
Total 133155.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.133155.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 138 April 2008 : Ex.PW9/11 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 9 of 26 520639.00 498847.00 21792.00 18 of 26 863222.00 885034.00 21812.00 20 of 26 1026911.00 939369.00 87542.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 87522.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/11 Code 945 Prakash 15003.00 At serial no.39 & at point Z66 946 Anil Kumar MV 11020.00 At serial no. 96 & at point Z67 922 Sooraj P. 11020.00 At serial no. 91 & at point Z68 929 PS Jacob 11020.00 At serial no. 92 & at point Z69 Total : 48063.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 135585.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 24893 36130.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C26) Axis Bank 268899 36795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A30) Syndicate Bank 83537 36330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S26) ICICI Bank 01623 26330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I4) Total 135585.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.135585.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 139 May 2008 :
Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference
Salary Bills be
9 of 26 515446.00 493654.00 21792.00
18 of 26 857504.00 879299.00 21795.00
20 of 26 1020666.00 933141.00 87525.00
Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 87522.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry
Code
945 Prakash 15003.00 At serial no.37 & at point Z70
946 Anil Kumar MV 11020.00 At serial no. 94 & at point Z71
922 Sooraj P. 11020.00 At serial no. 89 & at point Z72
929 PS Jacob 11020.00 At serial no. 90 & at point Z73
Total : 48063.00
Total increase of salary in salary records : 135585.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account
Vikas Ranha Account Statement
Centurion Bank 1308 36130.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C27)
Axis Bank 268899 36795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A31)
Syndicate Bank 83537 36330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S27)
ICICI Bank 01623 26330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account
Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I5)
Total 135585.00
Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.135585.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 140 June 2008 : Ex.PW9/8 & Ex.PW9/1 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 9 of 26 512399.00 490607.00 21792.00 20 of 26 930072.00 951864.00 21792.00 21 of 26 1051478.00 963956.00 87522.00 9 of 18 587668.00 582668.00 5000.00 Ministerial II Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 92522.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/8 Code 945 Prakash 15003.00 At serial no.37 & at point Z74 946 Anil Kumar MV 11020.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z75 922 Sooraj P. 11020.00 At serial no. 98 & at point Z76 929 PS Jacob 11020.00 At serial no. 99 & at point Z77 959 Surjeet Singh (Ministerial II) 17958.00 At serial no. 39 & at point Z78 Total : 66021.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 158543.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 36130.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C28) Axis Bank 268899 36795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A32) Syndicate Bank 83537 36330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S28) ICICI Bank 01623 26330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I6) Vijaya Bank 17657 22958.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V2) Total 158543.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.158543.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 141 July 2008 : Ex.PW9/7 & Ex.PW9/2 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 10 of 26 562520.00 540728.00 21792.00 20 of 26 944958.00 966750.00 21792.00 21 of 26 1074124.00 976602.00 97522.00 9 of 18 608832.00 591212.00 17620.00 Ministerial II Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 115142.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/7 Code 945 Prakash 15003.00 At serial no.41 & at point Z79 946 Anil Kumar MV 11020.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z80 922 Sooraj P. 11020.00 At serial no. 98 & at point Z81 929 PS Jacob 11020.00 At serial no. 99 & at point Z82 959 Surjeet Singh (Ministerial II) 17958.00 At serial no. 40 & at point Z83 Total : 66021.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 181163.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 36130.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C29) Axis Bank 268899 36795.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A33) Syndicate Bank 83537 36330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S29) ICICI Bank 01623 36330.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I7) Vijaya Bank 17657 35578.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V3) Total 181163.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.181163.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 142 August2008 : Ex.PW9/10 & Ex.PW9/6 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 10 of 26 567509.00 540267.00 27242.00 20 of 26 925034.00 983421.00 58397.00 22 of 26 1118981.00 998364.00 120617.00 9 of 18 609088.00 584893.00 24195.00 Ministerial II Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 113657.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/10 Code 945 Prakash 15003.00 At serial no.41 & at point Z84 946 Anil Kumar MV 11020.00 At serial no. 106 & at point Z85 922 Sooraj P. 11020.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z86 959 Surjeet Singh (Ministerial II) 17958.00 At serial no. 40 & at point Z87 Total : 89967.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 203624.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 42630.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C30) Axis Bank 268899 34966.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A34) Syndicate Bank 83537 41630.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S30) ICICI Bank 01623 42245.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I8) Vijaya Bank 17657 42153.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V4) Total 203624.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 00.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.203624.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 143 September2008 : Ex.PW9/9 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 10 of 26 898720.00 873907.00 24813.00 15 of 26 1203515.00 1228328.00 24813.00 16 of 26 1324945.00 1263228.00 61717.00 21 of 26 1578101.00 1639568.00 61467.00 22 of 26 1795001.00 1634442.00 160559.