Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Y. P. Sharma Etc. Judgement Dt. ... on 29 January, 2016
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03
UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CC No. 26/11
Case ID No. 02403R0459442005
RC No. 16(A)/2001/ACB/CBI/ND
U/s 120B, 420 & 468 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
of PC Act 1988
Central Bureau of Investigation
Vs.
1 Y. P. Sharma S/o K. L. Sharma
R/o H. No. A77, Indirapuri,
PO Loni, Ghaziabad, UP.
2 Chandreshwar Manjhi, S/o Lt. J.N. Manjhi
R/o H. No. D100 (Old)/ D174,
New Saurav Vihar, Hari Nagar Ext.,
Jaitpur Road, Badarpur, New Delhi
3 Om Prakash Narang, S/o Sh. Tulsi Das Narang
R/o WZ43/3A, Krishna Puri,
Gali No. 12, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi18
4 Jai Kumar Singal, S/o Sh. Deep Chand
R/o Village & PO Kumaspur,
Teh. Sonepat, Haryana.
5 Rakesh Lal Chand Kawale S/o Sh. Lal Chand Kawale
..... (Expired)
(i) R/o 801, Tagore Road Hostel,
CC No. 26/11 Page 1 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Minto Road Complex, New Delhi
(ii) Sidharth Nagar, Compity Road,
BB Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Nagpur
[Proceedings against him stand abated vide order dated
01.03.2011 (read with order dated 13.01.2012)].
6 J. P. Sharma, S/o Sh. Guru Dev Sharma
R/o A58, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi110052
7 Shiv Sagar Naik, S/o Sh. P. Naik
(i) R/o H. No. 331, SectorIX,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi
(ii) Village & PO Tamal,
Via ONP Line, Zila Samalpur, Orria
8 Lachi Ram S/o Sh. Inder Singh ....(Expired)
R/o H. No. 241, Village Khera Kalan,
Near Mohan Bus Adda, Delhi82
(Proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated
22.05.2012)
9 Jeet Ram Sharma, S/o Sh. Roop Ram Sharma,
R/o Qrs No. 1037, Sec. 5,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi
10 B. M. Ghosh, S/o Late L. K. Ghosh,
R/o 523, Sewa Bhawan,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi
11 Om Prakash S/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
CC No. 26/11 Page 2 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
R/o 2A/97B, Lajpat NagarII,
New Delhi.
12 Om Prakash S/o Sh. Amir Singh
R/o 194, Jagdish Colony,
Near Pump House, Rohtak, Haryana
13 Bhagwan Singh, S/o Sh. Bishal Mani .... (Expired)
R/o 91A, Sector8,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi
(Proceedings against him stood abated vide order dated
28.11.2013)
14 I. Yashudanan S/o Sh. Satyananda,
(i) R/o 813, SectorIV, R. K. Puram,
New Delhi
(ii) H. No. 511325, 12 Tapas Street,
Rajinder Nagar, Rajamissionary,
District East Godavari,
Andhra Pradesh533103
15 Hayat Singh S/o Late Kunwar Singh
R/o Ar. No. 735, Sector7,
R. K. Puram, New Delhi
16 Natha Ram Suman, S/o Kali Ram Suman
R/o Qtr. No. 773, SectorII,
R.K. Puram, New Delhi
17 S. K. Aggarwal, S/o K. L. Aggarwal
R/o 139, SFS, Shakti Apartments,
Ashok Vihar PhaseII, New Delhi
CC No. 26/11 Page 3 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Date of filing of chargesheet : 30.09.2005
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 18.12.2015
Date of announcement of judgment : 29.01.2016
J U D G M E N T :
1. This case was registered on the basis of complaint of Sh. M.E. Haque (PW24), Secretary & Vigilance Officer, Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, R. K.Puram, New Delhi against officials of Central Water Commission (CWC) and Pay & Accounts Office. It was alleged in the complaint [Ex.PW24/A (D2)] that a special audit was conducted by an internal and audit division of Controller of Accounts on the basis of a pseudonymous complaint received by the Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Water Resources alleging that fraudulent payments have been made to officials by the Account Office, DDO, CWD. One of the serious irregularities was wrong drawl of pay and allowances to the tune of Rs.23,67,951/ from July 1999 to March 2000, out of which a sum of Rs.19,30,893/ was claimed to have been refunded by the concerned official through challans, which were found to be fake on 23.11.2000 by the special audit team. Significantly, on 24.11.2000, the same amount was deposited by the cashier of CWC which clearly implied that the earlier CC No. 26/11 Page 4 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 challans were fake.
As regards the balance amount, a sum of Rs.1,12,004/ was found to be paid in a regular manner but balance amounts of Rs.2,16,506/, Rs.49,548/ and Rs.59,000/ were neither refunded nor regularized. Several irregularities were also noticed wherein payments were released to unconcerned persons which prima facie established that staff and officials of CWC, in connivance with the officials of P&AO, defalcated government money by making false and forged bills and vouchers.
On the complaint Ex.PW24/A, the crux of which has been stated as above, the FIR Ex.PW54/A was registered by CBI and investigations started.
2. INVESTIGATION Investigation has revealed that officers/ officials of PAO and Account Section of CWC had entered into criminal conspiracy to defraud Government money by raising fictitious bills supported with fake sanction orders and got them passed and further fraudulently withdrew Govt. money through PAO cheques issued in the names of existing/non existing and private persons.
CC No. 26/11 Page 5 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 After investigation the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons, who are officials of Central Water Commission.
3. PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN OFFICE OF DDO AND P&AO OFFICE Investigation revealed that P&AO/ CWC has 8 sections. Original bill received from DDO/ CWC are given token number and sent to concerned section for processing. After passing of the bill, cheque is prepared by the cheque writer and finally signed by the P&AO. Records pertaining to list of payments/ cheque delivery to DDO, preparation of bank drafts and dispatch of bank drafts to the respective DDOs were maintained in the office of P&AO. Original paid bills were retained in the old record room under the custody of Senior Accountant and Asstt. Account Officer (Admn.).
It was also revealed that issued cheques are delivered to authorized persons of DDO on duly signed slip, which was pasted on the paid bill/ voucher. Register of cheque delivered in the prescribed proforma CAMII was maintained in pay and account office. Entry in the register of cheques delivered were made at the final stage of supplying CC No. 26/11 Page 6 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheques to the concerned DDO. It was also known as List of Payment.
It was also revealed that DDO/ CWC presents all bills for the whole CWC organization at Delhi to P&AO/ CWC for passing and payments. There were four Account Sections dealing with various categories of employees for preparation of salary bills and pay arrears etc. Each Section was headed by a Section Officer. The monthly salary bills were computerized and prepared in duplicate. The original was sent to P&AO for passing and payment and the office copy was retained in the respective Account Section for record. Necessary entries regarding the pay and allowances for each month in respect of each employee was made in the pay bill register which was to be initialed by the DDO to authenticate the accuracy. Apart from the regular salary bill, other bills were prepared manually on the basis of sanction issued by the concerned Establishment Section. These bills were also prepared in duplicate. The original bill was sent to P&AO for passing and payment and the office copy was retained in the respective Account Section for record. Entries of all such bills were also to be entered in the Pay Bill Register as per Rules before the bills are sent to P&AO. They were signed by the DDO and then passed on to P&AO through a register known CC No. 26/11 Page 7 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 as the Bill Transit Register or Bill Diary Register. Each bill was given a bill number and entered in a register known as the Bill Register in form GAR9. This register contained column for entering the details of the bill drawn, presented to P&AO payments received and disbursement made every month. When a bill was passed by P&AO the payment was received by way of cheque either in the name of the DDO or the individual concerned depending upon the practice. If a cheque was received from P&AO in the favour of DDO, the same was encashed by the cashier from the Bank after the DDO had signed on the reverse of the cheque. The bank disbursed cost on the basis of a letter given to the bank authorizing the cashier to collect the cash from the Bank. When a cheque was received from the P&AO in the name of an individual, the same was handed over to him after obtaining his dated signature on a revenue stamp in a prescribed acquittance. Once the cheque in favour of DDO was encashed from the Bank, payments were disbursed to the concerned after preparing necessary acquittance. The acquittance contained the bill number against which the amount was drawn and the name and designation of the individual. The payment was made after obtaining his dated signature. After this was done, necessary entries with regard CC No. 26/11 Page 8 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 to the payment was made against the cheque received in the cash book maintained by the Cashier. Cheque received from the P&AO in favour of the DDO was entered in the cash book on the receipt side and when payments were made the entries was made on the payment side. Receipt side and payment side should tally, except in cases where payment against a bill had not been made. Payments which had not been made were then entered in a register known as register of undisbursed pay and allowances in form GAR25. As per rules, undisbursed amount can be kept for a period of one month only (and in exceptional cases upto three months). After this period, the undisbursed amount was refunded through a challan in the prescribed form and a copy of the challan was sent to the P&AO for necessary action. Pay Bill Register in form GAR17 was to be maintained. This was in the form of a ledger and one folio was allotted to each member of the staff. The folio contained all the columns required for claiming of the pay and allowances, payment/ recovery of advances etc. When monthly Pay bill was prepared, entry was made in each folio and initialed by the DDO. Arrears of pay and allowances on account of pay fixation etc. were to be drawn by preparing a due and drawn statement and then the bill was sent to P&AO duly signed by CC No. 26/11 Page 9 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 the DDO. The due and drawn statement is also to be signed by the DDO.
Arrears of pay and allowances in the case of transferred officials arising for the earlier period were to be drawn by the new office. The due and drawn statement will be prepared and sent to the DDO of the previous office who will make a note in the office copy of the pay bills/ pay bill register and record a certificate to that effect on the statement. Only on receipt of the statement duly certified, the new office will draw the arrears.
4. SANCTION TO PROSECUTE THE PUBLIC SERVANTS UNDER SECTION 19 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 The competent authorities accorded sanction to prosecute the accused persons. The cognizance was taken in view of the said sanction orders under Section 19 of PC Act 1988. For the purpose of brevity, relevant details are given in the following chart :
Accused Name / Post Sanctioning Authority Ex.
A1 Y.P. Sharma, Ambrish Kumar, Director PW19/A
RA(S) (Administration), CWC, Govt. (mistakenly
of India marked as
Ex.PW19/B in
the sanction
CC No. 26/11 Page 10 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
order)
A2 Chandreshwar No sanction was required as
Manjhi, Retired he had already retired Section Officer A3 Om Prakash Satpal, Director PW17/A Narang, UDC (Administration), Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India A4 Jai Kumar Singal, J. Hari Narayan, Secretary, PW18/A Assistant Ministry of Water Resources, on behalf of Hon'ble President of India A5 Ramesh Lal Chand Expired. Hence, sanction Kawale was not proved.
A6 J. P. Sharma, Since he had already retired Retired Deputy before filing of the charge Director. sheet, no sanction was required.
A7 Shiv Sagar Nayak, J. Hari Narayan, Secretary, PW18/C Section Officer Ministry of Water Resources, on behalf of Hon'ble President of India A8 Lachi Ram Expired. Hence, sanction was not proved.
A9 Jeet Ram Sharma, Sanjeev Aggarwal, PW20/A Junior Computer Superintending Engineer, CWC A10 B.M. Ghosh, Extra R. Jeyaseelan, Chairman, PW21/A Assistant Director CWC A11 Om Prakash s/o R. Jeyaseelan, Chairman, PW21/B Sohan Lal, CWC Draftsman A12 Om Prakash s/o No sanction was required as Amir Singh, he had already retired Retired Deputy before filing of the charge Director sheet.
A13 Bhagwan Singh, Ambrish Kumar, Director PW19/B
CC No. 26/11 Page 11 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Junior Computer (Administration), CWC, Govt. (mistakenly
of India marked as
Ex.PW19/A in
the sanction
order)
A14 I. Yashudanan, J. Hari Narayan, Secretary, PW18/B
Assistant Director Ministry of Water Resources, on behalf of Hon'ble President of India A15 Hayat Singh, Peon Thanglemliam, Under PW22/A Secretary, CWC A16 Natha Ram C. R. Sundaramurti, Ex.PA1 Suman, Senior Additional Controller General (witness not Accounts Officer of Accounts. examined as the sanction was admitted to be correct by the accused) A17 S. K. Aggarwal, No sanction was required as Retired Pay & he had already retired Accounts Officer before filing of the charge sheet.
The aforesaid sanctions have been proved by PW19 to PW22. The sanction order of A16 was admitted by accused and is Ex.PA1.
At the stage of final arguments the question of the sanction was examined by me thoroughly and had perused the testimonies of the witnesses indicated as above, who had proved the sanction and I found no discrepancy/ irregularity in the same.
I may point out here that none of the accused CC No. 26/11 Page 12 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 persons had questioned the competence of the sanctioning authority or nonrequirement of sanction for the retired officials at the stage of final arguments.
5. CHARGE On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, after hearing arguments, charge was framed against all the accused persons u/Sec. 120B IPC r/w 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Sec. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(c) & (d) of PC Act as well as under the substantive offences u/Sec. 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC and U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(c) & (d) of PC Act 1988.
All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
I would like to mention here that Ld. Defence Counsels have drawn my attention to the charge framed in this matter, which shows the conspiracy period from July 1999 to March 2000 and therefore it is argued that the transactions prior to the said period and after the said period should be excluded from consideration.
I disagree with their submissions. In the first line of the charge, the period has been mentioned from July 1999 to March 2000. However, this is only an inadvertent error.
CC No. 26/11 Page 13 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The perusal of the entire charge shows that my Ld. Predecessor has mentioned every transaction specifically. Such acts, which have been so specifically described in the charge, will have to be considered by this court even if the same are prior to July 1999 or after March 2000. The charge framed by my Ld. Predecessor describes the acts of the accused persons spanning for the period 1998 to 2000. Hence, this is the duration of the conspiracy.
6. ACCUSED PERSONS, WHO DIED DURING TRIAL Following accused persons dies during trial and proceedings against them abated :
S.No. Name of Accused Expired on Proceedings abated on
1. Ramesh Lal Chand 08.06.2010 01.03.2011 Kawale (A5)
2. Lachi Ram (A8) 28.01.2012 22.05.2012
3. Bhagwan Singh (A13) 30.09.2013 15.01.2014
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE Prosecution examined in all 54 witnesses, which are as under :
PW Name of Witnesses Paging File
No. Part
PW-1 Kanhiya Lal, Asstt. Manager, SBI, 45-49 Part B
CC No. 26/11 Page 14 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Nangol Dairy Branch
PW-2 Malik Chand Sobti, Retd. Sr. Branch 51-53 Part B
Manager, UCO Bank
PW-3 I. S. Gujral, Spl. Assistant (Retd.), 55-57 Part B
Canara Bank
PW-4 Anil Kathuria, Spl. Assistant, 59-61 Part B
Allahabad Bank, Uttam Nagar
PW-5 Brij Kishore Sharma, Clerk, Delhi 63-65 Part B
State Co-operative Bank
PW-6 Gulshan Ahuja, Bank Officer, Bank Of 67 Part B
India, Khan Market Branch
PW-7 Om Prakash Sharma, Canara Bank, 69 Part B
Model Town Branch
PW-8 R. K. Chadha, Asstt. Manager, SBI, 71-73 Part B
Subhash Nagar
PW-9 J. L. Sharma, Manager, Syndicate 75-77 Part B
Bank, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad
PW- R. P. Lekhi, Branch Manager, DTC, 79-81 Part B
10 Mayapuri
PW- M. Jinaradadasa, Manager, Syndicate 83-85 Part B
11 Bank, Chandosi Branch
PW- Ashok Kumar Kathpal, Manager, 87-91 Part B
12 Syndicate Bank, Meeraghati Branch,
Karnal, Haryana
PW- Suraj Lal, Assistant, SBI 93-95 Part B
13
PW- Brij Bhushan Sharma, Manager 97-105 Part B
14 (Canteen), O/o CWC, Seva Bhawan
PW- Surinder Kumar, Sr. Accountant, 107- Part B
15 Institute of Govt. Accounts and 109
Finance, Ministry of Finance, Ber
Sarai, Delhi
PW- Rattan Lal, Sr. Accountant, CWC, 111- Part B
16 Sewa Bhawan 117
PW- Sat Pal, the then Director, Ministry of 119- Part B
17 Water Resources, New Delhi. 121
CC No. 26/11 Page 15 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
PW- J. Hari Narain, Secretary, Ministry of 123- Part B
18 Water Resources. 125
PW- Ambrish Kumar, Director (Admin)., 127 Part B
19 CWC, Sewa Bhawan
PW- Sanjay Aggarwal, Director, CWC 129 Part B
20
PW- R. Jayaseelan, Chairman, CWC 131 Part B
21
PW- Thanglemlian, Deputy Secretary, 133 Part B
22 Dept. of Youth Affairs, Shashtri
Bhawan
PW- T. K. Sarkar, Retd. Dy. Manager, SBI 135- Part B
23 137
PW- M. E. Haque, Member (WP & P), CWC 139- Part B
24 151A
PW- A. S. Gautam, Sr. AO, PAO, CWC 153- Part B
25 163
PW- R. C. Tulley, Under Secretary, 165- Part B
26 Ministry of Co-operative Affairs, 191
Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi
PW- Madhav Ram, LDC, CWC, Accounts-I 193- Part B
27 201
PW- I. S. Ranga, DM, SBI, Local Head 203- Part B
28 Office, Parliament Street, New Delhi 205
PW- B. S. Yadav, Pay & Accounts Office, 207- Part B
29 CWC 227
PW- N R Meena, AAO, Reginoal Pay & 229- Part B
30 Accounts Office, CWC 253
PW- N. C. Jain, Spl. Assistant, PNB, ECE 255 Part B
31 House, CP, New Delhi
PW- S. P. Garg, Director (Retd.), CWC 257- Part B
32 259
PW- I. S. U. Puram, Sr. Assistant (Retd.), 261- Part B
33 SBI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi 263
PW- Vijay Kumar Sethi, Assistant 265- Part B
34 Manager, UCO Bank 267
CC No. 26/11 Page 16 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
PW- Chetan Mukund Pandit, CWC 269- Part B
35 273
PW- P. K. Rooprai, Sr. Accounts Officer, 275- Part B
36 CWC 277
PW- Ombir Singh Rathi, UDC, DDA, Vikas 279 Part B
37 Sadan
PW- Mangal Dass, Sr. Accountant in PAO, 281- Part B
38 CWC 283
PW- Ram Yagya Tiwari, Accounts Officer, 285- Part B
39 CWC 289
PW- Kamal Kumar Sharma, Junior Clerk, 291- Part B
40 Dy. Director, Fisheries 295
PW- Sunit Prakash, Sr. Manager, Canara 297- Part B
41 Bank 299
PW- Sunil Kumar, Working in Chemist 301- Part B
42 Shop 307
PW- J. R. Behl, Account in Controller of 309 Part B
43 Accounts, Ministry of Water
Resources
PW- Subhash Chander, Asstt. Fitter, DTC, 311- Part B
44 Hari Nagar Depot-I 317
PW- Nawal Kishore Bhalla, Sr. Accounts 319 Part B
45 Officer(Admn.), CWC
PW- IPS Bhatia, Dy. Manager, SBI, R. K. 321- Part B
46 Puram 325
PW- Chander Shekhar, S/o accused J. P. 327- Part B
47 Sharma 331
PW- K. P. Gupta, Deputy Controller of 333- Part B
48 Accounts, Ministry of Water 343
Resources
PW- Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari 345- Part B
49 347
PW- B. V. Jagdish Kumar, Pvt. Secretary, 349- Part B
50 Office of Unique Identification 357
Authority, RO, Hyderabad.
PW- T. Joshi, Scinetific B, AGEQD, CFSL, 359- Part B
51 Chandigarh 389
CC No. 26/11 Page 17 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
PW- Yashpal Ghera, AAO, Ministry of Civil 391- Part B
52 Aviation and Tourism, Indian Airlines 393
Complex, Safdarjung Airport, New
Delhi.
PW- Shri Bhagwan, Inspector, 395- Part B
53 ACBI/CBI/ND 399
PW- R. S. Bedi, Inspector, ACBI/CBI/ND 401- Part B
54 481
I have already mentioned in brief the sanctioning authorities in a chart in earlier part of this judgement. I will discuss the evidence of remaining witnesses while considering the role of each accused.
8. STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S 313 CrPC Accused Ramesh Lal Chand Kawale (A5) and Lachi Ram (A8) had died during the stage of the prosecution evidence, hence, there was no question of recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.PC. Bhagwan Singh (A13) was ill at this stage. Therefore, his counsel Sh. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate answered the questions to statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC. However, thereafter A13 expired and therefore, his statement is now not relevant for the purpose of decision.
Statements of remaining accused persons under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded.
CC No. 26/11 Page 18 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
9. DEFENCE EVIDENCE None of the accused examined any witness in defence.
Final arguments were heard. The role, evidence, submissions of parties and my opinion on the same pertaining to each accused is being discussed now.
10. POWERS OF POLICE TO TAKE HANDWRITING SAMPLE DURING INVESTIGATION Ld. Defence Counsels have referred to Sapan Haldar & Anr. Vs. State 191(2012) Delhi Law Times 225 of High Court of Delhi decided on 25.5.2012 and submit that the Investigating Officer had no power to take/ specimen signatures. On the other hand, Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has referred to Ravinder Kumar @ Dara Singh Vs Republic of India AIR 2011 SC 1436 in which Supreme Court of India held that Investigating Officer had power to take specimen signatures during investigation.
I have considered the rival contentions. The Supreme Court of India, in State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors. AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1808, considered this issue in detail and held that police does not require the CC No. 26/11 Page 19 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 permission of the Magistrate before taking the specimen hand writing of an accused during investigation. Relying upon the ratio of Kathi Kalu case, Supreme Court of India in a recent judgement Ravinder Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India AIR 2011 SC 1436, where a question was raised about the admissibility of the specimen signatures of the accused taken during investigation by police without permission of the Magistrate, has held that taking of specimen signatures/writings of accused for examination by expert during investigation, without permission of the Magistrate, is proper and report of expert based on such signatures/writings can be used as evidence against the accused. In this judgment, the Supreme Court had also noticed Section 311A CrPC, brought by a recent amendment of 2006. Relevant portion of para no. 35 of this judgment contain the rival submission put before it, which is reproduced as under :
"Another question which we have to consider is whether the Police (CBI) had the power under the CrPC to take specimen signature and writing of A3 for examination by the expert. It was pointed out that during investigation, even the Magistrate cannot direct the accused to give his specimen signature on the asking of the police and only in the amendment of CC No. 26/11 Page 20 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 the CrPC in 2005, power has been given to the Magistrate to direct any person including the accused to give his specimen signature for the purpose of investigation. Hence, it was pointed out that taking of his signature/writings being per se illegal the report of the expert cannot be used as evidence against him. To meet the above claim, learned Addl. Solicitor General heavily relied on a 11Judge Bench decision of this court in the State of Bombay V. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors. (1962) 3 SCR 10: AIR 1961 SC 1808. This larger Bench was constituted in order to reexamine some of the propositions of law laid down by this Court in the case of M. P. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi and Ors., (1954) SCR 1077: (AIR 1954 SC 300)."
The Supreme Court of India then upheld the view of Orissa High Court which had held that police had power to take specimen signatures of accused during investigation. The question of applicability of "Sapan Haldar" of High Court of Delhi in face of law laid down by Supreme Court of India was examined by our own High Court in Rekha Sharma Vs. CBI in Crl. A. 124/2013 and other connected appeals, decided on 5.3.2015. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that judgement in Sapan Haldar case was contrary to the CC No. 26/11 Page 21 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, I find no illegality in taking of specimen signatures of the accused persons by the CBI during investigation.
11. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF OPINION OF HANDWRITING EXPERT It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the opinion of hand writing expert can not be the sole basis for convicting an accused and that at the most it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsels that convicting an accused on the opinion of hand writing expert would be a highly dangerous proposition. I would like to discuss the law on this issue.
