C.B.I. vs . 1) Kiran Pal Singh on 18 November, 2014

[Cites 35, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . 1) Kiran Pal Singh on 18 November, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI 01
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC No.08/13
Unique Case ID No.02406R0061802000

C.B.I. Vs. 1) Kiran Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o C75, Ghitorni, New Delhi

2) SG Balasubramanian
S/o Sh. AS Gopalan
R/o EF606, Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi.

3) Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Nirmal Parsad
R/o 1099, Lodhi Road Complex
New Delhi.

4) Nand Lal
S/o Sh. M. Lal
R/o A18/F, DDA Flats, Munirka
New Delhi.

5) Surender Grover
S/o Late Sh. Jeevan Das
R/o C123, BK Colony
New Delhi.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 8
6) Jitender Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o 73, Satya Niketan,
New Delhi.

RC No. : 2(A)/97V/New Delhi
u/Ss : u/S.120B IPC r/w S.420 & 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.
13(1)(d) of POC Act 1988 ; u/S.420 IPC ; u/S.471 IPC
and u/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.

Judgment announced on : 15.11.2014
Date of order on sentence : 18.11.2014

ORDER ON SENTENCE

Present : Sh. Surender Sinha, Ld. Spl. PP alongwith Ms. Jyotsna

Sharma, Ld. PP for CBI

Retd. SP Ganesh Verma in person.

All the convicts in person

Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. counsel for convicts KP Singh, SG

Balasubramanian and Ashok Kumar

Sh. Hari Om Bhaskar, Ld. counsel for convict Nand Lal

Sh. TPS Kang, Ld. counsel for convicts Surender Grover and

Jitender Pal Singh

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 8
Convicts have been convicted for the offence u/S.120B IPC r/w

S.420 & 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act 1988 ; u/S.420

IPC; u/S.471 IPC and u/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.

1.0 Sh. Surender Sinha, Ld. Spl. PP and Ms. Jyotsna Sharma, Ld.

PP for CBI have submitted that convicts have been found guilty of

conspiracy, cheating, using forged documents and misconduct. Convicts

have entered into conspiracy and defrauded the public exchequer. The bills

of private telephones were paid through Navy cheques and therefore, they

are liable to be awarded maximum sentence. It has further been submitted

that fine may be imposed upon the convicts taking into account section 16

of POC Act, 1988. A prayer for maximum punishment has been made.

1.1 Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. counsel for convicts KP Singh, SG

Balasubramanian and Ashok Kumar submitted that a lenient view may be

taken against his clients.

With regard to convict KP Singh, Ld. counsel submitted that

the following mitigating circumstances be taken into account :

a) Convict KP Singh has rendered 23 years of unblemished service in

the Navy. During this he was given a commendation certificate by

Chief of Naval Headquarters on 04.12.95. The original certificate

has been shown to the court ;

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 8
b) Convict KP Singh is the sole male member and bread earner in the

family ;

c) Convict KP Singh has an old and ailing wife, who is suffering from

various ailments. Her medical record has been produced.

d) Convict has a major daughter who is mentally retarded and is under

treatment with NIHMS, Regional Centre.

e) Convict has undergone the agony of trial for the past 19 years and

during this period he has attended the trial regularly and has not

defaulted even once ; and

f) Convict has a young daughter who is of marriageable age and if

convict is sent behind the bars, her entire future would be spoiled.

In respect of convict SG Balasubramanian, Ld. counsel has

submitted the following mitigating circumstances :

a) Convict has undergone the agony of trial for the past 19 years ;

b) Convict is an aged person of around 72 years of age ; and

c) the wife of the convict SG Balasubramanian is mentally impaired and

needs constant medical attention. His wife is totally dependent on

him and he is the only person to look after her.

With regard to convict Ashok Kumar, Ld. counsel has pointed

out the following mitigating factors :

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 8
a) Convict Ashok Kumar has not been keeping well and has been

diagnosed with Tuberculosis and is undergoing treatment for the

same ;

b) Wife of convict Ashok Kumar is also a chronic heart patient and is

being treated since the year 1999 ;

c) convict Ashok Kumar is the sole earning member in the family. He

has two daughters and one of them is of marriageable age ; and

d) Convict Ashok Kumar has faced the agony of trial for the last 19

years.

1.2 Sh. Hari Om Bhaskar, Ld. Counsel for convict Nand Lal

submitted that convict Nand Lal is an aged person of 74 years with various

ailments. It has been submitted that in the departmental enquiry, he was

exonerated. The convict has already faced trial for around 19 years and in

view of his age and clean antecedents, a lenient view may be taken.

1.3 Sh. TPS Kang, Ld. counsel for convicts Surender Grover and

Jitender Pal Singh submitted that his clients have been found guilty only for

the offence of conspiracy. They have already suffered lot of agony during

the course of trial and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.

2.0 I have considered the submissions of both the sides and

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 8
perused the record carefully.

3.0 On behalf of prosecution maximum punishment has been

asked for on the ground that convicts have been held guilty for entering into

criminal conspiracy and for defrauding public exchequer. For public

servants also, maximum punishment has been asked for on the ground that

they have committed serious misconduct. For the convicts, various

mitigating circumstances have been explained and a prayer has been made

to a take a lenient view.

3.1 Sentencing is a delicate task. The court while delivering the

sentence has to take into account the various facts. The society expects the

court to give harsh punishment where the convicts have been found guilty.

However, sentencing police also guides that an effort should be made by the

court while delivering the sentence that the convicts may be brought back

to the main stream or an opportunity may be given to reform themselves.

4.0 In the present case which was based on documents alone, it has

been proved that convicts KP Singh, SG Balasubramanian and Ashok

Kumar who were in the Navy cheated the govt. and used the forged bills for

the payment of private telephone bills from the government money. Convict

Nand Lal also was part of the conspiracy, cheating and used forged

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 8
documents, besides misconduct. The private persons i.e. convict Surender

Grover and Jitender Pal Singh also entered into conspiracy with them. The

case was registered in the year 1997 and chargesheet was filed in the year

2000. All the convicts are now in the range of 58 to 74 years of age.

4.1 I consider that taking into account the entire facts and

circumstances, all the convicts are sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine

of Rs.20,000/ each in default SI for 1 year for the offence u/S.120B

IPC r/w. S.420 & 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act 1988.

Convicts KP Singh, SG Balasubramanian, Ashok Kumar

and Nand Lal are sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.20,000/

each in default SI for 1 year for the offence u/S.420 IPC.

Convicts KP Singh, SG Balasubramanian, Ashok Kumar

and Nand Lal are sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.20,000/

each in default SI for 1 year for the offence u/S.471 IPC.

Convicts KP Singh, SG Balasubramanian, Ashok Kumar

and Nand Lal are also sentenced to RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.

20,000/ each in default SI for 1 year for the offence u/S.13(2) r/w S.

13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 8
5.0 All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Sec. 428

Cr.PC, if any, be given to the convicts.

5.1 Copy of the judgment alongwith order on sentence be given

the the convicts free of cost.

6.0 File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in Open Court ( Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 18.11.2014 Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
Saket Courts : New Delhi.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) : CBI 01
SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC No.08/13
Unique Case ID No.02406R0061802000

C.B.I. Vs. 1) Kiran Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Khushi Ram
R/o C75, Ghitorni, New Delhi

2) SG Balasubramanian
S/o Sh. AS Gopalan
R/o EF606, Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi.

3) Ashok Kumar
S/o Sh. Nirmal Parsad
R/o 1099, Lodhi Road Complex
New Delhi.

4) Nand Lal
S/o Sh. M. Lal
R/o A18/F, DDA Flats, Munirka
New Delhi.

5) Virender Kumar Kalra (expired)
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal Kalra
R/o 875/6, Main Road, Mehrauli
Delhi.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 8
6) Mool Chand Goel (expired)
S/o Sh. Radhya Lal
R/o 998/7, Mehrauli, Delhi.

7) Surender Grover
S/o Late Sh. Jeevan Das
R/o C123, BK Colony
New Delhi.

8) Jitender Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh
R/o 73, Satya Niketan,
New Delhi.

9) Bhupender Singh (discharged on
31.04.2004)
S/o Sh. Swarn Singh
R/o 41, Satya Niketan, New Delhi.

RC No. : 2(A)/97V/New Delhi
u/Ss : 120B r/w S.420/466/467/471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)
(d) POC Act 1988 ; S.420 IPC ; S.466 IPC ; S.467 IPC ;
S.471 IPC and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) POC Act 1988

Date of Institution : 18.12.2000
Received by transfer on : 04.04.2013
Arguments Concluded on : 03.11.2014
Date of Decision : 15.11.2014

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 8
Appearances:
Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI
Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. counsel for A1 Kiran Pal Singh and A2 SG
Balasubramanian
Sh. Vijay Singh, Ld. counsel for A3 Ashok Kumar
Sh. Hari Om Bhaskar, Ld. counsel for A4 Nand Lal
Sh. TPS Kang, Ld. counsel for A7 Surender Grover, A8 Jitender Pal Singh

J U D G M E N T

The accused persons have been charged and tried for the offence u/S.120B r/w S.420/466/467/471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) POC Act 1988 ; u/S.420 IPC ; u/S.466 IPC ; u/S.467 IPC ; u/S.471 IPC and u/S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) POC Act, 1988.

After trial, the accused persons have been found guilty for the offence u/S.120B IPC r/w S.420 & 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act 1988 ; A1 to A4 for the offence u/S.420 IPC and u/S.471 IPC, A1 to A4 have also been found guilty for the offence u/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988, for the following reasons.

FACTS:

1.0 CBI filed the chargesheet against A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar, A4 Nand Lal, A5 Virender Kumar Kalra (since expired), A6 Mool Chand (since expired), A7 Surender Grover, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 8 A8 Jitender Pal Singh and A9 Bhupender Singh (discharged vide order dated 31.04.2004) and placed 11 persons namely MA Khan, Shambhu Singh, Dharmdass Subhash Chand, Shyam Pal Lohia, Gulshan Kumar, Bhushan Kumar Hasija, M. Pulickhan Chako, OP Gupta, Jai Prakash Bansal, Hem Chand Bansal, Mrs. Kiran Sharma, Dharamdass and Sita Ram Sharma in column No.2. The chargesheet was filed under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and u/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.

RC No.2(A)/97 was registered pursuant to the source information on 27.06.97 against certain officials of Naval Signals, Naval Headquarters, New Delhi and private persons. Allegedly A1 KP Singh while working as Chief Petty Officer entered into criminal conspiracy with other accused persons to cheat the exchequer and in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy the suspects collected the telephone bills from private subscribers for making payment of such telephone bills from the account of Indian Navy. In order to make payment of those bills, forged bills of equal amount in respect of official telephone of Indian Navy were used to be fraudulently prepared and thereafter the payment of telephone bills of the private subscribers so collected were made to MTNL from the account of Indian Navy, Govt. of India on the basis of contingent bills prepared by the accused persons i.e., A1 to A3.

Investigation revealed that during 1994 to 1997 A1 was working as Chief Petty Officer in Telephone Maintenance Cell (hereinafter CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 8 referred to as "TMC") in Directorate Of Naval Signals, Naval Headquarter, New Delhi and his job included collecting telephone bills of Naval Headquarter, New Delhi from MTNL and to handover the same to TMC for processing and making the payment to MTNL.

A2 SG Balasubramanian was working as Assistant in TMC, Naval Headquarter and his duty included checking and processing of telephone bills received from MTNL and to prepare contingent bill, get the same passed from Dy. Director, competent officer / Incharge, TMC. A2 had also been sending the contingent bills duly passed to the Dy. Director of Pay and Allowances, Naval Headquarter for counter signature and thereafter to send the same to the Logistic Officer, INS, India for preparation of cheques for making payment to MTNL and after receipt of the cheques from logistic officer. A2 SG Subramanian used to send the same to MTNL for payment of telephone bills.

A3 Ashok Kumar was working as LDC in, TMC, Naval Headquarter during the relevant period and his duty included typing of contingent bills and used to assist A2 in performance of his official duties.

Investigation revealed that TMC, Naval Headquarter used to manage the telephones/telex installed at Naval Headquarter and at the residences of the officers of eligible category. In Naval Headquarter alone, there were nearly 2000 functional telephones and the function of the TMC inter alia was to receive the telephone/telex bills of Naval Headquarter from CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 8 MTNL and on receipt of such telephone bills to process the same regarding the genuineness of installation, call charges etc., and if found in order, to prepare the contingent bill in respect of telephone bills. The contingent bill could be prepared for a single telephone bill or for more than one telephone bill. The contingent bills were used to be prepared by A2 SG Balasubramanian and / or A3 Ashok Kumar. Such contingent bill were then got signed from the competent officer posted in the cell and were sent to Dy. Director of Pay and Allowances, a separate office in the Naval Headquarter where the bills were checked vizaviz budget allocated under the head and countersigned by an Officer of the rank of Dy. Director. For issuance of cheques in favour of MTNL, the contingent bills were then forwarded to the Logistic Officer, Indian Navy in INS India, New Delhi and then RBI cheques were issued for the amount mentioned in the contingent bills on the account of Indian Navy. Such cheques were then brought to the TMC of Naval Headquarter where the accused persons i.e. A1 to A3 were required to take steps for deposit of the said cheques with MTNL alongwith telephone/telex bills for which contingent bill has been raised. An entry regarding paid bill was used to be made in the ledger called Kardex Register maintained in respect of each telephone installed in NHQ and at residences of the officers of Naval Headquarters.

Investigation revealed that during 1994 to 1997 accused persons i.e. A1 to A3 entered into criminal conspiracy amongst themselves CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 8 and also with MTNL employee i.e A4 and A5 and private persons A6 to A9 and in pursuance to said criminal conspiracy the telephone bills of private subscribers, PCO owners in Delhi were being collected alongwith billed amount in cash for depositing in MTNL by these accused persons and then such telephone bills were being brought to the accused persons i.e. A1 to A3.

Allegedly, in the Naval Headquarter forged handwritten telephone bills were prepared on the telephone proforma by A1 to A3 in respect of official telephone/telex lines installed at Naval Headquarter and residential telephones of the officers. Such bills were dishonestly prepared equal to the amount of the telephone bills of the private subscribers / PCO's collected by them and then such forged telephone/telex bills were dishonestly processed as genuine and contingent bills were prepared equal to the amounts of such forged telephone/telex bills. These forged bills were put up alongwith other genuine contingent bills and got issued from the competent officers in routine way and got signed from the Directorate of Pay and Allowance. The contingent bills were then sent to the logistic officer, INS India for issuance of cheque in favour of MTNL and once the RBI cheque was issued on the basis of contingent bill so prepared against forged telephone/telex bills, accused persons A1 to A3 used to make payment of telephone bills which had earlier been collected from various parties / private subscribers / PCO owners through such RBI cheques. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 8

Investigation revealed that during the period 1994 to 1997 accused persons had prepared 73 contingent bills on the basis of forged telephone bills of Indian Navy.

Investigation further revealed that in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy apart from the preparing forged telephone/telex bill in respect of telephone/telex lines of Naval Headquarter and contingent bills, A1 to A3 had collected the telephone bills of private subscribers / PCO owners either themselves or through A4 to A9 and these telephone bills were ultimately handed over to A1 to A3 for making payment of such telephone bills from the account of Indian Navy. A4 had been working as Section Supervisor in the office of MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place and was acting as conduit for facilitating the deposit of private telephone bills against RBI cheque issued from the account of Indian Navy. A4 in conspiracy with other coaccused had also collected the telephone bills of private subscribers PW16 Hawa Singh, PW17 Jagram, PW34 Bushan Kumar Hasija, PW18 Gulshan Kumar and others alongwith cash for the payment in MTNL. A4 also made endorsement on the telephone bills to the effect that the bills have been paid in MTNL. He also paid the telephone bill for Rs.1,161/ in respect of telephone No.6186070 installed at his residence in the name of his wife.

A5 Virender Kumar Kalra (since expired) also in conspiracy with other accused persons dishonestly collected the telephone bills of Satish Kumar, PW10 Hoshiar Singh, PW24 Rohtas Singh and others CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 8 alongwith cash for depositing the same in MTNL and also paid his own telephone bills in respect of telephone No.6851373 for Rs.1,493/ and Rs. 1,787/ and telephone No.6960622 for Rs.4,708/, Rs.728/ and Rs.921/ against RBI cheque of Indian Navy.

A6 Mool Chander Goel (since expired) in conspiracy with other accused persons collected telephone bills of Suresh Kumar Kakkar, Rais Ahmed, PW30 Hans Raj Verma, PW5 Suman Malhotra, PW7 Parvesh Kumar, Bhoop Chand, PW27 Surender Anchal, Raj Kumar and others alongwith cash for depositing the same in MTNL and also paid his own telephone bills of his wife Smt. Sudha Rani in respect of telephone No. 6510404 for Rs.1,417/ and 6510707 for Rs.1,072/ as well as his own telephone No.6510808 for Rs.469/ against RBI cheque of Indian Navy.

A7 Surender Grover in conspiracy with other accused person collected telephone bills of Sushma Bhatia and PW67 Veena Sahni and others alongwith cash for depositing the same in MTNL and had also paid his own telephone bill of telephone No.4694325 for Rs.409/ against RBI cheque of Indian Navy.