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 160809.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/9 Code 945 Prakash 27099.00 At serial no.42 & at point Z88 946 Anil Kumar MV 16660.00 At serial no. 108 & at point Z89 922 Sooraj P. 17580.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z90 929 PS Jacob 17113.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z91 Total : 78452.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 239261.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 50349.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C31) Axis Bank 268899 46352.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A35) Syndicate Bank 83537 50618.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S31) ICICI Bank 01623 51912.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I9) Vijaya Bank 17657 49478.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V5) Total 248709.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 9448.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.239261.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 144 October 2008 : Ex.PW9/13 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 10 of 26 865268.00 843455.00 24813.00 14 of 26 1095290.00 1120103.00 24813.00 15 of 26 1219237.00 1157520.00 61717.00 20 of 26 1440902.00 1502619.00 61717.00 22 of 26 1732418.00 1571609.00 160809.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 160809.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/13 Code 945 Prakash 27099.00 At serial no.42 & at point Z92 946 Anil Kumar MV 16660.00 At serial no. 108 & at point Z93 922 Sooraj P. 17580.00 At serial no. 103 & at point Z94 929 PS Jacob 17113.00 At serial no. 104 & at point Z95 Total : 78452.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 239261.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 50349.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C32) Axis Bank 268899 44352.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A36) Syndicate Bank 83537 50618.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S32) ICICI Bank 01623 51912.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I10) Vijaya Bank 17657 49478.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V6) Total 246709.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 7448.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.239261.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 145 November 2008 : Ex.PW9/14 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 9 of 26 765704.00 740891.00 24813.00 14 of 26 1013051.00 1037864.00 24813.00 15 of 26 1133998.00 1072281.00 61717.00 20 of 26 1350203.00 1411920.00 61717.00 22 of 26 1617834.00 1455525.00 162309.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 162309.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/14 Code 945 Prakash 27099.00 At serial no.40 & at point Z96 946 Anil Kumar MV 16660.00 At serial no. 106 & at point Z97 922 Sooraj P. 17580.00 At serial no. 101 & at point Z98 929 PS Jacob 17113.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z99 Total : 78452.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 240761.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 50349.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C33) Axis Bank 268899 44352.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A37) Syndicate Bank 83537 50618.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S33) ICICI Bank 01623 51912.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I11) Vijaya Bank 17657 50978.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V7) Total 248209.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 7448.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.240761.00 CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 146 December 2008 : Ex.PW9/15 Page No. Amount in Amount should Difference Salary Bills be 9 of 26 706048.00 683235.00 22813.00 14 of 26 951961.00 974774.00 22813.00 15 of 26 1071708.00 1013991.00 57717.00 20 of 26 1277931.00 1335648.00 57717.00 22 of 26 1545312.00 1383003.00 162309.00 Shown excess salary as per salary records vide totaling error : 162309.00 Amount shown in fictitious name in salary bills to increase the salary in records :
Emp. Name Amount Relevant entry in Ex.PW9/15 Code 945 Prakash 27099.00 At serial no.40 & at point Z100 946 Anil Kumar MV 16660.00 At serial no. 106 & at point Z101 922 Sooraj P. 17580.00 At serial no. 101 & at point Z102 929 PS Jacob 17113.00 At serial no. 102 & at point Z103 Total : 78452.00 Total increase of salary in salary records : 238761.00 Detail of amount transferred of increased salary in records :
Amount transferred in A/c No. Amount Relevant entry as per Bank Account Vikas Ranha Account Statement Centurion Bank 1308 50349.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW3/C at point C34) Axis Bank 268899 44352.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW11/C at point A38) Syndicate Bank 83537 50618.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW4/B at point S34) ICICI Bank 01623 51912.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW5/M at point I12) Vijaya Bank 17657 50978.00 (Corroborated as per Bank Account Statement Ex.PW12/E at point V8) Total 248209.00 Actual Salary of Vikas Rana as per Salary Bills : Rs. 7448.00 Total of amount transferred of increased salary in record (B) : Rs.240761.00 (Points Z1 to 103 have been put by the court during judgment dictation) CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 147
124. The above analysis of the salary bills as well as the bank account statements Ex.PW11/C (Axis Bank), Ex.PW4/B (Syndicate Bank), Ex.PW12/E (Vijaya Bank), Ex.PW3/C (Centurion Bank) and Ex.PW5/M (ICICI Bank) read alongwith TABLEIII clearly establishes that the salary in the names of exemployees were fraudulently and dishonestly raised in the salary bills showing incorrect total and the excess amount was adjusted in the salary of the exemployees as well as in the salary of the accused by altering the salary bills in the electronic form thereby, misappropriating public money and causing wrongful pecuniary advantage to the accused. Though some of the salary bills have not been proved but the accused has not disputed the same rather relied upon the same at the time of defence evidence. Also, if the salary bills which have not been proved on record are discarded, then only the amount misappropriated by the accused would be reduced, the offence of mis appropriation by the accused by altering the salary in the salary bills while preparing CD still stands proved as the salary bills for the month of February 2006, May 2007, June 2007, January 2008, April 2008, June 2008 to December 2008 have been proved on record.