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down that when the court has to form an opinion as to the identity of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of the persons expert in that science are relevant facts. If the two hand writings match with each other, this itself is an evidence as per the Indian Evidence act. To say it differently, the matching of two hand writings is itself a substantial evidence u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the opinion of the hand writing expert is sought only to facilitate the court to form an opinion on this point. Therefore, to say CC No. 26/11 Page 22 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 that conviction can be or cannot be based solely upon the report of hand writing expert would be misleading. The appropriate interpretation of Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act is that court is competent to form its own opinion on the point of identity of hand writing and for that purpose the court may call for the report of a hand writing expert. Therefore, the relevant fact before this court is the matching or non matching of the hand writing of an accused with the questioned hand writing. If the hand writings match, there cannot be any hitch in convicting the accused even if further corroborative evidence is not available. I quote from the judgment dated 5.7.2011 passed by the division Bench of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhatt and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. P. Mittal in Jaipal Vs State Criminal appeal No. 137/98 and Rajendra Vs State Criminal Appeal No. 181/98 as under :
"it is true that except the handwriting Expert's report Ext.PW4/A there is no corroboration that the ransom letter Ext.PW12/A was in the handwriting of Appellant Jaipal. The question was dealt in detail by the Supreme Court in Murari Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1980 SC
531. The Court observed that handwriting expert is not an accomplice and there is no justification for condemning his opinion evidence. It was held that if the Court is convinced from the report of an expert that the questioned handwriting was of the accused, there is CC No. 26/11 Page 23 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 no difficulty in relying upon the expert's opinion without any corroboration."
The above quoted paragraph shows that High Court of Delhi had relied upon Murari Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 1980 SC 531 wherein Supreme Court held that there was no rule of law nor any rule of prudence that the evidence of handwriting expert must not be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. I would like to quote from this judgment extensively as under:
"An expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinionevidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion on a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnessthe quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witness, but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of fingerprints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically nonexistent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty is to furnish the judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence. (para 4) CC No. 26/11 Page 24 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Expert testimony is made relevant by S.45 of the Evidence Act and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person 'specially skilled' in questions as to identity of handwriting is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the Evidence Act, as for example like illustration (b) to S. 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the Court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion is unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The Evidence Act itself (S.3) tells that 'A fact is said to be provided when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.' Further, under S. 144 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that S. 46 of the Evidence Act makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(Para 6) There is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystalised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence through a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. (Cases law discussed).CC No. 26/11 Page 25 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 (Para 11) 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. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the Court. Where there is none, the Court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative text book and the Court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence.
(Para 12) In view of the above stated law, I am of the opinion that when a case is being pressed by the prosecution solely on the basis of handwriting expert, the court should be very cautious and the reasons for the expert opinion must be carefully examined. In case where reasons for opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt upon it, the testimony of handwriting expert may be accepted.
12. ADMITTED / SPECIMEN and QUESTIONED SIGNATURES / HANDWRITINGS Investigating Officer collected the admitted handwritings of A1, as he had refused to give specimen signatures/ handwritings. Investigating Officer also took CC No. 26/11 Page 26 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 specimen handwritings of remaining accused persons as well of some of witnesses. PW51 T. Joshi, the handwriting expert gave his reports Ex.PW51/B1 and Ex.PW51/B3 and his detailed reasons Ex.PW51/B2 and Ex.PW51/B4, after comparing the specimen handwritings and questioned handwritings/ signatures. In following chart, I have culled the questioned handwritings/ signatures, which matched with the admitted/ specimen handwritings/ signatures of the accused persons.
Sr. Name of Accused Specimen/ Admitted Questioned writings /
No. Writings/ Signatures Signatures, which matched
1 Y.P. Sharma A1 to A9 Q69, A70A, Q71, Q72,
(Ex.PW51/232) Q73, Q74, Q421/1,
(D602) Q422/1, Q423 to Q431,
Q433 to Q440, Q442,
A11 & A12 Q443, Q446, Q447, Q449
(Ex.PW51/233) to Q455, Q455A, Q457,
(D251) Q459, Q583, Q607, Q607A
and Q608A
2 C. Manjhi S132 to S135 Q463, Q474, Q481, Q491,
(Ex.PW31/A) Q494B, Q498, Q509, Q517,
(D571/4) Q518, Q523, Q527, Q528,
Q554, Q555, Q558, Q564,
Q566, Q567, Q618/1 and
Q631 to Q636.
3 O. P. Narang S170 to S172 and Q94 to Q105, Q107 to
S175 to S188 Q113, Q114, Q115 to
[Ex.PW51/218 Q175, Q201, Q207, Q208,
(colly)] (D573/16) Q419, Q420 and Q422 and Q615 (Q615 specifically matches with S176) 4 J. K. Singhal S38 to S41, S189 Q478A, Q487A, Q494A, to S195 Q616, Q617, Q621, Q622 CC No. 26/11 Page 27 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 [Ex.PW51/216 and Q623.
(colly)] (D569/40) (NOTE : S189 has been inadvertently typed as S184 in statement dated 03.10.2012 of PW51.) 5 R. L. Kawale S42 to S46 Q53 to Q68 (Ex.PW51/223) (D42/5) 6 J.P. Sharma S196 to S233 Q70/1, Q71/1, Q72/1, (Ex.PW51/219) Q73/1, Q74/1, Q75 to (D574/38) Q90, Q92 and Q93 and Q457A, Q457B, Q459A and Q459B 7 S. S. Naik S64 to S112 Q367 to Q389 and Q391 to [Ex.PW51/224 Q402 (colly)] (D579/49) 8 Lachi Ram 9 Jeet Ram Sharma S234 to S252 Q559, Q560, Q561 and (Ex.PW51/220) Q562 (D575/19) 10 B. M. Ghosh S275 to S286 and Q569, Q570, Q571, Q578 S285/1 and Q593 to Q606 (Ex.PW51/222) (D577/13) 11 Om Prakash s/o Sohan Lal 12 Om Prakash s/o Amir Singh 13 Bhagwan Singh 14 I. Yashudanan 15 Hayat Singh S140 to S143 Q408 to Q413 and Q415 to (Ex.PW51/225) Q418 (D580/4) CC No. 26/11 Page 28 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 16 N. R. Suman S124 to S131 Q209 to Q212 and Q338 (Ex.PW51/217) S127 and S128 Q485, Q524, Q525, Q553 (Ex.PW51/217) and Q568 (D570/8) 17 S. K. Aggarwal S137 to S139 Q306 to Q313, Q315, and S144 to S157 Q317, Q320, Q321, Q322, (Ex.PW37/A) Q322A, Q323 to Q337, (D572/19) Q339 to Q355 and Q357 to Q366 (Second report Second Report : Ex.PW51/B3) : Q460, Q464 to Q470, S148 to S155, S Q478, Q483, Q484, Q486, 296/1 & S297/1 Q487, Q493, Q494, Q499 to Q505, Q510, Q511, Q609 to Q614, Q614A and Q637 to Q641 I may point out that although PW51 was cross examined, but nothing came on record to challenge or cast any doubt on the correctness of the opinion of PW51. I have carefully seen the specimen signatures/ handwritings and the questioned signatures/ handwritings and perused the reasons given by this expert which are convincing. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the authorship of the questioned handwritings.
13. Y. P. Sharma (A1) General arguments on behalf of A1
(a) Sh. R. P. Verma, adv. For A1 has drawn my CC No. 26/11 Page 29 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 attention to answer of A1 under Section 313 CrPC to the question no. 74. Answering this question, A1 stated that false case was filed against him at the instance of Inspector R. S. Bedi (PW54), who had nurtured bias against him because of the refusal to give specimen writings and signatures. The matter was reported by him to Sh. R. K. Gauba, the then Ld. Special Judge. Hence, it was argued that out of anger Investigating Officer falsely implicated A1 in the present case.
My findings I have considered this submission. It is true that A1 had made a complaint of physical injury by Investigating Officer to the Court at the time of his production. The order dated 8.2.2000 shows that when Investigating Officer sought police remand of A1, serious allegations were made against the Investigating Officer stating that A1 was subjected to third degree method after arrest resulting in fracture of one of his fingers. Sh. R. K. Gauba, the then Ld. Special Judge refused to grant police remand and sent A1 to judicial custody for three days only. Accused Y. P. Sharma was produced again on 11.2.2002 before Ld. Special Judge. In deference to the directions by Ld. Special Judge, CBI handed over the matter to U. K. Goswami, Inspector for the purpose CC No. 26/11 Page 30 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 of interrogation of A1. The order dated 11.2.2002 shows that police remand of A1 was declined by Ld. Special Judge and he was remanded to judicial custody, permitting the Investigating Officer to interrogate the accused in judicial custody.
From this situation, it is clear that sufficient steps were taken at very initial stages to prevent any third degree means by Investigating Officer. Therefore, the bias of Investigating Officer, if any, can be pointed out by the accused by showing as to in what manner the investigation was prejudicial to A1. No material has been shown by Ld. Defence Counsel to convince this court that Investigating Officer had not brought on record any material evidence or has brought on record any false evidence. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the submissions that the Investigating Officer was biased against A1.
(b) It is further argued by Ld. defence counsel that prosecution has not been able to prove handwritings i.e. A1 to A9 (Ex.PW51/232). Ld. defence counsel submits that A1 has nowhere admitted the said handwritings nor prosecution has adduced any evidence to prove the said handwritings. It is therefore argued that when prosecution has not been able to prove the handwritings/signatures A1 to A9 having been CC No. 26/11 Page 31 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 written/sign by A1, nor were ever admitted by A1 during trial, the matching of specimen handwriting with the same is meaningless.
My findings I disagree with the submissions. The personal file of A1 was received by the Investigating Officer vide letter dated 10.12.2004 (Ex.PW54/Z23) (D601) from Central Water Commission, where A1 was employed. The personal file of Y. P. Sharma (Ex.PW51/232) (D602) contains the signatures of Y. P. Sharma, which are A1 to A9. PW26 R. C. Tulley, who had worked in CWC as Section Officer from 1992 to 2006, has proved D602, which is a personal file of Y. P. Sharma. Since this is a record maintained during the normal course of official business, it is for Y. P. Sharma to show that the same does not contain his signatures & handwritings. In crossexamination to the Investigating Officer (PW54), it was nowhere suggested that the service file does not contain his handwriting and signatures. Therefore, it stands proved that A1 to A9 are the handwritings/signatures of A1 and the comparison of the same with questioned handwritings/ signatures by GEQD will deliver the correct results. As per the testimony of PW51 T. Joshi, Scientific B, AGEQD, CFSL has proved his report Ex.PW51/B1 and the detailed reasons CC No. 26/11 Page 32 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 which are Ex.PW51/B2. Although I have already mentioned in a chart as to what question handwritings/signatures match with the specimen signatures of which accused, still at the cost of repetition, I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the report Ex.PW51/B1 as under :
"The person who wrote the blue enclosed writings and signatures stamped and marked A1 to A9, A11 and A12 also wrote the red enclosed writings and signatures similarly stamped and marked Q69, Q70A, Q71, Q72, Q73, Q74, Q421/1, Q422/1, Q423 to Q431, Q433 to Q440, Q442, Q446, Q447, Q449 to Q455, Q455A, Q457, Q459, Q583, Q607, Q607A and Q608A."
It is pertinent to note that in crossexamination the Investigating Officer (PW54) stated that accused Y. P. Sharma refused to give his specimen signatures and the matter was referred to the court of Ms. Nisha Saxena, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and there also he refused to give his specimen signatures. In view of this refusal this court has no option but to drawn an inference that the signatures and handwritings on all the questioned documents attributed by prosecution to him, have been written by A1.
Allegations in the chargesheet :
The allegations contained in the charge sheet CC No. 26/11 Page 33 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 against A1 have been bifurcated by me and I discuss the allegations, submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel and my findings on each of the allegations as under :
Allegation no.(I) It is alleged that accused Y. P. Sharma had deposited fraudulently issued P&AO CWC cheques in the account of R. L. Kawale, Director, CWC. Y. P. Sharma had received the funds, so credited through two cheques and on six occasions in cash.
As per prosecution case, investigation has revealed that 8 cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO CWC amounting to Rs.5,12,857.00 were credited in his bank account on 42861 maintained with SBI R.K. Puram, details of which are as follows. It include details of the cheque issued out of the funds so fraudulently credited in favour of other accused persons, as well which was encashed by them. B. V. Jagdish Kumar (PW50), the then LDC, used to assist Y. P. Sharma in maintenance of PBR of Dy. Director and Directors. He admitted that on the advice of Y. P. Sharma, he deposited three govt. cheques in the bank account of R.L. Kawale. GEQD has confirmed that 3 payinslips are in the handwriting of B.V. Jagdish Kumar.
CC No. 26/11 Page 34 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 S. A/c No. & Date Cheque Credit Debit Issued Encashed No. Bank of No. Amount Amt. in /deposi R.L. favour ted by Kawale of 1 A/c No. 19.5.99 P&AO/CW 84,804 Govt. Cheque 42861, C/Cheque cheques No. not SBI, No. mentioned R.K.Puram 239617 # on Payin slip 24.5.99 119067 64,800 Y.P. Cheque Sharma deposited in SB A/c no. 9580 of Y.P. Sharma in Syndicate Bank, R. K.Puram 2 23.6.99 P&AO/CW 60,015 R.L. Deposited C/Cheque Kawale /filled by No. B. V. 240421 Jagadesh (PIS) 28.6.99 119071 50,000 Y.P. Sharma 3 2.9.99 P&AO/CW 67,445 Govt. By B. V. C/Cheque Cheque Jagdesh No. 242361 2.9.99 535678 67,000 Y.P. Co Sharma accused Y.P. Sharma encashed 4 25.9.99 P&AO/CW 62,000 Pay in slip C/Cheque filled and No. signed by 274501 Y.P. Sharma CC No. 26/11 Page 35 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 25.9.99 535679 62,000 Y.P. Co Sharma accused Y. P. Sharma 5 29.10.99 P&AO/CW 59,458 Pay in slip C/Cheque deposited No. by Y. P. 275474 Sharma 30.10.99 59,000 Y.P. Co Sharma accused Y. P. Sharma encashed 6 9.12.99 P&AO/CW 56,194 Pay in slip C/Cheque signed by No. B.V. 276266 Jagesh Kumar 14.12.99 56,000 Y.P. Enclsoed Sharma by Y. P. Sharma & B.V. Jagadesh Kumar 7 6.1.00 P&AO/CW 51,480 Pay in slip C/Cheque bear the No. initial of 277093 Y. P. Sharma 7.1.00 51,000 Y.P. Sharma 8 31.1.00 P&AO/CW 71,455 Pay in slip C/Cheque signed by No. Y. P. 277696 Sharma 27.1.99 9 7.2.00 70,000 Y.P. Encashed Sharma by Y. P. Sharma CC No. 26/11 Page 36 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Accordingly R. L. Kawale was beneficiary of the funds fraudulently obtained in conspiracy with other co accused persons. In pursuance of the conspiracy he shared the funds so obtained with other accused persons in favour of whom he issued cheque, against fund fraudulently credited to his account.
Submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel It is argued by Ld. defence counsel for A1 that if A1 had deposited the cheques in the name of R. L. Kawale in the account of Sh. R. K. Kawale, the same cannot be said to be fraudulent because a cheque in the name of a person has to be deposited in the bank account of such person. Likewise, withdrawing of money by cheque issued by any account holder from his personal bank account also does not amount to an offence. It is argued that all these transactions were done by A1 on behalf of the account holder/ cheque holder namely Sh. R. L. Kawale and the money drawn from his account either by A1 or by PW50. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that in cross examination PW50 has admitted that a cheque in the sum of Rs.622/ was also issued in the name of PW50, which was deposited in his bank account in the similar manner and therefore PW50 himself is an accomplice and accordingly his testimony should not be CC No. 26/11 Page 37 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 relied upon.
My findings First of all I would refer to relevant portion of testimony of PW50 B. V. Jagdish Kumar, who was LDC in Account SectionIII in CWC as under :
"Accused Y. P. Sharma was posted as Programme Assistant. He was the dealing hand and used to prepare the bills above the rank of Dy. Director.
During my posting with accused Y. P. Sharma I had seen him signing and writing. While I was working with accused Y. P. Sharma, I used to make entries in the pay bill register given by me. I had also deposited the account payee government cheques issued by PAO.
I have seen D277 which is a cheque issued by Sh. R. L. Kawale in favour of Sh. Y. P. Sharma. This cheque bears the signatures of accused Y. P. Sharma in the back side at point A. I had encashed the aforesaid cheque from the State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, Delhi by signing at point B on the back side of the cheque Ex.PW50/A and handed over the said amount to accused Y. P. Sharma.
Today I have seen the three payinslips D266, D 268 and D271. These pay in slips were filled and signed by me at point A and the cheque nos. mentioned therein were deposited by me n the account no. 42861 of Sh. R. L. Kawale. The pay in slips are Ex.PW50/B1 to B3.....
Today I have seen the cheques D274 to D279 issued by R. L. Kawale from his account no.42861 in favour of accused Y. P. Sharma. I identify the signatures of accused Y. P. Sharma on the back side of cheques at point A. The said cheques are Ex.PW50/D1 to D5 and already Ex.PW50/A. The cheque Ex.PW50/A was encashed by me and the amount of the said cheque was handed over by me to accused Y. P. Sharma.
I have seen the four pay in slips D267, D269, D 270 and D273. Vide these pay in slips, the amounts and the cheques mentioned therein were deposited by accused Y. P. Sharma in the account of R. L. Kawale bearing A/c no. 42861. I identify the initials of accused Y. P. Sharma at point A. the pay in slips are Ex.PW50/E1 to E4."
CC No. 26/11 Page 38 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 I have perused the pay in slips D266 to D273. As per evidence of PW51 (GEQD) in his opinion Ex.PW51/B1 and Ex.PW51/B3, the handwriting and signature at Q205 in payinslip (D266) (Ex.PW50/B1), is in hand of PW50. Same is the situation of handwriting/ signatures at Q204 in D271 (Ex.PW50/5B3) and Q206 in D266 (Ex.PW50/B2).
These two payinslips i.e. D266 and D268 show that PW50 had deposited two cheques no. 242361 for Rs.67,445/ and cheque no. 276266 for Rs.56,194/ in the bank account no. 42861 in State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, of R. L. Kawale (A5).
The payinslip (D267) (Ex.PW50/E1) at Q448, is in handwriting of Y. P. Sharma, initialed by Y.P. Sharma at point 'A' as testified by PW50. The handwriting and signatures of Y. P. Sharma have also been identified by PW50 at D269 (Ex.PW50/E2), at D270 (Ex.50/E3) and D273 (Ex.PW50/E4) at points 'A'. Perusal of payinslip (D267) shows that A1 deposited cheque no. 274501 for a sum of Rs.62,000/ in the bank account of A5. Perusal of payinslip (D270) shows that A1 deposited cheque no. 277696 dated 25.01.2000 for a sum of Rs.71,455/ in the bank account of R. L. Kawale (A5). Similarly, through payinslip (D273), A CC No. 26/11 Page 39 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 1 deposited a cheque no. 275474 for a sum of Rs.59,458/ in the bank account of R. L. Kawale (A5).
The above quoted testimony of PW50 also shows that the cheques issued by R. L. Kawale in favour of Y. P. Sharma, which are from D274 to D279 (Ex.PW50/D1 to Ex.PW50/D5) and Ex.PW50/A have been withdrawn by Y. P. Sharma, whose signatures are present at point 'A' on the backside of the said cheques. The signatures of Y. P. Sharma at point 'A' on the said cheques are Q69, Q70A, Q71 to Q74.
All these evidence of payinslips show that various cheques were deposited by Y. P. Sharma in the account of R. L. Kawale (A5) (since expired) and thereafter R. L. Kawale issued the aforesaid cheques in the name of Y. P. Sharma, who encashed the same. I tabulate as under the amounts withdrawn by Y. P. Sharma (A1) from the bank account of R. L. Kawale (A5) as under :
Sr.No. D. No. Exhibit Amount
1 D274 PW50/D1 67,000/
2 D275 PW50/D2 62,000/
3 D276 PW50/D3 59,000/
4 D277 PW50/A 56,000/
5 D278 PW50/D4 51,000/
6 D279 PW50/D5 70,000/
CC No. 26/11 Page 40 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
The depositing of the said amounts by way of cheques and their encashment is duly reflected in the statement of bank account No. 042861, State Bank of India, R. K. Puram Branch. However, the relevant witness was not examined probably due to death of R. L. Kawale (A5). Still the aforesaid payinslips and withdrawals prove the deposition of the cheques and withdrawal of the various amounts by Y. P. Sharma.
Now, it has to be seen as to what are the cheques which were deposited by Y. P. Sharma (A1) in the bank account of R. L. Kawale (A5).
The original cheques which were deposited by Y. P. Sharma (A1) through the aforesaid payinslips in the bank account of A5, could not be traced by the Investigating Officer. However, the payinslips mention the cheques numbers. From the aforesaid payinslips the cheque numbers have been checked and I find that same tally with the cheque numbers mentioned in the tabular chart above.
In order to prove that the aforesaid cheques deposited in the bank of R. L. Kawale were issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17) and that the same were government cheques, the prosecution has examined PW16 Sh. Rattan Lal, Senior Accountant, CWC, whose relevant testimony is as CC No. 26/11 Page 41 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 under :
"I joined CWC in the year 1996 as accountant. In the year 1998 I was accountant. I know Sh. S. K. Aggarwal accused present in the court. He was my immediate boss. I used to prepare the cheques of CWC as per the instructions of accused S. K. Aggarwal. I have seen the cheque books containing the counter foils. .....
In the cheque book Ex.PW16/A3 the entry of cheque..... In the cheque book Ex.PW16/A4 the entry in respect of cheque no. 242361 in the name of R. L. Kawale for an amount of Rs.67445/ .......
In the cheque book Ex.PW16/A7 the entry in respect of cheque no. 4275474 .... in the name of R. N. Kawale for an amount of Rs.59548/ were made by Sh. N. R. Meena. ....
...... Entry in respect of cheque no. 276267 in the name of R. L. Kawale for an amount of Rs.56194/ is in my hand writing. The entry is at point Z. In the cheque book Ex.PW16/A11 the entry in respect of cheque no. 277093 in the name of R. L. Kawale for an amount of Rs.51480/ ....."
Similarly, prosecution has also examined PW29 B. S. Yadav, the Pay & Accounts Officer, (on 09.12.2011) saw the counterfoil of D364 and testified that cheque no. 274501 for Rs.62,000/ was issued in the name of R. L. Kawale in lieu of DD Mark X12. The said cheque book counterfoil was proved as Ex.PW29/B and the entry in the counterfoil at point 'A'. He testified that the said cheque was issued to Sh. Kawale as House Building Advance.
I have perused this entry in the counterfoil and in the requisite column, it is specifically written "HBA", which CC No. 26/11 Page 42 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 supports the aforesaid testimony. This shows that cheque no. 247501 as reflected in the aforesaid chart was a government cheque.
It is alleged by prosecution that cheque no. 275474 in the sum of Rs.59,458/ dated 27.10.1999 is D59 (Ex.PW51/46) and has been proved to have been issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), in the name of R. L. Kawale (A5). This is also a government cheque. I have already discussed that these cheques were deposited in the bank account of R. L. Kawale (A5). There is no explanation by A1 as to how he got those and why R. L. Kawale gave two cheques to Y. P. Sharma. These cheques are issued by A17, who has no explanation as to on what account the same were issued.