A8 Jitender Pal Singh, a PCO owner at Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh had collected telephone bills of PW13 Ashok Kumar Arora, PW12 Satbeer Singh, PW15 Jasbir Singh, PW71 Ashish Mitra, PW29 Sandeep Gupta, PW8 Shashi Shekhar Gaur, PW9 Vijay Mehta, PW11 Ashish Jhingran, PW72 Rajiv Maggan, PW14 Sangeeta Chauhan and other subscribers CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 8 alongwith cash for depositing the same in MTNL and had also paid the telephone bills of his own telephone No.601499 for Rs.2,289/ and telephone No.6870689 of his brother for Rs.17,365/, Rs.17,433/, Rs. 23,825/, Rs.26,137/, Rs.21,143/ and Rs.27,720/ against RBI cheque of Indian Navy.

Investigation revealed that an amount of Rs.33,86,152/ had been diverted by the accused persons from the account of Indian Navy for depositing the telephone bills of the private subscribers / PCO owners by preparing the false contingent bills against forged telephone bills and thereby causing wrongful loss to the Government of India (NHQ) and corresponding wrongful gain to themselves.

Sanction for prosecution was duly granted against A2, A3 and A4, CBI states that since no evidence appeared against MA Khan, Shambhu Singh, Dharmdass Subhash Chand, Shyam Pal Lohia, Gulshan Kumar, Bhushan Kumar Hasija, M. Pulickhan Chako, OP Gupta, Jai Prakash Bansal, Hem Chand Bansal, Mrs. Kiran Sharma, Dharamdass and Sita Ram Sharma and therefore, their names have been kept in column no.2 and have not been sent for trial.

2.0 The chargesheet in this case was filed on 18.12.2000 and cognizance was duly taken on 02.02.2001. Being a prima facie case "charge u/S.120B r/w S.420/466/467/471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) POC Act CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 8 1988 was framed against all the accused persons ; charge u/S.420 IPC was also framed against A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar and A4 Nand Lal; separate charges u/S.466 IPC were also framed against A1, A2 and A3 ; charge u/S.467 IPC was also framed against A1, A2 and A3 ; separate charges u/S.471 IPC and u/S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) POC Act were also framed against A1, A2, A3 and A4".

3.0 Prosecution examined 81 witnesses in support of its case. 3.1 PW1 Vineet Saxena the then Dy. General Manager (Planning), South - I, MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place, granted sanction for prosecution Ex.PW1/A against A4 Nand Lal after going through the documents sent by CBI alongwith statement of witnesses and report of SP. PW1 stated that he was competent to appoint and remove accused Nand Lal. In the cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind before granting the sanction.

3.2 PW2 Sh. Falguni Rajkumar the then Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Defence granted sanction for prosecution Ex.PW2/A against A2 SG Balasubramanian and A3 Ashok Kumar, being the cadre controlling authority. PW2 stated that he had had gone through the evidence collected CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 8 during investigation before granting the said sanction for prosecution. 3.3 PW3 Sh. Matloob Aslam was the star witness of the prosecution and has proved the contingent bills and therefore, would be discussed in detail in later part of the judgment.

3.4 PW4 Retired Lt. Commander Shambhu Singh, deposed on oath that Telephone Management Cell (TMC) in Naval Headquarters was looking after allotment, installation and payments in respect of the telephone bills of the telephones installed at Naval Headquarters and at the residence of officers of Naval including telex lines. PW4 deposed that A1 Kiran Pal Singh was entrusted of outdoor work in connection with telephones installed and liasoning with MTNL officers including collection of telephone bills from MTNL and A2 SG Balasubramaniam was Incharge of preparation and processing of contingent bills on the basis of telephone bills collected from MTNL with the help of A3 Ashok Kumar who was doing the job of typing, receipt and despatch of mail. The telephone bills relating to Naval headquarters were paid through RBI cheques issued from the office of Logistics Officer, INS, India, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi. PW4 further deposed that in case certain telephone bills had not been received from MTNL, the duplicate telephone bills were being collected by A1 Kiran Pal Singh and after receipt of the bills, contingent bills were made CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 8 and put up by A2 SG Balasubramaniam for the signatures of Asst. Director Naval Signals (ADNS). A1 Kiran Pal Singh and A2 SG Balasubramanian and A3 Ashok Kumar used to put the telephone bills and contingent bills in bulk before PW4 Commander (Retd) Shambhu Singh Yadav, ADNS (telecom) from Sept., 1996 till May 1998 while he was busy. A1 Kiran Pal Singh and A2 SG Balasubramanian and A3 Ashok Kumar used to receive the cheque from INS, India to deposit with MTNL alongwith the telephone bills. PW4 further deposed on oath that specimen handwriting of A1 Kiran Pal Singh Ex.PW4/A1 to A10 and Ex.PW4/A11 to A45, specimen handwriting of A2 SG Balasubramaniam Ex.PW4/B1 to B30, specimen handwriting of accused Ashok Kumar Ex.PW4/C1 to C10 and Ex.PW4/C3A were taken by the CBI in the presence of PW4. PW4 proved the seizure memo Ex.PW4/D vide which admitted handwriting of A1 KP Singh A12 to A14 Ex.PW4/D1, of A2 SG Balasubramaniam A15 to A17 Ex.PW4/D2 and A3 Ashok Kumar A33 to A34 Ex.PW4/D3 were seized by the CBI. In the cross examination on behalf of A3 Ashok Kumar, PW4 submitted that he accepted the handwritten duplicate bills because they were made on proper proforma of MTNL and duly signed by the Accounts Officer. In the cross examination on behalf of A2 SG Balasubramanian, the witness admitted that in many duplicate bills, the details of rent due and the number of call charges is not mentioned. The witness also admitted that he was aware that the duplicate bills are prepared in the handwriting of the CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 8 accused and the same were presented to him alongwith contingent bill. 3.5 PW5 Suman Malhotra deposed on oath that telephone No. 6510505 was installed in her name and telephone No. 6516262 was installed in the name of her husband Sh. Pravesh Kumar. PW5 further deposed on oath that bill of the said numbers for the month of July and August 1996 was handed over to A6 Moolchand (since expired) for the purpose of deposit alongwith bill amount and Rs. 15/ each. It came in the testimony of this witness that Late Mool Chand had handed over the bill to another person alongwith extra money of Rs.15 paid by her to Late Mool Chand and Mool Chand had told that this person had come from telephone department. 3.6 PW6 Ms. Ranjana Malhotra deposed on oath that telephone Nos. 6514693 and 6864848 in the name of Mrs. Sarla Kapoor (mother) and Mr. Sanjay Kapoor (brother) were installed at the residence of PW6 Ranjana Malhotra. PW6 Ranjana Malhotra further deposed that she used to visit the shop of A6 Moolchand for purchasing vegetables etc and A6 told PW6 that a person from telephone department would come to his shop to collect the payment for the telephone bills and he would accept payment provided Rs 15/ extra is paid to him. PW6 proved the duplicate bills Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B given by her to Mool Chand for depositing with MTNL, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 8 3.7 PW7 Sh. Parvesh Kumar deposed on oath that A6 Moolchand used to collect the telephone bills for payment alongwith amount of bills in cash and Rs. 15/ extra for depositing the same with the telephone department. PW7 Parvesh Kumar handed over two bills alongwith the bill amount plus Rs. 15/ to A6 Moolchand. The said bills were in the name of wife of one Sh. RN Chawla and Sh. KS Gauba and A6 Moolchand handed over the receipts after the deposit of the bills. PW7 further deposed that in the year 1996, telephone No. 6510505 and 6516262 were installed in his name and in the name of his wife Ms. Suman Malhotra. The duplicate bills Ex.Pw7/A and Ex.PW7/B were handed over to CBI by PW7 Parvesh Kumar which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. 3.8 PW8 Sh. Sashi Shekhar Gaur deposed on oath that telephone No. 606971 was installed in his office at 40. Moti Bagh near Nanak Pura Gurdwara and A8 Jitenderpal Singh was running STD PCO and photo stat machine at Nankpura, Moti Bagh. PW8 Shashi Shekhar Gaur asked A8 Jitender Pal Singh to deposit his telephone bill of September 1995 of Rs. 1,355/ and paid this amount in cash to A8. A8 Jitenderpal Singh deposited the bill Ex.PW8/A and returned to PW8 with stamp of payment. The bill was seized by CBI vide memo Ex.PW8/B. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 8 3.9 PW9 Sh. Vijay Mehta deposed on oath that telephone Nos. 604455 and 603377 in his name and in the name of his wife Neera Mehta were installed at 147, Satya Niketan. PW9 further deposed that he had handed over two bills for Rs. 458/ in respect of telephone No. 604455 and Rs. 582/ for telephone No. 603377 to A8 Jitenderpal Singh alongwith cash payment to deposit the same with MTNL. PW9 Vijay Mehta further stated that he wanted to make the payment in cheque, however, A8 Jitenderpal Singh refused to accept the payment by cheque. Telephone bills Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C were seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/A. In the cross examination, nothing material came against the prosecution. 3.10 PW10 Sh. Hoshiar Singh deposed on oath that telephone Nos. 624699 (as per counterfoil number is 6214699) and 6479706 were installed at his residence at 488, Chirag Delhi and A5 Virender Kumar Kalra being known to PW10, used to deposit the bill of above said telephone bills. PW10 used to make cash payment in respect of the above bills to A5. The bills for January 97, March 1996 and May 1996 Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C were handed over to CBI. PW10 Hoshiar Singh stated that he must have given A5 Virender Kumar Kalra around 910 telephone bills for depositing the payment.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 24 of 8 3.11 PW11 Sh. Ashish Jhingan deposed on oath that telephone No. 603105 was installed at shop No. 7A, Mini Market, Nanakpura, New Delhi. PW11 further stated that A8 Jitender Pal Singh approached him and informed that he had a collection center for collection and payment of telephone bills. PW11 handed over the payment of Rs. 399/ and gave A8, cash amount. The bill Ex.PW11/B was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. 3.12 PW12 Sh. Satbir Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 600260 in the name of his father Sh. Kishan Singh was installed at the shop of PW12 at 40 Moti Bagh, New Delhi. PW12 further deposed that A8 Jitender Pal Singh obtained duplicate bills from the telephone department, paid the same and handed over the receipt of the duplicate bill regarding payment of Rs. 531/ and PW12 Satbir Singh accordingly paid Rs. 531/ to A8 Jitnederpal Singh. The bill Ex.PW12/B was seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW12/A. PW12 further deposed that he had never given any instructions to A8 Jitenderpal Singh for depositing the bill and since, A8 Jitenderpal Singh had deposited the bill, PW12 paid money back to him. 3.13 PW13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora deposed on oath that telephone No. 605811 was installed at his shop at 40, Vill. Mochi Bagh and handed over the bill of Rs. 1,390/ to A8 Jitender Pal Singh who told PW13 Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora that MTNL people had handed over his bill to A8 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 25 of 8 and that he had already paid the said bill. PW13 proved the bill as Ex.PW13/B which was seized vide memo Ex.PW13/A. 3.14 PW14 Smt. Sangeeta Chauhan deposed on oath that telephone No. 6870467 allotted in her name was installed at shop No. 2, Vill. Moti Bagh, Nanakpura. PW14 further deposed that she did not know as to who was making the payment of the bills in respect of the telephone. However, she stated that A8 Jitender Pal Singh must be making the payment of the above said telephone bills. PW14 deposed that on 5/2/98 A8 Jitender Pal Singh produced telephone bills Ex.PW14/B to D which were seized by the CBI vide memo Ex.PW14/A. 3.15 PW15 Sh. Jasbir Singh Sachdeva deposed on oath that telephone No. 600197 was installed at his residence and bill of Rs. 546/ Ex.PW15/B was handed over by him to A8 Jitender Pal Singh alongwith cash of Rs. 546/ and he gave back PW15 the paid bill bearing the receipt of the amount of the bill. The bill was seized by the CBI vide memo Ex.PW15/A. 3.16 PW16 Hawa Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 609451 was installed at his residence. PW16 further deposed that he received the bill of Rs. 9,000/ to 10,000/ after around a year of non receipt CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 26 of 8 of any bill on which PW16 went to MTNL office at Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and met A4 Nand Lal. A4 was already known to PW16 and PW16 paid Rs. 9,000/ to him (A4) for depositing the same. However, the said amount was again reflected in the bill. However, on request of Pw16, A4 Nand Lal got the bill corrected. The bills Ex.Pw16/B, PW16/C, PW16/D and Ex.PW16/F were seized vide memo Ex.PW16/A. PW16 Hawa Singh further deposed on oath that he paid the amount of Rs. 9,294/ in cash to A4 Nand Lal and the receipt of the amount paid was handed over to PW16 after 15 days by A4 Nand Lal. The witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP. During the cross examination by Ld. PP the witness reiterated that he had paid an amount of Rs.9294/ in cash to accused Nand Lal and receipt of the amount paid wer handed over to him after 1015 days by accused Nand Lal. In the cross examination on behalf of A4 Nand Lal, the witness stated that he had met Nand Lal for the first time at that day. The witness could not recall if the amount handed over by him to Nand Lal was given by Nand Lal to the peon for the purpose of depositing.

3.17 PW17 Sh. Jag Ram deposed on oath that telephone No. 6804921 was installed at his residence. The telephone bill of this telephone was misplaced and he received a voice mail on his telephone regarding the non payment of bill on which he met A4 Nand Lal and he got prepared the duplicate bill of Rs. 2,741/ Ex.PW17/A, the counter foil of which is CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 27 of 8 Ex.PW17/B, and PW17 gave Rs. 2,741/ in cash to A4 Nand Lal. PW17 Sh. Jag Ram further deposed that he collected the paid bill from A4 Nand Lal after 23 days. The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. PP. During the cross examination, the witness admitted that endorsement on the back of Ex.PW17/A at point B to B was made by accused Nand Lal in his presence. In the cross examination on behalf of accused Nand Lal the witness stated that he had paid the money to A4 Nand Lal out of his own sweet will as there was a long queue and also because Nand Lal was his relative. The witness also stated that he had paid money to A4 Nand Lal and A4 Nand Lal paid the money to some person who was sitting there in his presence. 3.18 PW18 Sh. Gulshan Kumar deposed on oath that telephone No. 6898141 was installed for STD PCO and telephone No. 6897849 was installed for local PCO at L22, Mahipalpur, New Delhi run by him. PW18 Sh. Gulshan Kumar further stated that A4 Nand Lal used to look after the work of account bills of PCO's and he used to meet A4 Nand Lal in his office at Bhijaji Cama Place, New Delhi. PW18 deposed that in the year 1986 A4 Nand Lal told him that he (PW18) was unnecessarily facing the rush for deposit of the bill and that he would deposit the bill for PW18 on which he agreed. A1 Kiran Pal Singh collected the bills and payments in cash and A1 was introduced to Pw18 Gulshan Kumar by A4 Nand Lal. PW18 further deposed that he used to receive the bill of Rs. 70,000/ and CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 28 of 8 Rs. 80,000/ per month in respect of his PCO and in respect of each bill A1 KP Singh would receive a little amount than the actual amount of bill in round figure and on one occasion when KP Singh was out of station, PW18 had gone to the house of A4 Nand Lal to make payment and paid Rs. 27,000/ in the month of May 1997 to A4 Nand Lal. PW18 further deposed that bill used to be deposited by A1 KP Singh in advance and thereafter, he used to come to him (PW18) for collecting the amount. The counter foil (office copy) of telephone installed at PCO of PW18 were proved as Ex.PW18/A to G and the paid telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6898141 were proved as Ex.PW18/H to K. Pw18 stated that the handwriting at point A to B "Pd on 23/6/96" on Ex.PW18/J, telephone bill for Rs. 35,878/ was written by A4 Nand Lal in his presence. In the cross examination PW18 stated that he had not handed over the counter foils Ex.PW18/A to Ex.PW18/G to CBI Officer as these are counter foils of paid bill nor the witness was able to tell whether these were genuine or fake counterfoils. It came in the cross examination of the witness that he remained in judicial custody for more than 21 days in this case. It also came in the testimony of this witness that he had not moved any application for approver. He admitted that DySP Ganesh Verma who had arrested him recorded his statement. The witness denied the suggestion that he had made false statement only to save himself.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 29 of 8 3.19 PW19 Sh. Naunihal Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 5613965 (old No. 5649864) was installed at his residence at 128, Bhagwati Garden Exten., Uttam Nagar and the bill pertaining to the said telephone was paid through his nephew Mahinder Pal Singh. PW19 used to give the bill amount in cash to said Mahinder Pal Singh. 3.20 PW20 Sh. Rajinder Chawla deposed on oath that telephone No. 5618317 in the name of his wife Meena Chawla was installed at his residence at H. No. 1009, Vikas Kunj, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. PW20 further deposed that telephone bill of this number was used to be paid by his subordinate Mr. Parvesh Kumar (Clerk). PW20 proved the counterfoil of paid telephone bill of Rs.1510/ as Ex.PW20/A. 3.21 PW21 Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 5649825 was installed at his shop and telephone No. 5522992 was installed at his residence. PW21 further deposed that some of the telephone bills of the above telephone were deposited by A1 after he was given cash amount of telephone bills for depositing in the telephone department. A1, who represented himself to be MTNL employee, returned back the paid bill after depositing the same. PW21 proved the counter foils of the paid telephone bills of Rs. 2,604/ and Rs. 2,563/ as Ex.PW21/A and Ex.PW21/B in respect of telephone No. 5520256 (new No. 5649825). CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 30 of 8 PW21 also proved the counter foils of paid telephone bills of Rs. 1,733/ and Rs. 1,415/ in respect of telephone No. 5520256 (new No. 5649825) as Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/D and the counter foil of paid telephone bill of Rs. 1,020/ in respect of telephone No. 5613965 (new No. 5649864) as Ex.PW12/E. PW21 further deposed that PW21 had given these cash amounts to A1 KP Singh for depositing the same in MTNL. The witness stated that apart from the above, he had also given some of the telephone bills of his father and Uncle alongwith cash to A1 KP Singh for depositing in the telephone department. In the cross examination, the witness reiterated that A1 had told him to be a MTNL employee.