125. It is no doubt true that so far as the evidence about the forgery of the salary bills is concerned, there is no evidence except the fact that the amounts were altered and the further fact that salary was prepared in the name of exemployees and the amount was credited in the bank accounts of accused. From these facts an inference could safely be drawn that it was the accused who forged the salary bills and obtained money in his accounts and pocketed the same. It is no doubt true that there is no evidence as to who forged the salary bills but the circumstances indicated above will lead to the only inference that it was the accused CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 148 who forged the salary bills while preparing the CD. In this view of the matter therefore, the acquittal of the accused for an offence under section 467 would not be justified.
126. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Here, it is worthwhile to reproduce the observations made by Vemkatachaliah, J., in State of U.P. Vs Krishna Gopal and Anr., (1988) 4 SCC 302 :
"Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehension. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concept of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice."
127. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 149 possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. However, the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations, as has been held by this court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Jagbir Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 :
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to ones imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge, the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
128. Similarly, in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., stated thus :
"The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt. The excessive solicitude reflected in the attitude that a thousand guilty men may go but one innocent martyr shall not suffer is a false dilemma. Only reasonable doubts belong to the accused. Otherwise any practical system of justice will then break down CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 150 and lose credibility with the community."
129. Ld. counsel for the accused has also argued that on the basis of fact that accused used to prepare salary bills, no liability can be fastened on the accused as the amount which was misappropriated was never entrusted to the accused and thus, the accused has never committed breach of trust and nor have misappropriated any amount.
130. However, this fact cannot be ignored that the salary bills were germane and foundation of the entire modus operandi and it was on the basis of salary bills that cheques were issued by DDO for excess amount and the excess amount was misappropriated and deposited in the various bank accounts of accused. The fact that the salary bills contained wrong total and the exact amount of excess of the correct total was adjusted in the salary of the exemployees as well as in the salary of the accused cannot be inadvertent mistake. The fact that the accused was the sole beneficiary clearly points towards the dishonest and fraudulent intention of the accused.
The Total Amount Transferred in Different Bank Accounts of Mr. Vikas Rana During the Period 01.11.2005 to 31.12.2008 is as under :
Account Name of Bank Branch Amount
1007010100268899 Axis Bank 1150959.00
1138101000001308 Centurion Bank Shahdara 1135563.00
1034301001623 ICICI Bank K.G. Marg 425261.00
190552010083537 Syndicate bank South Block 1163174.00
1601101010017657 Vijaya Bank R.K. Puram 313462.00
Total Rs.4188419.00
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 151
131. The salary to which the accused was entitled during this period is Rs.1,04,367/ from PMO. After deducting the same, it is established that the accused has misappropriated an amount of Rs.40,84,052/.
DEFECTIVE INVESTIGATION :
132. The defence has assailed the case of the prosecution on the ground that defective investigation has been carried out in the present case in as much as the sample handwriting of the accused was not sent to any Forensic Lab for expert opinion to establish that the following bank accounts pertains to the accused :
(i) Account no. 1007010100268899 in Axis Bank.
(ii) Account no. 1138101000001308 in Centurion Bank.
(iii) Account no. 1034301001623 in ICICI Bank.
(iv) Account no. 190552010083537 in Syndicate Bank.
(v) Account no. 1601101010017657 in Vijaya Bank.
133. It is also settled law that for certain defects in investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. This aspect has been considered in various decisions. In C. Muniappan and Others Vs State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, the following discussion and conclusion are relevant which are as follows :
"...............There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 152 faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation............"
134. In Dayal Singh and Others Vs State of Uttaranchal, 2012(8) SCC 263, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :
"Merely because PW3 and PW6 have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the requirements of law, and there has been some defect in the investigation, it will not be the benefit of the accused persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground.........."