Allegation No. II As per prosecution, a bank draft in the name of A. V. Reddy in the sum of Rs.62,000/ was issued, but it was not delivered to him. It is alleged that A1 picked it up and thereafter got it converted into a government cheque in the name of R. L. Kawale (A5), deposited the same in the bank account of A5 and thereafter withdrew the same amount. My findings I would like to refer to the testimony of PW29 B. S. Yadav, the Pay & Accounts Officer (CWC). Relevant CC No. 26/11 Page 43 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 portion of which I reproduce as under :
"As per Ex.PW15/A at sl. no. 5361 i.e register of DD vide cheque no. 242670 dated 17.09.1999 bank draft bearing no. 846597 dated 18.09.1999 in favour of A. V. Reddy payable at Nagpur was got issued from the bank and according to this register the said draft was received by sh. Y.P. Sharma. The same is marked X11 for identification. I have seen xerox copy of the said bank draft in file Ex.PW23/A as page no. 66. The same is marked as X12 for identification.
I have seen counterfoil of D364, according to that cheque no. 274501 for Rs.62,000/ was issued in the name of R.L. Kawale in lieu of DD marked X12. The said cheque book counterfoil is marked Ex.PW29/B and the said entry in the counterfoil is marked at point A. The said cheque issued to Sh. Kawale as House Building Advance."
I have perused the register of DD (D556), which is Ex.PW15/A. The entry no. 536 shows that a draft no. 242670 dated 17.09.1999 in the sum of Rs.62,000/ was issued in the name of A.V. Reddy, but the same was taken by Y. P. Sharma. As per testimony of PW29, the photocopy of the said draft is Mark X12 in file Ex.PW23/A. Photocopy of a slip (Mark X10) find a mention that the draft was wrongly prepared and a cheque of the said amount was issued to R.L. Kawale. The original of this Mark X10 is not available, but fact that it is on department's record is enough to reach to a conclusion as to how the draft in the name of A. V. Reddy was converted into a government cheque in the name of R. L. Kawale. It is pertinent to note that draft was issued by State Bank of India and if it was wrongly prepared, it could have CC No. 26/11 Page 44 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 been cancelled. Y. P. Sharma is required to explain as to why he took the said draft and in what circumstances a fresh cheque 274501, dated 25.09.1999 was issued. It is clear that Y. P. Sharma misused this draft, got it converted into a fresh cheque of Rs.62000/ in the name of R. L. Kawale, deposited the same in the bank account of R. L. Kawale. The cheque dated 24.09.1999, Ex.PW50/D2 in the sum of Rs.62,000/ shows that it was issued by R. L. Kawale in the name of Y. P. Sharma. The stamp of "paid" is dated 25.09.1999, which shows that Y. P. Sharma got it encashed the day when the government cheque was deposited by Y. P. Sharma vide pay inslip Ex.PW50/E1.
This gamut of evidence proves beyond doubt that the aforesaid draft in the name of A. V. Reddy was taken by Y. P. Sharma fraudulently, a cheque in the sum of Rs.62,000/ was issued by Pay & Accounts Office fraudulently in the name of R. L. Kawale. However, this cheque came in possession of Y. P. Sharma, who had deposited the same in the bank account of R. L. Kawale on 25.09.1999. Y. P. Sharma had taken the cheque Ex.PW50/D2 from R. L. Kawale one day in advance i.e. on 24.09.1999 in anticipation that a cheque in the name of R. L. Kawale will be issued in the sum of Rs.62,000/.
CC No. 26/11 Page 45 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 All this evidence proves beyond doubt that A1 was had dishonest intentions while performing aforesaid acts and was fully involved with other coaccused persons including A17 in pilferage of Government money.
Allegation no. (III) Accused Y. P. Sharma had deposited in his bank account huge cash of Rs.1,15,000/, Rs.80,000/, Rs.60,000/ in the month of March 1999.
Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Regarding depositing of these amounts by A1 in March 1999 in his personal bank account, it is argued by Ld. defence counsel that the period of conspiracy is between July 1999 to August 2000. It is submitted by Ld. counsel for A1 that since the aforesaid amounts were deposited before the period of conspiracy, the aforesaid deposits by A1 cannot be taken in account for the purpose of this trial.
My findings I disagree with this submission and I have already held that period of conspiracy is from 1998 to 2000.
However, after perusal of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to CC No. 26/11 Page 46 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 connect the aforesaid amounts with the crime in question.
Allegation No. (IV) On 30.08.1999, A1 deposited cash of Rs.7,25,000/ in his personal account and withdrew Rs.8,45,000/.
Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Same as in allegation no.(ii) My findings After perusal of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to connect the aforesaid amounts with the crime in question.
Allegation No. (V) A1 had also received Rs.20,000/ & Rs.35,000/ through cheques from coaccused O. P. Narang.
My findings Submissions would be considered while discussing the role of Om Prakash Narang (A3).
Allegation No. (VI) Y. P. Sharma (A1) has prepared six slips and initialled them for issuance of open cheque in favour of DDO CC No. 26/11 Page 47 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 I in lieu of 21 A/c payee cheques.
These allegations would be examined by me under a separate head dealing with conspiracy between A1 and other coaccused.
Allegation No. VII He had prepared fake pay arrears of Rs.54,202/, in the name of Om Prakash (A11) (draftsman gradeI) showing him as Deputy Director falsely.
Submissions of accused It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for A1 that the bill was presented to P&AO by accused C. Manjhi, DDO and that A1 prepared the arrears on the basis of the said bill. My findings I have considered these submissions. Evidence is not on record to connect A1 with preparation of the said fake arrears.
Allegation No. VIII He had prepared fake pay arrears of Rs.74,874/, in the name of B. M. Ghosh (A10), Extra Assistant Director showing him as Deputy Director falsely. Submissions of accused Same as in respect of Om Prakash.
My findings I have considered these submissions. I have considered these submissions. Evidence is not on record to CC No. 26/11 Page 48 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 connect A1 with preparation of the said fake arrears.
14. CHANDRESHWAR MANJHI (A2) As per prosecution case, accused Chandreshwar Manjhi while functioning as DDOI, CWC in pursuance of the conspiracy in order to defalcate Govt. funds forwarded fake bills supported with fake documents to P&AO CWC for passing of payment which were not recorded in the bill register.
This accused was DDO and his postings have been proved by Investigating Officer as Ex.PW54/Z10, which is as under :
"Shri C. Manjhi, SO (Retd) 1.12.97 to 6.7.98 AccountsI section, CWC 7.7.98 to 11.12.2000 AccountsIII Section, CWC"
This has not been challenged by A2 anywhere. This shows that he was not an inexperienced person so far as the Accounts Department is concerned.
Allegations in the charge sheet Allegation No. I It is submitted by Ld. Prosecutor that accused C. Manjhi signed and sent seven undated and CC No. 26/11 Page 49 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 bearing no dispatch number slips along with 21, out dated/ old cheques to P&AO for issue of cheque in favour of DDOI. Accused S.K. Aggarwal issued seven cheques in favour of DDOI. The disbursement of payment against thereof was shown to different persons by the accused J. K. Singhal (Casher) in conspiracy with C. Manjhi, and Y.P. Sharma. On the slips Sh. N. R. Meena, Sr. Accountant had recorded that cheques have been handed over to Sh. S. K. Aggarwal. Details of the said 21 cheques is as follows :
S.No. Cheque Date Amount Cheque issued in favour of/ No. Remark 1 241,546 28.7.99 15533/ RK Khanna 2 239,148 12.8.98 157/ TK Sadhu 3 238,023 26.3.99 14563/ BRK Pillai 4 235,679 21.12.98 8077/ PS Arvindakshan 5 238,526 31.3.99 2600/ R Devasahayam 6 237,347 26.2.99 600/ CL Baj 7 236,999 19.2.99 672/ KSS Namboodri Pad 8 TOTAL 42,202 A fresh cheque no. 0189289 dated 14.9.99 for Rs.42,202 was isseud in favour of DDOI /CWC and payment was made to Sunil Kumar 9 278,285 25.2.2001 15609/ SC Gupta / DDOI 10 Fresh cheque no. 039426 dt.
2.3.2000 for Rs.15069/ was issued in favour of DDOI/ by Dev Raj, Sr.AO, and receipt and disbursement not entered in Cash Book.CC No. 26/11 Page 50 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 11 274,327 20.9.99 1470/ ASP Sinha 12 241,289 23.7.99 10324/ ASP Sinha 13 242,251 25.8.99 10960/ ASP Sinha 14 274,492 23.9.99 11695/ ASP Sinha 15 TOTAL 34,449 A fresh cheque no. 018424 dated 25.10.99 for Rs.34,449/ was issued in favour of DDOI /CWC and payment was made RP Gupta, Chandersekhar and Narender Kumar 16 242,509 8.9.99 50110/ NWDA A fresh cheque no. 018298 dt.
16.9.98 for Rs.50,110/ was issued in favour of DDOI/CWC and payment was made in the name VS Khatri by the cashier 17 242,881 17.9.99 646/ HC Chaudhary 18 274,738 28.9.99 6,160/ VS Rao 19 275,562 4.11.99 31200/ M Ram 20 242,709 17.9.99 735/ MS Baig 21 241,201 23.7.99 10359/ MS Baig 22 242,713 17.9.99 1470/ AK Bhatia 23 TOTAL 50,570 A fresh cheque no. 018530 dt.25.11.99 for Rs.50,570/ was issued in favour of DDOI /CWC and payment was made to VS Rao, Chandreshwar, Naresh Kumar, Om Prakash 24 241,420 26.7.99 15558/ SN Chaudhary 25 241,351 23.7.99 15573/ HS Chaudhary 26 31,131 A fresh cheque no. 018394 dated 14.10.99 was issued in f/o DDOI and the payment was made to Rakesh Kumar Gupta, DD.
My observations CC No. 26/11 Page 51 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The aforesaid issue will be discussed when I take up the question of conspiracy with other coaccused persons.
Allegation No. II He had forwarded fake pay arrears bill of Rs.54,202/ and Rs.74,874/ on the name of Om Prakash and B.M. Ghosh, showing their designation as Deputy Directors falsely and projecting their high basic pay Rs.15,100/ and Rs.14,400/ of Jan. 96. As per PBR Record the basic pay of Shri Om Prakash D/M Gr.I was Rs.6900/ in Jan. 2004. And basic pay of Shri BM Ghosh, EAD was Rs.9,700/ as on August 1998.
Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Ld. Defence Counsel argues that when large number of due drawn statements are required to be signed by DDO, he has to rely upon his staff, who has prepared the same.
My findings The due drawn statement Ex.PW51/12 pertaining to Om Prakash is signed by A2 at Q527.
The due drawn statement Ex.PW51/13 pertaining to B. M. Ghosh is signed by A2 at Q528.
Both the statements also bear initials at Q526 and Q529, which as per prosecution are that of Y. P. Sharma CC No. 26/11 Page 52 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 but neither any witness could identify his signatures nor the handwriting expert gave any opinion on the same.
However, from the initials, it appears that some officials subordinate to DDO must have prepared the due drawn statements. As per prosecution, these amounts are the arrears of 5th Pay Commission. In such a scenario, large number of Due Drawn Statements must have been prepared and possibility of bonafide error on part of A2 cannot be ruled out.
General submissions on behalf of A2 Sh. P. N. Dhar, adv. has drawn my attention to the statement under Section 313 CrPC of A2 and submits that he is only a matriculate and due to schedule caste/tribe quota the applicant was promoted to the post of Section Officer/DDO and no training for that purpose was given by the Department. It is submitted on behalf of A2 that the accused was art student and having no knowledge of the accounts and merely followed the prevailent practice while working as DDO relying upon input given to the accused by the subordinates. Moreover, the files after completing all procedure by the subordinate staff were sent to accused for approval and after endorsing the signature, the file was sent to the PAO office for further checking and doing CC No. 26/11 Page 53 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 needful. Moreover, the accused forwarding, the bills bonafidely submitted to him by the subordinate employees for passing the same as per rules to PAO. The accused has no knowledge about the misuse of the bills as stated by the CBI hence the accused cannot be made liable for lapses of other employees. Whatever bills or cheques were forwarded for revalidation was bonafide, nothing else. Moreover, the CBI has also not stated or proved through any documents placed on record that the accused has directly or indirectly benefited from forwarding the bills.
Ld. Defence Counsel has placed on record the copies of four judgements of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, Ld. Special Judge, who was pleased to acquit this accused on the ground that there was no direct evidence against C. Manjhi to show their dishonest intention nor there is any evidence that he got any pecuniary advantage and accordingly A2 was acquitted in the said case. It is submitted that similar circumstances are obtaining in the present case.
My observations I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel and have perused the copies of the aforesaid judgements filed by Ld. Defence counsel. Although the said CC No. 26/11 Page 54 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cases are in respect of same type of conspiracy but material before this court is much more than the said decided cases. Therefore, acquittal of A2 in the aforesaid case will not automatically lead to his acquittal in the present case. The evidence available on this file will have to be sifted to reach to a conclusion as to whether A2 was one of the conspirators or not. If he was part of conspiracy, it is immaterial as to whether prosecution is able to prove any pecuniary advantage to him. However, this aspect will be considered by me in later part of the judgement.
15. Jai Kumar Singhal (A4) Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel Ld. Defence counsel has referred to Rakesh Kumar Vs. State, 2004 (1) JCC 110 of High Court of Delhi and Sukhvinder Singh And Others Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 152 and submitted that the only evidence against this accused is the evidence of handwriting expert. It is further submitted that it would be highly unsafe to convict an accused on the basis of report of handwriting expert.
I have considered the submissions and I have already dealt with this issue in earlier part of the judgement CC No. 26/11 Page 55 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 by referring to Murari Lal Vs. State of MP, AIR 1980 SC 531.
Allegation No. 1Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that J. K. Singhal, Asstt., while working as Cashier in CWC deposited fraudulently issued 8 cheques as detailed below of P&AO CWC amounting to Rs.8,62,544/ in his bank accounts maintained with SBI RK Puram and Syndicate Bank Sonepat. One of the cheque was in the name of his wife Smt. Kamlesh. It was also deposited by him in his joint account with his wife in the Syndicate Bank Sonepat. The bills relating to these 8 cheques have not been made available either by CWC or P&AO being not available. Further, these cheques have been disbursed without mentioning in the acquittance roll. Jai Kumar Singal Date of credit Clearing Ch. No. Amount A/c No. 126205 19.3.99 237735 dated 18.3.99 86,065 with SBI R. K. Puram 27.3.99 238125 dated 26.3.99 129,801 22.4.99 239010 dated 22.4.99 98,546 10.5.99 239491 dt. 7.5.99 135,671 29.5.99 240060 dt. 27.5.99 86,955 27.10.99 275095 in the name of 76,500 SBI RK Puram.
7.1.2000 277099 dt. 6.1.2000 53,340 A/c No. 6956 in 277100 dt. 6.1.2000 41,166 Syndicate Bank, Sonipat of JK Singal and Smt. Kamlesh CC No. 26/11 Page 56 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The cash book maintained by him revealed that he had received two cheques in the name of DDOI for Rs.1,36,560/ and Rs.1,52,192/ in Jan./Feb.2000 for further disbursement. However, cash book falsely indicates that these cheques have been remitted back to the Govt. Account through challan no. 278 and 287 respectively. In fact he misrepresented the facts, made false entries and embezzled these amounts. GEQD opinion confirmed his handwriting on cash book.
My findings I have considered the rival submissions. In statement under Section 313 CrPC, A4 has admitted that during the period 1999 to 2000, he was posted as Assistant cum Cashier and that he was having a Bank Account No. 126205 with State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, New Delhi and another Account No. 6956 with Syndicate Bank Sonepat jointly with his wife Smt. Kamlesh. However, he denied rest of the allegations. Now, I proceed to discuss the evidence proved by the prosecution.
The Investigating Officer (PW54) seized the relevant documents of account no. 126205 of SBI R. K. CC No. 26/11 Page 57 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Puram vide seizure memo Ex.PW54/N1 i.e. the account opening form, statement of account, payinslip vide which cheques were deposited and the self cheque through which the money was withdrawn by A4.
The payinslips have been filled & signed by A4 and his handwriting is from Q5 to Q40. First I will refer to the particulars of payinslips, which are produced in tabular form as under :
Sl. Exhibit of payinslip D. No. Cheque deposited Cheque No. amount
1. Ex.PW51/194 D80 239010 dated 98,546/ 22.4.1999
2. Ex.PW51/195 D81 237755 dated 86,065/ 18.3.1999
3. Ex.PW51/196 D82 238125 dated 1,29,801 26.3.1999
4. Ex.PW51/197 D83 239491 dated 1,35,671/ 7.5.1999
5. Ex.PW51/198 D84 240060 dated 86,955/ 27.5.1999
6. Ex.PW51/199 D85 275095 computer 76,500/ transfer 7 Ex.PW51/200 D86 277099 dated 53,340/ 06.01.2000 The statement of bank account, which is part of D79 (Ex.PW54/Z58), shows all these entries.
A4 withdrew an amount of Rs.85,000/ vide self cheque dated 19.03.1999 (D88), an amount of Rs.1,25,000/ CC No. 26/11 Page 58 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 vide self cheque dated 30.03.1999 (D99), a sum of Rs.45,000/ vide self cheque dated 10.05.1999 (D90), a sum of Rs.60,000/ vide self cheque dated 11.05.1999 (D91), a sum of Rs.40,000/ vide self cheque dated 13.05.1999 (D
92), a sum of Rs.30,000/ vide self cheque dated 20.05.1999 (D93), a sum of Rs.60,000/ vide self cheque dated 27.05.1999 (D94), a sum of Rs.40,000/ vide self cheque dated 16.06.1999 (D95), a sum of Rs.15,000/ vide self cheque dated 07.12.1999 (D96) and a sum of Rs.15,000/ vide self cheque dated 23.03.2000 (D97).
These cheques bear the signatures of A4 on the front side as well as on back side which is a proof of encashment of the same. These signatures are at Q19 to Q 31, which match with the specimen handwritings of A4.
These cheques are Ex.PW51/2002 to Ex.PW51/2014.
Therefore, it is clear that the above stated cheques were deposited and substantial amounts were withdrawn by A4. The Investigating Officer could collect three government cheques from CWC. The same are D66 in the sum of Rs.86,065/, D67 in the sum of Rs.1,35,671/ and D68 in the sum of Rs.86,955/ (Ex.PW51/50 to Ex.PW51/52), all issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), whose signatures are CC No. 26/11 Page 59 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 present at Q355, Q356 and Q357. Why these cheques were issued to J. K. Singhal has neither been explained by A17 nor by A4. Hence, it is clear that cheques were issued by A17 fraudulently without any bill/ sanction etc. PW12 Ashok Kumar Khatpal, the then Manager Syndicate Bank, Sonepat testifies that Bank Account No. 6956 is in joint name of Jai Kumar Singhal and his wife Smt. Kamlesh Singhal. He proved the certified copy of statement of account as Ex.PW12/E. He proved the collection voucher of out station cheque collected by the Bank and signed by the account holder as Ex.PW12/F. He testified that it is required to be signed only by account holder or representative with the prayer that the cheque may be collected on his risk and responsibility. He proved the payment of cheque no. 2777100 dated 6.1.2000 for an amount of Rs.41,166/ drawn on State Bank of India, R. K. Puram was credited in the name of Jai Kumar Singhal on 21.1.2000 after deducting the collection charges of Rs.165/. A4 does not explain as to how this cheque was deposited in his account.
Allegation no. II Ld. Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the register D531, page 53. This register is cash book maintained under GAR3 under Rule 13 (1) of CGA (RNP) CC No. 26/11 Page 60 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Rules, 1983. All these registers are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW39/B. This entry shows that J. K. Singhal, the Cashier had made an entry of a sum of Rs.2,72,475/ in the name of S. P. Garg. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that this shows the involvement of A4 because he made the entry without disbursing the money to S. P. Garg.
Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that A4 also did not disburse the GPF withdrawal of Rs.2,72,475/ which was sanctioned in favour of S.P. Garg. The signatures of S.P. Garg appearing on the acquittance roll do not match with his specimen/ admitted signatures.
My findings I have perused the relevant entry in the register Ex.PW39/B and I am of the opinion that J. K. Singhal made this entry on the basis of the record i.e. the acquittance roll prepared by O.P. Narang and C. Manjhi. Therefore, it will not be safe to connect J. K. Singhal with this transaction. Allegation No. III He also prepared and presented fake Bills for payments, in favour of Hayat Singh & Lacchi Ram to Pay and Accounts Office.
My observations So far as the fake bills in favour of Hayat Singh CC No. 26/11 Page 61 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 are concerned, the same would be discussed in the role of Hayat Singh (A15) and of A16.
So far as bills prepared by him in favour of Lachi Ram are concerned, I am no inclined to discuss the same as Lachi Ram has died.
The role of A4 in respect of other accused shall also be discussed at relevant places.
16. S.K. Aggarwal (A17) General submissions on behalf of A17 It is argued by Sh. Amit Goel, adv. For A17 that S. K. Aggarwal was employed as Pay & Accounts Officer posted with CWC. It is submitted that he joined service in June 1995 and was transferred from his office on 7.2.2000 to Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that all verifications, checkings, scrutiny of documents is done by the DDO/CWC,which passes the Bill and forwards the same, under the signatures incharge of DDO/CWC, to the PAO. The PAO issues a token no. against each bill to DDO, who submits the bill. Thereafter, the PAO section sends the bill to the pre check section for passing the bill. The accountant after verifying the arithmetical calculation on the bill is correct and CC No. 26/11 Page 62 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 submits the bill to the pre check PAO in ECR (Expenditure Control Register) along with the Pay order on the bill. The pre check officer passes the pay order and send the bill to the pre check section. The pre check section sends the bill to the concerned cheque section of PAO office for preparing of the cheques. The cheque writer prepares the cheque and send it to the PAO (authorized to sign the cheque) for his signatures. The PAO signing the cheque will tick the cheque no. and see that the amount of cheque appears to be the same and consistent with the amount passed for payment and then sign the cheque after defacing the pay order given earlier. Thereafter, the cheque and the bill will be returned to the cheque section for giving the concerned cheques to the said DDO. When cheque is issued then the cheque section will issue a voucher no. on each bill. After marking the voucher no. the bill shall be sent to Accounts section for preparation for monthly accounts. At the end of the month the totals of the bills i.e., now vouchers shall be tallied with the amount of the cheques issued in that month. If the amount of the vouchers and cheques tallied it means that the accounts are correct. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the cheques which have been issued without the bills are also wrong and false. Without the bill the cheque cannot be CC No. 26/11 Page 63 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 issued as per the statement of PW30 itself. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused on his own had filed RTI in the office of the Pay & Accounts Office pertaining to the adjustments of three cheques. A reply was sent by the office stating that the cheques in question had been handed over to the CBI for investigation and these cheques were already accounted for in the month of 3/99 vide D. V. No. 2770 and 2774 respectively. Therefore, it implied that the D. V. no. (i.e. debit voucher number) is mentioned on the bill itself and without the bill cheque cannot be issued.
It is argued that as per civil manual also at page 64 wherein the duties of post cheque signing PAO (accused) are mentioned, it is clearly stated that the PAO is only suppose to verify the amount on the bill and the cheque and thereafter, signs the cheque.
It is argued that the I.O. has not recorded the statement of any of the officials of pre check section. Thus, the entire prosecution evidence is tainted and biased and there is no proof of alleged conspiracy.
It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused is in no way the beneficiary in these transactions or have got even a single claim of any one cleared or approved. It is also admitted case of CC No. 26/11 Page 64 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 prosecution that in the internal audit conducted in March - April 2000, the fraud was not detected.
It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that A 17 was only under an obligation to see that all sanctions from different competent authorities were available and he had to rely upon the approvals and sanctions, while signing the cheques. It is submitted that it was standard practice and it was for the competent authority to check the bills, supporting documents, sanction etc. My findings I have considered the submissions. It is settled law that official acts done innocently would not fall in the sweep of Penal Laws, even if the same are done contrary to the rules. However, there may be cases where officials acts executed perfectly in accordance with the rules could be found out to be a dishonest exercise of his powers and in appropriate case, the same may fall in the net of offences under conspiracy and P. C. Act.