3.22 PW22 Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta deposed on oath that telephone No. 5418821 was installed at his residence in the name of Sh. Suresh Kumar Aggarwal but Pw22 used to make the payment of the telephone bills. PW22 further deposed that A1 KP Singh had purchased some cement bags from him and offered to deposit the telephone bill instead of paying the price of the cement and A1 paid the telephone bill of Rs. 1,159/ handed over to him by PW22. PW22 proved the counter foil of the said bill as Ex.PW22/A. In the cross examination, PW22 reaffirmed that A1 had purchased some stone dust and cement from his shop which was carried by him in a tempo.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 31 of 8 3.23 PW23 Sh Anil Kumar deposed on oath that telephone No. 5529216 was installed at his residence at B97, Rama Park, New Delhi. PW23 proved the the paid counterfoil of the said number for Rs. 502/ as Ex.PW23/B. The witness stated that he handed over his telephone bill to Nage Singh for making payment alongwith cash. He denied to have met accused KP Singh on which the witness was declared hostile. During the cross examination by Ld. PP, the witness reaffirmed that he did not know A1 KP Singh.

3.24 PW24 Sh. Rohtas Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 6478311 was installed at his shop during 1996. PW24 further stated that he had given his telephone bill for an amount of Rs. 5,758/ to his neighbour PW10 Sh. Hoshiar Singh to be deposited in the MTNL who returned the paid bill and its counterfoil Ex.PW24/A to him. The said bill was handed over to PW81 Ganesh Verma vide receipt memo Ex.PW81/K. 3.25 PW25 Sh. Gulshan Rai Virmani deposed on oath that telephone No. 546527 was installed at his residence. PW25 deposed that he had handed over to Sh. Jagdish Chander his telephone bill for a sum of Rs. 1199/ for depositing the same in MTNL. After depositing the same, Sh. Jagdish Chander returned back the paid bill Ex.Pw25/A to PW25. The said bill was seized by CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW25/B. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 32 of 8 3.26 PW26 Sh. Om Prakash Saluja deposed on oath that telephone No. 654450 was installed at his residence and A6 Moolchand offered to deposit the bill at payment of Rs. 15 extra as service charge. PW26 further deposed that he gave the bill of Rs. 1,442/ alongwith bill and Rs. 15/ extra to A6 Moolchand (since expired) for depositing the same in MTNL and A6 Moolchand returned the bill after making the payment. 3.27 PW27 Sh. Surender Kumar Anchal deposed on oath that telephone No. 6517571 was installed at the residence of PW27 Surender Kumar Anchal and once while PW27 had suffered injuries, he gave the bills Ex.PW27/B of Rs. 1,367/ alongwith cash of Rs. 15/ as service charges to A6 Moolchand (since expired) for depositing and after deposit he returned back the counter foil Ex.PW27/A to PW27.

3.28 PW28 Surender Kumar deposed on oath that telephone No. 6803836 in the name of Rafiq was installed at his residence since 1995. A1 KP Singh was the neighbour of PW28 Surender Kumar. PW28 further deposed that while his telephone connection was disconnected, he contacted A1 KP Singh who assured him that his telephone would be restored. PW28 further staed that he gave A1 KP Singh Rs. 3,882/ plus Rs. 606/ as telephone bill in cash and Rs. 240/ as surcharge in cash. A1 KP CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 33 of 8 Singh arranged a duplicate bill and gave PW28 the paid bill of the said amount. PW28 proved the paid bills of Rs. 3,882/ and Rs. 606/ as Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B respectively and the counter foils of the paid bills as Ex.PW28/D and Ex.PW28/E. 3.29 PW29 Sh. Sandeep Gupta deposed on oath that telephone No. 6872566 was installed at his residence. PW29 further deposed that he gave A8 Jitender Pal Singh an amount of Rs. 48,195/ in cash alongwith telephone bill for depositing in MTNL. He proved the duplicate bills of paid bills as Ex.PW29/A which was seized vide memo Ex.PW29/B. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he had no idea as to how accused Jitender Pal Singh deposited his telephone bill in MTNL. 3.30 PW30 Sh. Hans Raj Verma deposed on oath that telephone No. 663853 and 6966707 was installed at his residence and that he had given cash amount of bill and Rs. 10/15 more to A6 Moolchand (since expired) for depositing in MTNL. PW30 proved the paid telephone bill in respect of telephone No.6966707 as Ex.PW30/A and the paid counterfoil of the aforesaid numbers as Ex.PW30/B and Ex.PW30/C. PW30 Hansraj Verma had handed over above said bills to A6 Moolchand (since expired) alongwith cash for depositing in MTNL. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he used to pay Rs.10 or Rs.15 extra for expenses for CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 34 of 8 payment of the telephone bills.

3.31 PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia deposed on oath that since 1994 he is running a STD PCO at Air Force Station, Arjun Garh, New Delhi and telephone No. 6803969 was installed at the said PCO as STD telephone in December 1994 till March 1995 and telephone No.6804647 was installed at his residence. PW31 further deposed that he did not receive the telephone bill so he visited the Bhikaji Cama Place for getting the duplicate bill where he was asked to contact A4 Nand Lal, who was dealing with PCO Booth in MTNL office, Bhikaji Cama Place and he prepared the bill in respect of the aforesaid telephone Number which was to be deposited within 03 days. PW31 stated that on the next day or the day after after A4 Nand Lal alongwith A1 KP Singh came to his PCO from where the accused were taken to his residence, by his son. A4 Nand Lal told PW31 Shyam Pal Singh that he was unnecessarily facing the rush for depositing the bill and wasting the time in coming from Aya Nagar and A4 Nand Lal offered to deposit the bill. PW31 further stated that he was told to pay the bill amount in cash to accused KP Singh, present at the same time with A4 Nand Lal and further offered that bill would be deposited and the witness would get the paid bill receipt. A4 Nand Lal also offered some concession on the billed amount. PW31 took sometime to think over on which A4 Nand Lal left saying that accused KP Singh would come to collect the money next CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 35 of 8 day. PW31 further stated that since then till the month of April or May 1997, accused KP Singh was collecting the billed amount in respect of aforesaid telephone Nos. He proved the paid telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6803969 for Rs. 11,023/ and Rs. 16,435/ as Ex.PW31/A and Ex.PW31/B and the counterfoils of paid telephone bill in respect of telephone No. 6803969 as Ex.PW31/C to H in the sum of Rs. 17,119/, Rs. 11,904/, Rs. 13,137/, Rs. 12,980/, Rs. 1,261/ and Rs. 27,791/. He also proved the paid telephone bill in respect of telephone No. 6803969 for Rs. 20,682/ as Ex.PW31/H. PW31 Shyam Pal Singh stated that he had given the billed amount in cash and had also received the concession of approximately Rs. 500/ or Rs. 1,000/ on each bill. He proved the paid telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6804647 for billing cycle 16/1/96 for Rs. 2,515/ as Ex.PW31/J. He stated that this telephone bill was prepared by A4 Nand Lal in his presence. He also proved the paid telephone bills in respect of telephone No. 6803969 for billing cycle dtd. 25/7/95 for Rs. 12,773/ as Ex.PW31/K on which A4 Nand Lal had put his signature in his (PW31) presence. PW31 also proved the paid telephone bill in respect of telephone No. 6803969 for billing cycle 10/9/95 for Rs. 18,018/, for billing cycle 25/12/95 for Rs. 16,735/, for billing cycle 10/5/96 for Rs. 14,873/, for billing cycle 20/4/95 for Rs. 12,434/ as Ex.PW31/L to Ex.PW31/O and stated that these bills were deposited either through A4 Nand Lal or accused KP Singh. PW31 stated that accused KP CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 36 of 8 Singh used to collect the money in cash for depositing the same in MTNL. The witness identified the handwriting of A4 Nand Lal and signatures appearing at point Q201 on Ex.PW31/K. In the cross examination, the witness reiterated that he used to receive the ready telephone bills from A4 Nand Lal and the amount used to paid in cash to A1 KP Singh. The witness denied the suggestion that his STD and PCO was disconnected because of the default and he pressurized Nand Lal to restore the same without making the payment. In the cross examination the witness reiterated that he was told by A4 Nand Lal that he would get 2025% concession on the bill amount and on being inquired A4 told that the discount upto 25% on the bill is being given as the accused persons deposit the bills in bulk. The witness denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely as A4 Nand Lal had not obliged him for restoration of his connection which was disconnected in default for non payment. It also came in the cross examination on behalf of A1 that this witness remained in judicial custody for around 22 days in this case. However, he stated that no CBI officer assured him of his release from this case in case he deposed in their favour. 3.32 PW32 Smt. Mam Kaur deposed on oath that during the year 1994 telephone No. 6801273 was installed at her residence at Village Ghitorni, New Delhi. She further deposed that once or twice when she had to visit Mumbai, she gave the telephone bill alongwith the cash amount to CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 37 of 8 be deposited in MTNL to accused KP Singh. She stated that telephone bill of Rs. 4500/ of the aforesaid telephone was given to accused KP Singh alongwith cash for depositing the same with MTNL and accused KP Singh thereafter returned the paid bill Ex.PW32/A to her and the same was handed over to CBI on 18/2/99.

3.33 PW33 Raja Ram deposed on oath that telephone No. 6804564 was installed at his residence at Village Ghitorni. In the year 1996, PW33 handed over two telephone bills of Rs. 405/ and Rs. 428/ to his neighbour i.e., accused KP Singh for depositing the same in MTNL. Thereafter, accused KP Singh returned the paid bills to him alongwith the counterfoils Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the bills Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B were not prepared in his presence.

3.34 PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija deposed on oath that he owned a PCO Shop at Sarojini Nagar, opposite Babu Market, New Delhi where telephone No. 6888972 was installed during the period 1994 to 1997. PW34 stated that in 1995, he received a telephone bill in respect of the aforesaid telephone amounting to Rs.2,38,000/ approx and since he did not have sufficient funds to pay the said bill he contacted Sh. SM Singh, the then official of MTNL, Nehru Place for getting the amount divided in two CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 38 of 8 installments. He further stated that Sh. SM Singh took him to accused Nand Lal at Bhikaji Cama Place Telephone Exchange and accused Nand Lal told him that the bill cannot be deposited in two instalments and advised him to make a request to Sh. Goel another MTNL official who also refused his request. PW34 further stated that after two/three days, he arranged for the money and deposited the bill amount. Thereafter, in the next week PW34 received a telephone call from accused Nand Lal saying that he could deposit his (PW34) telephone bill and he (PW34) would have to pay 75% in cash of the billed amount. On enquiry from PW34 on the source of payment, accused Nand Lal said that he would manage the affairs. Thereafter, accused Nand Lal went to the PCO of PW34 and on enquiry from PW34 on how he would make the payment, accused Nand Lal told him that he had some Govt. official having Govt. cheques and the payment would be made through those cheques. PW34 further deposed that thereafter, his telephone bills were being retained by accused Nand Lal and after paying the bill, he used to return the paid bill to him and collect 75% of the bill amount from him. This procedure continued from 1995 to April May 1997. PW34 Bhushan Kumar also stated that he received a telephone call from Nehru Place Exchange in April or May 1997 from Mr. Bhat who informed him that his three telephone bills had been paid through Defence cheques and balance amount of Rs. 1000/ is short in default of which the telephone would be disconnected. On this PW34 contacted accused Nand CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 39 of 8 Lal who deposited Rs. 1000/. PW34 stated that after depositing the bills accused Nand Lal used to return the paid bills to him. He proved the paid bills as Ex.PW34/A to Ex.PW34/X and the counterfoils as Ex.PW34/Y1 to Ex.PW34/Y3 for which amount was paid in cash to accused Nand Lal. In the cross examination, PW34 stated that accused Nand Lal collected cash payment only for payment of STD telephone bill No.6888972. The witness also stated in the cross examination that when his statement was recorded he was in custody. PW34 remained in judicial custody in this case for around 2025 days. The witness stated that he never visited CBI office after his release on bail. The witness denied the suggestion that since Nand Lal has not obliged him to permit the payment of bill in two installment he made a false statement against him.

3.35 PW35 Om Prakash Gupta deposed on oath that he was neighbour of accused KP Singh and had telephone No. 6803041 installed at his residence in Village Ghitorni. PW35 stated that accused KP Singh contacted his son for giving him cash and telephone bill to be paid to the MTNL. After paying the bill accused KP Singh used to return the paid back bills to them. PW35 proved the counterfoils of such payments as Ex.PW35/A and Ex.PW35/B. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he remained in custody in this case for around 21 days. The witness also stated that after his release from judicial custody till date, his statement CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 40 of 8 was not recorded by CBI officials.

3.36 PW36 Retd. Commander Rajwant Singh deposed on oath that from 1994 to 1997 he was posted as Logistics Officer in INS, Delhi at Dalhousie Road, New Delhi. He stated that INS India is a support unit of Naval Headquarters at New Delhi. PW36 stated that the bills of telephones installed at the office and residence of officers of Indian Navy inclusive of Telex Services were paid to the concerned authorities of telephone department by way of cheques favouring MTNL issued by the office of Indian Navy. He further stated that the dealing Clerk used to prepare the cheque and used to put the same before the Asst. Logistics Officer (Pay) who would examine the corresponding contingent bill put up before him at the same time and then sign the cheque. He stated that the cheque alongwith the contingent bill used to be put up before him for signatures. PW36 also stated that the Telephone Maintenance Cell (TMC) under Directorate of Naval Signals in Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi used to prepare the contingent bills and was signed by the officer incharge of the TMC. Thereafter, the bill was put up before the Directorate of Pay & Allowances (DPA) Naval Headquarter for counter signature and after such counter signature an official of TMC used to bring the contingent bill with connected papers to the office of INS. Thereafter, the cheques issued by the INS used to be handed over to the official of TMC for depositing it with CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 41 of 8 MTNL. PW36 stated that accused Kiran Pal Singh was posted in TMC during the year 1994 to 1997 as Chief Petty Officer. The witness identified his signatures on the cheques Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/72A except on cheque Ex.PW50/A. The witness also stated that all these cheques were issued on the basis of contingent bills Ex.PW3/1 to Ex.PW3/72. The witness also identified the signatures of Lt. RP Yadav on certain contingent bills and cheques. There was no substantial cross examination of this witness.

3.37 PW37 Ramesh Singhal deposed on oath that he was running an electric shop at 64B, Bankey Lal Market, Badarpur, New Delhi in the name and style of Balaji Electronics. PW37 stated that telephone No. 6943778 was installed at his shop at 6465 Nehru Market, Badarpur, New Delhi for which he received the first bill of Rs. 3470/ in respect of payment of which he contacted his friend Johny who introduced him to accused Moolchand (since expired), who took the bill and the payment from PW37 and thereafter returned the paid bill back to him. The witness stated that he does not know as to how the said bill was deposited. In the cross examination, again the witness stated that he does not know that how the payments were made.

3.38 PW38 Balbir Singh deposed on oath that he was running a CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 42 of 8 PCO shop at H. No. 36, Vill. Moti Bagh where telephone No. 24677929 (old No. 601948) was installed. PW38 stated that accused Jitender Pal Singh @ Daizy was his friend and neighbour and he had given a sum of Rs. 1,000/ alongwith the telephone bill of the said amount to accused Jitender Pal Singh to deposit the same in the MTNL. Accused Jitender Pal Singh returned back the paid bill alongwith the counterfoil Ex.PW38/A dtd. 22/12/95. In the cross examination, the witness merely stated that he gave the bill for payment to accused Jatinder Pal Singh @ Daizy as he was also going to deposit his bill.