135. In Gajoo Vs State of Uttarakhand, 2012(9) SCC 532, while reiterating the same principle again, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused should not be an aspect of material consideration by the Court. In Sathi Prasad Vs State of U.P., Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence given in court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. In Dhanaj Singh Vs State of Punjab, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that in the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 153 in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
136. PW19 has clearly deposed that sample handwriting of the accused was obtained in his presence on 28.01.2009. The case diary have also been perused by the court and it is revealed that sample handwriting of the accused was obtained. IO Insp. Vinay Malik during his crossexamination has been evasive and stated that he does not remember whether sample handwriting of the accused was obtained or not. Despite the fact that sample handwriting of accused was obtained on 28.01.2009, the same was not sent to any forensic lab for examination alongwith the account opening forms nor the same have been placed on record alongwith the chargesheet. The same have rather been withheld from the court by the IOs for the reasons best known to them. From 19.01.2009 to 04.04.2009, the investigation was with IO Insp. Vinay Malik and on 05.03.2009, he had handed over all the documents to the chartered accountant for analysis. From 04.04.2009, the investigation was with ACP Sh. P.K. Mishra (now DCP) and he had filed the chargesheet. Both these IOs were responsible for not sending the sample handwriting alongwith other documents for handwriting expert opinion and have withheld the same from court deliberately. The accused was also liable for disproportionate assets but none of IOs recommended a case against him for possessing disproportionate assets.
137. The court considers that in the present case, though illegality has been committed by IO, yet the case cannot be thrown out on this ground only. It is a settled proposition that the illegality committed in the course of investigation, does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 154 the court for trial, and it would not vitiate the result unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby. Reliance can be placed on H. N. Rishbud & Ors. Vs State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 and Hema Vs. State, 2013 (3) S.C.R. 1, wherein it was reiterated that due to some defect in the investigation, and lapse on the part of IO, the accused cannot be acquitted. It is for the court to scrutinize and evaluate the case in its entirety, dehors such lapses. The accused thus, cannot have the benefit of defective investigation. The Commissioner of Police is however, directed to initiate departmental action against the IOs i.e. Insp. Vinay Malik and DCP P.K. Mishra for withholding material documents from court and also for not sending the sample handwriting alongwith other relevant documents for expert opinion.
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS :
138. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the name Surjeet Singh in whose name allegedly the accused has also siphoned off/misappropriated government money, is missing and it is not in the report of CA Ex.PW13/B. He further argued that as per the report Ex.PW13/B, there is difference in the salary bills and as well as different from the report of CFSL from the hard disk Ex.P2 to Ex.P6. PW13 has clearly stated during his crossexamination that there is no difference in the amount of manipulation between these two reports if the amount is taken monthwise. But in the second report as some data received in CFSL report was missing and due to missing of salary data, the difference in total could not be compared. He has further stated that they have reconciled the difference in their second report very clearly. Thus, the difference, if any, is due to the missing data in the hard disks.
CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 155However, the corresponding data is available from the records of RBI and various bank account statements and the hard copy of the salary bills and thus, does not affect the merits of the case.
139. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also relied upon the internal audit reports MarkDW5/DA to MarkDW5/DD wherein the general observation about the account maintenance is "very good" or "excellent" and has argued that even during the audit no such observation was made that there was any embezzlement or about any ghost employee or excess payment made to ghost employee. Even as per MarkPW5/DD, condition of the maintenance of the accounts is satisfactory. Merely because the auditor did not note any discrepancy, the accused cannot take benefit of the same. The offence against the accused has been clearly proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through various other evidence and such remarks as "very good" or "excellent" in the internal audit report would not absolve the accused of his deeds. CONCLUSION :
140. It has thus, been proved that accused Vikas Rana has committed offence under section 409/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the basis of :
(i) Salary bills.
(ii) Records of Reserve Bank of India.
(iii) Reports of Chartered Accountant.
(iv) Bank Account Statements of various banks alongwith account opening forms etc.
141. On the basis of the evidence led on record, the prosecution has been able to prove that accused Vikas Rana had prepared forged salary bills in the name of fictitious employee and exemployees namely Prakash, Vikas Kashyap, Anil Kumar M.V., Sooraj, P.S. Jacob, Surjeet CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 156 Singh and also prepared his own salary by inflating salary amount and transferred the said salary in his various accounts and thus, appropriated salary amount of Rs.40,84,052/ by misusing his post and duties entrusted to him being a public servant and thus, committed offences under section 409/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt and the accused has not been able to prove his defence even to the extent of preponderance of probability. Thus, accused Vikas Rana is held guilty for the offence under section 409/467/468/471 IPC and section 13(1)
(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
142. This court appreciates the diligent and hard work of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Manoj Kumar Garg, attached to this court who had provided outstanding cooperation alongwith latest judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts which have assisted this court in the interpretation and appreciation of facts and law in right perspective.
143. The court also appreciates the court mannerism and polite nature of the Ld. Defence counsel Sh. Paramjeet Singh and further appreciates his efforts in bringing meticulously to the notice of the court the voluminous evidence during the final arguments in the present case.
144. Copy of this judgment be also sent to Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Delhi. Digitally signed KIRAN by KIRAN BANSAL Announced in the open court BANSAL Date: 2019.12.24 on this 23rd December, 2019. 10:45:23 +0530 (Kiran Bansal) Special Judge (PC Act) ACB01 Rouse Avenue Court Complex, Central District, Delhi CC No.182/19 State Vs Vikas Rana 157