I would like to refer to PW30 N. R. Meena, the Senior Accountant with A17 at the relevant time. He stated that he and Ratan Lal, the another Senior Accountant (PW
16), used to prepare cheques at the directions of Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, the Pay & Accounts Officer. In cross examination CC No. 26/11 Page 65 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 by A17, it was testified by PW30 that he (PW30) had prepared the cheques in question but it was always done after prior approval of S. K. Aggarwal. I will discuss as to whether or not A17 acted dishonestly and was part of conspiracy.
Allegations No. I As per prosecution case accused S.K. Aggarwal, the then Sr. Accounts Officer worked in the capacity of Pay & Accounts Officer of CWC, Sewa Bhawan, RK Puram, New Delhi from June 95 to Feb 2000. While working as P&AO in CWC his duties included rechecking the prechecked bills of CWC and other DDOs and issuing of cheques towards payment of such bills after observing necessary formalities. His colleague N. R. Suman (A16), Sr. Accounts Officer was responsible for passing bills presented by DDO of CWC. Investigation has revealed that majority of the paid cheques and paid vouchers are missing from the record room. Accused Y. P. Sharma, PA posted in the Accounts Section sometime used to collect cheques issued in the name of various existing and nonexisting staff and private persons. He had marked YPS in the cheque book counter foil, DD register to denote Y.P. Sharma. The marked cheques of cheque book, counter foil CC No. 26/11 Page 66 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 and demand draft was issued in favour of to nonexisting staff of CWC. It is significant to point out that normally, cheques are issued in favour of SBI, R. K. Puram to get demand draft or salary on the account of officers of CWC as per advise of P&AO.
Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that cheque no. 277701 dated 29.1.2000 for Rs.1,39,097 in favour of SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi was split and credited to the bank accounts of coaccused JP Sharma, DD, SS Naik, SO and Bhagwan Singh, Jr. Computer Maintained at SBI RK Puram New Delhi. The original cheque and bill/ voucher are not available in the P&AO/ CWC. All credit entries are in their Bank accounts have been recorded at GT (Govt. Transfer) dated 29.1.2000.
Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that between 21.5.99 to 1.3.2000, nine afresh cheques for total amount of Rs.3,44,947/ were issued in favour of DDOI/ CWC in lieu of 21 account payee cheques issued in the name of various officers of CWC without obtaining reasons from the DDO/ CWC. After encashing the cheques, J. K. Singhal (A4) disbursed the amount to those officers who did not figure in the above said 21 account payee cheques. The fresh cheques were issued on the basis of an ordinary slips prepared and CC No. 26/11 Page 67 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 initialed by accused Y. P. Sharma and countersigned by accused C. Manjhi. These slips do not bear any dispatch or diary number or Inter Departmental No. (I.D.NO.). N. K. Meena (PW30), AAO of P&AO has stated in his statement that he prepared the fresh cheque on the direction of Shri S.K. Aggarwal and handed over the fresh cheque to Shri S. K. Aggarwal.
Shri Surender Kumar, Sr. Accountant in P&AO has stated in his statement that the demand draft of Rs.87,379/ issued in favour of Kamal Sharma of Ghaziabad was taken by S.K. Aggarwal and he had written the name of S.K. Aggarwal in the DD register for his memory. He has further stated that another demand draft of Rs.67,445/ was taken by Y. P. Sharma and S.K. Aggarwal had written the name of Y.P. Sharma in the register. As a procedure a cheque is first issued in the name of SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. Thereafter, the dealing Assistant collects the cheque and prepares requisition in the prescribed form of SBI, R.K. Puram for issuance of DD in favour of concerned person / firm. Entries are made in DD register (CAM12). Cheque entry is made in a prescribed column of the said register.
PW16 Ratan Lal, Sr. Accountant of P&AO CWC stated that, being an accountant, he was assigned the duty of CC No. 26/11 Page 68 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheque writer by S. K. Aggarwal and as a cheque writer he used to record entries in the cheque form as per pay order of the bill passed by the Sr. Accounts Officer. Thereafter, he used to send the bill alongwith the cheque book for the signature of P&AO. He was also given the duty to make entries in the cheque drawn register and total the amount issued through cheques. He had observed Y. P. Sharma, PA (S) of CWC sitting in the office room of S.K. Aggarwal and receiving the signed cheques directly from S. K. Aggarwal. He had also stated that S. K. Aggarwal used to get cheque books and get them written from N. R. Meena, Lalita Prasad, Surender Kumar and Satpal. The same cheque book used by these said officers of P&AO were used by Ratan Lal also simultaneously. Ratan Lal after the scrutiny of counter foils has stated that the 24 cheques used for fraudulent withdrawal of money (Connected with the drawl of Rs.19,30,893/) were written by N. R. Meena, Lalita Prasad and himself. N. R. Meena corroborated the statement of Ratan Lal and further stated that he used to write cheque books by seeing the pay orders in the office room of S.K. Aggarwal which were already with S.K. Aggarwal.
My findings I will discuss the evidence against S. K. Aggarwal CC No. 26/11 Page 69 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 in reference to the conspiracy with the other accused persons in detail. The crux of the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel is that A17 had no dishonest intention in signing the aforesaid cheques etc. because there was a separate section to assist him. In four other cases already decided, this accused has been acquitted by Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, the then Ld, Special Judge. The copies of the said four judgements have been filed by A17. I have perused these judgements and I find that no dishonest intention could be proved by prosecution in the aforesaid cases.
Perusal of the aforesaid judgements shows that the material before the court in the said decided cases is different from the material before this court.
Now it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove dishonest intention of A17.
Prosecution has examined PW15 Surender Kumar, who was posted as Accountant in CWC. PW15 testified that accused S. K. Aggarwal was his Pay & Account Officer. He further testified that entry of demand drafts used to be made in Demand and Drafts Register Ex.PW15/A. PW15 further testified that entry at serial no.341 in this register is in his hand, which shows that DD in the sum of Rs.87379/ was in the name of Kamal Sharma and the cheque number was CC No. 26/11 Page 70 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 241009 dated 14.7.1999. He testified that against this cheque, demand draft was made. He testified that this demand draft was received by S. K. Aggarwal vide entry encircled at point A. PW15 further proved entry number 562 in the name of Kamal Sharma. The cheque number is 274744 dated 29.9.1999. Against this cheque, a demand draft was made for Rs.67445/ and the demand draft number is 848413 dated 1.10.1999. He testified that as per the entry Y. P. Sharma collected the demand draft and he also testified that this entry is in the handwriting of S. K. Aggarwal.
This testimony remains unchallenged. I have seen the register Ex.PW15/A (D556), which is the register of requisition of bank drafts. The entry at serial no. 341 (folio no.35) shows that against the cheque no. 241009 dated 14.7.1999, a demand draft of the same amount was prepared in the name of Kamal Sharma and it was received by S. K. Aggarwal, whose signatures are present at Q307.
Now I take up the entry no.562 (folio no.54) of this register, which shows that this entry was made by S. K. Aggarwal (see his signatures at Q309). This shows that against a cheque no. 274744 dated 29.9.1999, a demand draft in the sum of Rs.67445/ was prepared and then the CC No. 26/11 Page 71 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 demand draft was released to Y. P. Sharma (A1), whose signatures are present at Q310.
Now I take up the testimony of PW40 Kamal Kumar Sharma, a relative of J. P. Sharma. PW40 testified that J. P. Sharma (A6) had borrowed a loan for purchasing a car. J. P. Sharma gave him two demand drafts for Rs.87379/ and Rs.67445/ in the month of July and October 1999 and he (i.e. PW40) deposited the same in his bank account bearing no. 16103 in Syndicate Bank, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. He also proved his statement of account Ex.PW40/A3.
All the aforesaid evidence makes a complete chain that a demand draft in the name of Kamal Sharma, who had no official or business relationship with CWC, were prepared fraudulently, were taken by S. K. Aggarwal (A17) and Y. P. Sharma (A1). Both these cheques were in hand of J. P. Sharma (A6). Neither A1 nor A17 has been able to show as to why the said cheques were picked up by them and how they went in the hands of J. P. Sharma, who deposited the same in the bank account of PW40. I have already stated that PW40 is a relative of A6. PW40 has testified that he operated the account and withdrew aforesaid money of two demand drafts and refunded/paid over to J. P. Sharma. I have perused the statement of account Ex.PW40/A3 (which CC No. 26/11 Page 72 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 is part of D287) of PW40 pertaining to his saving bank account no. 16103, which is duly certified. The entry of the aforesaid amounts through bank drafts is clearly mentioned in the same.
Investigating Officer has seized the pay in slip Ex.PW51/122 (D664), which shows that a Government cheque (cheque no.274744) was issued in the name of SBI R. K. Puram by A17 (see his signatures at Q315). Thereafter it was cancelled and in lieu of it a demand draft was got prepared by S. K. Aggarwal (Q317) vide pay in slip Ex.PW51/122 (D664) in the sum of Rs.67445. No explanation is coming from A17 as to why conversion of a cheque in demand draft in the name of a different person namely Kamal Sharma was required.
This proves the entire chain of evidence showing the full conscious and dishonest involvement of A17 being in conspiracy with coaccused persons. This one chain is indicated of the intentions of A17 in all other transactions.
17. A1 - A2 A4 A17 As per prosecution, A1 prepared six hand written slips. I take the said slips one by one as under :
CC No. 26/11 Page 73 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 (1) Ex.PW26/L (D381) The scanned copy of the slip is pasted as under as a sample :
In the original document the Q numbers have been written in pencil by Investigating Officer and by GEQD. These Q numbers being written in pencil were not picked up by the scanner. Therefore I have written the Q numbers in red pen as above. Q463 is point A signed by A2. Q461 and Q462 at point B & C are written by N. R. Meena (PW
30). PW50 B. V. Jagdish Kumar, the then LDC posted in CC No. 26/11 Page 74 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Account section CWC at the relevant time, has identified the signatures of C. Manjhi, DDO. He has identified the signatures/initials of A1 at point B. This denotes that all the paper slips were prepared by A1 and it was issued under the signatures of A2.
In response to this letter/ slip without any dispatch number, sent by DDO (A2), S. K. Aggarwal (A17) issued a fresh cheque in the sum of Rs.42,202/ in the name of DDO. I would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the testimony of PW30 N. R. Meena, who was working as Senior Accountant, Pay & Account Office, CWC during the relevant period as under :
"From 1993 to 2007, I was posted and functioning as Senior Accountant, Pay & Accounts Office, CWC. From 2001 to 2004, I was posted in CSMRS, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. My duties were to put up a note for cancellation of cheques, whenever any request from DDO concerned. The request for cancellation used to come in writing by way of a letter accompanied with the cheque, which was to be cancelled. On receiving such written request, I used to draw a note and put it up before the Pay & Accounts Officer for his approval and for drawing up a new/fresh cheque for the same amount.
During the relevant time, accused S. K. Aggarwal, present in the court today was Pay & Accounts Officer, under whom I was working.
I have seen the original documents, which were kept in D381 in the present case, which contains a requisition slip from Shri C. Manjhi, DDO bearing his signatures at pointA and I identify his signatures. The requisition slip is already Ex.PW26/L. I had put a CC No. 26/11 Page 75 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 noting, which is encircled in red MarkB,whereby 7 cheques were cancelled and a fresh cheque bearing no. 018289 dated 14.09.1999 for Rs.42,202/ was prepared by me and the said cheque is already marked as Ex.PW26/O. Further on the requisition slip, there is also an endorsement made by me that cheque given to SK Aggarwal, Senior Accounts Officer, which is encircled in red Mark - C. The cheque Ex.PW26/O has been signed by Shri SK Aggarwal at pointA in favour of DDOI, CWC, New Delhi. The 7 cheques, which were received for cancellation are also on the judicial file and the same are marked as Ex.PW29/P12 to P18. All the said 7 cheques were also issued under the signatures of Shri SK Aggarwal and the details are mentioned in the requisition slip Ex.PW26/L......"
This witness has proved as to how requisition slips (including Ex.PW26/L scanned copy of which is reflected as above) was received in the office of PAO and how fresh cheques were issued.
PW30 has testified that he and Ratan Lal, Senior Accountant used to prepare the cheques on the directions of Pay & Accounts Officer and Sh. S. K. Aggarwal (A17) was the Pay & Accounts Officer during their tenure. PW16 Ratan Lal, Senior Accountant also testified that S. K. Aggarwal (A17) was his immediate boss and he used to prepare the cheques of CWC as per the instructions of accused S. K. Aggarwal (A17).
This evidence shows that the new cheque Ex.PW26/O was prepared by PW30 after approval from A CC No. 26/11 Page 76 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
17. A17 does not explain as to why he did not issue fresh cheques in the names of the original payees of the said 7 cheques, specially when 4 cheques out of the same, were of substantial amount of Rs.15,533/, Rs.14,563/, Rs.8077/ and Rs.2600/.
The arguments of A2 is that slips were prepared by A1. This fact is proved by testimony of PW50, who has identified the initials at point B of A1 on these slips. A question no.25 was asked to A1 in respect of the 6 slips. A1 stated as under :
"Qns. 25 It is in evidence against you that you had prepared 06 slips and initialled them for issuance of open cheques in favour of DDOI in lieu of 21 old/stale account paye cheques. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is no correct. The DDO under whom I was functioning as Professional Assistant had given me the number of certain cheques and had asked me to enter the cheques in the paper slips for claiming he fresh cheques in the name of DDOI. I did not see and cheque at all. The cheque numbers were given to me by DDOI who was the custodian of the cheques."
In view of the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution and reply of A1 in his statement under Section 313 CrPC proves beyond doubt that the slips were written by A1 and the same were issued under the signatures of A2.
CC No. 26/11 Page 77 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 As already discussed, a fresh cheque was issued by A17 in the name of DDO (A2). A perusal of backside of this fresh cheque shows that it was encashed by DDO through J. K. Singhal (A4). I may mention here that although his signatures, at the back side of this cheque, were not sent for comparison, the same are similar to Q621, which match with the specimen hand writing of A4. Now, J. K. Singhal (A4), who was the cashier prepares a note Ex.PW26/P(I) in respect of the amount of Rs.42,202/ for preparation of acquittance roll for making payment. As per the GEQD report, the signatures at point Q621 on this note belong to A4. Thereafter this money was handed over by C. Manjhi, DDO through an entry in acquittance register to one Sunil Kumar. The said entry is Ex.PW26/A (D516), which is reproduced as under :
CC No. 26/11 Page 78 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 CC No. 26/11 Page 79 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Investigating Officer had collected Pay Bill Register 19992000 as per format of GAR17 (proved by PW50 as Ex.PW50/F) of all the employees, which shows that there are no employee with the name of Sunil Kumar. The aforesaid entry showing the receipt of money in the sum of Rs.42,202/ in cash by Sunil Kumar makes it clear that the amount was released by C. Manjhi himself. In response to question no. 6 of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A2 denies having released the said amount but is unable to explain as to who was said Sunil Kumar and why his signatures are present at Q631, which match with his specimen signatures. This Q631 shows signatures of C. Manjhi, DDO as a proof of payment of a substantial amount of Rs.42,202/ to fake person Sunil Kumar. Here it is interesting to note that the reply of A2, when question no.3 and question no.97 were put to A2. I reproduce the same as under :
Qns.3 It is in evidence against you that you signed and sent 07 undated bills without despatch number or slips for issuance of cheques n lieu of 21 out dated 7 old cheques to PAO for issuance in favour of DDOI and coaccused S. K. Aggarwal issued 07 cheques in your favour in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is wrong.CC No. 26/11 Page 80 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Qns.97 Have you to say anything else?
Ans. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. I joined the Government of India as DR on January 1993 in the Ministry of Water Resources. I got promoted on the adhoc basis as Section Officer during the relevant period vested with the powers of discharged of duties as DD but I was not given any training by the Department. I was a art student and having no knowledge of the accounts and I merely followed the prevalent practice while working as DDO relying upon the inputs given to me by the subordinates. I had not gained anything from the entire exercise in question. Moreover, the files after completing all procedures were sent by the lower staff to me for approval and after examining the file having all papers I endorsed the signatures."
The above quoted answers show that A2 is denying the duly proved evidence that he had issued 6 slips. He is not inclined to explain the aforesaid facts in respect of the 7 slips out of which 6 (including Ex.PW26/L) were proved by the prosecution. He has no where taken the defence as to which of the subordinate staff had led him to issuance of these slips. In fact he is not even disclosing the name of A1, whose signatures at point B on the slips has been proved by PW50.
The question of preparation of note Ex.PW26/P1 of acquittance roll and the signatures at Q621 were put to A 4 in question no.19 of statement under Section 313 CrPC. A 4 was evasive to answer this well proved signatures.CC No. 26/11 Page 81 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The clandestine manner in which a request slip without any dispatch number was sent to S. K. Aggarwal (A
17) without stating the reasons as to why the seven cheques as mentioned in the slip are required to be cancelled and why instead of issuing fresh cheques in the names of the same employees were not asked to be issued and rather a cheque in the name of DDO was sought to be issued and thereafter A2 encashes the said cheques through A4, who proposes to prepare acquittance roll and finally A4 releases this money of Rs.42,202/ to a non existent person with the name of Sunil Kumar is a clear proof of conspiracy between A1, A2, A4 and A17. A2 has also not explained as to who is this Sunil Kumar who received the payment of Rs.42,202/ in cash in his presence. A2 does not explain as to how the money was released to a person who was not even an employee of CWC during the said period and in whose name, none of the initial cheques (which were cancelled and against which a fresh cheque was issued) was drawn. It is necessary to point out that PW26 R. C. Tulli proved the acquittance roll Ex.PW26/A with covering letter Ex.PW26/P1 and a question no.6 in respect of releasing of this money to Sunil Kumar was put to A2 but he denied this fact. A2 is not even explaining any where as to how this money was released.
CC No. 26/11 Page 82 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 To sum up, seven cheques were sent by A2 to A 17 requesting for cancelling the same and issuing a fresh cheque in the name of DDO. The fresh cheque is encashed by DDO. A4 prepares a note for preparation of acquittance roll and thereafter the money is released in cash to Sunil Kumar, who was not an employee of CWC. The entire conduct is not merely a case of the negligent working. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC in which he has denied all the facts including those which were matter of record, he has not explained anywhere any of the circumstances against him. He has not explained as to why he did not ask for issuance of fresh cheques in the name of the same officials. Interestingly, none of the aforesaid slips show any dispatch number which indicate the clandestine manner in which the conspiracy was being executed. The denial of the proved facts by these accused persons has an effect of corroborating the prosecution case.
The situation is same in respect of the same slips but I have pasted the scanned copy of the slip and acquittance roll as above as a sample of the remaining slips etc. CC No. 26/11 Page 83 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 (2) Ex.PW26/19 (D177) The perusal of the above slip Ex.PW29/19 would show that C. Manjhi requested for issuance of a cheque in the name of DDO against a cheque in the name of S. C. Gupta. Accordingly, a cheque in the name of S. C. Gupta (D391) Ex.PW30/A was cancelled and fresh cheque dated 1.3.2000 of the same amount (D390) Ex.PW30/A2 was issued in the name of DDO. Who was the Accounts Office issuing the said cheque could not be proved. Although the cheque appears to have been encashed through J. K. Singhal (A4) whose signatures are similar to Q 621, however, the signatures of DDO on the back of the cheque could not be ascertained. The acquittance register shows Rs.15,609/.
(3) Ex.PW26/N (D508) This slip issued under the signatures of A2 at point Q481 sent 4 cheques of Rs. 1470/, Rs. 10324/, Rs. 10960/ and Rs. 11695/ all in the name of A.S.P. Sinha and requested PAO to issue a fresh cheque in the sum of Rs. 34449/. PW 50 has testified that at point B the signatures of A1 are present at Q482. PW 30 N. R. Meena who was Sr. AO with A2 has testified that he had received the fresh cheque no. 018424 dt. 25.10.1999 for a sum of Rs. 34449/.
CC No. 26/11 Page 84 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 He has also noted that the cheques were given to S. K. Aggarwal.
This fresh cheque Ex.PW30/B was issued by A17, whose signatures are present at Q470. Back side of the cheque shows that it was encashed by DDO through A. K. Singhal (A4), whose signatures are available at Q478A. Since the signatures of DDO were not sent for comparison, it is not known as to who signed as DDO. PW26 has proved the acquittance roll Ex.PW26/F signed by J. K. Singhal, Cashier and released by C. Manjhi in three portions. A sum of Rs.12,450/ was given to R. P. Gupta, a sum of Rs.11,340/ to Chander Shekher and a sum of Rs.10,659/ to Narender Kumar. The signatures, which are akin to C. Manjhi are very much seen on this acquittance roll (D521), though it has not got proved by any witness or by handwriting expert.
The Pay Bill Register Ex.PW50/F shows that at folio no.120, there is no entry of payment of Rs.12,450/. In fact this folio was closed on 20.4.1999, whereas the acquittance roll is dated 26.10.1999.
The folio no.27 pertaining to Narender Kumar of the Pay Bill Register also does not show any such entry.
No officials with the name of Chander Shekhar exists in the PBR.
CC No. 26/11 Page 85 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 From the entire transaction, it is clear that a fraud has been committed by A17. All the stale cheques were in the name of A.S.P. Sinha. A17 does not explain as to why he did not release a fresh cheque of the consolidated amount in the name of A.S.P. Sinha. The discussion above show as to how the cheque amount was distributed to three persons.
The aforesaid slip Ex.PW26/N shows that A2 sent to PAO four cheques which in total amounted to Rs.34,449/ and after cancelling the same, A17 issued a fresh cheque of Rs.34,449/. The fresh cheque is Ex.PW30/A3 (D392) in the name of DDOI. The backside of this cheque shows that this cheque was encashed through A4, whose signatures at Q 478A on the backside of the cheque match with A4 as per GEQD report. The acquittance register (Ex.PW26/F) signed by J. K. Singhal show that C. Manjhi released cash amounts of Rs.12,450/ to R. P. Gupta, a sum of Rs.11,340/ to Chander Shekhar and a sum of Rs.10,659/ to Narender Kumar.
(4) Ex.PW30/A8 (D508) The aforesaid slip Ex.PW30/A8 (D416) is a request from C. Manjhi (signatures at Q491) to issue a fresh cheque in the sum of Rs.50,110/ against a cheque of the CC No. 26/11 Page 86 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 same amount in the name of NWDA. This slip was prepared by A1, whose initials are at point B but was issued under the signatures of A2. This cheque [Ex.PW30/A10 (D397)] was cancelled by A17 and a fresh cheque of the same amount was issued by A17 (signatures at Q487) in the name of DDO (Ex.PW51/7), which was encashed by DDO through J. K. Singhal (A4), whose signatures are available at Q487A on the backside of the cheque. The relevant page of the acquittance register Ex.PW26/B shows that the same was released by C. Manjhi (Q634) to V. S. Khatri. The note for preparation of acquittance roll (Ex.PW26/P2) was prepared by A4, whose signatures are present at Q622.
As per Pay Bill Register Ex.PW50/F, there is no employee with the name of V. S. Khatri. None of A1, A2, A 4 and A17 have explained the afore stated circumstances.
No explanation is coming from A2 as to when the cheque was issued in the name of NWDA, why a fresh cheque of such a good amount was not asked to be issued in the name of NWDA, in case the original cheque had become redundant due to any reason. No explanation is coming from A17 as to why instead of issuing a fresh cheque in the name of NWDA, he issued a cheque in the name of DDO. A2 has also not explained as to who is V. S. Khatri to whom the cash CC No. 26/11 Page 87 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 amount of Rs.50,110/ was released by him.
As per the D613, which is a cheque acquittance register and which as per testimony of PW26 contains the names of all the officials foliowise. Perusal of this register shows that there is no official with the name of V. S. Khatri.
(5) Ex.PW30/A12 (D508) This slip shows that it was prepared by A1, whose initials are at point B as testified by PW50. It was issued under the signatures (Q498) of A2, who had sent six cheques to A17 and at request of A2, a fresh cheque in the name of DDO amounting to Rs.50,570/ was issued by A17. A17 cancelled these six cheques which were in the name of various persons. A17 issued a fresh cheque in the sum of Rs.50,570/ in the name of DDOI (see testimony of PW26).