3.39 PW41 Baldev Singh corroborated the statement of PW34 and stated that the paid bills Ex.PW34/A to Ex.PW34/F does not bear the stamp of Bhikaji Cama Place, whereas it bears the stamp of Nehru Place and the same has been shown as paid. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the seal affixed on the bill is correct seal. He also admitted that bill of any area can be deposited in any other area within Delhi. 3.40 PW42 VP Bhardwaj deposed on oath that in the month of October 1997, he was working as Junior Accounts Officer, Telephone Revenue in the office of GM (Centre), MTNL Office, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi. He further deposed that specimen rubber seal (stamp) impression of the office of Accounts Officer (TR), Khurshid Lal Bhawan, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 43 of 8 Janpath, New Delhi S524 to S528, Ex.PW42/A (colly) were taken in the CBI office on 14/10/97 in his presence. He stated that he had handed over 13 carbon copy of supplementary telephone bills Ex.PW42/B1 to Ex.PW42/B13 to CBI which bear the signature of AO alongwith seal at point A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that 13 number of supplementary telephone bills Ex.PW42/B1 to B13 pertains to the section where he had worked.

3.41 PW43 NR Tikania deposed on oath that he worked as an Accounts Officer at the office of MTNL, Nehru Place from 1993 to 1995 and thereafter, worked as Chief Accounts Officer. PW43 stated that the handwritten bill Ex.PW3/15B bear fake signatures alongwith stamp (Q15A). He also stated that the bill did not pertain to the area relating to Nehru Place. PW43 confirmed that Ex.PW3/15B (wrongly typed as Ex.PW3/15D) is a bogus, forged and fictitious bill and also stated that this is the same situation for all other telephone bills. PW44 Ram Niwas Bansal the then Accounts Officer in MTNL Office also corroborated the statement of PW43. The defence did not cross examine PW43 and PW44 and therefore, their testimonies remained unchallenged. 3.42 PW45 Raj Kumar Sharma deposed that telephone No. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 44 of 8 6518856 in the name of his wife Mrs. Kiran Sharma was installed at T21, Ward No.3, Mehrauli and the bill Ex.PW13/Q1 was given by him to accused KP Singh alongwith the amount for deposit. However, the witness was declared hostile by Ld. PP on certain points and was cross examined however, nothing material could be extracted from his cross examination. 3.43 PW46 Jai Ram the then Account Officer, MTNL in Nehru Place deposed that the bills Ex.PW3/15B, Ex.PW3/19B, Ex.PW3/22B, Ex.PW3/26B, and Ex.PW3/28B did not bear his signatures and he was not aware as to who had signed these bills. PW46 also stated that the bills pertain to Chankya Puri area and not Nehru Place Circle. He also stated that it was not possible for Nehru Place Circle to issue duplicate bill pertaining to number falling in central district. In the cross examination, it was specifically put to the witness that in the year 1995 duplicate bills can be raised by any circle and can be paid at any circle and the same was denied. 3.44 PW47 Sh. Parveen Kumar deposed on oath that he knew accused Kiran Pal Singh as they both are residing in Village Ghitorni. PW47 stated that he was running a store in the name and style of Morning Store in Vasant Kunj since 1995 where telephone No.6895972 was installed. His elder brother Rameshwar Dayal was having a telephone connection bearing No.6804605 and his father Dharam Dass was having telephone CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 45 of 8 connection bearing No.6803357 and both these numbers were installed at Village Ghitorni. PW47 further deposed that accused Kiran Pal Singh used to visit his shop and used to purchase goods on credit basis. When there was large amount of arrear, PW47 demanded money from accused KP Singh on which accused Kiran Pal Singh offered to pay the telephone bills of PW47 and his family on the pretext that he was working in the MTNL. Thereafter, accused Kiran Pal Singh made a payment of Rs. 40,000/ to Rs. 50,000/ against the telephone bills and adjusted the amount towards purchases made by accused from the shop of PW47. PW47 proved the counter foil of the aforesaid telephone bills as Ex.PW39/T2, Ex.PW25/R3 and Ex.PW47/A. In the cross examination, the witness stated that the telephone bills, counterfoil of which Ex.PW39/T2, Ex.PW25/R3 and Ex.PW47/A were given by him to accused KP Singh. The witness also reiterated that he had personally given the telephone bills to A1. 3.45 PW48 Sat Pal Arora deposed that telephone No. 6856328 was installed at his residence at 79/4, Mehrauli, New Delhi, however, the same was in the name of Sh. Subhash Chander. During 199394, two or three bills of the aforesaid telephone were given to accused Moolchand to be deposited in the MTNL, who charged Rs. 10 or Rs. 15/ as commission for depositing the bill with MTNL. After depositing the bill, accused Moolchand gave the paid bill having endorsement made by MTNL. PW48 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 46 of 8 stated that lateron, he came to know, that one of the bill was paid through RBI cheque, from the account of Indian Navy. In the cross examination by Ld. PP, the witness admitted that since the payment was made from the account of Indian Navy and therefore, to that extent he is cheated by Mool Chand.

3.45 PW49 Sh. Parminder Kumar was running a shop in Mehrauli and telephone No.660009 was installed at his residence in the name of his friend Vinod Kumar Sharma and he used to give the telephone bills for payment to one Lokesh Suri @ Baba of Nisha General Store alongwith cash as per bill and Rs.10/ extra per bill. He proved the said bills as Ex.PW39/L and Ex.PW39/M. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. PP however, nothing material could be extracted from him.

3.46 PW50 Smt. Suman Bala, sister of accused Mool Chand deposed on oath that telephone No. 39968 was installed in her shop/house. She stated that she had given one or two bills to accused Moolchand for depositing the same with MTNL and he used to return back the paid bills to her. Accused informed PW50 that some person used to come for collection of such bills for depositing with MTNL.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 47 of 8 3.47 PW51 Sh. Tarun Verma deposed on oath that he was running a shop in the name and style of Chicken Mehal in RK Puram from the period 1995 to 1999 and he had a telephone connection at his shop which started with 606 and ended with 798 or 789 in the name of his elder brother Shyam Sunder Verma. PW51 further deposed that one bill pertaining to this number was handed over by him to his brother in law Sh. Suresh Kakkar alongwith Rs. 15/ extra for depositing the same with MTNL who stated to have further handed over the said bill and amount to accused Moolchand for depositing.

3.48 PW52 Sh. Chander Prakash deposed on oath that in 1994 telephone No. 676956 was installed at his residence at H. No. 269, Sector 6, RK Puram and accused Nand Lal was his neighour. PW52 Sh. Chander Prakash deposed that he got a telephone call from MTNL regarding bills outstanding towards his aforesaid telephone No. Since his brother was unwell and he was posted in Eastern Courts, MTNL, he asked accused Nand Lal to deposit the amount under his outstanding bills and paid him Rs. 5,018/ for the same. After depositing the same, accused Nand Lal returned back to him the copy of the receipts Ex.PW52/A to Ex.PW52/F which were seized by the CBI vide memo Ex.PW52/G. 3.49 PW53 Sh. Harbans Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 48 of 8 676035 (new No. 467635) was installed at his shop at Guru Nanak Taxi Service, Nanak Pura, Moti Bagh, in the name of his relative Sh. Sukhwinder Singh. Accused Jitender Pal Singh was his neighbour and he (accused) offered to deposit the telephone bills claiming that PW53 would not be required to stand in queue. PW53 further deposed that he handed over 23 bills to accused Jitender Pal Singh alongwith bill amount who after depositing the same handed over the paid bills back to him. PW53 proved the paid bill as Ex.PW53/A which was seized by CBI vide memo Mark PW53/B. The witness was declared hostile by CBI. In the cross examination by Ld. PP, the witness admitted that it might be possible that accused Jitender Pal Singh had told him that he i.e. the witness would get 10% commission from MTNL. However, the witness denied the suggestion that he had also told the CBI that accused Jitender Pal Singh had told him that bills would be deposited through one middle man / Indian Navy. 3.50 PW54 Sh. Ashok Gulati deposed on oath that telephone No. 6883879 was installed in the office of Arjun Exports DDA Shopping Complex, Nanak Pura where he was employed who used to deposit the telephone bills of the aforesaid number from between 1993 to 2002. PW54 further deposed that accused Jitender Pal Singh had a photocopier machine installed near the office of Arjun Exports, DDA Shopping Complex, Nanak Pura and under the direction of his employer Sh. Harjinder Singh, he CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 49 of 8 handed over one office telephone bill to accused Jitender Pal singh alongwith bill amount for depositing the same with MTNL who after depositing the same with MTNL returned back the paid bill Ex.PW54/B to him. The said bill was seized by CBI vide memo Ex.PW54/C. PW54 Ashok Gulati further stated that he handed over telephone bill of telephone No. 2415438 installed in his name at his residence alongwith bill amount to accused Jitender Pal Singh for depositing the same with MTNL who after depositing the same handed over the paid bill Ex.PW54/A to him which was seized by CBI vide memo Ex.PW54/C. PW54 however, deposed on oath that in his presence and in the presence of Sh. Harjinder Singh, accused Jitender Pal Singh had admitted that he had made the payment of the aforesaid bills through cheques of some Navy company. In the cross examination of PW54 nothing material came out against the accused persons.

3.51 PW55 Sh. Sanjay Kumar deposed on oath that telephone No. 6136808 was installed at his shop at Shop No. 11, Sector D4, Vasant Kunj in the name of PW70 Mathew Pulickal Chako. PW55 deposed that accused Kiran Pal Singh was known to him as they both were from the same village. PW55 had given 12 telephone bills alongwith bill amount to be deposited with MTNL, to accused Kiran Pal Singh as he had claimed that he was working in the Nehru Place office. After depositing the amount, accused CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 50 of 8 KP Singh returned back the paid bill Ex.PW39/Q3 to him. PW70 Sh. Mathew Pullickal Chako also corroborated the statement of PW55. In the cross examination of PW55, the witness stated that he had given the bill only once to A1. It also came in the cross examination of this witness that he never gave any bill directly to A1. The bills were given to KP Singh by the father of the witness. However, the witness stated that this did not take place in his presence. The father of the witness Jai Prakash was also arrested in this case.

3.52 PW56 Sh. Dharmender Kumar deposed on oath that his father Sh. Raj Kumar, was running a shop in the name and style of M/s Raj Coffee House, Main Mathura Road, Badarpur, during the year 1988 to 1998. Two telephone numbers 6940523 and 6942523 were installed at the said shop and were used in the PCO booth installed therein run by PW56. PW56 further deposed that telephone No. 6945709 was in the name of Sh. Raj Kumar and was installed in his residence. PW56 also deposed that accused Moolchand was running a Shoe/Chappal shop of his sister at Badarpur and he used to visit the shop of PW56 to use the PCO booth. PW56 further stated that he received the bill for the STD phone every 15 days and for the PCO phone after every month and the telephone used at the residence, the bill was raised after every two months and all the aforesaid bills used to be paid at the Nehru Place office of MTNL. Accused CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 51 of 8 Moolchand suggested to PW56 that he would deposit the telephone bill and would charge Rs. 15/ per bill. Thereafter, accused Moolchand deposited the telephone bills of PW56 for about 56 months and after deposit would return the same bills handed over to him with revenue stamp bearing the seal of MTNL, to PW56. The telephone bill regarding telephone No. 6940523 for the period 1/3/96 to 15/3/96 of Rs. 9,503 was marked as Mark PW56/PX. The witness deposed that as per the records available, the total amount in respect of telephone number 6940523 was Rs.47,621/; for telephone number 6945709 was Rs.3,880/, for telephone number 6942523 was Rs.4670/ and for telephone number 6940523 was Rs.1,26,649/. In the cross examination, the witness denied the suggestion that he had asked late Mool Chand to deposit the amount. It also came in the cross examination of this witness that his phone was disconnected for non payment of bill for which he contacted Mool Chand and then Mool Chand took the witness to A1 KP Singh through whom Mool Chand used to deposit the bill. The witness stated that A1 KP Singh after calculating the money paid the same to Mool Chand for payment of the telephone bills. The money was returned back to the witness and he deposited the telephone bill next day. The witness stated that thereafter, he started depositing the telephone bill himself.

3.53 PW57 Sh. Hans Bakshi deposed on oath that telephone No. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 52 of 8 6892202 was installed in his name at his residence at F 3/27, Model Town, Delhi and after he left the aforesaid address, Mr. Ram Sahai took over the property as well as used the said telephone and made the payment himself or through some other person. PW57 proved the counterfoil of the bill dtd. 1/4/96 for a sum of Rs. 2,372/ of the aforesaid number as Ex.PW39/5. 3.54 PW58 Sh. Kulwant Singh deposed on oath that telephone No. 26114235 was installed in the name of Mr. JD Vadhwa and the same was purchased by him and installed at his residence at H. No. 35, Vill. Mochi Bagh, Nanak Pura. PW58 further deposed that the bills pertaining to the aforesaid telephone was paid in cash by him through accused Jitender Pal Singh who was running a shop in the name and style of Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Dry cleaning at Nanakpura.

3.55 PW59 Sh. Sita Ram deposed on oath that telephone No. 6137039 was installed at his residence at 104/9, Kishan Gargh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. PW59 deposed that he is a carpenter by profession and during the year 199697 he worked as carpenter at the house of accused Kiran Pal Singh. Accused Kiran Pal Singh owed him Rs. 30,000/ for the work done and when he demanded the money so as to pay the telephone bill of Rs. 570/, accused Kiran Pal Singh offered to deposit the said bill and hence, he (PW59) handed over the aforesaid bill to the accused. PW59 deposed that CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 53 of 8 the telephone bill bearing seal of MTNL was returned paid by accused KP Singh and the counterfoil of the same was given to him. In the cross examination, nothing material appeared against the prosecution. 3.56 PW60 Sh. Jai Prakash Bansal deposed on oath that telephone No. 6803046 was installed in his name at his residence i.e. Vill. & PO Ghittorni. Telephone No. 6136808 was installed at his shop run in the name and style of General Merchant at Vasant Kunj, Sector D4. PW60 further deposed on oath that accused Kiran Pal Singh was resident of the same village and used to visit his shop. PW60 further deposed that accused Kiran Pal Singh offered to deposit his telephone bills, on which he i.e. PW60 gave him 2 or 3 bills to be deposited with MTNL. PW60 stated that accused Kiran Pal Singh used to return the counterfoil to him in token of deposit of bill. The witness could not produce the paid telephone bills. It appeared in the cross examination that this witness remained in custody in this case. The witness denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused.

3.57 PW61 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jawa deposed on oath that he was running a General Store at Shop No. 20, Karbala, New Delhi where telephone No. 4691278 was installed and telephone No. 6440995 was installed at his residence at E 9/9, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. PW61 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 54 of 8 deposed that one bill for the period 1/2/96 to 16/2/96 for a sum of Rs. 6,933/ was given to accused Surender Kumar Grover alongwith bill amount to be deposited with MTNL. After deposit of the bill, accused Surender Kumar Grover returned to him the receipt Ex.PW39/G to PW61 which was seized by CBI vide memo Mark PW61/PX. The witness was declared hostile and cross examined at length regarding his signatures on seizure memo. However, it did not have any material impact on the merits of the case.

3.58 PW62 Sh. Hem Chand Bansal deposed on oath that telephone No. 6804422 (new No. 6804423) was installed during the year 199697. The telephone bills pertaining to the said telephone was deposited at the office of MTNL Bhikaji Cama Palace and PW62 had to go by bus to reach that place. PW62 further deposed that accused Kiran Pal Singh was residing in the same village i.e. Vill. Ghitorni and he told him (PW62) that he had been visiting Bhikaji Cama Place and at his instance, PW62 gave 12 bills to be deposited with MTNL. The counterfoil of the said bills were returned to PW62. It came in the cross examination of this witness that he had remained in judicial custody in this case.

3.59 PW63 Vishwanath deposed on oath that he was posted as PA of Commandant Sh. MA Khan, Directorate of Naval Signal, Sena Bhawan. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 55 of 8 On 30/6/97 CBI conducted search at the office of accused SG Balasubranium working as Assistant in the office of Directorate of Naval Signal, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi and certain documents were seized from the room of accused SG Balasubramanium vide seizure memo Ex.PW63/A. In the cross examination the witness admitted that documents were not recovered in his presence.

3.60 PW64 Subhash Kalra deposed on oath that telephone No. 6853527 was installed in the name of his wife Mrs. Neelam Kalra at the residence of Sushil Kumar, son of the sister of his wife Mrs. Neelam Kalra at 1053B/8, Mehrauli, who used to pay the bill raised by the MTNL. 3.61 PW65 Smt. Lakshmi Devi deposed on oath that telephone No. 6716575 was installed in the name of her husband i.e. accused Nand Lal at A18F, Munirka DDA Flats since the year 1997. She further deposed that one another telephone was also installed in her name at her residence in the year 1996 and she had received one or two bills with regard to said telephone which she had got deposited through the Peon of her husband i.e. accused Nand Lal.

3.62 PW66 Kiran Sharma deposed on oath that a landline CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 56 of 8 telephone was installed at her residence at T21, Ward No.3 in his name, the number of which she did not remember. She stated that her husband used to deposit the bills raised by MTNL for the said telephone connection. This witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Ld. PP but nothing could be extracted from her cross examination.

3.63 PW67 Smt. Veena Sahni deposed on oath that her husband was running a TV shop by the name of M/s. Sahni Electronics at shop No. 25D, Sector 6, Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi. She further deposed that two landline MTNL phones were installed at her residence and one of the number was 6892202. She was also declared hostile by the Ld. PP and was cross examined.

3.64 PW68 MR Gupta deposed on oath that during July 1995 he was posted as Accounts Officer under GM Central, MTNL. The witness was shown hand written telephone bill Ex.PW3/15B pertaining to Telephone No.4636957 dated 03.07.95 in the name of Chief of the Naval staff, Naval Head quarter for Rs.40,359/. He stated that this telephone number pertains to Jor Bagh telephone exchange. He further stated that the handwritten bill should have been issued by AO (TR), Jor Bagh, MTNL, New Delhi whereas this bill have been issued by AO South VI, Nehru Place, Telephone Exchange , which is a forged bill. Similarly, the witness CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 57 of 8 stated that seal impression affixed on aforesaid bill pertains to AO Nehru Place instead of AO (TR), Jor Bagh. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he has not brought any book containing rules and regulations regarding this.

3.65 PW69 Vinod Kumar deposed on oath that from the year 199499 he was posted as Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue) in MTNL office, GM Central, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. He did not depose anything regarding the case and was declared hostile by Ld. PP and was cross examined. During cross examination by Ld. PP the witness stated that it is quite possible that the bill Ex.PW3/15B which pertains to Jor Bagh Area and is bearing the stamp of Nehru Place Office, is bogus. In the cross the witness admitted that on request hand written bill used to be issued. 3.66 PW70 Sh. Mathew Pulickal Chako deposed on oath that in the year 1992, telephone number 6136808 was installed in his name at shop No.2 Bansal Stores, Sector D4, Vasant Kunj, DDA Market, New Delhi belonging to Sanjay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar used to pay the bills pertaining to the said telephone connection. In the cross examination, witness admitted that he had written telephone bills on his palm only to refresh his memory.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 58 of 8 3.67 PW71 Ashish Mishra deposed on oath that in the year 199495 telephone number 608173 was installed in the name of his Exwife Meenakshi Mitra at G61, Nanak Pura. He further deposed that the telephone bills for the period 199495 was paid by him in cash through accused Jitender Pal Singh @ Dazy. He proved the paid telephone bill for an amount of Rs. 559/ for the period 16/9/95 to 15/11/95 as Mark PW71/PX1 which was seized by CBI vide memo Ex.PW81/C (Mark PW71/PX). This witness was also declared hostile by Ld. PP and was cross examined. However, nothing could be extracted from his cross examination. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he does not have record to show handing over of bills to accused Jitender Pal Singh. 3.68 PW72 Sh. Rajiv Maggon deposed on oath that in the year 1992 to 2002 he was doing the business of manufacturing of ice cube in shop No.3, DDA shopping complex, Nanak Pura, New Delhi. He stated that accused Jitender Pal Singh approached him in the year 1995 and at his instance, he (PW72) handed over the bills to him for deposit in the MTNL. PW72 proved the paid telephone bill for the period 16/7/95 to 15/9/95 Ex.PW72/B which was seized by the CBI vide seizure memo Ex.PW72/A. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he did not obtain any receipt from accused Jitender Pal Singh while the telephone bills were handed over. The witness admitted that his statement was not recorded by CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 59 of 8 the CBI.

3.69 PW73 Mahinder Pal deposed on oath that in the year 1994 to 1997 he was posted in MTNL office, Nehru Place as Accounts Officer. He further deposed that telephone bill for telephone No. 4636957 was in the name of Chief of the Naval Staff 81, Naval Headquarters and the bill Ex.PW3/15 (handwritten bill Ex.PW3/15B) was raised for the period 1/4/95 to 31/5/95 for Rs. 40,359/ and bore the seal of Nehru Place Branch. However, the aforesaid telephone number did not pertain to Nehru Place Branch and therefore it is not a genuine bill. In the cross examination, the witness stated that he has not brought any official record to show that as to which particular number of the telephones were being controlled or operated at Nehru Place Exchange. However, the witness reaffirmed that telephone No. 4636957 was not operating from Nehru Place Exchange. 3.70 PW74 KC Sharma deposed on oath that he joined Naval Headquarters/DNS as Assistant Director Naval signals in the year 1996 and in the year 1997 he joined Naval Telecom. He further deposed that his duties were to look after all the official/Naval Telephones installed at Naval Headquarters and residence of Naval officers. He stated that a Kardex Register was maintained in the office of Naval Signals which contained one card for one official telephone on which various details such as date of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 60 of 8 bill, rental charges, local call charges (number of calls, period, amount) shifting charges, other charges, total amount, receipt number and date, were mentioned. He also proved the registers Ex.PW3/74A (Volume 1) and Ex.PW3/74B (Volume 2). In the cross examination the witness admitted that Register Ex.PW3/74A & Ex.PW3/74B is not containing any entry in his hand.

3.71 PW75 Sh. DC Mehndiratta deposed on oath that during the year 199495 he was working as Accounts Officer in GMBD (General Manager Building and Duct) Unit at Chanderlok Building and later on in September 1995 he was transferred to Internal Audit in KL Bhawan Headquarter. He stated that his duty was to make Audit for the paid bills. He also stated that the mode of payment of telephone bill was cash or by cheque and there used to be two separate counters for deposit of the same in the office of MTNL. The witness further stated that the official sitting on the cheque counter used to verify the date of the cheque as per the due date of the telephone bill i.e. if the cheque date was beyond the due date, then surcharge was required to be included in the cheque amount. The depositor had to mention the telephone number, date of bill and the amount due on the reverse of the cheque to rule out the possibility of misplacing of the cheque. To deposit more than one bill, the depositor had to furnish a slip containing the details of all the bills. The witness stated that in respect of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 61 of 8 the cash payment, if the due date for payment of the bill had already passed, then surcharge was also to be paid. He deposed that under the instructions of CBI, he handed over certain receipts of the bills paid at NCR counter, Nehru Place which were under his jurisdiction. He proved the list so handed over to the CBI as Mark PW75/PX. In the cross examination nothing material came out against the prosecution.

3.72 PW76 Satya Pal Singh deposed that telephone No. 5622992 was installed in his name at his residence and the bills of the said telephone was handed over to his son for payment to the MTNL which was further handed over to accused KP Singh for depositing.

3.73 PW77 MS Bisht, the then DySP, CBI, ACII Zone filed the chargesheet in this case after receipt of sanction in respect of A4 Nand Lal and of A2 SG Bala Subramanium.

3.74 PW78 BN Jha, the part IO of the case deposed on oath that he had investigated this case partly and had recorded the statement of the witnesses and proved the same as Ex.PW78/A1 to A21. PW78 further deposed that vide seizure memo Ex.PW78/A23 he had seized the telephone bills Ex.PW53/A from Gurnam Singh Proprietor of Guru Nanak Taxi Stand, Nanakpura. He stated that the telephone bill Ex.PW78/A25 dtd. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 62 of 8 1/9/95 of telephone No. 671527 was seized by him from DK Gupta, Shop No. 159, Mochi Bagh, Nanak Pura vide seizure memo dated 08.12.97 and proved the same as Ex.PW78/A24. He also proved the seizure memo Ex.PW78/A26 vide which the telephone bill dtd. 1/10/95 Ex.PW39/L and telephone bill dtd. 1/12/95 Ex.PW39/M in respect of telephone No. 0660009 were seized by him. He stated that the telephone bill dtd. 16/2/96 of telephone No. 6883879, Ex.PW78/A28 in the name of Ashok Gulati was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 10/2/98 Ex.PW78/A27. He also proved the telephone bill dtd. 16/2/96 as Ex.PW78/A30 of telephone No. 6882187 of M/s Soni Tent House, which was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 10/2/98 Ex.PW78/A29. He stated that the telephone bill dtd. 16/2/96 Ex.PW78/A32 of telephone No. 6887581 in the name of Pradum Singh was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 9/3/98 Ex.PW78/A31. He also proved the four telephone bills dtd. 10/4/96 Ex.PW78/A36, 25/4/96, 10/5/96 and 25/5/96 of telephone No. 3792962 in the name of Sh. Bhupender Singh which was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 1/12/97 Ex.PW78/A35. He also proved the seizure memo dtd. 13/2/97 Ex.PW78/A37 vide which the telephone bill dtd. 1/2/97 Ex.PW78/A38 of telephone No. 6511280 in the name of Subhash Chand was seized by CBI. He further proved the seven telephone bill dtd. 1/3/96, 1/5/96 Ex.PW78/A40 and 1/7/96 Ex.PW78/A41 of telephone No. 6855274 and bills dated 1/10/95, 1/12/95 and 1/2/96 of telephone No. 661782 and another CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 63 of 8 bill dtd. 1/6/96 pertaining to telephone No. 6579542 of Sh. Suresh Kumar Kakkad which was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 10/2/98 Ex.PW78/A39. He stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW78/A42 dtd. 24/2/98, five telephone bills dtd. 1/10/95 and 1/2/96 of telephone No. 663853 and bills dtd. 1/11/95, 1/1/96 and 1/3/96 Ex.PW30/A of telephone No. 6966707 of Sh. Hans Raj Verma was seized by the CBI. PW78 also proved four telephone bills dtd. 1/9/95 Ex.PW78/A44, 1/11/95, 1/5/96 and 1/7/96 of telephone No. 6853004 in the name of Bhoop Chander Sharma which were seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 12/3/98 Ex.PW78/A43. He stated that he also seized six telephone bills dtd. 1/11/95 and 1/9/95 Mark PW78/PX of telephone No. 6857480, telephone bill dtd. 1/5/95 of telephone No. 6865196, telephone bill dtd. 1/11/95 and 1/9/95 of telephone No. 6852268 Mark PW78/PX1and telephone bill dtd.1/8/96 pertaining to telephone No. 6519897 from Sh. KC Verma vide seizure memo dtd. 12/3/98 and proved the same Ex.PW78/A45. He stated that three telephone bills dtd. 1/8/96 of telephone No. 6514693 and bill dtd. 16/10/95 Ex.PW6/11 and 16/2/96 of telephone No. 6864848 from Ms. Ranjana Malhotra was seized by CBI vide seizure memo dtd. 12/3/98 Ex.PW6/C. He also seized the following bills in the name of Dharmender Kumar and proved its seizure memo dtd. 19/11/97 as Ex.PW78/A46 :

1) bill dtd. 16/3/96 of telephone No. 6942523;

2) bills dtd. 16/7/96, 16/5/96, 16/3/96 and 16/11/95 of telephone No. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 64 of 8 6945709;

3) bills dtd. 10/10/95, 25/10/95, 10/11/95, 25/11/95, 10/12/95, 25/2/96, 25/3/96, 25/4/96, 25/1/96, 10/5/96, 10/3/96 and 25/12/95 of telephone No. 6940523;

4) bill dtd. 1/6/96 of telephone No. 6942525.

PW78 stated that vide seizure memo dtd. 18/11/97 Ex.PW78/A47, he had seized telephone bill for the period 4/11/95 to 29/2/96 for billing cycle 16/3/96 to 1/4/96 for Rs. 3,470/ of telephone No. 6943778 and vide seizure memo dtd. 1/12/97 Ex.PW78/A48, he had seized telephone bill for billing cycle 10/4/96 of telephone No. 4648087 for Rs. 9,990/ for the period 1/3/96 to 31/3/96. The witness proved the specimen signatures and handwritings of accused SG Balasubramania as Ex.PW78/A50 (colly) (20 pages) and Ex.PW78/A51 (colly) (63 pages) which were taken by him in the presence of two official witnesses.

In the cross examination on behalf of A1, PW78 Insp. BN Jha denied the suggestion that during search proceedings no witness other than CBI were joined. IO stated that A1 KP Singh had been collecting the telephone bills from MTNL and thereafter these bills were being submitted with the TMC. A2 SG Balasubramanian used to check and prepare the contingency bill and got it typed through A3 Ashok Kumar and thereafter, the bills were being submitted to Dy. Commandant/ Asstt. Commandant as CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 65 of 8 the case may be of the TMC of Naval Headquarter for their signatures. IO did not remember that how many copies of the contingency bills were being prepared. IO stated that he did not come across any letter of MTNL showing lesser or excessive payment against any of the official of Naval Department nor did he come across any letter/correspondence/document/file/audit report etc. to show that payment of any official telephone had been made twice by Naval Department for the same month/circle. IO admitted that one copy of the contingent bill alongwith the bills of MTNL were being sent to Naval Audit Headquarter, Bombay for the permanent records. IO also admitted that MTNL officials used to issue receipts in respect of the total payment of a contingent bill by separately mentioning the numbers and amounts against each telephone number mentioned in the particular contingent bill. He also admitted that on cross verification the receipts of the contingent bills from the MTNL and it was revealed that on some bills, there was a genuine stamp/seal of the MTNLwhereas on some contingent bills, the genuineness of the bills was denied by the MTNL. IO stated that he had not cross checked the record of MTNL in respect of the payment of particular bills with the records maintained by the TMC of Naval Headquarter. It also came in the cross examination that IO had written to the Audit Office of Naval Headquarter, Bombay for submitting the audit reports and vouchers etc. but the same were not submitted till investigation remained with this IO. He also stated CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 66 of 8 that he had not examined the cardex register seized by him. In the cross examination on behalf of A5 to A8, IO stated that he cannot say whether telephone bill pertaining to telephone number 6883879, Ex.PW78/A28 is a fabricated bill. IO also stated that he did not verify any bill seized by him in the name of A5, A6, A7 and A8 that whether the bills in question were actually paid to MTNL nor did he examine the telephone bills seized pertaining to the above mentioned four accused persons with a view to form any opinion about the genuineness or the forgery in the bills in question. In the cross examination on behalf of A3, IO stated that he cannot say that who has handwritten the contingent bill Ex.PW3/42B and Ex.PW78/D1. IO stated that he has not verified whether the payment had actually been made to MTNL vide cheque No.021227 dated 23.07.96.

3.75 PW79 Capt. Pradeep Kumar deposed that in the year 1994 to early 1997 he was posted as Dy. Director, Pay and Allowances at Naval Headquarter. He also deposed in detail regarding the Telephone Maintenance Cell (TMC) maintained at the Directorate Naval Signals and its functioning pertaining to payment of telephone bills. He proved the letter No.401/01/1 dated 12.08.97 as Ex.PW79/A and annexures as Ex.PW79/A1 to A5, vide which he forwarded the full details of 122 contingent bills and counter foils to CBI. He proved the contingent bills as Ex.PW79/A6 to A128 and Ex.PW79/G1 to G66. He also proved his CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 67 of 8 signatures on bills Ex.PW79/G67 to Ex.PW79/G100. He further proved his signatures on the various bills Ex.PW79/H1 to H107, Ex.PW79/J1 to J6, Ex.PW79/K1 to 11, Ex.PW79/L1, Ex.PW79/M1 to 10, Ex.PW79/N1 to N2, Ex.PW79/O1, Ex.PWP1 to P7, Ex.PW79/Q1, R1, S1 and T1. In the cross examination on behalf of A1, the witness admitted that MTNL receipt was being obtained by TMC on the contingent bill which was being fixed by the MTNL staff with the machine on the contingent bill. Capt. Pradeep Kumar also admitted that contingent bils were bring prepared in triplicate. It also came in the cross examination of this witness that one copy of the contingent bill alongwith the upper portion of the original telephone bill used to be sent to the Controller of Defence Accounts, Navy as part of cash account for audit purpose. The witness admitted that during his tenure, he did not receive any audit objection in respect of the payments made for telephones through contingent bills from CDA Navy. In the cross examination on behalf of A2, A5, A6, A7 and A8, the witness stated that he checked the contents of the 122 contingent bills before sending it to CBI and he did not find any discrepancy in the said bills. The witness also admitted that an audit is conducted at the government expenses by the Controller of Defence Accounts (Navy), Mumbai of the entire Navy and in such audit no discrepancy was found relating to the contingent bills in question. The witness stated that it can be assumed that there is no discrepancy as far as the payment of 122 contingent bills in question are CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 68 of 8 concerned.

3.76 PW80 Dr. BA Vaid, the then GEQD Shimla deposed on oath that documents of this case was received by him from SP, CBI ACB New Delhi vide letter no.1999/3/2A/97ACU(v)/2580/1/97ACU(v) dated 17.10.97 and 80/0001/3/2A/97ACU(v) dated 28.12.98. He stated that the questioned documents was marked as Mark Q1 to Q71, Q73 to Q235 and Q2/1 to Q2/5, Q4/1, Q5/1 to Q5/5, Q6/1 to 6/6, Q7/1 to Q7/4, Q8/1, Q9A to Q43A, Q45A to Q50A, Q109A, Q109B, Q110A to Q114A, Q119A to Q134A, Q136A to Q168A, Q170A to Q174A, Q176A to Q180A, Q182A to Q189A, Q190A to Q199A, Q217A. He proved the specimen writing and signatures S1 to S30, S65 to S164 as Ex.PW80/A1 to A130 of accused Kiran Pal Singh, S31 to S52 as Ex.PW78/A50, S165 to S194 Ex.PW4/B1 to B30, S95 to S257 as Ex.PW78/A51 of accused SG Balasubramanium, S53 to S58 as Ex.PW80/B1 to B6 of one RB Singh, S59 to S64 as Ex.PW80/C1 to C6 of one KS Dogra, S258 to S260, S260A, S261 to S276 as Ex.PW4/C1 to C19, S277 to S391 as Ex.PW80/D1 to 115, S529 to S540 as Ex.PW80/D116 to D127 of accused Ashok Kumar, S392 to S523 as Ex.PW80/E1 to E132 of accused Nand Lal alongwith the admitted writings Ex.PW80/F1 to F8, Ex.PW80/G1 to G6, Ex.PW4/D2, Ex.PW80/H1 & H2, Ex.PW3/76, Ex.PW80/J1 to J6, Ex.PW3/75 (colly), Ex.PW80/K1 and K2, Ex.PW4/D3, Ex.PW80/L1 to L17. He also proved the admitted seal CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 69 of 8 impressions as Ex.PW80/M1 to M9 which were sent to CFSL for examination. PW80 stated that after careful and thoroughly examination of the questioned, specimen and admitted documents, he gave his report Ex.PW80/N and the supplementary opinion Ex.PW80/N1 alongwith the detailed reasons Ex.PW80/N2 and N3.