The cheque Ex.PW51/9 bears the signatures of A 19 at Q494. This fresh cheque dated 25.11.1999 is issued in the name of DDO. C. Manjhi gets it encashed through A4, which is clear from the signatures of A2 at Q494B and signatures of A4 at Q494A.
Now let us see the fate of encashed amount. PW26 has proved the note Ex.PW26/P by A4 requesting for preparation of acquittance roll as well as the CC No. 26/11 Page 88 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 actual acquittance Ex.PW26/E. The entries in acquittance roll Ex.PW26/E (D
520) are as under :
1. V. S. Rao Rs.13,000/
2. Chandereshwar Rs.9,570/
3. Narender Kumar Rs.12,520/
4. Om Prakash Rs.15,480/ I may point out that the cancelled cheques were in the name of H. S. Chaudhary, V. S. Rao, M. Ram, M. S. Beg, M. S. Begd and A. K. Bhatia (see D398 to D403).
Now it is to be seen as to whether the aforesaid persons actually exists or if they existed, did they actually receive the amount.
(6) Ex.PW30/A14 (D508) The aforesaid slip shows that two cheques in the names of various persons were sent by A2 to A17, who cancelled the cheques and issued a cheque in the name of DDOI in the sum of Rs.31,131/. This cheque is Ex.PW30/A 15 (D404). Backside of this cheque shows that it was got encashed by A2.
As per testimony of PW26, J. K. Singhal recommended vide his note Ex.PW26/P4 preparation of CC No. 26/11 Page 89 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 acquittance rolls for making payment to the staff concerned. Relevant folio of the acquittance register Ex.PW26/D shows that out of this amount, a sum of Rs.14,131/ was released to Chander Shekhar and a sum of Rs.17,000/ was released to Naresh Kumar by C.Manjhi (A2). Evidence is on record by way of register D613 that they are not the employees of CWC.
All these slips have been issued by C. Manjhi, the DDO, however, no explanation is coming as to if the aforesaid cheques were cancelled, why fresh cheques were not issued in the name of the respective drawee of the cancelled cheques and why fresh consolidated cheques against the cheques which were cancelled by S. K. Aggarwal (A17) were issued by A17. For example, a cheque in the sum of Rs.42,202/ (Ex.PW26/O) was issued in the name of DDO by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), the Accounts Officer. This was issued against the six cheques in the name of R. K. Khanna, P. K. Sadhu, B. R. K. Pillai, P. S. Arvindakashan, R.Devagahari, C. L. Bajaj and K. S. S. Nambodripal. Perusal of these cheques Ex.PW29/P12, Ex.PW29/P18 (See testimony of PW29 B. S. Yadav, the Pay & Accounts Officer, CWC).
The backside of this cheque would show that A2 has received the cheque Ex.PW26/O. Who had encashed this CC No. 26/11 Page 90 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheque on behalf of DDO cannot be ascertained because evidence is not on record to connect the signatures of the official receiving the cash from the bank. I may point out that Q461 and Q462 on the slip Ex.PW26/L at points 'B' & 'C' are in handwriting of A1, which shows that the seven cheques were given to S.K. Aggarwal, Senior AO and a consolidated/fresh cheque for a sum of Rs.42,202/ was received from S. K. Aggarwal. At Q462 at point 'A', signatures are that of A2. Therefore, this slip shows that the slip was written by C. Manjhi (A2) to S. K. Aggarwal (A17) and A1 had delivered the seven cheques to A17, who cancelled the said cheques and issued an open cheque in favour of DDO i.e. A2, who got it encashed. No explanation is coming on behalf of A2 as to why he is asking for the cancellation of the seven cheques and why he had asked for an open cheque in his name. No explanation is coming on behalf of A17 as to why he cancelled those seven cheques and issued a fresh cheque of the consolidated amount in the name of DDO i.e. A2. No explanation is coming on behalf of A2 as to where, after encashment of the fresh cheque, the money was utilized.
Now, I take up the slip Ex.PW26/N. The same is issued by A2 to A17. On receipt of this slip alongwith four CC No. 26/11 Page 91 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheques S. K. Aggarwal (A17) issued a fresh cheque bearing no. 018424 dated 25.10.1999 (Ex.PW30/A3) in the sum of Rs.1,34,449/ in the name of DDOI (i.e. A2).
Backside of this cheque shows that it has been encashed by DDO through J. K. Singhal (A4), whose signatures are present at Q478. Neither A2 nor A4 have explained as to where this money has been adjusted.
A2 has argued that he was totally oblivious of the procedure and signed the slips and cheques on the asking of his staff i.e. A1. Ld. Counsel for A2 has referred to the judgements of Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, Ld. Special Judge, who had acquitted A2 in other judgements of the same scam holding that A2 might have been highly imprudent in carrying out his official duties but some more evidence is required to be brought no record to convert his misconduct into criminal misconduct.
Argument of A1 is that it was A2 who had written the slips and A1 only presented the cheques to A17 and received the fresh cheque from A17 in compliance of the written slip/ order of A2. Therefore, it is submitted that his handwriting at points 'B' & 'C' on Ex.PW26/L only reflects that in compliance of A2, he presented the seven cheques to A17 and thereafter received a fresh cheque in the name of CC No. 26/11 Page 92 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 DDO from A17.
These submissions of A1 and A2 show that both the accused persons are blaming each other with a view to save themselves. In such type of situation, it is possible that A1 could have been misused by A2 or vice versa. The second possibility is that both of them colluded with each other. Therefore, the evidence is required to be scrutinized minutely and closely lest any innocent person is convicted on account of his foolish, rash or imprudent acts done in official course of duties just by relying upon the other officials, the subordinates or bosses. So far as the question of dishonest intentions of A1 are concerned, I have already cited instance as to how A1 had acted dishonestly in respect of depositing government cheques in bank account of R. L. Kawale and how he withdrew the same. This shows that he is past master of fraudulent activities.
It is argued by ld. Counsel for A2 that no money has been received by him.
On the other hand, Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor has pointed out that A2 is not explaining as to why seven cheques were being returned to A17 and open cheque in favour of DDO was asked. No explanation is coming forth from A2 as to why A2 did not ask for issuance of the fresh CC No. 26/11 Page 93 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheques in the name of the drawees of the cancelled cheques. These fresh cheques have been encashed by DDO which is clear from the receipt on the backside of the cheque through J. K. Singhal (A4) or other persons but no explanation has coming as to where the said money went. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor argued that it is clear that A2 was conscious of what he was doing and that the aforesaid evidence proves beyond doubt that A2 was fully involved in the conspiracy because the money received on his behalf must have gone to his pocket.
The fresh cheques in the name of DDO issued by A17 which are Ex.PW26/O, Ex.PW30/A2, Ex.PW30/A3 and Ex.PW20/A15 show that all these cheques were encashed by A2. The cheque Ex.PW30/A3 has been encashed by A4 on behalf of A2, as is clear from the signatures of A4 at Q 478A. The fact that DDO (A2) did not ask for revalidation of the said stale cheques answers all questions raised by Ld. Defence Counsel. Thus, it is fully proved that A1, A2, A4 and A17 were conspiring with each other.
These cheques after being encashed have been delivered to unauthorized persons, which I have already discussed.
CC No. 26/11 Page 94 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
18. Om Prakash Narang (A3) Now, it is to be seen as to what role O. P. Narang (A3) has played.
Admittedly O. P. Narang (A3) was posted as UDC in Accounts Branch, CWC during the conspiracy period and he was maintaining account no. 26936 with State Bank of India, SBI Branch, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, account no. 109020 with Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar (see question no. 1, 2, 7 in statement under Section 313 CrPC).
Allegations against A3 As per prosecution case, accused Om Prakash Narang was working as UDC in the Accounts Section of CWC. He maintained his bank accounts with SBI, R.K. Puram, Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar and PNB, R.K. Puram in which he himself deposited 11 cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC amounting to Rs.5,72,648/ as detailed below. It includes details of utilization of funds fraudulently credited through cheques issued in favour of coaccused persons. There is no entry in the Pay Bill Register of any of these amounts indicated in these cheques. The bills through which these amounts were raised were not available in CWC and Pay & Accounts Office. There is no mention of the receipt of these cheques on the acquittance roll. GEQD has confirmed CC No. 26/11 Page 95 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 that all the 11 cheques were deposited by him and subsequently amount was withdrawn and utilized as per details mentioned below :
S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Debit Encashed/de No. Bank of O.P. Amount Amt. posited Narang 1 Ac No. 24.10.98 P&AO/CWC/ 52,000 # 26936 SBI, Cheque No. R.K. Puram 233,892 2 3.4.99 P&AO/CWC/ 57,160 Cheque No. 237,918 3 2.8.99 P&AO/CWC/ 62,427 OP Narang Cheque No. 241540 4 5.10.99 P&AO/CWC/ 48,000 Cheque No. 274,739 5 27.12.99 P&AO/CWC/ 61,096 Cheque No. 276,837 6 109020 4.5.98 P&AO/CWC/ 12,931 Allahabad Cheque No. Bank, Tilak 229301 Nagar, ND 7 22.7.98 P&AO/CWC/ 51,028 # Cheque No. 231,363 8 1.1.99 P&AO/CWC/ 53,000 # Cheque No. 235,939 31.3.99 66,139 20,000 Transferred to Bank A/c of YP Sharma CC No. 26/11 Page 96 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 9 10.4.99 P&AO/CWC/ 88,937 # Cheque No. 238,522 30.7.99 123,702 35,000 Transferred to Bank A/c of YP Sharma 10 14.8.99 P&AO/CWC/ 33,000 Cheque No. 241861 # 11 6.11.99 P&AO/CWC/ 61,000 Cheque No. 275529 9778 PNB, 10.7.99 997,181 22,000 Credit from R.K. Puram Bank A/c of Subash Chander 2.9.99 5,500 From B. M. Ghosh 14.9.99 997,184 27,570 Credit from Bank A/c of Subash Chander 23.10.99 631,230 18,000 Transferred from UCO Bank A/c of Gulshan Kumar 16.12.99 997,186 21,000 Transferred from UCO Bank A/c of Subash Chander Out of the 11 cheques discussed above only 5 cheques are available which are all signed by S. K. Agarwal, P&AO. One of the cheques was issued in the name of Om CC No. 26/11 Page 97 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Prakash Khanda but S.K. Aggarwal cutoff word "Khanda"
from the cheque himself under his signatures and this cheque has been encashed by O.P. Narang. O. P. Khanda was the Director, CWC at that time. GEQD has confirmed that "Khanda" was cutoff from the above mentioned cheques by S. K. Aggarwal. He had put his signatures in token of authentication of the cutting aforesaid.
It is submitted by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that similarly Om Prakash Narang got deposited such fraudulently issued cheques in the A/c of Subhash Chander, Assistant Fitter, DTC, who was his friend. Details of such cheques and its utilization through cheques is as under : S. A/c No. & Date Cheque Credit Debit Issued Encashed No. Bank of No. Amount Amt. in /deposi Subhash favour ted by Chander of 1 A/c No. 4.9.99 P&AO/CW 49,470 O.P. 15160, C/Cheque Narang Canara No. Bank, 242363 Tagore # Garden, ND27 14.9.99 997,184 27,570 O. P. Narang 2 10.12.99 P&AO/CW 57,000 O.P. C/Cheque Narang No. CC No. 26/11 Page 98 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 276232 16.12.99 997,186 21,000 O.P. Narang 3 A/c No. 23.2.99 P&AO/CW 58,000 6565, C/Cheque Syndicate No.23700 Bank, Hari 4 Nagar Depot, Jail 4 Road, 4.9.99 P&AO/CW 57,000 O.P. Delhi in C/Cheque Narang the name No. of Parveen 241,5.38 Kumar & # Subhash Chander It is further submitted by Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor that similarly Om Prakash Narang got deposited such fraudulently issued cheques in the A/c of Sunil Kumar, who was his friend. Details of such cheques and its utilization through cheques is as under :
S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Amount Encashed/ No. Bank of deposited Sunil Kumar 1 A/c No. 5945, 6.7.98 P&AO/CWC/ 58,438 Bank of India Cheque No. 230,908 # 2 18.9.98 P&AO/CWC/ 56,000 Cheque No. 232,862 # 3 7.4.99 P&AO/CWC/ 57,590 CC No. 26/11 Page 99 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Cheque No. 238,421 4 16.8.99 P&AO/CWC/ 57,000 Cheque No. 241,745 # 5 8.11.99 P&AO/CWC/ 59,000 Cheque No. 275,586 # 6 5.2.00 P&AO/CWC/ 58,600 Cheque No. 277,808 # 7 A/c No. 7733, 22.8.98 P&AO/CWC/ 58,119 SBI, Vikas Cheque No. Puri, New 232,052 # Delhi 8 28.1.99 P&AO/CWC/ 59,000 Cheque No. 236,265 9 5.10.99 P&AO/CWC/ 59,000 Cheque No. 274,737 10 A/c clsoed on 27.12.99 P&AO/CWC/ 59,110 15.3.2001 Cheque No. 276,836 Similarly Om Prakash Narang got deposited such fraudulently issued cheques in the A/c of Sh. Gulshan Kumar, brother of Sunil Kumar aforesaid his fried. Details of such cheques and its utilization through cheques is as under : CC No. 26/11 Page 100 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Debit Issued in No. Bank of Amount Amt. favour of SHRI GULSHAN KUMAR 1 Savings 18.9.99 P&AO/CWC/ 51,000 Govt. Cheque Bank A/c Cheque No. No. 8490 of 232863 UCO Bank, Janakpuri 27.9.99 631,224 50,000 Self 2 16.10.00 P&AO/CWC/ 63,096 Cheque No. 275,052 21.10.99 631,229 45,000 23.10.99 631,230 18,000 O.P. Narang 3 10.12.99 P&AO/CWC/ 62,000 Cheque No. 276234 16.12.99 631,233 61,000 Sunil Kumar 4 14.2.00 P&AO/CWC/ 57,000 Cheque No. 277809 # 5.3.00 631,232 56,000 Sunil Kumar Accused Om Prakash Narang in his accounts no.
9778, maintained with PNB, R. K. Puram, deposited cheque received from Subhash Chander and Gulshan Kumar. Subhash Chander is Asstt. Fitter in DTC. Sh. Subhash Chander deposited the aforesaid cheques in his account which were given by Sh. O. P. Narang. He used to give the money back to O. P. Narang by cash/ cheques. Sh. Sunil Kumar also handled CC No. 26/11 Page 101 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 bank accounts of his brother Gulshan Kumar. The bills on the basis of which the cheques were issued to three private persons named above were not available in the CWC or the Pay & Accounts Office.
Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel It is submitted by Ld. Defence counsel that majority of employees are guilty for obliging their seniors. This accused also falls in that category and it may be further submitted that the entire transactions which ever are linked with the present accused were not performed or done by him. He has already stated in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.PC, which may be considered in its right prospective. It has been further submitted that the payment alleged to have been shown in his account were deposited without any intention to gain wrongfully as the same after deposit had been withdrawn and returned to the concerned person referred in his statement under section 313 Cr.PC. Apart from that a representation had also been made to the department clearing his position as to how this accused was made a scape goat.
My findings Now, I refer to the five cheques issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), Pay & Accounts Officer in the name of Om CC No. 26/11 Page 102 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Prakash. These are following :
Sr. Cheque No. Dated Ex. D. No. Amount No. in Rs.
1 231363 22.07.1998 PW51/34 D47 51,028/ 2 233892 20.10.1998 PW51/35 D48 52,000/ 3 235939 01.01.1999 PW51/36 D49 53,000/ 4 238522 31.02.1999 PW51/37 D50 88,937/ 5 241861 13.08.1999 PW51/38 D51 33,000/ As per GEQD report the cheques have been issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17) in the name of Om Prakash which is clear from the signatures of S. K. Aggarwal at Q320, Q321, Q337, Q338, Q339 and Q340. The said five cheques were deposited by O. P. Narang in his bank account no. 109020 in Allahabad Bank, Tilak Nagar Branch through the payinslips Ex.PW51/85, Ex.PW51/86, Ex.PW51/87, Ex.PW51/88 and Ex.PW51/89 (D131 to D135). The GEQD report in respect of the aforesaid payinslips (except Ex.PW51/85) show that these slips were deposited by Om Prakash Narang himself in his bank account because the signatures at Q107 to Q113 on these payinslips match with his specimen signatures.
These facts were put to accused O. P. Narang in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC (specifically in question no. 4) but he gave an evasive reply. This shows that O. P. Narang was not CC No. 26/11 Page 103 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 only fully in league with S. K. Aggarwal (A17) but also a substantial beneficiary of the fraud.
Now, it is to be seen as to how S. K. Aggarwal issued these cheques to O. P. Narang. Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that S. K. Aggarwal could not show as to against what bills, arrears or reimbursements, the aforesaid five cheques were issued.
PW32 S. P. Garg was Deputy Director in CWC in the month of November 2000. He testified that he had applied for GPF withdrawal of Rs.3 lacs on account of marriage of his niece. The withdrawal of Rs.2,72,475/ was sanctioned on 22.11.2000, which was informed to him on 14.12.2000. PW32 S. P. Garg testified that he came to know that the amount had already been withdrawn on 1.12.2000 and that he did not receive any money on account of such sanction. He testified that he did not know as to who has embezzled the said amount and that he came to know about this fact when he applied for cancellation of this withdrawal since engagement of his niece was cancelled. On seeing the acquittance roll (Ex.PW32/A) (D485), he testified that the signatures at point A across the revenue stamp are not his and the same had been forged by someone. PW32 testified that he made a representation in the department and when CC No. 26/11 Page 104 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 there was no action by senior officers, he filed a writ petition in the High Court.
The perusal of acquittance roll (Ex.PW32/A) (D
485) shows that it has been prepared by O. P. Narang, which is clear from his handwriting Q422. It has been signed by C. Manjhi, whose signatures are present at Q256. Such a good amount of Rs.2,72,475/ is released in cash on 01.12.2000. The signatures on the revenue stamp at point Q421 have been denied by PW32. Now, the question is as to who has withdrawn this amount. The prosecution has examined PW33 I.S.U. Puram, Senior Assistant working in State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. He proved a payinslip dated 01.12.2000, Ex.PW33/D (D250) vide which an amount of Rs.2,72,475/ was deposited in the saving bank account no. 13061. The payinslip was filled by O. P. Narang which is proved by his signatures at Q420, which match with his specimen signatures. Therefore, it is clear that it was O. P. Narang who withdrew this amount in cash and deposited in the account of B. K. Khullar. Who is this B. K. Khullar has not come on record but evidence is sufficient that it is O. P. Narang (A3), who took away such a huge amount in cash on 01.12.2000 from C. Manjhi (A2), whose signatures are at point Q256. This acquittance roll (Ex.PW51/6) (D485) is in CC No. 26/11 Page 105 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 handwriting of O. P. Narang (A3) himself, which is clear from his handwriting at Q422.
From this chain of evidence, I am left in no doubt that it was O. P. Narang, who in conspiracy with other co accused persons especially A2 and A17 has swindled the money.
19. Natha Ram Suman (A16) Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that N. R. Suman while posted at P&AO CWC, from July 96 to Jan. 2000, used to pass the bills and S. K. Aggarwal (A17) used to issue cheques. Without his checking or approval no bill could be sent to cheque writer for writing a cheque. He passed bogus TA bills supported with incomplete sanction orders which were in the name of nonexisting officers of CWC. Allegation No. I He also passed LTC Advance Bill in the name of non existing officer Sh. H. Singh, Dy. Director. Submissions of accused It is argued that already prepared bills are sent by DDO and that relying upon the same he passed the LTC advance bill.
CC No. 26/11 Page 106 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 My findings The sanction order Ex.P7 (D491) for advance TTA for the sum of Rs.65,000/ shows the sanction of TTA advance of Rs.65,000/ to H. S. Singh, Dy. Director. The two bills Ex.P5 claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/ and Ex.P6 claiming a sum of Rs.65,000/, (D490 & D491, respectively), are written in the hand of A4 J. K. Singhal (Q 32 & Q33), which shows the name of claimant as Hayat Singh and H. Singh, respectively. It is clear that the name has been changed to H. S. Singh to Hayat Singh and H. Singh by A4 fraudulently due to similarity of H.S. Singh to H. Singh or Hayat Singh, though the claim was made by H. S. Singh, Dy. Director, which was sanctioned vide order Ex.P7. C. Manjhi forwarded it to PAO. The bill is cleared by A16 in the capacity of PAO, which is reflected from the signatures of A 16 at Q212 on Ex.P5.
PW46 Dy. Manager of SBI Bank has proved the statement of account Ex.PW46/D of Hayat Singh. This statement of account shows that a sum of Rs.65,000/ was deposited in his account on 02.12.1999 and Rs.15,000/ was deposited on 20.05.1999.
The aforesaid bills were cleared by N. R. Suman (A16) and the cheques were issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A CC No. 26/11 Page 107 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
17), which is clear from his signatures at Q349 on cheque Ex.PW51/49 (D60), dated 19.05.1999 in the name of Hayat Singh (A15), who is only a Peon. The statement of account of Hayat Singh would show that the said cheque of Rs.15,000/ was deposited in bank account of Hayat Singh (A15). Therefore, it is visible that the money was fraudulently deposited in the bank account of Hayat Singh, which is proved by his statement of account Ex.PW46/D (D
101), which is duly proved by PW46 I. P. S. Bhatia, Dy. Manager at SBI, R. K. Puram.
It is necessary to see the sanction order in which TTA sanction order P7, which is for a sum of Rs.65,000/. The two bills Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are in the sum of Rs.15,000/ and Rs.65,000/. A16 has not been able to state as to how he approved the bill Ex.P5 by making a noting at Q212, when there is no sanction order. Similarly, the sanction order Ex.P7 for a sum of Rs.65,000/ is in the name of H. S. Singh, Dy. Director, A15 has signed under the noting that the amount be paid to H. Singh. The fact that the bill in the sum of Rs.15,000/ was passed without any sanction order is enough to prove the guilty mind of A16. The role of A4 is also clearly visible.
CC No. 26/11 Page 108 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Allegation No. II He has also passed bill no. TCA288 dated 7.6.99 for Rs.72,000/ in the name of Shiv Sagar, CE and Bill No. TCA964 dated 16.09.99 for Rs.54,000/ in the name of Shiv Sagar, Director and Bill No. TCA629 dated 21.5.99 for Rs.45,000/ in the name of Shiv Sagar, Asst. Director. All these bills were supported with fake sanction orders. These bills should have been returned instead of passing as there is no officer/ officers by the name of Shiv Sagar, CE, Shiv Sagar, Director and Shiv Sagar, Asst. Director as per pay bill register of Central Water Commission, Sewa Bhawan, New Delhi. My findings I have perused these bills. The bill for Rs.72,000/ is TCA288 in the name of Shiv Sagar, CE, which is Ex.P1 (D487).
The bill for the sum of Rs.54,000/ is TCA964 in the name of Shiv Sagar, Dr (which probably means director), which is Ex.P3 (D488).
Bill TCA629 for Rs.45,000/ in the name of Shiv Sagar, Asst. Director, which is Ex.P10 (D486).
The body of the bills had been prepared by A4, who has written the designation of Shiv Sagar as CE, Dr and Asst. Director, although, Shiv Sagar is only a Section Officer.
CC No. 26/11 Page 109 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 These bills are accompanied with sanction orders Ex.P2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P11, respectively. Prosecution has proved that these sanction orders are false and fraudulent. Interestingly, the same have been prepared by Shiv Sagar Naik himself for himself. However, in none of the sanction orders the designation has been mentioned. It is clear that nonmention of designation is fraudulent. It gave space to A4 to write wrong designation. A16 sanctioned the bill without checking and verifying the designation of the official. Question is as to whether the same is deliberate or genuine mistake occurred due to oversight. This aspect will be considered by the behaviour of this accused in respect of other transactions, which I will discuss next.