In the cross examination, PW80 Dr. BA Vaid admitted that he had not filed the notes prepared by him nor he had brought the same in the court. The witness stated that questioned seal was compared with the specimen as well as admitted seal impressions. However, it came in the cross examination that seal in original was not received. The witness was unable to say if the seal of the department keeps on changing from time to time as it was not relevant to them. The witness stated that like other progressive sciences, the science of handwriting identification is a perfect science in the sense a definite opinion can be drawn provided suitable and sufficient data is provided.

3.77 PW81 Ganesh Verma the then DySP, deposed on oath that FIR No. RC 2(A)/97ACU(V) dtd. 27/6/97, Ex.PW81/A was registered against the accused persons and the case was marked to him for investigation by Sh. KL Meena, the then SP, CBI, ACU(V). He stated that during the course of investigation he seized certain documents from private persons. PW81 stated proved the receipt memo Ex.PW81/B vide which he CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 70 of 8 received a duplicate paid bill of Telephone No. 605133 dtd. 1/10/94 for Rs. 550/ initialed by Sh. Ajit V. Anaskar. PW81 also proved seizure memo Ex.PW81/D, vide which the following documents were seized by him :

1) telephone bill of MTNL of Telephone No. 6870490 Billing cycle Amount 25/11/94 Rs. 24,984/ 25/3/96 Rs. 20,311/ 10.4.96 Rs. 21,924/

2) telephone bill of MTNL of Tel. No. 607670, billing date 1/12/95 for Rs. 2,417/.

3) Telephone bill of MTNL of Tel. No. 601499, billing date 1/10/95 for Rs.2,289/.

He also proved seizure memo Ex.PW81/E vide which the following documents were seized by him :

1) Telephone bill of MTNL of Tel. No. 6871030 for the billing period 16/3/96 for Rs.4,513/.

2) Telephone bill of MTNL, Tel. No. 6870689:

           Billing period          Amount

       a) 10/4/96                  Rs. 23,825/

       b) 25/11/96                 Rs, 26,137/

       c) 10/12/96                 Rs. 21,143/

       d) 25/12/96                 Rs. 28,720/


CC No.08/13                 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.              Page 71 of 8
        e) 10/2/97                    Rs. 17,765/

PW81 stated that vide receipt memo Ex.PW81/F, he received a paid duplicate bill for tel. No. 5726085 for Rs. 1,679/ of M/s New Shivani Cemet P. Ltd., from Sh. Hajarigiri Goshwami ; vide receipt memo Ex.PW81/G, he received a paid duplicate bill for tel. No. 7416814 for Rs.

833/ of Mrs. Veena Gaba, from Sh. Kabul Singh Gaba and vide seizure memo Ex.PW81/H, he seized a telephone bill for tel. No. 4694325 dtd. 1/4/96 for Rs. 409/ from Sh. Surinder Grover. He further stated that vide seizure memo Ex.PW81/J, he seized two telephone bills for tel. No. 3793625 for the billing cycle 10/4/96 and 10/2/97 for Rs. 41,958/ and Rs. 35,357/ respectively, from Sh. Davinder Sandhu and vide receipt memo Ex.PW81/L, he received paid telephone bills for tel. No. 5726085 of M/s New Shivani Cement Ltd. for Rs. 1507/ and for tel. No. 5772444 of Sh. Suresh Gupta, from Sh. Hajarigiri Goswami. PW81 stated that during the court of his investigation, he took charge of details of MTNL and proved the same as Ex.PW81/N1 to N10. He also proved the arrest memo of accused SG Balasubramaniam as Ex.PW81/O, of accused Kiran Pal as Ex.PW81/P. He proved the letter dated 08.08.97 as Ex.PW81/Q vide which the exhibits of the case were forwarded to GEQD. PW81 stated that during investigation it was found that accused K.P. Singh and accused Balasubhramanyam and Ashok Kumar had been collecting themselves or CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 72 of 8 through their agents telephone bills of private parties as well as PCOs from different part alongwith cash promising that they would get the amount reduced. The accused persons would keep the cash with themselves and prepare forged telephone bills in respect of any of the official telephone of the Indian Navy for the amount equal to what they had collected from the private parties. The forged bill would be processed as genuine and got passed. Thereafter, cheques in favour of MTNL were got issued from the account of Indian Navy and the cheque was deposited in MTNL for making payment of private telephone bills / PCO bills, which the accused persons had collected from different parties as mentioned above and heavy loss was caused to the Government.

In the cross examination on behalf of A1, IO stated that he cannot say as to how many copies of contingent bill were being prepared by the officers of the Naval for making the payment of the bills regarding telephones installed at the office and residence of the Naval Officers raised by the MTNL. IO admitted that through the contingent bill Ex.PW79/G4 and Ex.PW79/G5 the payment was made for the telephone bills of telephone numbers installed in the house and office of Naval officers. IO admitted that he did not take permission of the court for taking specimen signatures of accused Ashok Kumar. IO also admitted that he did not collect any audit report from the office of the Naval Headquarters in respect of the payment made towards the using of telephones by the officers of the CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 73 of 8 Naval Headquarter. In the cross examination on behalf of A4 Nand Lal, IO stated that he did not remember whether he recorded the statement of PW16 Hawa Singh, PW17 Jag Ram, PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Satija, PW39 Murli Singh, PW41 Baldev Singh, PW52 Chander Prakash after they were released from the custody nor did IO recall if he had recorded the statement of Gulshan Kumar who had remained in custody in this case for around 21 days. After going through the record, IO confirmed that statement of Gulshan Kumar and Shyam Pal were recorded on 30.06.97. IO admitted that he did not mention in his statement that these persons were arrested in this case and sent to JC and their statement was recorded after they were released. In the cross examination on behalf of A2, A5, A6, A7 and A8, IO stated that he did not file the chargesheet. He stated that there were more than 72 contingent bills. However, he was unable to recall as to how many contingent bills were investigated by him. IO stated that he checked up all the contingent bill for the period 1995 to 97. However, he was not able to recall whether the period 1994 was covered or not. IO stated that he had carried out the investigation of all the copies of the contingent bills prepared by the TMC and he might have tallied/compared all the copies of the contingent bills. He stated that some copies of the contingent bills were procured from the Naval office, Bombay and some from Naval Headquarters, Delhi. He admitted that audit report was not collected by him in this case. Nor did he make any request CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 74 of 8 for supply of any audit report in respect of the contingent bill in question. IO stated that Ex.PW79/G4 (D18) and Ex.PW3/34 (D35) are identical. He also admitted that during investigation no complaint or information was received by him that telephone of any officer, during the period of this case, was disconnected for non payment of the bills.

In the cross examination on behalf of A3, IO admitted that the payment of contingent bill Ex.PW78/D1 was made through cheque No. 021227 dated 23.07.1996 for an amount of Rs.8,063/ and the said cheque was deposited with the MTNL. IO also stated that A3 prepared forged telephone bill in respect of telephone bill No.606510. IO admitted that A3 was Peon and lowest in rank and had no discretionary power and it was not his duty to put the prepared bill in front of his seniors. It also came in the cross examination of IO that he had not prepared any segregated list as to which contingent bill was presented, by which person concerned of TMC nor he had any evidence to show as to which particular person was presenting/depositing the cheques to MTNL for the payment of telephone bills of the Navy.

3.78 With respect to the 73 contingent bills in question, the prosecution examined PW3 Capt. Matloob Aslam Khan, PW39 Murli Singh Negi and PW40 Sohan Singh. All of them deposed regarding the contingent bill prepared by accused persons in order to make payments for CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 75 of 8 the telephone bills of private parties.

The witnesses stated that contingent bill (D2) Ex.PW3/1 in the sum of Rs.8,594/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No. 3011645, Ex.PW3/1B bearing signature of accused Kiran Pal at encircled portion Q50. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. This bill was issued without meter reading. Against this bill, a cheque dated 27.10.94, Ex.PW3/1A was issued but the same was not deposited against this bill.

Contingent bill (D3) Ex.PW3/2 in the sum of Rs.7,460/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3010660, Ex.PW3/2B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q171. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. Against this bill, a cheque dated 31.10.94 Ex.PW3/2A was issued and the bill of telephone No.605133 was paid.

Contingent bill (D4) Ex.PW3/3 in the sum of Rs.7,144 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3010658, Ex.PW3/3B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q170. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to Accounts Officer, MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 31.10.94 Ex.PW3/3A was issued and the bill of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 76 of 8 telephone No.6884392 was paid.

Contingent bill (D5) Ex.PW3/4 in the sum of Rs.35,210/ was raised for payment of bill of telex No.65956, Ex.PW3/4B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q169. Against this bill, a cheque dated 31.10.94, Ex.PW3/4A was issued and the bill of telephone No.603377, Ex.PW9/B and 604455, Ex.PW9/C, pertaining to PW9 Vijay Mehta were paid.

Contingent bill (D6) Ex.PW3/5 in the sum of Rs.7,750/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3011645, Ex.PW3/5B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q48. The stamp of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi was appearing on the bill whereas the bill belonged to Central area of MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.11.94 Ex.PW3/5A was issued.

Contingent bill (D7) Ex.PW3/6 in the sum of Rs.1,891/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3010585, Ex.PW3/6B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q47. This bill was without meter reading. The stamp of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi was appearing on the bill whereas the bill belonged to Central area of MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.11.94 Ex.PW3/6A was issued.

Contingent bill (D8) Ex.PW3/7 in the sum of Rs.1,576/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3011041, Ex.PW3/7B bearing CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 77 of 8 handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q46. The stamp of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi was appearing on the bill whereas the bill belonged to Central area of MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.11.94 Ex.PW3/7A was issued.

Contingent bill (D9) Ex.PW3/8 in the sum of Rs.10,972/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3010553, Ex.PW3/8B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q45. This bill is without meter reading. The stamp of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi was appearing on the bill whereas the bill belonged to Central area of MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.11.94 Ex.PW3/8A was issued.

Contingent bill (D10) Ex.PW3/9 in the sum of Rs.25,184/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3792013, Ex.PW3/9B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q44. This bill is not a genuine bill as the same is without any seal. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.11.94 Ex.PW3/9A was issued.

Contingent bill (D11) Ex.PW3/10 in the sum of Rs.26,535/ was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.388981 and 3010564, Ex.PW3/10B & Ex.PW3/10C. These bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q163 & Q164, respectively. These bills are without meter reading. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 78 of 8 Khurshid Lal Bhawan. Against this bill, a cheque dated 22.11.94 Ex.PW3/8A was issued.

Contingent bill (D12) Ex.PW3/11 in the sum of Rs.4,438/ was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.S 3013530, S 3014167 and S 3012070, Ex.PW3/11B, Ex.PW3/11C and Ex.PW3/11D. These bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q156, Q157 and Q158, respectively. Bill Ex.PW3/11B is without meter reading. Against this bill, a cheque dated 07.12.94 Ex.PW3/11A was issued and bill of telephone No.6801273 was paid.

Contingent bill (D13) Ex.PW3/12 in the sum of Rs.12,482/ for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3792001, Ex.PW3/12B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q43 was raised. This bill is without meter reading. The stamp of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi was appearing on the bill whereas the bill belonged to Central area of MTNL. Against this bill, a cheque dated 08.12.94 Ex.PW3/12A was issued.

Contingent bill (D14) Ex.PW3/13 in the sum of Rs.32,772/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S3792007, Ex.PW3/13B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q42. This bill is not a genuine bill and this bill relates to Central Area whereas the stamp appearing on the bill pertained to area of MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, New Delhi. Against this bill, a cheque dated 08.12.94, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 79 of 8 Ex.PW3/13A was issued.

Contingent bill (D15) Ex.PW3/14 in the sum of Rs.8,533/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No. S 3013540, Ex.PW3/14B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q41. This bill is without meter reading. Against this bill, a cheque dated 08.12.94, Ex.PW3/14A was issued.

Contingent bill (D16) Ex.PW3/15 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.4636957 for a sum of Rs.40,359/ , Ex.PW3/15B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q15. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. However, a cheque dated 29.06.95 Ex.PW3/15A in the sum of Rs.40,359/ was issued and bills of private parties bearing telephone No.6803969, Ex.PW31/A and 6888972, Ex.PW34/A, were paid.

Contingent bill (D17) Ex.PW3/16 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No. S 3012919 for a sum of Rs.39,837/, Ex.PW3/16B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q16. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. However, a cheque dated 03.07.95 Ex.PW3/16A in the sum of Rs.39,837/ was issued but the cheque was not deposited against this bill.

Contingent bill (D18) Ex.PW3/17 in the sum of Rs.20,094/ CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 80 of 8 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.6874243, Ex.PW3/17B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q17. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 19.09.95, Ex.PW3/17A was issued whereas the bills of private parties bearing telephone nos.6803969 pertaining to PW31 and 675577, counterfoils of which are Ex.PW39/R3 & R4, respectively, were paid.

Contingent bill (D19) Ex.PW3/18 in the sum of Rs.49,670/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 4631552, Ex.PW3/18B bearing the handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q18. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 19.09.95, Ex.PW3/18A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6898141 vide counterfoil, Ex.PW18/A was paid.

Contingent bill (D20) Ex.PW3/19 in the sum of Rs.45,392/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3782307, Ex.PW3/19B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q20. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 19.09.95, Ex.PW3/19A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6888972, Ex.PW34/B pertaining to PW34, was paid vide counterfoil, Ex.PW39/R5.

Contingent bill (D21) Ex.PW3/20 in the sum of Rs.24,760/ CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 81 of 8 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3782267, Ex.PW3/20B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q21. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 04.10.95, Ex.PW3/20A was issued and the bills of telephone No.6853004, Ex.PW78/A44, 6857480, Mark PW78/PX, 6852268, Mark PW78/PX1 and bills of telephone no.676956, Ex.PW52/A to Ex.PW52/F, were paid.

Contingent bill (D22) Ex.PW3/21 in the sum of Rs.12,848/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 3782305, Ex.PW3/21B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q25. The bill belonged to Central Area but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 20.10.95, Ex.PW3/21A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6864848, Ex.PW6/H was paid.

Contingent bill (D23) Ex.PW3/22 in the sum of Rs.40,237/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 6430183, Ex.PW3/22B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q26. Against this bill, a cheque dated 02.11.95, Ex.PW3/22A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6888972 of PW34, Ex.PW34/C was paid.

Contingent bill (D24) Ex.PW3/23 in the sum of Rs.37,983/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.6874749, Ex.PW3/23B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q30. The bill CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 82 of 8 belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 15.11.95, Ex.PW3/23A was issued but the same was not deposited.

Contingent bill (D25) Ex.PW3/24 in the sum of Rs.9,294/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.6872078, Ex.PW3/24B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q31. The bill belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 15.11.95, Ex.PW3/24A was issued and the bills of telephone No.609451, Ex.PW16/B to Ex.PW16/F were paid.

Contingent bill (D26) Ex.PW3/25 in the sum of Rs.16,435/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 6873285, Ex.PW3/25B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q32. The bill belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 15.11.95, Ex.PW3/25A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6803969, Ex.PW31/B was paid vide counterfoil, Ex.PW39/R6 was paid.

Contingent bill (D27) Ex.PW3/26 in the sum of Rs.44,388/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 6874101, Ex.PW3/26B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q33. The bill belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 83 of 8 15.11.95, Ex.PW3/26A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6888972 of PW34, Ex.PW34/D was paid vide counterfoil Ex.PW39/R7.

Contingent bill (D28) Ex.PW3/27 in the sum of Rs.16,471/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.606120, Ex.PW3/27B bearing handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q197. The bill belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 06.12.95 Ex.PW3/27A was issued and the bills of telephone No.6803046 pertaining to PW60, 6803357 pertaining to father of PW47, 6803041 pertaining to PW35, 6479706 pertaining to PW10, 6803367, 5529216, 5726085, 6856009, 6858781, and 5520256 (new No.5649825 pertaining to PW21) were paid vide counterfoils Ex.PW39/T1 to T10, Ex.PW35/B, Ex.PW23/B and Ex.PW21/A. Contingent bill (D29) Ex.PW3/28 in the sum of Rs.39,518/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.S 600122, Ex.PW3/28B bearing handwriting of accused KP Singh at encircled portion Q37. The bill belonged to Bhikaji Cama Place but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 11.12.95, Ex.PW3/28A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6888972 of PW34, Ex.PW34/E was paid.

Contingent bill (D30) Ex.PW3/29 in the sum of Rs.17,498/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3792013, Ex.PW3/29B CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 84 of 8 bearing handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q194. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Nehru Place. Against this bill, a cheque dated 18.12.95, Ex.PW3/29A was issued and the bill of telephone No.6940523 of PW56, Ex.PW39/T11 was paid.

Contingent bill (D31) Ex.PW3/30 in the sum of Rs.16,695/ was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.3016855 and 3014291, Ex.PW3/30B and Ex.PW3/30C, respectively. Both these bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q192 & Q193, respectively. These bills were issued without meter reading. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. Against these bills, a cheque dated 20.12.95, Ex.PW3/30A was issued and the bills of telephone Nos.605811, Ex.PW13/B, 600207, Ex.PW12/B, 600197, Ex.PW15/B, 603105, Ex.PW11/B, 606971, Ex.PW8/A, 6870467, Ex.PW14/B, 608173, Mark PW17/PX and 601948 (counterfoil, Ex.PW38/A) were paid.

Contingent bill (D32) Ex.PW3/31 in the sum of Rs.5,351/ was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.3385860, 5132959, 5132959, 5715776, 4692920, Ex.PW3/31B to Ex.PW3/31F. The bills Ex.PW3/31C and Ex.PW3/31E bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q190 and Q191, respectively. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 85 of 8 on the bill belonged to MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. Against this bill, a cheque dated 20.12.95, Ex.PW3/31A was issued.

Contingent bill (D33) Ex.PW3/32 in the sum of Rs.14,286/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3010572, Ex.PW3/32B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q189. This bill was issued without meter reading. Against this bill, a cheque dated 22.12.95, Ex.PW3/32A was issued and the bills of telephone No.676035, Ex.PW53/A, 671527, Ex.PW78/A25 and 307092, Ex.PW72/B, were paid.

Contingent bill (D34) Ex.PW3/33 pertaining to telephone no. 3010473 for a sum of Rs.13,672/ was raised, Ex.PW3/33B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q186. The bill belonged to Central Area, MTNL but the seal and signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, Khurshid Lal Bhawan. Against this bill, a cheque dated 05.01.96, Ex.PW3/34A was prepared. However, vide this cheque payment of telephone bills of private parties, Ex.PW39/L, Ex.PW39/M and Ex.PW39/N (No.660009 - Vinod Kumar and 6940523 - Suresh Kumar Raj Coffee House (belonging to PW56) were paid against receipt Ex.PW39/O. Contingent bill Ex.PW3/34 (D35) relating to telephone bills of telephone no.3389865, 3012575, 3792012, Ex.PW3/34B to Ex.PW3/34D, in the sum of Rs.1,35,426/, a cheque, Ex.PW3/34A dated 09.04.96 was CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 86 of 8 issued and the bills of telephone nos.663853, 6966707, 6950523, 6132461, 6870490, 6870467, 600197, 6898141, 6888972, 6883879, 6871213, 6871030, 6870689, 2415438, 6882187 and 6887581 belonging to private parties were paid. Bills Ex.PW3/34B and Ex.PW3/34C should have been signed by Account officer of Central Area who was the competent authority to issue bills against aforesaid telephone numbers. The bills were issued without meter reading and number of calls. This contingent bill Ex.PW3/34 was issued on the basis of three telephone numbers Ex.PW3/34/B to Ex.PW3/34D bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q102, Q103 & Q104, respectively, Contingent bill, Ex.PW3/35 (D36) for a sum of Rs.1,22,117/ was raised against telephone Nos.4631942 & 3792007. The telephone bill of telephone no.3792007, Ex.PW3/35B is not genuine as there is no reading and no office stamp and signature apparent on the face of it and bill Ex.PW3/35C is a regular bill. However, the cheque issued for the payment of this bill, Ex.PW3/35A dated 09.04.96 was utilized for making the payment of 17 telephone bills of private parties, counterfoils of which are Ex.PW39/P1 to P14, Ex.PW21/B, Ex.PW21/E and Ex.PW31/C. The contingent bill Ex.PW3/35 was issued on the basis of two telephone bills Ex.PW3/35B and Ex.PW3/35C bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q105 and Q106, respectively.

Contingent bill, Ex.PW3/36 (D37) pertaining to telephone no. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 87 of 8 6892535, 4692920, 3291135, 6890479, 3792246, 3792225, 3010660, Ex.PW3/36B to Ex.PW3/36H, a cheque dated 22.04.96, Ex.PW3/36A in the sum of Rs.1,16,735/ was prepared. Bills Ex.PW3/36C to Ex.PW3/36H bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q107 to Q111, respectively. The telephone bills Ex.PW3/36F, G and H were stamped with signature of AO MTNL HQ instead of Account officer of Central Area who was the competent authority to issue bills against aforesaid telephone numbers. The service tax was also charged wrongly and the bills were issued without meter reading and number of calls. The counter foils of bills of private parties are collectively Ex.PW39/K. Contingent bill (D38), Ex.PW3/37 pertaining to telex bills of No.61503, 65956, 72105, Ex.PW3/37B, Ex.PW3/37C and Ex.PW3/37D, respectively, having stamp with signature of AO of MTNL instead of AO Telex. Against these bills, a cheque dated 22.04.96, Ex.PW3/37A amounting to Rs.81,995/ was issued. However, vide this cheque the telephone bills of private parties, Ex.PW39/B (pertaining to telephone No. 6945709 of PW56 Dharmender Kumar), Ex.PW39/C (pertaining to telephone No.6943778 of PW37), Ex.PW39/D (pertaining to telephone no. 6803969 of PW31), Ex.PW39/E (pertaining to telephone No.6888972 of PW34), Ex.PW39/F (pertaining to telephone No.7416814 of Mrs. Veena Gaba), Ex.PW39/G (pertaining to telephone No.469128 of PW61), Ex.PW39/H (pertaining to telephone No.4694325 of Sh. Surender Garg) CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 88 of 8 and Ex.PW39/I (pertaining to 4648087 of Ms. Suhma Bhatia) were paid vide receipt collectively Ex.PW39/J. The telex bills Ex.PW3/37B, Ex.PW3/37C and Ex.PW3/37D were embossed with relating to area Khurshid Lal Bhawan on each of the telex bills which were not having the jurisdiction on these bills. These bills bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q112 to 114, respectively. The signatures on the said bills were also unknown and not of an authorized person.

Contingent bill (D39) Ex.PW3/38 for a sum of Rs.2,54,382/ was raised against telephone bills, Ex.PW3/38B to Ex.PW3/38E of telephone nos.3792012, 3792012, 3792239, 3792007 bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q115 to 118, respectively. Against these bills, a cheque Ex.PW3/38A dated 01.05.96 was issued but the said amount was utilized for deposit of bills of telephone no.6872566, Ex.PW29/A, 3798962, Ex.PW78/A36 and 6870467, Ex.PW14/D. Contingent bill (D40) Ex.PW3/39 for a sum of Rs.59,776/ was raised against telephone bills, Ex.PW3/39B to Ex.PW3/39S of telephone nos.3015152, 3015680, 3015826, 3011046, 3017552, 3015271, 3015862, 3010580, 3384395, 3015348, 3015074, 3015549, 3015628, 3015869, 3016371, 3388411, 3351984 and 3013379. Out of these bills, bill pertaining to telephone No.3013378 for Rs.602/ is manually prepared CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 89 of 8 (Ex.PW3/39S) and it does not bear the signature of concerned person and seal is not apparent on its face and bill Ex.PW3/39S bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q119. Against these bills, a cheque Ex.PW3/39A dated 18.06.96 was issued.

Contingent bill (D41) Ex.PW3/40 for a sum of Rs.25,153/ was raised against telephone bill, Ex.PW3/40B of telephone no.4634656. The bill Ex.PW3/40B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q119A. Against this bill, a cheque Ex.PW3/40A dated 26.06.96 was issued and payment of bills of private parties, Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C, Ex.PW78/A34 were paid. Counterfoils of bill of telephone no.6897849 and 6899141 have been proved as Ex.PW18/C and Ex.PW18/D, respectively.

Contingent bill (D42) Ex.PW3/41 raised against telephone bill, Ex.PW3/41B of telephone no.3010553 for Rs.56,506/. Bill Ex.PW31/B was without meter reading and the seal and signature of account officer MTNL, HQ was apparent whereas the bill belonged to central area of MTNL and this bill bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q121. Against this bill, a cheque Ex.PW3/41A dated 11.07.96 was issued but the said amount was utilized for deposit of three bills of telephone no.6803969 for Rs.13,860/ (pertains to PW31) , 6940523 for Rs.59,032/ (belonging to PW56) and 6888972 for Rs. 37,314/ (belonging to PW34), Ex.PW39/Q1 to Q3.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 90 of 8

Contingent bill (D43) Ex.PW3/42 was raised for payment of telephone No.60650 for a sum of Rs.8,063/ on the basis of bill, Ex.PW3/42B which was without meter reading having seal and signature of account officer MTNL, Nehru Place whereas bill belongs to Bhikaji Cama Place. Bill Ex.PW3/42B bears the handwriting of accused Ashok Kumar at encircled portion Q198. Against this bill, a cheque Ex.PW3/42A dated 23.07.96 was issued. However, instead of payment of bill Ex.PW3/42B, the bills of private parties, counterfoils of which have been proved as Ex.PW39/R1 to R8, were paid.

Contingent bill (D44), Ex.PW3/43 was raised for the payment of bill of telephone No.3792059 and 3792225 (bills of which are Ex.PW43/B & Ex.PW43/C), which were prepared manually indicating differences of local charges having the stamp of MTNL, HQ, instead of MTNL, Central Area. Both these bills bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q122 an Q123, respectively. A cheque for the payment of these bills Ex.PW3/43A dated 21.08.96 for a sum of Rs.1,13,797/ was issued. However, instead of payment of above said telephone bill, 24 bills pertaining to private parties were paid, the counter foils of which are collectively Ex.PW39/P, the details of which are as follows :

Telephone No.

1. 6168781 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 91 of 8

2. 6857545

3. 6857545

4. 6857545

5. 6857545

6. 5520256 (new No.5649825 belonged to PW21)

7. 5613965 (new No. 5649864 belonged to PW21)

8. 5612992

9. 7416814 (Mrs. Veena Gaba)

10. 5618317 (belonged to PW20)

11. 6804687

12. 6942523 (belonged to PW56)

13. 6945709 (belonged to PW56)

14. 6803046 (belonged to PW60)

15. 6803969 (belonged to PW31)

16. 6517293

17. 6855274

18. 6855274

19. 6960552

20. 6517571 (belonged to PW27)

21. 6803969 (belonged to PW31)

22. 6898141 (belonged to PW18)

23. 6888972 (belonged to PW37)

24. 6478311 Contingent bill (D45), Ex.PW3/44 for a sum of Rs.26,682/ was raised for the payment of bill of telephone No.4613202, Ex.PW3/44B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q124. A cheque for the payment of this bill Ex.PW3/44A dated 29.08.96 for a sum of Rs.26,682/ was issued. This bill is not genuine as Direct Exchange Line (DEL) rent is charged @ Rs.8,000/ by monthly basis CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 92 of 8 and local call charges are without meter reading and on this bill seal of account officer alongwith signature relating to MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan is affixed whereas the bill pertains to Central Area, MTNL, New Delhi.

Contingent bill (D46), Ex.PW3/45 was raised for the payment of bill of telex No.65956, 66284 and 65076, Ex.PW3/45B to Ex.PW3/45D, respectively, bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q125 to 127, respectively. These bills are stamped with the seal of MTNL, HQ instead of Telex Deptt. Of MTNL. A cheque for the payment of these bills Ex.PW3/45A dated 04.09.96 for a sum of Rs.87,017/ was issued. However, instead of payment of above said telex bill, the bills pertaining to private parties were paid, the counter foils of which are as follows :

1. 6898141 Ex.PW18/F - belonged to PW18,

2. 6803969 Ex.PW31/F - belonged to PW31,

3. 6804921 Ex.PW17/B - belonged to PW17,

4. 6888972 Ex.PW34/Y1 - belonged to PW34.

Contingent bill (D47), Ex.PW3/46 was raised for the payment of bill of telex No.65956, 66284 and 72105, bills of which are Ex.PW3/46B to Ex.PW3/46D, respectively, bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q128 to Q130, respectively. A cheque for the payment of these bills Ex.PW3/46A dated 01.10.96 for a sum CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 93 of 8 of Rs.19,333/ was issued. However, instead of payment of above said telex bill, the bills pertaining to private parties were paid, the counter foils of which are are as follows:

1. 6803041 Ex.PW35/A (belonged to PW35),

2. 6804605 Ex.PW47/A (belonged to brother of PW47)

3. 5520256 Ex.PW21/D 5520256 (new No.5649825 belonged to PW21)

4. 6804647 Ex.PW31/G (belonged to PW31)

5. 5726085 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.)

6. 5772444 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.)

7. 6479706 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.) (belonged to PW10)

8. 6851373 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.)

9. 6960622 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.) 10.6960622 Ex.PW39/Q (Colly.).

Contingent bill (D48), Ex.PW3/47 was raised for the payment of bill of telephone No.3792464, Ex.PW3/47B, in which three column of meter reading were blank and only gross calls had been shown as 4052 and stamped with MTNL, HQ instead of MTNL Central Area. A cheque, Ex.PW3/47A dated 15.10.96 for the payment of this bill for a sum of Rs. 43,265/ was issued. However, the same was not deposited against this bill. The bill Ex.PW3/47B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q131.

Contingent bill (D49) Ex.PW3/48 was raised for payment of telephone No.3792007 for a sum of Rs.49,382/, Ex.PW3/48B, in which three column of meter reading were blank and only gross calls had been CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 94 of 8 shown as 48410 and stamped with MTNL, HQ instead of MTNL Central Area. This was not a genuine bill as it pertained for local call charges having 150 free calls. A cheque dated 15.10.96, Ex.PW3/48A in the sum of Rs.49,382/ was issued but the same was not deposited against this bill. The bill Ex.PW3/48B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q132.

Contingent bill (D50) Ex.PW3/49 was raised for payment of telephone No.3010660 for a sum of Rs.8,737/. The bill Ex.PW3/49B was issued without meter reading having seal and signature of Accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. This bill was wrong, incorrect and fake. A cheque dated 15.10.96, Ex.PW3/49A in the sum of Rs.8,737/ was issued against this bill but the same was not deposited and payment of bill pertaining to private party, counterfoil of which is Ex.PW22/A, was paid. The bill Ex.PW3/49B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q133.

Contingent bill (D51) Ex.PW3/50 was raised for payment of telephone No.3792544 for a sum of Rs.17,771/. The bill Ex.PW3/50B was issued without meter reading having seal and signature of Accounts officer MTNL, HQ, whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. Against this bill a cheque dated 23.10.96, Ex.PW3/50A in the sum of Rs.17,771/ was issued but the same was not deposited against this bill. The bill Ex.PW3/50B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 95 of 8 Q134.

Contingent bill (D52) Ex.PW3/51 in the sum of Rs.16,688/ was raised for payment of telephone Nos.3384395, 6192078, 3292412, 6106467, 3013761, 3012012, 6006619, Ex.PW3/51B to Ex.PW3/51H, respectively. The bill Ex.PW3/51H bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q135. The bill Ex.PW3/51H did not contain last and present meter reading nor had any stamp relating to Chankya Puri Telephone Exchange. A cheque dated 29.10.96, Ex.PW3/51A was issued against these bills but the same was not deposited.

Contingent bill (D53) Ex.PW3/52 in the sum of Rs.23,737/ was raised for payment of bill of telex No.61503, Ex.PW3/52B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q136. A cheque dated 07.11.96, Ex.PW3/52A was issued against this bill but the same was not deposited, however, on the reverse of the same the telephone No.6804423 was mentioned at point C. Contingent bill (D54) Ex.PW3/53 in the sum of Rs.43,642/ was raised for payment of bill of telex No.65956, Ex.PW3/53B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q137. Against this bill, a cheque dated 07.11.96, Ex.PW3/53A was issued.

Contingent bill (D55) Ex.PW3/54 in the sum of Rs.46,060/ was raised for payment of bill of telex No.72105, Ex.PW3/54B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q138. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 96 of 8 Against this bill, a cheque dated 07.11.96, Ex.PW3/54A was issued.

Contingent bill (D56) Ex.PW3/55 in the sum of Rs.1,08,774/ was raised for payment of bills of telex No.61503, 66284 and 61503, Ex.PW3/55B, Ex.PW3/55C and Ex.PW3/55D, respectively. These bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q143 to Q145. Against this bill, a cheque dated 05.12.96 Ex.PW3/55A was issued and bills of private parties Ex.PW18/H for telephone No.6898141 and Ex.PW34/H for telephone No.6888972 were paid.

Contingent bill (D57) Ex.PW3/56 in the sum of Rs.3,476/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone no.S 3384395, Ex.PW3/56B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q146. Against this bill, a cheque dated 05.12.96 Ex.PW3/56A was issued and bill of telephone no.6136808 was paid.