Allegation No. III Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that A16 had passed fake medical bills no. M1141/III dated 15.1.99 for Rs.1,20,000/ of coaccused B. M. Ghosh, EAD and Bill No. P1393/II dated 13.1.99 for Rs.80325/ of coaccused Sh. Jeet Ram Sharma, Jr. Computer CWC. Both the bills were containing photocopy of bill of the AIIMS, Delhi and Escort Research and Institute Okhla and fake photocopy of cash receipts which were countersigned by the DDO/ CWC. The bills were forwarded without the signatures of the Controlling CC No. 26/11 Page 110 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Officer and Sanction order. These bills should have been rejected and returned but he dishonestly passed these bills to give undue favour to his coaccused persons and to defraud the CWC Funds.
My findings I have perused the medical bills. I will take up one bill in the name of Bhagwati Sharma, who as per prosecution is the mother of Jeet Ram Sharma (A9). The testimony of PW35 Chetan Mukund Pandit, an employee of CWC has proved that he had filed a claim supported by some documents and that photocopy of the said documents appeared to have been fabricated by putting a different name of claimant namely Smt. Bhagwati Sharma. I have seen the said forged bill Ex.PW35/C1 and I fully agree that the same is a forged bill but question is as to whether A16 could have known the fact of its being forged or not.
Now, I take up Medical Charges Reimbursement Bill Ex.PW26/J (D560) of B. M. Ghosh (A10) for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ for the treatment of his wife Smt. Subra Ghosh. The sanction order E.PW26/K shows that treatment was for neurological problems from AIIMS. As per investigation the essentiality certificate Ex.PW50/15, doctor certificate Ex.PW51/16 and the bill Ex.PW51/17 in the sum of CC No. 26/11 Page 111 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Rs.1,25,000/ were found to be forged during investigation. The sanction order Ex.PW26/K is in respect of neurological problems of Smt. Subra Ghosh, whereas the doctor certificate Ex.PW51/16 shows it to be a case of total ankle joint replacement. The bills attached with the claim are in name of one Aman. Photo copies of these bills were filed by the claimant instead of the original bills. It is not possible that A 16 could have ignored the fact that instead of original bills, the photocopies are being filed. The photocopies of the bills of medicines from Super Bazar are being annexed in support of the claim.
Now I take up the Medical Charges Reimbursement Bill of Jeet Ram Sharma for a sum of Rs.80,325/, which is Ex.PW26/I (D562). This bill was passed by A16 vide his signatures at Q553.
This bill was passed by A16 (see his signatures at Q553). This bill was passed without any sanction order. A 16 could not explain how this bill was passed without the sanction order.
I will discuss the role of B. M. Ghosh (A10) and Jeet Ram Sharma (A9) in respect of these forged bills.
CC No. 26/11 Page 112 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
20. J. P. Sharma (A6) Allegations As per prosecution case accused J.P. Sharma was Dy. Director, CWC, during the relevant period. He retired from service in the year 2001. He deposited cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO CWC, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy in the bank account of Chandrasekhar (his son), Bhagwan Singh (friend), Om Prakash, DD (retd.), CWC (Friend), Sandeep Kumar (neighbour), B.B. Sharma (UDC, CWC), I. Yashodanann, Asstt. Director, CWC and Bhagwan Singh, Jr. Computer, CWC. The statement of account of these persons reveals subsequent withdrawal of the funds so credited by the account holder. J. P. Sharma was not handling the account matter in CWC. Accused Y. P. Sharma used to give him aforesaid cheques and he further gave to his friends, relatives and his subordinate officials. He was getting only 10 to 15% commission. None of the bills on the basis of which these cheques were issued was available with CWC. There is no mentioned about the disbursement of these cheques in the acquaintance roll. GEQD opinion confirmed the receipt of payment by Sh. J. P. Sharma from the bank account of S/Sh. Sandeep, Om Prakash (Retd. DD), BB Sharma, Bhagwan Singh, Jr. Computer, Bhagwan Singh CC No. 26/11 Page 113 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 (friend) and Chander Shekhar (son). He had also received Rs.5,000/ and Rs.36,700/ from the bank account of Shri Omprakash, Draftsman, GRII. The detail of the cheques credited in the account of the said persons on account of the cheques issued by P&AO CWC and the inter financial transactions in the account between the accused person is as follows :
Cheques credited to the A/c of Sh. J. P. Sharma.
S. A/c No. & Credit Cheque No. Credit Debit Remarks
No. Bank of J.P. Date Amount Amt.
Sharma
1 36,903 SBI, R. 6.4.98 97,900
K. Puram
7.4.98 527262 89,000 Amt. drawn by
YP Sharma
2 20.5.98 By GT 18139
(229533)
4.3.99 5,000 From A/c of
Om Prakash,
D/M
3 29.1.00 PAO/Cheque 61,140
277710
6.4.00 PAO/Cheque 50,000
279399
22.11.00 PAO/Cheque 100,000 GPF Advance
285552
23.11.00 99,500 Amt. drawn by
YP Sharma
A/c No. 2890, 2.9.98 36,700 From the A/c of
Canara Bank, Om Prakash,
Shastri Nagar D/M
CC No. 26/11 Page 114 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Cheques credited to the A/c of Sh. Chandra Shekhar S/o Sh. J.P. Sharma.
S. A/c No of Chander Pay in Amount (in Clearing cheque
No. Sekhar S/o JP slip dated rupees)
Sharma
1 A/c No. 12676 at 7499 102,243 238525 dated 31399 of
Canara Bank, SBI, R.K. Puram
Shastri Nagar, Delhi
2 17399 102,243 237673 dated 16399
SBI, R.K.Puram
3 2199 99,096 235932 dated 311298
SBI, R.K.Puram
4 19699 54,883 240352 dated 17699
SBI, R.K.Puram
5 26698 53,159 230849 dated 26698
SBI, R.K.Puram
6 12898 38,530 231997 dated 12898
SBI, R.K.Puram
7 301299 54,883 276916 dated 291299
SBI, R.K.Puram
Cheques credited to the A/c of Sh. Bhagwan Singh.
S. A/c No. & Date of Cheque No. Credit Debit Encashed/
No. Bank of credit/ Amount Amt. Deposited by
Bhagwan debit
Singh (Pvt.
Person)
1 431, SBI, Sri 6.10.99 P&AO/CWC/ 95,154 JP Sharma
Nagar Cheque No.
Colony, 275051
Delhi
21.10.99 87,000 Self
CC No. 26/11 Page 115 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Cheques credited to the A/c of Sh. B.B. Sharma.
S. A/c No. & Date Cheque Credit Debit Issued Encashed
No. Bank of No. Amount Amt. in /deposi
Sh. B.B. favour ted by
Sharma of
1 A/c No. 21.12.99 738427.H 28,000 Self
13374,
Syndicate
Rank, R.K.
Puram
2 24.12.99 P&AO/CW 93,532 JP Sharma
C/Cheque
No.
276835
27.12.99 65,000 Self
Cheques credited to th A/c of Sh. Sandeep Kumar S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Debit Encashed/ No. Bank of Amount Amt. Deposited by Sandeep Kumar 1 A/c No. 31.7.99 P&AO/CWC/ 53,851 By J.P. Sharma 1440, Delhi Cheque No. State Coop 241545 Bank 3.8.99 53,200 J. P. Sharma CC No. 26/11 Page 116 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Cheques credited to the A/c of Sh. Kamal Sharma.
S. A/c No. & Bank of Date Cheque No. Credit Amount No. Shri Kamal Sharma 1 A/c No. 16103 21.7.99 DD No. 916917 in 87,379 Syndicate Bank, lieu of Rajnagar, P&AO/CWC/Cheque Ghaziabad No. 244009 # 2 6.10.99 DD No. 848413 in 67,445 lieu of P&AO/CWC/Cheque No. 274744 Submissions of accused It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that PW14, PW40, PW47 and PW49 are unworthy of credence as they themselves are accomplices.
My findings I have considered the submissions. PW14 Brij Bhushan Sharma, Canteen Manager has testified as to how he reprimanded A6 when he came to know that A6 has deposited some cheques in his account. There is nothing on record that PW14 knew that the cheques deposited in his account were issued fraudulently. PW40 Kamal Kumar Sharma, is a close relative of A6, whereas, PW47 Chander Shekhar is son of A6. PW49 Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari is CC No. 26/11 Page 117 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 the tutor of children of A6. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of A6 to say that they were accomplices. If such close persons are testifying against A6, their testimonies have to be believed.
PW14 Brij Bhushan Sharma was working as a Manager (Canteen) in the office of CWC. He testified that J. P. Sharma was the Secretary of the Canteen. He testified that in December 2000, he was served with a notice by Vigilance Department asking about a cheque amounting to Rs.93,000/. PW14 testified that he had not received the cheque but it was credited to his bank account. He testified that J. P. Sharma was his immediate senior and at his request he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.28,000/ through a withdrawal slip Ex.PW14/A dated 21.12.1999 from his bank account in Syndicate Bank, Sector5, R.K. Puram and handed over the said amount to J. P. Sharma. The witness testified that J. P. Sharma took the particulars of his bank account with assurance that he will deposit the loaned money in the said bank account. He testified that although he had asked the money back in cash but J. P. Sharma deposited the said cheque through a payinslip Ex.PW41/B dated 27.12.1999 signed by J. P. Sharma. Pw14 testified that when he went to his bank, he was surprised to find that a sum of Rs.93,000/ CC No. 26/11 Page 118 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 was deposited in his bank account. On objection by PW14, J. P. Sharma told that this amount was deposited by him in PW14's bank account to save income tax as he (J. P. Sharma) was covered by income tax whereas PW14 was not. PW14 testified that he reprimanded J. P. Sharma for this conduct. On this, J. P. Sharma told him to return the amount after retaining Rs.28,000/. PW14 testified that he withdrew the amount in excess to Rs.28,000/ and handed it over to J. P. Sharma.
Sh. S. K. Duggal, Advocate for J. P. Sharma cross examined the witness in detail but nothing came out to impeach the credibility of PW14.
PW40 Kamal Kumar Sharma testified that J. P. Sharma is his maternal uncle and that J. P. Sharma had taken a loan in his name (i.e. PW40's name) for purchasing a car for himself. PW40 testified that J. P. Sharma gave him two demand drafts for Rs.87,379/ and Rs.67,445/ in the month of July and October 1999. PW40 deposited both the drafts in his bank account bearing no. 16103 in Syndicate Bank, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. He proved his statement of account Ex.PW40/A3. PW40 further testified that he withdrew the aforesaid amounts and paid the same to J. P. Sharma.
CC No. 26/11 Page 119 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Ld. Counsel for A6 tried to impeach the character of PW40 by levelling an allegation of kidnapping and suggested that he was testifying against A6 because A6 did not approve the conduct of PW40. However, nothing came on record to substantiate this fact and accordingly, I find no substance in the argument of Ld. Defence counsel as to why he should be disbelieved.
PW47 Chander Shekhar is son of accused J. P. Sharma. He testified that the four payinslips Ex.PW47/1 to Ex.PW47/4 are filled up by his father. He could not testify as to who filled the payinslips Ex.PW47/5 to Ex.PW47/8. However, he testified that through these payinslips, seven or eight cheques were deposited in his bank account in Canara Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch, New Delhi. He also testified that after clearance of the aforesaid cheques in his account, he had withdrawn the said cheque amounts from his bank account and the aforesaid amounts were handed over to accused Y. P. Sharma. The witness was crossexamined by J. P. Sharma as well as by Y. P. Sharma. In crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused Y. P. Sharma, PW47 denied that he never knew Y. P. Sharma. He also stated that he had handed over the said amounts of the four cheques to Y. P. Sharma at his residence, which is situated in Sector 7 or 8 in R. K. CC No. 26/11 Page 120 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Puram.
PW49 Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari used to render tuitions to the children of J. P. Sharma. He testified that he had a saving bank account no. 1440 with Delhi State Cooperative Bank at Bharat Nagar, Delhi. On 30.07.1999, one cheque for the amount of Rs.53,851/ was deposited by someone in his account. He testified that one day the son of accused J. P. Sharma came to him and told him that a cheque has been inadvertently deposited in his account and asked him to issue a cheque for the amount of Rs.53,200/. Accordingly, PW49 issued a self cheque D682 deposited through payinslip Ex.PW5/5, which bears the signatures of J. P. Sharma at point 'A' (Q70/1) at the back of the cheque. Perusal of the backside of this cheque shows that J. P. Sharma had encashed the said cheque.
Now, it is to be seen as to what are the cheques deposited by J. P. Sharma. I will only take up the government cheques issued in the name of Chander Shekhar, which are as under :
(i) Cheque no.230849 dated 26.06.1998 for a sum of Rs.53,159/ (D52) (Ex.PW51/39)
(ii) Cheque no. 231997 dated 12.08.1998 for a sum of Rs.35,530/ (D53) (Ex.PW51/40) CC No. 26/11 Page 121 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
(iii) Cheque no. 235932 dated 31.11.1998 for a sum of Rs.99,096/ (D55) (Ex.PW51/42)
(iv) Cheque no. 237673 dated 16.03.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,02,243/ (D56) (Ex.PW51/43)
(v) Cheque no. 238525 dated 31.03.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,02,243/ (D57) (Ex.PW51/44) All these cheques have been issued in the name of Chander Shekhar by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), whose signatures are available at Q341, Q342 and Q344 to Q346. Neither A17 has shown as to why he had issued these cheques in the name of Chandrasekhar. Clearly these cheques were issued fraudulently. The same came in the hands of J. P. Sharma (A
6), who misused the bank account of Chandrasekhar, which is Ex.PW41/B (D234). These transactions are enough to prove the conspiracy between A2 & A6. PW47 has testified that he had returned money to Y. P. Sharma (A1) and accordingly A1 is also fully connected with this crime.
21. Shiv Sagar Naik (A7) Allegations As per prosecution case accused S.S. Naik was a Section Officer in Establishment and Accounts Section of CC No. 26/11 Page 122 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 CWC. Investigation revealed that 17 cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO CWC amounting to Rs.12,03,266 were credited in his bank accounts maintained with SBI and Syndicate Banks, R.K.Puram. It included 4 cheques issued on account of LTC bills in the name of nonexisting entities namely Shiv Sagar, CE, Shiv Sagar, Director and Shiv Sagar, Asstt. Director. These cheques were also credited in his account on account of practice of deceit as the names of clandestinely was so chosen that it represented S.S. His initials. No acquittance roll was prepared in respect of all these cheques. Three bills relating to above mentioned LTCs were prepared and the supporting documents were sent alongwith the fake sanction orders. The bills in respect of other cheques were not made available by CWC or P&A Office as the same was not traceable at their end. It was revealed that Sh. S.S. Naik was provided with these fraudulently issued cheques by Y.P. Sharma. The funds credited was withdrawn by Sh. Naik and shared with Y.P. Sharma. Sh. Y.P. Sharma on one occasion signed in token of withdrawal of Rs.1,06,000/ from the bank account of S.S. Naik, Sh. Y. P. Sharma and other accused persons defrauded the funds in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with each other. The details of these cheques credited to his bank CC No. 26/11 Page 123 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 accounts is as follows : S. A/c No. & Date of Cheque No. Credit Encashed/ No. Bank of S. S. credit/ Amount Deposited / Naik debit remarks 1 A/c No. 4.12.98 PAO/Cheque 59,883 32333, SBI No. 235160 RK Puram 2 2.1.99 PAO/Cheque 99,000 No. 235931 # 3 4.2.99 PAO/Cheque 158,736 Salary No. 236629 # 4 1.3.99 PAO/Cheque 53,211 (Bill available) No. 237344 ## 5 17.3.99 237674 59,883 6 31.3.99 PAO/Cheque 167,194 No.238222 7 29.4.99 PAO/Cheque 67,445 No. 239308 # 8 11.6.99 PAO/Cheque 72,000 LTC bill No. 240245 available 9 20.9.99 PAO/Cheque 54,000 LTC bill No. 242669 # available 10 13.10.99 PAO/Cheque 94,606 No. 275002 # 11 7.1.99 PAO/Cheque 62,450 LTC bill No. 27709 ## available 12 29.1.00 PAO/Cheque 41,027 ch. no. not No. 277701 mentioned on pay in slips 13 A/c No. 9975 26.5.99 PAO/Cheque 45,000 LTC bill Syndicate No. 239701 available Bank 14 2.7.99 PAO/Cheque 179,256 CC No. 26/11 Page 124 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 No. 240776 # 15 30.10.99 PAO/Cheque 49,458 No. 275472 12,63,149 Ld. Senior Public Prosecutor submits that a cheque no. 277701 dated 29.1.2000 for Rs.139097 in favour of SBI, R.K.Puram, New Delhi was split in three amounts and credited in the bank accounts of coaccused JP Sharma, SS Naik and Bhagwan Singh maintained at SBI RK Puram New Delhi. A sum of Rs.41,027 was deposited in teh A/c of Sh. S.S. Naik. All credit entries are show as GT (Govt. Transfer) dated 29.1.2000 in the statement of account. Original cheque and voucher were not available in CWC or P&AO in r/o amounts mentioned at Sl. No. 1 to 4, 8, 10,1 4, 15 & 17 in the above table.
Submissions of defence It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that accused has suffered conviction in CC No. 18/11 (RC No. DAI/2002/A0065/CBI/ACB/ND) vide judgement dated 03.08.2012 and order on sentence dated 07.08.2012, passed by Sh. Dharmesh Sharma, Ld. Special Judge. It is argued by ld. Defence counsel that conviction in the present case would be a double jeopardy and the present case is hit by Section CC No. 26/11 Page 125 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 300 Cr.PC. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel. The copy of the said judgement has been filed by the accused persons. I reproduce the relevant portion of the said judgement as under :
2. It is the case of the CBI that investigation revealed that A1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy submitted a false medical bills under his signatures in respect of the treatment of his wife Mrs. B. P. Naik for a sum of Rs.55,330/ at Lady Harding Medical Collect (for shot LHMC) and Sucheta Kriplani Hospital (SSKH), New Delhi accompanied with necessary Essentiality Certificate 'B' purportedly signed by Dr. T.P. Kaur, photocopy of discharge summary of case no. 44614, ten cash receipts of purchase of medicines from various chemists and cash receipt no. 39013 dated 07.01.1999 for Rs.2200/ as room rent for the Nursing Home.
3. The case of the State (CBI) is that medical bill no.
1242II dated 20.02.1999 for Rs.55,330/ was prepared and passed by Y.P. Sharma (A2), working as Professional Assistant (Statics) in CWC, although the bill was not accompanied with sanction for treatment and reimbursement.
4. It is further the case of State (CBI) that coaccused Chandreshwar Manjhi (A3), Section Officer working as DDO in CWC without obtaining sanction of the competent authority forwarded the bills to the Pay & Accounts Office for passing of the bill and payment thereupon in criminal conspiracy with coaccused Natha Ram Suman (A5) who was the PAO. A4 S.K. Aggarwal as Senior Accounts Officer in the P&AO, CWC is alleged to have ignored the glaring irregularities with other coaccused in passing the bill and issued cheque no. 236501 dated 25.01.1999 for Rs.55,330/ in favour of A1 that was deposited by A1 in his bank account no. 32333 with SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi on 25.01.1999 and was credited on 27.01.1999. It is also the case of State (CBI) that the details of cheque no. 236501 dated 25.01.1999 issued in favour of A1 was not CC No. 26/11 Page 126 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 reflected in the Cheque Acquaintance Register or Reimbursement Register of CWC and this was done in connivance with other coaccused persons.
5. It is the case of State (CBI) that investigation revealed that Smt. B.P. Naik, wife of A1 was admitted in the alleged LHMC and Sucheta Kriplani hospital (SSKH) for treatment of DVB and Adenomyosis in Gynae Ward, UnitB, Nursing HomeI and 29.12.1998 and operated on 01.01.1999 by Dr. T. P. Kaur and remained in the hospital till 07.01.1999; and that investigation revealed that Rs.2200/ were received by the cashier of the hospital but on scrutiny of cash receipt register, no payment of Rs.50,000/ had towards operation charges been made and rather LHMC and SSKH being Central Govt. Institutions did not charge any amount from its patients.
6. It is alleged that when the amount of cheque was credited in the account on 27.01.1999, Rs.42,000/ were withdrawn vide self cheque by A1, while Rs.6,000/ and Rs.7,000/ were utilised on clearance of cheques issued by A1 on 29.01.1999 and 30.01.1999."
My findings The perusal of the aforesaid judgement and the allegations in the present chargesheet show that the transactions in the present case are totally different from the transactions mentioned in CC no. 18/11. Therefore, I disagree with this submission and I hold that the present case is not hit by Section 300 Cr.PC.
Findings on facts
(i) Shiv Sagar Naik (A7) was a Section Officer in Establishment and Accounts Section. He sanctioned his own CC No. 26/11 Page 127 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 LTC claims :
(a) Sanction order dated 28.5.1999 for claim of LTC for a sum of Rs.45,000/ Ex.P11.
(b) Sanction order dated 7.4.1999 for claim of LTC for a sum of Rs.72,000/ Ex.P2.
(c) Sanction order dated 15.9.1999 for claim of LTC for a sum of Rs.54,000/ Ex.P4.
(d) Sanction order dated 4.1.2000 for claim of LTC for a sum of Rs.62,450/ Ex.P9.
In none of the sanction orders, he had mentioned the designation. Interestingly out of these 4 sanction orders, three are for Kanyakumari and one is for Trivendram. It is also required to be kept in mind that the LTC had been claimed for four times in a very short duration. No tickets etc. were annexed. The bills were prepared in the office of DDO by A4, which is clear from his handwriting at Q515, Q 513, Q514 and Q516. At this stage, the designation of Shiv Kumar has been shown as Director (Dr), CE i.e. Chief Engineer and Assistant Director. All these bills are seen and the order for payment of the money has been passed by N. R. Suman (A16) (see his signatures at Q211, Q210, Q209 and Q212) without asking a question as to how so many LTC claims are being received in such a short duration. An CC No. 26/11 Page 128 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 experienced eye could not have missed this fact unless the intentions are dishonest.
Consequent to the aforesaid approvals, A17 issued cheques to S. S. Naik, which were delivered to this accused Shiv Sagar Naik (A7) through C. Manjhi, DDO.
PW38 Mangal Dass, the Senior Accountant in PAO proved the cheque Ex.PW38/A (D38) issued by S. K. Aggarwal (signatures at Q329) in favour of Shiv Sagar Naik. All these amounts were deposited in the bank account of Shiv Sagar Naik, which is proved by the statement of bank account Ex.PW11/D (D199) of Syndicate Bank, R. K. Puram Branch (see the testimony of PW11 Sh. M. Jinarajadasa, Manager, Syndicate Bank) and in statement of bank account no. 32333, Ex.PW54/Z44 (D204) of State Bank of India, R. K. Puram Branch (Collected by the Investigating Officer).
Thus, it stands proved that fake claims of LTC were made by this accused and government money was misappropriated with the help of A16 and A17.
22. Lachi Ram, Daftry (Retd.) (A8) As per prosecution case accused Lachi Ram worked as a Daftry in CWC, New Delhi during the relevant period. Two cheques for Rs.56,000/ and Rs.57,000/ as CC No. 26/11 Page 129 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 detailed below issued by P&AO, CWC were credited in his bank account maintained with SBI, R.K. Puram on 5.11.99 and 2.12.99. He withdrew Rs.46,000/ on 5.11.99 and Rs.47,000/ on 2.12.99, i.e., on the same date the cheques were deposited. He further withdrew Rs.10,000/ each on 20.12.99 and 28.1.2000. Only one bill relating to the cheque for Rs.57,000/ has been made available by the CWC Authorities. It is for TTA advance in the name of L. Ram, Dy. Director. This bill was presented to P&AO by DDO, C. Manjhi. The fake sanction order is in favour of Lalu Ram, Dy Director, CWC and signed in the name of S.S. Naik, Section Officer. It has been established from the opinion of GEQD that the bill was prepared by J. K. Singhal and forwarded by C. Manjhi. Since there was no person by name L. Ram or Lalu Ram working in the rank of Dy. Director, CWC, it is clear that this amount has been defalcated by J. K. Singal in connivance with C. Manjhi. However, the substantial money has been withdrawn by him on the same date indicating thereby that he was aware of the deposit of these cheques. Both the original cheques have not been made available by P&AO, CWC, New Delhi.
CC No. 26/11 Page 130 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
S. A/c No. & Bank of Date Cheque No. Credit Amount
No. Shri Lachi Ram
1 A/c No. 126421, 5.11.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 56,000
SBI, R. K.Puram No. 275561
2 2.12.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 57,000
No. 276191 in
favour of SBI RK
Puram
Since he has expired, I am not inclined to consider the aforesaid transactions.
23. Jeet Ram Sharma (A9) Allegations As per prosecution case accused Jeet Ram Sharma, Jr. Computer, while working in Account SectionIII, CWC, during the relevant period prepared a false medical bill in the name of his mother Late Bhagwati and fraudulently obtained account payee cheque in his name for Rs.80,325/ and got it encashed through his bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram. The original bill has been collected from P&AO/ CWC. Scrutiny of the bill revealed that fake bill was prepared after getting a photocopy of another bill claimed by C.M. Pandit. Investigation revealed that C.M. Pandit got treatment at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre, Okhla and the documents enclosed by C.M. Pandit for CC No. 26/11 Page 131 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 medical claim were photo copied by Y. P. Sharma and given to Jeet Ram Sharma to facilitate the passing of bill in connivance with other coaccused persons posted in P&AO/ CWC. Shri Jeet Ram Sharma has also encashed four account payee cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC amounting to Rs.2,98,844/ in his account maintained with SBI R. K. Puram, New Delhi, details of which are as under : S. A/c No. & Bank of Date Cheque No. Credit Amount No. J. R. SHARMA 1 A/c No. 30221, 21.01.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 80,325 SBI, R. K. Puram (there is No. 236271 mistake DT. 21.1.99 # in the charge sheet in respect of the date) 2 .3.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 104,029 No. 238516 DT. 31.3.99 # 3 7.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 64,939 No. 240863 DT. 6.7.99 4 8.99 P&AO/CWC/Cheque 49,548 No. 241863 DT. 13.8.99 # Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that it has CC No. 26/11 Page 132 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 come in the statement of PW54 Inspector R. S. Bedi, IO in the present case in the crossexamination on behalf of A9 that with regard to the receipt of the cheque for an amount of Rs.80,325/ on account of alleged forged medical bill of his mother, as per the procedure any cheque so received, shall bear the counter signatures of the recipient in the acquaintance register maintained in the P&AO Section of the Department, but it is admitted by PW54 that the said Register did not bear signatures of the present accused applicant. The investigating officer had also not collected any evidence including any documentary evidence to show that three other account payee cheques for a sum of Rs.1,04,029, Rs.64,939/ and Rs.49,528/ including the amount of Rs.80,325/ were infact received or collected by the accused Jeet Ram Sharma. He has also admitted that out of the four payinslips, two slips could not be recovered from the bank and two other payinslips which are Ex.PW54/D1 and Ex.PW54/D2 have not been sent to CFSL for the opinion of the hand writing expert. He had also not denied that the pay inslips Ex.PW54/D1 and Ex.PW54/D2 are also not bearing the hand writing of the accused Jeet Ram Sharma. A bare perusal of the statement of account no. 9445 of A9 of Syndicate Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi shows that there is CC No. 26/11 Page 133 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 no deposit of Rs.80,325/. The IO had also not placed any document on record to show that the medical bill of the mother of the accused applicant has been forged by him and was submitted to P&AO Section for the realization of the said medical bill. Be that as it may, therefore, there is no iota of evidence to say that in fact, accused had collected any amount of Rs.80,325/ from the P&AO Section on the basis by submitting a forged medical bill of his mother.
Ld. Defence counsel has further submitted that in fact, it has come in the investigation and also in the statements of two witnesses namely PW45 Sunil Kumar and PW49 Sandeep Kumar, who is owning Chemist shop at Krishna Park, Tilak Nagar and Sandeep Kumar being teaching the tuitions to the children of accused J. P. Sharma, mentioned that few cheques were got deposited into their account by and on behalf of accused J. P. Sharma and O. P. Narang and later on, when those cheques were credited to their accounts, they approached them and obtained the amounts for the cheques which were deposited in their accounts. The accused being the junior officer particularly to Y. P. Sharma (A1) had also stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC that similar modus operandi had been worked upon him and some cheques were deposited CC No. 26/11 Page 134 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 into his account by and on behalf of the said Y. P. Sharma (A
1) and he was forced to encash them and give them to accused Y. P. Sharma.
Ld. Defence counsel has further submitted that there is no cheque of Rs.49,548/ in the name of the present accused and in fact, the said cheque in the name of A.O. - Nwada which was though a cancelled cheque but thereafter there is no document placed on record to show that another cheque was issued in the name of the present applicant. Thus, it clearly shows that the investigation in this case from the very beginning is found to be faulty, lop sided and not fair.
My findings I have already discussed the bill, in the sum of Rs.80,325/, in the role of N. R. Suman (A16).
Ld. Defence counsel has tried to equate the role of A9 with PW45 and PW49. However, the analogy is not valid. Whereas, the aforesaid witnesses are the victim of circumstances, the present accused has claimed the medical reimbursement in the name of her mother vide his Application For Claiming Refund of Medical Expenses Ex.PW26/A. The handwriting at Q559 and signatures at Q 560 have been opined to be of A9. Along with this CC No. 26/11 Page 135 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 application, he filed a forged bill Ex.PW35/O1, which is forged by taking photocopy of bill Ex.PW35/A raised by Chetan Mukund Pandit (PW35), whose testimony I have already discussed.
Prosecution has drawn my attention to letter Ex.PW54/Z21 in which it is stated that Smt. Bhagwati Devi came to OPD only on 23.01.1998 and paid Rs.250/ only and enclosed a billcumreceipt Ex.PW54/Z22.
Although, the prosecution has not examined the concerned witness from Escort Heart Institute, however, to lead a negative evidence is not required by the prosecution. It is for this accused to prove that his mother actually got treatment from the said hospital and that the bill annexed with his medical claim is genuine one. I have already discussed the testimony of Chetan Mukund Pandit (PW35), from whose testimony it transpires that the present bill was forged after manipulating a bill, which was submitted by PW35.
On the basis of the said forged bill, this accused made a claim of Rs.80,325/, which is apparent from the bill D562 Ex.PW26/I. N. R. Suman (PW16) approved it, which is clear from his signatures at Q553.
CC No. 26/11 Page 136 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 I am convinced that Jeet Ram Sharma had got this claim in conspiracy with A16 and A17.
Investigating Officer had collected three cheques in the name of J. R. Sharma, which are D69 (Ex.PW51/53), D71 and D72. The cheque D72 is in the sum of Rs.80,325/ dated 31.3.1999. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that this cheque was not deposited in the bank account of A9. I may point out that Investigating Officer (PW54) had collected the statement of bank account of A9, which is Ex.PW54/Z61 (D619). Perusal of this statement of account does not show anywhere that the cheque in the sum of Rs.80,325/ was deposited in the said bank account. However, perusal of cheque D72 shows that it was in the name of A9 and it bears stamp of "paid" on it. Inference can be drawn that the cheque amount has been withdrawn by A
9. Possibility cannot be ruled out that A9 is concealing some other bank account where the said cheque was presented.
Moreover, no explanation is coming from this accused as well as by A17 as to for what purpose a cheque of Rs.1,04,029/ (the cheque Ex.PW51/53 dated 31.3.1999, which bears the signatures of A17 at Q358) was issued in the name of A9. The statement of account no.9446 of A9 Ex.PW54/Z61 (D619), correctness of which has not bee CC No. 26/11 Page 137 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 disputed by A9, shows entry of Rs.1,04,029/ on 10.4.1999. Why this cheque was issued by A17 to A9 is explained by none of these accused persons.
All this evidence has proved that not only A9 had presented a forged medical bill and received the claim but also he received from A17 a cheque of Rs.1,04,029/ illegally without any cause or reason.
24. B. M. Ghosh (A10) Allegations As per prosecution case, investigation has revealed that during the relevant period Shri B. M. Ghosh worked as Extra Asstt. Director with CWC at New Delhi. He deposited five cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC amounting to Rs.3,53,953.00, in his bank account maintained with SBI and UCO Bank, R. K. Puram between the 1.3.99 to 30.12.99. The details of cheques deposited in the said account and the funds withdrawn against the credits so made in the accounts is detailed below. The bills on the basis of which two cheques for Rs.1,20,000 and Rs.74,874 were prepared have been collected. Bill for Rs.74,874 was presented to P&AO by accused Manjhi DDO without sanction order and was accompanied with false due drawn statement.
CC No. 26/11 Page 138 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 His basic ipay has been shown as Rs.14,400/ where as his basic pay was only Rs.8900/. The bill for Rs.1,20,000/ submitted by Sh. B. M. Ghosh is bearing fake/ false sanction order. The false medical bill was prepared by YP Sharma and presented by C. Manjhi to P&AO. Sh. N. R. Suman passed for payment and cheque was issued by S. K. Aggarwal. There is transfer of money of Rs.5,500/ and Rs.40,000/ from the bank account of B. M. Ghosh to the account of Om Prakash Narang. In background aforesaid Shri B. M. Ghosh was responsible for putting up false bills for payment. He in pursuance of the conspiracy deposited fraudulently issued cheques in his accounts, with the object of defraudulently CWC in conspiracy with the other coaccused persons.
B. M. Ghosh Date of Cheque No. Credit Debit Amt.
A/c No. Credit/ Amount
29933, SBI, debit
R.K. Puram
27.3.99 P&AO Cheque 106,479
238126 dated
26399
12.8.99 P&AO Cheque 60,000
241773 dated
10899
13.8.99 606,216 40,000 to OP
Narang
31.8.99 5,500 to OP
Narang
CC No. 26/11 Page 139 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
PAO cheque 32,600
276,917 dated
291299
A/c No. 6704, 15299 PAO cheque 120,000
UCO Bank, RK 236863 dt.
Puram 11.2.99
1399 PAO cheque 74,874
237320 dt.
25.2.99
Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel
It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that acquaintance register contains information regarding cheques and its delivery against the signatures of recipient. It is argued that as per acquaintance register not even a single cheque has been received by this accused against the acknowledgement. It is further argued that neither accused deposited any cheque nor he collected any cheque from any person in the department. Hence, it is argued that there is no evidence that accused had any mens rea in the present transaction.
My findings I have already discussed as to how B. M. Ghosh (A10) got issued a fake medical claim in the name of Subhra Ghosh showing it to be a case of total joint replacement. His CC No. 26/11 Page 140 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 application for reimbursement of medical claim for his wife Subhra Ghosh is Ex.PW51/18. The handwriting and signatures on this application at Q569, Q570 & Q578 have been opined to be that of B. M. Ghosh (A10). Alongwith with this application he has annexed Certificate 'B' Ex.PW51/16 and hospital bill Ex.PW51/17. The handwriting of Certificate 'B' at Q571 has been opined to be that of B. M. Ghosh (A
10). In this certificate A10 has made claim of Rs.1,20,000/ for "Total ankle joint replacement". The hospital bill Ex.PW51/17 is purported to have been issued by AIIMS. The Investigating Officer sent a letter (Ex.PW54/Z16) (D596) to the hospital. Dr. R.K. Sharma, Medical Superintendent replied vide letter Ex.PW54/Z17 (D597) that neither Subhra Ghosh was admitted nor payment of Rs.1,20,000/ was made in the name of Subhra Ghosh in Neurosurgery account from 25.10.1998 to 06.11.1998.
Although, the prosecution has not examined the said doctor to prove the nonpayments, but where a public servant has claimed huge amounts, it is for him to prove that the investigation was wrong in this regard. Therefore, it is clear that A10 had filed a forged bill and claimed medical reimbursement.
CC No. 26/11 Page 141 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
25. Om Prakash (A11) S/o Sohan Lal Designation Draftsman Allegations As per prosecution case, investigation also revealed that Sh. Om Prakash, worked as Draftsman, GRI in CWC, New Delhi during the relevant period. He had his bank account at Punjab National Bank, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. 3 cheques as detailed below fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC, New Delhi were deposited by Shri J.P. Sharma in the bank account of Sh. Om Prakash maintained with PNB, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and the funds so deposited was withdrawn by him. He also issued one cheque of Rs.36,700/ in favour of J. P. Sharma. In respect of these cheques only one Bill No. P 1251/III dt. 19.2.99 for Rs.1,91254/ has been made available, which contains due and drawn statement in the name of Om Prakash showing his basic pay Rs.15,100/ in Jan. 96 where as basic of Om Prakash, Draftsman, was Rs.6900/ in Jan 2003. The pay arrears was prepared by Y.P. Sharma and the arrears amount of Rs.54,202/ was deposited in the Bank Account of Om Prakash at PNB, RK Puram, New Delhi.
CC No. 26/11 Page 142 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Debit Encashed/ No. Bank of Om Amount Amt. Deposited Prakash, Draftsman 1 A/c No. 1.4.98 P&AO/CWC/ 28,819 By J. P. 5715, P.N.B., Cheque No. Sharma R.K. Puram 228394 Dt. 1.3.98 # 6.4.98 Bank Cheque 2,880 By J. P. No. 225 Sharma 2 25.6.98 P&AO/CWC/ 23,819 J. P. Sharma Cheque No. (there is sd/ for Om 230010 Dt. mistake Prakash 29.5.98 # in the charge sheet in respect of this amount) 3 29.8.98 P&AO/CWC/ 110,568 J. P. Sharma Cheque No. sd/ for Om 232492 Dt. Prakash 7.8.98 # 2.9.98 Cheque No. 36,700 A/c No. 36903 229 in f/o of J.P. Sharma J.P. Sharma 16.12.98 20,000 To J.P. Sharma 4 1.3.99 P&AO/CWC/ 54,202 Bill Cheque No. available 237321 5.3.99 Cheque No. 5,000 A/c No. 36903 363062 of J.P. Sharma Submissions of Ld. Defence counsel
It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that cheques were deposited in his account without his knowledge after CC No. 26/11 Page 143 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 obtaining his account number against his wishes. It is argued that payinslip is not in handwriting of the accused, withdrawal of the amount is through cheques in the name of Deputy Director, Jagmohan Singh and Anil Kumar, with whom the present accused has no dealing. It is further submitted that A11, A14 and A15 are victims of their bosses, who are also the coaccused in the present case. It is argued that when the cheque was deposited by Deputy Director.
My findings I will only take up three cheques in the sum of Rs.28,819/ (D42) (Ex.PW51/29), in the sum of Rs.23,819/ (D43) (Ex.PW51/30) and in the sum of Rs.1,10,568/ (D
45) (Ex.PW51/32). These are the Government cheques issued by Pay & Accounts Officer S. K. Aggarwal, which is clear from his signatures on the cheques at point Q332, Q 333 and Q335 and the same were collected by the Investigating Officer. The back side of the cheques bear the stamp of Punjab National Bank and the account no.5715, which belongs to A11 (see the statement of account and account opening form, which are part of Ex.PW54/Z42 (D
291).
CC No. 26/11 Page 144 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The said cheques were deposited in the bank account of A11, which is clear from the payinslips D292, D293, D294 and D295, which are part of the file D54/Z
42. The same were collected by Investigating Officer from Punjab National Bank, R. K. Puram, which was earlier New Bank of India. The Investigating Officer collected the statement of account, which is also part of Ex.PW54/Z42, which shows that the aforesaid cheques were deposited in the said bank account.
Accused had admitted all these facts in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. He has stated that these cheques were deposited by J. P. Sharma and the said amount was also withdrawn by J. P. Sharma. Prosecution has placed on record two cheques issued by A11 in the sum of Rs.5000/ and Rs.36,700/ (D285 and D286) dated 4.3.1999 and 31.8.1998 respectively in the name of J. P. Sharma. The material on record proves that the aforesaid cheques were not only deposited by J. P. Sharma and withdrawn by him but it also shows that cheques of bigger amounts were deposited by J. P. Sharma in the bank account of this accused but smaller amounts were withdrawn. This shows that the differential amount was misappropriated by this accused.
CC No. 26/11 Page 145 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
26. OM PRAKASH S/O AMIR SINGH, (A12) Designation - Deputy Director (Retd.) Allegations in the charge sheet As per prosecution case, investigation has revealed that Om Prakash, Deputy Director, CWC retired from CWC in September 1996 and resides at Rohtak. Five cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC, New Delhi amounting to Rs.3,31,938.00 as detailed below were deposited in his bank account maintained with SBI, R. K. Puram, New Delhi during 3.8.98 to 17.1.2000, which he was not authorized to receive. The writings on the payinslip indicate that these were filled in by J. P. Sharma. One cheque issued in the name of self by Om Prakash was also encashed by J. P. Sharma. It is thus established that both of them in conspiracy with other accused persons fraudulently withdrew government funds. There is no entry in the Bill Register PBR with regard to these cheques. There is no Acquittance Roll of these issued cheques. Only one cheque of Rs.64,560/ has been made available by P&AO/CWC.
CC No. 26/11 Page 146 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 S. A/c No. & Date Cheque No. Credit Debit Encashed/ No. Bank of Om Amount Amt. Deposited Prakash, DD (Retd) 1 A/c No. 3.8.98 P&AO/CWC/ 45,574 30221, SBI, Cheque No. R.K. Puram 231,611 2 15.3.99 P&AO/CWC/ 104,258 Cheque No. 237,602 3 28.5.99 P&AO/CWC/ 64,560 By J. P. Cheque No. Sharma 239,724 4 9.12.99 P&AO/CWC/ 45,574 Cheque No. 276,724 # 5 17.1.00 P&AO/CWC/ 71,972 Cheque No. 277,256 17.1.00 555,018 72,000 By J. P. Sharma Submissions of accused
Ld. Defence counsel has referred to the testimony of PW1 Kahnaiya Lal who stated in his examination in chief that during the year 200102 he was working as an Assistant Manager, SBI, RK Puram Branch, and he had visited CBI office several times on the directions of Branch Manager and delivered various documents to CBI officers which were seized and seizure memos were prepared which are Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6 (Ex.PW1/1 is credit voucher dated CC No. 26/11 Page 147 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 17.01.2000 for Rs.71,972/ and Ex.PW1/2 is Payinslip dated 09.12.1999 for Rs.45,574/, Ex.PW1/6 is also payin slip dated 09.12.1997 for deposit of cheque No. 225349 for Ra.10,511/).
Ld. Defence counsel has referred to the testimony of PW13 Suraj Lal, who was Assistant CashiercumClerk during the year 1991 to 2004 at SBI, RK Puram. In his examination in chief, he has proved Ex.PW13/A, which is the statement of account of the present accused showing various credit entries from 27.09.1996 to 03.03.1998. He has also proved Ex.PW13/B which is account opening form of the present accused. The credit entries in the account of the present accused is from 27.09.1996 to 03.03.1998, however, the case against the present accused is in respect of the five cheques which are from 01.04.1998 to 15.01.2000. In his crossexamination he has admitted, "It is correct that no entry is there in the statement of account Ex.PW13/A after 06.03.1998". Meaning thereby the aforesaid five cheques were not credited in the account of the present accused. When there was no credit shown in the statement of account Ex.PW13/A, the question of withdrawal of the said amount does not arise.
CC No. 26/11 Page 148 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Ld. Defence counsel has referred to the testimony of PW23 T. K. Sarkar, the then Deputy Manager, CBI, Rohtak, who has proved the account opening form of account no. 38705 of the present accused Ex.PW23/B and the statement of account Ex.PW23/C. In the said statement of account there is no credit entry shown in respect of the aforesaid five disputed cheques, meaning thereby these cheques were also not credited in the aforesaid account of the present accused.
Ld. Defence counsel has referred to the testimony of PW54 Inspector R. S. Bedi, IO of the case, who has stated in his examination in chief, "I have also collected the payin slip in respect of the account no. 30221 which are already Ex.PW51/131 to Ex.PW51/135." These payinslip are in the name of Om Prakash. Govt. cheques mentioned therein were deposited in the aforesaid account. Accused J. P. Sharma had withdrawn Rs.72,000/ vide bearer cheque dated 17.01.2002. The said cheque is already Ex.PW51/136. In his cross examination he has admitted, "It is correct that the pay in slip which are D683 to 687 Ex.PW51/131 to Ex.PW51/135 had not been written by the accused Om Prakash nor deposited by him in the bank." He has further admitted, "It is correct that neither the specimen handwriting nor the signatures of the accused were collected nor sent to CFSL". He has further CC No. 26/11 Page 149 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 admitted, "It is correct that none of the 27 challans vide which amount withdrawn were refunded are in the handwriting of accused Om Prakash". The aforesaid admission by the IO in his crossexamination shows that the present accused was not aware in respect of the aforesaid five cheques in any manner. He neither received any cheques nor filled the payinslip nor deposited the said five disputed cheques in his account nor withdrew any amount of the aforesaid disputed cheques from his account. Suggestion was put to this witness to which he answered that "he cannot admit or deny if the amount shown to have been deposited by the aforesaid payinslip Ex.PW51/131 to Ex.PW51/135 had even credited in the account of the present accused."
Ld. Defence counsel has submitted that Ex.PW51/136 by which the amount of Rs.72,000/ was allegedly withdrawn by the coaccused J. P. Sharma does not bear the account number of the accused. It is further mentioned that the signatures of the accused on Ex.PW51/136 were not compared as admittedly his signatures were not taken by the IO and nor the same were sent to CFSL for any comparison. It is argued that Ex.PW51/136 does not bear the signatures and account number of the present accused.
CC No. 26/11 Page 150 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 My findings The Investigating Officer (PW54) had collected the payinslips from State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, which are Ex.PW51/131 to Ex.PW51/135. The handwritings on these pay slips are Q79/1, Q74/1, Q75/1, Q77/1, Q76/1 respectively.
As per handwriting expert's report Q74/1 on pay slip Ex.PW51/132 is in handwriting of J. P. Sharma.
Rest of the handwritings could not be identified by handwriting expert. I may point out that specimen handwriting of this accused was not taken.
Ex.PW51/136 is a self cheque in the sum of Rs.72,000/ issued by Om Prakash but withdrawn by J. P. Sharma, whose signatures are present on the back side of the cheque at Q81. Submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel are correct to the extent that no evidence is available as to whether the signatures on the self cheque and on the back side of the self cheque are that of Om Prakash himself.
Prosecution has examined PW13 Suraj Pal, an official of State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, who proved the statement of bank account no. 30221 pertaining to this accused. The same is Ex.PW13/A, which is part of D704. Perusal of this statement of account shows that the cheque CC No. 26/11 Page 151 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 no. 555018 dated 17.1.2000, which is a self cheque in the name of Om Prakash in the sum of Rs.72,000/ was debited from his account. Even if the prosecution is unable to bring on record any evidence that the signatures on the cheque are that of Om Prakash, it cannot be forgotten that this is the cheque pertaining to the bank account of this accused. Otherwise, the amount of Rs.72,000/ could not have been debited from the bank account of Om Prakash. If J. P. Sharma has withdrawn this amount, the present accused must explain as to how this cheque pertaining to his own bank account was in hand of J. P. Sharma.
Now I take up as to what cheques were deposited in the bank account of A12 by way of the aforesaid payin slips.
I have tabulated the same as under :
Sl. Exhibit of payin D. No. Cheque No. Amount No. slips
1. Ex.PW51/131 D683 231611 dated 45,574/ 31.7.1998
2. Ex.PW51/132 D684 237602 dated 1,04,258/ 13.3.1999
3. Ex.PW51/133 D685 239724 dated 64,560/ 24.5.1999
4. Ex.PW51/134 D686 276268 dated 45,574/ 8.12.1999
5. Ex.PW51/135 D687 277256 dated 71,972/ 14.1.2000 CC No. 26/11 Page 152 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Perusal of statement of bank account shows that all the aforesaid amounts were duly deposited in the bank account of A12 from 3.8.1998 till 17.1.2000. It is interesting to see that during this long period of about two years, no other amount was deposited in this bank account except the interest accrued. This statement of account shows that the bank account was closed on 23.9.2000. This bank account also shows the withdrawal of the cheque in the sum of Rs.72,000/ on 17, January 2000. The accused had knowledge of depositing of such hefty amounts and withdrawal therefrom at least on the date of closing of this bank account.
Now it should be seen as to what is the nature of the aforesaid cheques and who issued the same. The Investigating Officer seized two cheques D44 and D46 from Pay & Account Office. D44 is cheque no. 231611 dated 31.7.1998 in the sum of Rs.45,574/ issued by A17, whose signatures are present at Q334. The second cheque is D46. Cheque number is 239724 dated 24.5.1999 for a sum of Rs.64,560/ signed by A17 at Q336.
The back side of both these cheques mentions the saving bank account no. 30221, which pertains to the present accused.
CC No. 26/11 Page 153 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The rest of the cheque could not be traced by Investigating Officer. However, accused is not claiming any of the said cheques. Neither A17, who issued these cheques, nor the present accused (A12) explain as to why these cheques were issued and deposited in the bank account of A 12 by A6 and a hefty sum of Rs.72,000/ was withdrawn by A12 through A6. It is relevant to mention here that in statement under Section 313 CrPC, A12 had admitted that he had retired as Deputy Director in September 1996. the bank account does not show it to be a pension account. This shows that this accused was fully in complicity with the other coaccused persons and had misappropriated the aforesaid amounts of money.
27. Bhagwan Singh (A13) Allegations in the charge sheet As per prosecution case, during the relevant period Bhagwan Singh, worked as Jr. Computer in CWC, New Delhi. He also deposited as detailed below cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO, CWC, New Delhi amounting to Rs.1,73,251/ in his account maintained with SBI, RK Puram, and encashed the same. Bills relating to these cheques have not been provided by CWC or P&AO. There is no mention CC No. 26/11 Page 154 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 about the disbursement of these cheques in the acquittance rolls. A cheque no. 277701 dated 29.1.2000 for Rs.1,39,097/ in favour of SBI, R.K. Puram, New Delhi was split in the bank accounts of coaccused JP Sharma, SS Naik and Bhagwan Singh maintained at SBI RK Puram, New Delhi. Original Cheque and bill/ voucher are available in the P&AO/CWC. All credit entries are recorded in their Bank A/c's as GT (Govt. Transfer) dated 29.1.2000.
S. A/c No. & Date Cheque Credit Debit Issued Encashed
No. Bank of No. Amount Amt. in /deposi
SHRI favour ted by
BHAGWAN of
SINGH JR.
COMPUTE
R
1 125213, 1.12.98 P&AO/CW 49,845 PS. JP Sharma
SBI R.K. C/Cheque
Puram No.
235,113
1.12.98 35,000 Self
2.12.98 14,400 Self
2 15.3.99 P&AO/CW 33,476 JP Sharma
C/Cheque
No.
237,608
16.3.99 33,000 Self
3 1.7.99 P&AO/CW 53,000 JP Sharma
C/Cheque
No.
240764
2.1.99 52,500 Self
CC No. 26/11 Page 155 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
4 29.1.00 P&AO/CW 36,930
C/Cheque
No.
277701
31.1.00 30,000 Self
1.2.00 6,400 Self
This accused has expired and proceedings against him abated. Hence, I am not inclined to discuss his role.
28. I. Yesudanam (A14) Allegations As per prosecution case, investigation has also revealed that Sh. I. Yeshudanam worked as Asstt. Director, CWC during the relevant period. One cheque for Rs.1,22,000/ as detailed below was deposited in his bank account maintained with SBI R.K. Puram, New Delhi by Y. P. Sharma. The related bill is not available with CWC and as such has not been made available during investigation. There are no signature on the acquittance roll. From the said amount of Rs.91,000/ was withdrawn immediately thereafter in favour of self. There is no entry in Bill Register in respect of bill for Rs.1,22,000/ of Sh. I. Yashudanam.
CC No. 26/11 Page 156 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 A/c No. & Date Cheque Credit Debit Issued Remarks Bank of No. Amount Amt. in ITHI favour YESUDANAM of 1 A/c No. 8.3.99 P&AO/CW 122,000 46147, SBI, C/Cheque R. K. Puram No. 237424 9.3.99 164,430 91,000 Self Submissions of accused
It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that this is only an entry of one cheque and consequent withdrawal. It is submitted that his case should be considered as that of a bonafide victim and he should be treated equivalent to PW14, PW40, PW47 and PW49.
My findings In answer to question no. 1 in his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC, A14 has admitted that he was working as Assistant Director during the relevant period.
Investigating Officer seized the relevant documents of bank account no. 46147/193 (D709) pertaining to A14 from State Bank of India, R. K. Puram, including the statement of account. The statement of account shows that a sum of Rs.1,22,000/ was deposited on 08.03.1999, which is a government transfer. The next entry dated 09.03.1999 shows that Rs,91,000/ were withdrawn by CC No. 26/11 Page 157 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 him in cash.
The Investigating Officer seized the relevant cheque from PAO, CWC. This government cheque no. 237424, dated 05.03.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/ is D73 (Ex.PW51/55), which had been issued in the name of A14 by S. K. Aggarwal (A17), whose signatures are present at Q
361. The backside of this cheque shows the SBI account no. 46147 pertaining to A14, which shows that through this cheque a sum of Rs.1,22,000/ was transferred in the bank account of A14. This question no. 5 was put to A14 and he stated that he does not have any knowledge about it.
Now, it is to be seen as to who withdrew the amount of Rs.91,000/ and in what manner. As per the allegations in chargesheet, the said amount was withdrawn through a self cheque no. 164430, dated 09.03.1999.
I would like to reproduce questions no. 3, 4 & 5 and the answers to it by A14 under Section 313 Cr.PC as under :
"Qns.3 It is in evidence against you Pay & Accounts Office, CWC cheque no. 237424 for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/ had been deposited in your account by coaccused Y. P. Sharma in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to procure bogus cheques without any bills or claims and get the amount misappropriated. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is correct. Accused J. P. Sharma, my immediate boss and not accused Y. P. Sharma, my confidential report writing officer called me to his chamber at about 6:00 p.m. On 08.03.1999 and gave me a counterfoil of payinslip saying that a cheque had been deposited in CC No. 26/11 Page 158 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 my account and called upon me to return the amount.
Qns.4 It is in evidence against you that soon after the deposit of said cheque on 09.03.1999 you withdrew an amount of Rs.91,000/ from the said account and embezzled the same in criminal conspiracy with coaccused persons. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is incorrect. After handing over counterfoil of the payinslip to me, accused J. P. Sharma insisted me to return the money by self cheque. Thereafter, accused J. P. Sharma accompanied me in his red Maruti car to my quarter to take the cheque from me where I gave him a self cheque of Rs.91,000/ which was filled by me on his directions where I put one signatures on the front side of the cheque and he asked me to sign thrice on the reverse on the backside of the cheque which I did on his directions and handed over the cheque to him. The remaining amount was also returned subsequently to him on his directions.
Qns.5 It is in evidence against you that no entry had been made in regard to above said cheque of Rs.1,22,000/ in the bill register and/ or cheque acquittance register maintained in the ordinary course of business. What do you have to say?
Ans. Since the cheque was not prepared under my knowledge therefore, I did not know anything about the entry in the said register or any other document concerning the cheque. Therefore, there was no signatures done by me in the register against the entry of the cheque."
I have carefully perused the aforesaid statement and it appears to be truthful. However, no conviction can be placed on record on the basis of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
Therefore, it has to be seen as to what was proved by the prosecution. The government cheque Ex.PW51/55 issued by A17 in favour of A14 shows that an amount of Rs.1,22,000/ was deposited in the bank account of A14.
CC No. 26/11 Page 159 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Investigating Officer had collected the statement of bank account, which is part of Ex.PW54/Z46. This statement of account was not disputed by A14 during cross examination or at any stage of the trial. This statement also shows that a sum of Rs.1,22,000/ was deposited through government transfer on 8.3.1999 and A14 withdrew the amount of Rs.91,000/. It means that remaining amount was misappropriated by A14. Even if the submission of A14 is accepted and it is presumed that A14 did not know the fact of deposition of the aforesaid cheque in his bank account, he must explain as to whether he returned the amount to the Government through a cheque by writing appropriate application. The explanation is not coming forth as to what legal steps were taken by A14 as per rules to refund the said amount of Rs.1,22,000/ to the government.
29. Hayat Singh (A15) Allegations Investigation has also revealed that Shri Hayat Singh worked as Peon in CWC, New Delhi. Three cheques fraudulently issued by P&AO amounting to Rs.1,54,500/ lakhs approx. as detailed below were deposited in his account during May 99 to Dec. 99. Out of these three cheques, two CC No. 26/11 Page 160 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 cheques were made available by CWC authorities during investigation. It has also revealed that bill for Rs.15,000/ pertaining to LTC in the name of Hayat Singh, D/M Gr.II was presented under the signatures of C. Manjhi, SO, CWC. The other bill for Rs.65,000/ as TTA Advance in the name of Hayat Singh, Dy. Director, CWC was also presented by C. Manjhi. GEQD opined these bills to be in the handwritings of J. K. Singhal. The first bill was passed for payment by N. R. Suman, Sr. AO, P&AO/CWC and S.K. Aggarwal issued the cheque. All these bills show the complicity of J. K. Singhal, C. Manjhi, N. R. Suman, Sr.AO/ CWC and S.K. Aggarwal, P&AO/CWC in the matter, since none of the two persons in respect of whom the bills were passed were on the rolls of CWC.
S. A/c of Date Cheque No. Credit Remarks
No. Hayat Singh Amount
1 126391 SBI, 20.05.99 PAO/Cheque No. 15,000 Paid cheque and
R.K. Puram 2396377 ## paid bill available
2 23..99 PAO/Cheque No. 74,500
275295
3 2.12.99 PAO/Cheque No. 65,000 Bill available #
276192 in
favour of SBI R.
K. Puram
154,500
CC No. 26/11 Page 161 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
My findings
As per prosecution, only one cheque Ex.PW51/47 could be collected by Investigating Office. This cheque in the sum of Rs.15,000/ was issued by S. K. Aggarwal (A17) in the name of Hayat Singh, which was deposited by A15 in his bank account no. 126391, State Bank of India, R. K. Puram Branch. PW46 I. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Manager, SBI, R. K. Puram Branch, proved the entries in ledger Ex.PW46/D (mentioned in the testimony of PW46 as Ex.PW46/A). Perusal of this ledger shows that a sum of Rs.15,000/ was credited in the account of Hayat Singh on 20.05.1999.
However, the remaining two cheques could not be found by the investigating agency. However, prosecution proposes to prove that two more cheques as tabulated above were also issued and deposited in the bank account of Hayat Singh through PW46, who testified that cheque no. 276191 for an amount of Rs.57,000/ dated 01.12.1999 and cheque no. 276192 for Rs.65,000/ dated 01.12.1999 were received from CWC and the cheque of Rs.57,000/ was credited in the account of accused Lachi Ram vide A/c no. 01190/126421. The credit entry is available in the statement of accounts at point A. The same is Ex.PW46/B. The payinslip of the said cheque is Ex.PW46/C. CC No. 26/11 Page 162 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 The cheque of Rs.65,000/ bearing no. 276192 was credited in the account of accused Hayat Singh vide A/c No. 01190/126391. The credit entry is available in the statement of accounts at point A. The same is Ex.PW46/D. The payinslip of the said cheque is Ex.PW46/E. I have carefully perused the payinslip Ex.PW51/101 (D102), which bears signatures of A15 at Q 41 as well as payinslip Ex.PW46/E vide which the cheques in question were deposited in the bank account of Hayat Singh. No opinion could be given by GEQD on the hand writing of the depositor. These facts were put to Hayat Singh in question no.4, 5 & 6 of statement under Section 313 CrPC but accused denied any knowledge about it.
Now I advert my attention to the ledger Ex.PW46/D. The entire account shows that it reflects the deposits of very small amounts. The only major deposits are the aforesaid three entries of Rs.15,000/, Rs.75,500/ and Rs.65,000/ on 20.5.1999 & 02.12.1999. The remaining credit in the account is that on account of initial payment of Rs.1000/ and accrual of minor amounts like Rs.16.88, Rs.1000, Rs.58, Rs.9000, Rs.400.85, Rs.1384.20, Rs.397.07 etc. None of the entries is of the amount of Rs.1000/ except one entry of Rs.9000/. Therefore, it is not believable that CC No. 26/11 Page 163 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Hayat Singh was not aware of deposition of the aforesaid cheques in his bank account. More so, when it is proved that he withdrew following amounts through various self cheques from his bank, which are tabulated as under :
Sl. Cheque Exhibit D. No. Amount Date No. No.
1. 136776 Ex.PW51/102 D104 Rs.10,000 20.05.1999
2. 136795 Ex.PW51/103 D105 Rs.60,000 25.10.1999
3. 136796 Ex.PW51/104 D106 Rs.5000 02.11.1999
4. 795955 Ex.PW51/105 D107 Rs.10,000 15.04.2000
5. 795956 Ex.PW51/106 D108 Rs.5000 26.05.2000
6. 795957 Ex.PW51/107 D109 Rs.10,000 16.06.2000
7. 795958 Ex.PW51/108 D110 Rs.5000 14.07.2000
8. 795959 Ex.PW51/109 D111 Rs.5000 05.08.2000 All these self cheques bear signatures of the drawer of the cheques on the face of the cheuqe and signatures on the back side of the cheques as a token of having encahsed the cheque. These signatures are from Q 404 to Q418. As already discussed in a tabular form in earlier part of the judgement, the same match with the specimen handwriting of Hayat Singh. If we make a total of withdrawals through self cheques, it is found that Hayat Singh had withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,10,000/. The last entry CC No. 26/11 Page 164 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 shows that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.32,037/ in cash leaving the balance as zero. Therefore, out of a total amount of Rs.1,54,500/ deposited in his bank account fraudulently through cheques of CWC, Hayat Singh had withdrawn the entire amount and therefore closing the bank account on 23.10.2000. Thus, there is a complete misappropriation of defrauded amount.
Now let me discuss as to who issued the cheques in question.
The Investigating Officer could get only one cheque in the sum of Rs.15,000/, which is Ex.PW51/47 issued by S. K. Aggarwal Pay & Account Officer (A17). His signatures have been proved by GEQD at Q349, which match with his specimen signatures. Hayat Singh does not explain as to for what purpose these amounts had been sanctioned to him. It is not in dispute that Hayat Singh is a peon in CWC. As per the testimony of Investigating Officer (PW54), he had seized the relevant documents. First document is P7 (D
491), which is sanction order of TTA advance for Sh. H. S. Singh, Deputy Director, who was transferred from CWC main commission to the office of Chief Engineer, CWC, Bhuvneshwar. This advance is of Rs.65,000/. On the basis of this sanction order, the TTA bill is forwarded by C. Manjhi CC No. 26/11 Page 165 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 to Pay & Account Officer. As per GEQD report, the handwriting on Q33 is in hand of the J. K. Singhal and it was signed by C. Manjhi at Q214A and Q214. P&AO vide his signatures on 1.12.1999 by noting "pay Rs.65,000/ to H. Singh". The noting is in hand of J. K. Singhal and thereafter a cheque no. 276192 was issued and the same was received by DDO, who received by signing at Q214.
Who received this cheque from DDO cannot be traced because the name of receiver of the cheque is not mentioned in the acquittance roll. The acquittance roll has been proved by prosecution to show that against the name of Hayat Singh, there is no entry of having received the cheque. I have already discussed that Hayat Singh is a peon and not a Deputy Director. Hayat Singh not only knew the depositing the aforesaid amount in his account and he withdrew the entire amounts.
I have already discussed as to how money was fraudulently transferred in the bank account of Hayat Singh in conspiracy with the coaccused persons.
CONCLUSION In view of above discussions, I convict all the accused persons (except A5, A8 & A13). The accused CC No. 26/11 Page 166 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 persons in the present case can be divided in three categories.
I II III
Officials of CWC Officials of CWC posted in Officials of P&AO
Accounts Branch
1. R. L. C. Kawale (A5) 1. Chandreshwar Manjhi (A2) 1. S. K. Aggarwal (A17) Sr. DDO Director (since expired) Accounts Officer/P&AO
2. J. P. Sharma (A6) Deputy 2. Y. P. Sharma (A1) 2. Natha Ram Suman (A16) Professional Assistant Director Sr. Accounts Officer
3. Shiv Sagar Naik (A7) 3. Om Prakash Narang (A3) UDC in Accounts Section Section Officer
4. Lachi Ram (A8) Daftri 4. Jai Kumar Singhal (A4) Cashier (since expired)
5. Jeet Ram Sharma (A9) Junior Computer
6. B. M. Ghosh (A10) Extra Assistant Director
7. Om Prakash S/o Sohan Lal (A11) Draftsman
8. Om Prakash S/o Amir Singh (A12) Deputy Director
9. Bhagwan Singh (A13) Junior Computer (since expired)
10. I. Yashudanan (A14) Assistant Director
11. Hayat Singh (A15) Peon The detailed discussions in respect of the aforesaid accused persons have proved that the officials of column II and III above have abused their officials position in CC No. 26/11 Page 167 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 order to obtain pecuniary advantage to the Government servants mentioned in column I. Therefore, I convict Y. P. Sharma (A1), Chandreshwar Manjhi (A2), Om Prkash Narang (A3), Jai Kumar Singal (A4), Natha Ram Suman (A16) & S. K. Aggarwal (A17) under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
There is no evidence that any of the accused persons committed forgery of any document or dishonestly induced anyone, therefore, I am not inclined to convict the accused persons under Section 420, 467 and 468 IPC.
However, Jeet Ram Sharma (A9) & B. M. Ghosh (A10) presented forged bills for medical claim to their department, which were also passed by the DDO & P&AO. Hence, they are convicted under Section 471 IPC each.
It is clear from the evidence obtaining on record that S. K. Aggarwal (A17), the Senior Account Officer, P&AO, who was entrusted with the Government cheques committed criminal breach of trust by issuing the same to unauthorized persons and thereby committed offence under Section 409 IPC.
CC No. 26/11 Page 168 of 177CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Prosecution has proved that all the convicts (except A2, A16 and A17) have dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use the government money. Therefore, I convict them under Section 403 IPC each.
All the convicts participated in this criminal endeavour, therefore I convict all of them under Section 120B read with Section 403 & 409 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 29.1.2016.
(Vinod Kumar) Special Judge03, CBI PC Act, PHC, New Delhi CC No. 26/11 Page 169 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE03 (P. C. ACT) (CBI), PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CC No. 26/11 Case ID No. 02403R0459442005 RC No. 16(A)/2001/ACB/CBI/ND U/s 120B, 420 & 468 IPC and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. 30.01.2016.
Present: Sh. S.C.Sharma, learned Sr. PP for CBI.
A1 with Sh. R. K. Verma, Advocate.
A2 with Sh. P. N. Dhar, Advocate.
A3, A7, A10, A11, A14 and A15 with Sh. Rakesh Nagar, Advocate.
A4 with Sh. O. P. Sharma, Advocate.
A5 has already expired.
A6 with Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, Advocate. A8 has already expired.
A9 with Sh. Mahesh Sharma, Advocate.
A12 with Sh. Devki Nandan, Advocate.
A13 has already expired.
A16 with Sh. Vineet Kumar, Advocate.
A17 with Sh. Amit Goel, Advocate.
Order on sentence :
Ld. defence counsels have addressed arguments on point of sentence and have claimed the benefit of probation on the ground that they are public servants and had returned the substantial amount to State.
I have considered the submissions. The perusal of the trial court record shows that such type of fraud and CC No. 26/11 Page 170 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 misappropriation was continuing for quite a long time, though, prosecution chose the period of two years for the purpose of trial.
Considering the gravity of offences committed by each accused, I proceed to award the sentences as under :
(1) Y. P. Sharma (A1)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1,000/ 07 days
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year One Lakh 06 months
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 07 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(2) Chandreshwar Manjhi (A2)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1,000/ 07 days
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 05 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(3) Om Prakash Narang (A3)
CC No. 26/11 Page 171 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1,000/ 07 days
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year One Lakh 06 months
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 07 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(4) Jai Kumar Singhal (A4)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1,000/ 07 days
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year One Lakh 06 months
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 07 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(5) J.P. Sharma (A6)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year One Lakh 06 months
CC No. 26/11 Page 172 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 07 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(6) Shiv Sagar Nayak (A7)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 10,000/ 01 month
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 05 Years One Lakh 06 months
403 & 409 IPC
(7) Jeet Ram (A9)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC 03 years 10,000/ one month
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 10,000/ one month
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 01 Year 10,000/ one month
403 & 409 IPC
(8) B. M. Ghosh (A10)
CC No. 26/11 Page 173 of 177
CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC 03 years 10,000/ One month
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 10,000/ one month
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 01 Year 10,000/ one month
403 & 409 IPC
(9) Om Prakash S/o Sohan Lal (A11)
Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in
No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine
Imprisonment
1 13(1)(d) punishable
u/s 13 (2) of PC Act
2 u/s. 471 IPC
3 u/s. 409 IPC
4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 50,000/ 03 months
5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 05 Years 50,000/ 03 months
403 & 409 IPC
(10) Om Prakash S/o Amir Singh (A12) Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment 1 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act 2 u/s. 471 IPC 3 u/s. 409 IPC 4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 50,000/ 03 months CC No. 26/11 Page 174 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 05 Years 50,000/ 03 months 403 & 409 IPC (11) I. Yeshudanan (A14) Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment 1 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act 2 u/s. 471 IPC 3 u/s. 409 IPC 4 u/s. 403 IPC 01 year 10,000/ one month 5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 01 Year 10,000/ one month 403 & 409 IPC (12) Hayat Singh (A15) Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment 1 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13 (2) of PC Act 2 u/s. 471 IPC 3 u/s. 409 IPC 4 u/s. 403 IPC (one) 01 years 10,000/ 01 month 5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 05 Years 10,000/ 01 month 403 & 409 IPC (13) Natha Ram Suman (A16) CC No. 26/11 Page 175 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment 1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1,000/ 07 days u/s 13 (2) of PC Act 2 u/s. 471 IPC 3 u/s. 409 IPC 4 u/s. 403 IPC 5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 01 Year 1,000/ 07 days 403 & 409 IPC (14) S. K. Aggarwal (A17) Sr. Offence punishable Sentence of Fine (Rs.) Sentence in No. u/s. Rigorous default of fine Imprisonment 1 13(1)(d) punishable 01 year 1000/ 07 days u/s 13 (2) of PC Act 2 u/s. 471 IPC 3 u/s. 409 IPC 07 years One Lakh 06 months 4 u/s. 403 IPC 5 u/s. 120B r/w Sec. 07 Years One Lakh 06 months 403 & 409 IPC I am pained to note as to how GPF to the tune of Rs.2,72,475/ of another public servant namely S. P. Garg (PW32) was misappropriated. S. P. Garg in his testimony had stated that he had filed a petition in High Court for recovery of the said amount. In case S. P. Garg has not received the said amount, a sum of Rs.3 lakhs be released to S. P. Garg on realization of the fine. A copy of this judgement be sent to S. CC No. 26/11 Page 176 of 177 CBI Vs. Y. P. Sharma etc. Judgement dt. 29.01.2016 P. Garg, who may move appropriate application before this court.
All the sentences mentioned above shall run concurrently. The bail bonds and surety bonds are hereby cancelled and sureties are discharged and convicts are taken to custody to suffer sentences.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC be also given. Copy of judgement be supplied free of cost to all the convicts.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 30th day of January 2016 (Vinod Kumar) Special Judge03, CBI PC Act, PHC, New Delhi CC No. 26/11 Page 177 of 177