Contingent bill (D58) Ex.PW3/57 in the sum of Rs.3,219/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No. S 4613202, Ex.PW3/57/B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q147. This bill was issued without opening meter reading. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, whereas the bill pertained to Central Area of MTNL. However, a cheque dated 05.12.96, Ex.PW3/57A was issued against this bill and vide receipt Ex.PW25/B, the payment of bill of private party i.e. Mr. Gulshan Rai Virmani, Ex.PW25/A was paid through this cheque.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 97 of 8

Contingent bill (D59) Ex.PW3/58 in the sum of Rs.26,137/ was raised for payment of bill of telex no.65956, Ex.PW3/58B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q149. Against this bill, a cheque dated 09.12.96 Ex.PW3/58A was issued and bill of telephone no.6870689 was paid.

Contingent bill (D60) Ex.PW3/59 in the sum of Rs.24,815/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone nos.6874140, 5576565, 3388982, 3384395, 3384395, 672352, 671855, 3389632, 7020683, 7022841, 7021168, 5614990, 3389907, 4673754, 4673405, 3292697, 3385871, 3388413 and 6435464, the bills of which are Ex.PW3/59B (colly.). Against this bill, a cheque dated 12.12.96 Ex.PW3/59A was issued and bill of telephone no.6803046 was paid.

Contingent bill (D61) Ex.PW3/60 in the sum of Rs.7,136/ was raised for payment of bill of telex no.65076, Ex.PW3/60B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q150. Against this bill, a cheque dated 12.12.96 Ex.PW3/60A was issued and bill of telephone no.6805636 was paid.

Contingent bill (D62) Ex.PW3/61 in the sum of Rs.35,805/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3010580, Ex.PW3/61B. This bill was issued without opening meter reading and bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q151. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 98 of 8 Khurshid Lal Bhawan, whereas the bill pertained to Central Area of MTNL. However, a cheque dated 19.12.96 Ex.PW3/61A was issued against this bill and the bills of private parties, Ex.PW18/J (6898141 pertaining to PW18), Ex.PW39/Q1 (6518856 pertaining to bill of wife of PW45) were paid.

Contingent bill (D63) Ex.PW3/62 in the sum of Rs.38,340/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3010572, Ex.PW3/62B bearing the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q152. This bill was issued without opening meter reading and wrong mentioning of 600 numbers of free calls. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, whereas the bill pertained to Central Area of MTNL. However, a cheque dated 19.12.96, Ex.PW3/62A was issued against this bill and the bill of private parties Ex.PW34/I (6888972 pertaining to PW34), Ex.PW39/Q2 to Q4 (relating to telephone No.6805636, 6136808, 6888972) were paid.

Contingent bill (D64) Ex.PW3/63 in the sum of Rs.5,661/ was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.3010919, 3010935, Ex.PW3/63B and Ex.PW3/63C. These bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q153 & Q154. This bill was issued without opening meter reading. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, whereas the bill pertained to Central Area of MTNL. However, a cheque dated 23.12.96, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 99 of 8 Ex.PW3/63A was issued against this bill and the bills of private parties were paid, counterfoils of which are as follows :

1. 6804564, Ex.PW33/A and Ex.PW33/B (pertaining to PW33),

2. 6803836, Ex.PW28/D,

3. 6803838, Ex.PW39/R,

4. 6803836, Ex.PW28/E,

5. 6803836 ,Ex.PW28/A (bill)

6. 6803836, Ex.PW28/B (bill).

Contingent bill (D65) Ex.PW3/64 in the sum of Rs.21,143/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.606120, Ex.PW3/64B. This bill is not a genuine bill and it bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q155. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, SouthII, Nehru Place, whereas the bill pertained to SouthI area of MTNL, New Delhi. However, a cheque dated 24.12.96, Ex.PW3/64A was issued against this bill and the bill of private party Ex.PW39/R1 (pertaining to telephone No.6870689) was paid.

Contingent bill (D66) Ex.PW3/65 was raised for payment of telephone No.3792007 for a sum of Rs.1,22,959/. The bill Ex.PW3/65B was issued without meter reading having seal and signature of Accounts officer Khurshid Lal Bhawan whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. The bill Ex.PW3/65B bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q184. This bill was not a paid bill. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 100 of 8 However, the cheque dated 01.01.97, Ex.PW3/65A in the sum of Rs. 1,22,959/ was issued.

Contingent bill (D67) Ex.PW3/66 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.6106121 for a sum of Rs.27,720/, Ex.PW3/66B and it bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q183. The bill Ex.PW3/65B was issued without meter reading having seal and signature of Accounts officer MTNL, Nehru Place, whereas bill belongs to Central Area (Bhikaji Cama Place) MTNL. However, a cheque dated 06.01.97, Ex.PW3/66A in the sum of Rs.27,720/ was issued and bill of private party, Ex.PW17/A was paid.

Contingent bill (D68) Ex.PW3/67 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.6100122 for a sum of Rs.96,986/, Ex.PW3/67B and it bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q182. The bill Ex.PW3/65B is not a genuine bill. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of Accounts officer MTNL, Nehru Place, whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. However, a cheque dated 16.01.97, Ex.PW3/67A in the sum of Rs.96,986/ was issued.

Contingent bill (D69) Ex.PW3/68 was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3018574 for a sum of Rs.91,417/, Ex.PW3/68B. The bill Ex.PW3/68B is not a genuine bill. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of Accounts officer MTNL, Nehru Place, whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. However, a cheque dated 19.02.97, Ex.PW3/68A in CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 101 of 8 the sum of Rs.91,417/ was issued and bill of private party, Ex.PW34/J was paid. The certificate Ex.PW3/68C bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at point B. Contingent bill (D70) Ex.PW3/69 was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.3792007, 3792221, 3792464 for a sum of Rs. 1,09,893/ (Rs.35,357/, Rs.17,365/ and Rs.57,171/, respectively), the bills of which are Ex.PW3/69B to Ex.PW3/69D and these bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q178 to Q180. These bills are not the genuine bills. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of Accounts officer MTNL, HQ, Khurshid Lal Bhawan, whereas bill belongs to Central Area MTNL. However, a cheque dated 20.02.97, Ex.PW3/69A in the sum of Rs.1,09,893/ was issued.

Contingent bill (D71) Ex.PW3/70 in the sum of Rs.24,628/ was raised for payment of bill of telephone No.3792144, the bill of which is Ex.PW3/70B and it bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q176. This bill was not a genuine bill. The seal and signature appearing on the bill are of accounts officer, MTNL, HQ, whereas the bill pertained to Central Area of MTNL. However, a cheque dated 04.03.97, Ex.PW3/70A was issued against this bill and the bills of private parties Ex.PW78/A38 (Subhash Chand) and Ex.PW10/A (PW10 Hoshiar Singh) were paid.

Contingent bill (D72) Ex.PW3/71 was raised for payment of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 102 of 8 bill of telephone No.6106889 for a sum of Rs.1,00,927/, the bill of which is Ex.PW3/71B and it bears the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q175. The bill Ex.PW3/71B was issued without opening meter reading. However, a cheque dated 01.03.97, Ex.PW3/71A in the sum of Rs.1,00,927/ was issued and bills of private parties bearing telephone no.6803969 pertaining to PW31, 6898141 pertaining to PW18 and 6888972 pertaining to PW34, Ex.PW31/I relating to telephone No.6803969 of PW31, Ex.PW18/K pertaining to telephone No.6898141 of PW18 and Ex.PW34/K pertaining to telephone No.6888972 of PW34, respectively were paid.

Contingent bill (D73) Ex.PW3/72 was raised for payment of bills of telephone No.3792012, 3792142, 3792106 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,004/, the bills of which are Ex.PW3/72B, Ex.PW3/72C and Ex.PW3/72D and these bills bear the handwriting of accused SG Balasubramanium at encircled portion Q172 to Q174. The bills were issued without opening meter reading and the bill belonged to Central Area, however, the seal alongwith signature embossed on the bill belonged to MTNL, HQ. However, a cheque dated 31.03.97, Ex.PW3/72A in the sum of Rs.1,25,004/ was issued and the bill of private parties were paid vide counterfoils Ex.PW31/H pertaining to telephone No.6803969 of PW31, Ex.PW18/C pertaining to telephone no.6898141 of PW18 and Ex.PW39/R2 pertaining to telephone No.6888972 of PW34, respectively. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 103 of 8

In the cross examination PW3 stated that telephone mentioned in Ex.PW3/1B to Ex.PW3/72B are the bills pertaining to the departmental telephone connections. However, he did not know whether these telephone bills have been paid or not as there is no MTNL receipts on these telephone bills. The witness stated that A1 had never directly worked under him. The witness stated that normally the contingent bills were not brought to him for signatures and the same were signed by Asstt. Director, Naval Signals. It was only when Asstt. Director was on leave, the bills were brought to him. The witness stated that he did not have the time to check the bills. PW3 stated that duplicate bills were also brought from Noida as regular bills were never put in the tele box by the telephone department. The witness also deposed that they had complete cardex register with them when these leaves were taken out and given to the CBI. A2 SG Balasubramanian did not cross examine the witness. However, in the cross examination on behalf of A3, the witness stated that he did not know if it was the duty of Ashok Kumar to prepare the contingent bill or not. He also stated that he used to sign the contingent bill in good faith and he had no time to compare the same with other records.

In the cross examination on behalf of A1, PW39 stated that there is no difference between the procedure of payment in respect of telephone bills of the general public and any other official bills. The witness stated that any person can deposit the outstanding telephone bills CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 104 of 8 either in cash or by cheque at the bill payment counter. On receipt of cash or cheque qua the payment of telephone bill the concerned bill clerk used to keep with him counter foil attached with the bill and return the original bill after proper receipt on the same bill to the person who had come to deposit the bill at the counter. The witness stated that in case the system is not functional then in that eventuality duplicate bill is issued manually in the proper format. He further stated that though he cannot identify the signatures of all the area officers however, he can identify the signatures of some of the area officers. The witness further stated that he can identify the official seals affixed on the bills. He stated that on seal affixed at point X on Ex.PW3/24B is the seal of Nehru Place office. However, he voluntarily stated it is affixed on the bill issued from Bhikaji Cama Place area hence, it is wrongly affixed. The witness stated that seal affixed of particular office are the correct officials seals. In the cross examination on behalf of A4, the witness admitted that during the period of bills in dispute A4 Nand Lal used to sit on the fifth floor in Telephone Exchange Building, Bhikaji Cama Place and he was not dealing with the work relating to these bills. He stated that A4 was dealing with the work of administration in Telephone Exchange building, Bhikaji Cama Place. The witness also stated that A4 Nand Lal was not concerned with receiving of telephone bill.

During the cross examination on behalf of A1 and A5 to A8, PW40 stated that handwritten bills are generally generated on the basis of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 105 of 8 log book. The computerized bills generated by CSMS system are in blue colour and all the duplicate bills are in red colour. The witness admitted that there are occasions when the handwritten bills are also issued and given to the subscriber for payment. The witness admitted that employees of MTNL who work on cash counter are separate employees and he had never worked on said counter. The witness further stated that he had never prepared any duplicate manual bill at the request of any person because it was not his job. The witness admitted that there is a procedure that MTNL had been accepting the payment by one cheque in respect of the bulk of the bills. In the cross examination on behalf of A2, the witness stated that he cannot say whether the payment of contingent bill Ex.PW3/34 has been made or not as there is no stamp of MTNL. However, in respect of Ex.PW79/G4, the witness stated that the payment against said bill has been made to MTNL as it contains the receipt number of the MTNL. In respect of contingent bill Ex.PW79/G4 the witness stated the cheques issued for the payments of telephone numbers against the bills bearing the bill numbers 3389865, 3012575 & 3792012 totalling to the amount of Rs.1,35,426/ and no additional payments can be made against different telephone number bearing different bill numbers. The witness admitted that there is a possibility that on one particular number there can be two payments against one bill and if such a scenario emerges surplus amount would be generated which would be reflected in the report of "unaccounted payment list" CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 106 of 8

provided first payment is not bounced. The witness was not aware of any surplus payment.

STATEMENT OF ACCUSED 4.0 In his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. A1 KP Singh denied all the allegations. He expressed his ignorance regarding the fact if telephone No. 6716575 was installed in the name of accused Nand Lal at his residential address A18F, Munirka DDA Flats since the year 1997 and telephone No. 609451 was installed at the residence of PW16 Hawa Singh, respectively. With respect to the payment of telephone bill of PW17 Jag Ram, A1 stated that he never met Jag Ram in respect of payment of the telephone bill by him to accused Nand Lal. Jag Ram Singh never paid telephone bill to Nand Lal in his presence or at his instance. A1 stated that no conversation took place between accused Nand Lal and PW18 Gulshan Kumar in his presence. He never collected any money from PW18 Gulshan Kumar in respect of any telephone bill of his PCO for depositing. Gulshan Kumar was arrested in this case as an accused and he remained in custody for 21 days. A1 stated that PW18 has given a false statement at the instance of the investigating Officer to save himself . A1 stated that he never deposited any telephone bill of Gulshan Kumar in advance or otherwise nor did he visit PW 18 Gulshan Kumar for collecting any amount of his telephone bills. A1 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 107 of 8 KP Singh expressed his ignorance regarding the amount paid to accused Mool Chand for payment of telephone bills by the different private persons. A1 stated that late Moolchand never brought PW56 to him and he had never deposited any telephone bill at the instance of Late Moolchand. A1 also stated that he never took any money from Late Moolchand or as a matter of fact from any private party for deposit of telephone bills, so calculating or depositing money of PW56 or any private person either through Late Moolchand or anyone does not arise. A1 stated that he did not know if telephone No. 654450 was installed at the residence of PW26 Om Prakash Saluja and Late Moolchand did not offer to deposit the bill at payment of Rs. 15 extra as service charge to PW26 either in his presence or at his instance. A1 stated that he did not know PW26 and PW26 never gave him any money or bill to be deposited in MTNL. A1 stated that he cannot say whether Late Moolchand returned the bill to PW26 or not as the said transaction did not happen either in his presence or at his instance. A1 stated that he did not know if telephone No. 6892202 was installed at the residence of PW67 Smt. Veena Sahni i.e. C1/1089, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. A1 stated that he never met PW21 and never told PW21 that he worked in MTNL. He also stated that he never told PW21 that he would deposit the telephone bill nor was he given any cash along with telephone bill for depositing in the telephone department by PW21. A1 stated that he never purchased any cement bags from PW22 Ajay Kumar Gupta and never CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 108 of 8 offered to deposit the telephone bill instead of paying the price of the cement bags. He never handed over any money of Rs. 1,159/or any telephone bills by PW22 to be deposited against the payment of telephones for Naval department. A1 stated that PW28 Surender Kumar is from the same village however he did not know whether telephone No.6803836 in the name of Rafiq was installed at the residence of PW28. Regarding the telephone connection of PW28, A1 stated that he did not know whether the telephone connection of PW28 Surender Kumar was disconnected. PW28 never contacted him and he never assured PW28 that his telephone would be restored. A1 denied that PW28 gave him Rs. 3,882/ plus Rs. 606/ as telephone bill in cash and Rs. 240/ as surcharge in cash to be deposited. A1 also denied that he arranged a duplicate bill and gave PW28 the paid bill of the said amount. A1 stated that he never met PW31 nor he knew him. A1 denied that PW31 paid cash to him to be deposited against telephone bill of PW31. A1 stated that he never deposited any bill or collected any cash for PW31 nor have offered for the same. A1 also stated that he does not know about the concessions offered by Nand Lal to PW31 as it did not happen in his presence or at his instance and he never collected cash at any point of time from PW31. A1 denied that he used to collect the billed amount in respect of telephone Nos i.e. 6803969 and 6804647 or against any civilian telephone number till the month of April or May 1997. A1 stated that the exhibits are matter of record and have no bearing to this case CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 109 of 8 as the said telephone numbers are not related to Naval Department. A1 denied that during the year 1994 telephone No. 6801273 was installed at residence of PW32 Smt. Mam Kaur at Village Ghitorni, New Delhi and a telephone bill of Rs.4500/ of the aforesaid telephone was given to him alongwith cash by PW32 for depositing the same with MTNL and he (A1) thereafter returned the paid bill Ex.PW32/A to PW32 Smt.Mam Kaur. A1 stated that the telephone bill was paid by the subscriber and the bill shows that the payment was received by the MTNL. A1 stated that the bill was not given to him by any person. Regarding telephone No. 6804564 installed at the residence of PW33 Raja Ram at Village Ghitorni and payment of Rs. 405/ and Rs. 428/ to him to MTNL towards telephone bill, A1 stated that the telephone bill was paid by the subscriber and the bill shows that the payment was received by the MTNL. The bill was not given to him by any person. A1 admitted that PW35 Om Prakash was his neighbour. However A1 stated that PW35 Om prakash remained in Judicial custody in this case for 21 days. PW35 was accused in this case and he has been illegally made witness in this case. A1 stated that no bill was given to him nor he deposited the said bill nor returned copy of paid bill to PW 35. A1 stated that Mrs. Kiran Sharma W/o PW45 Raj Kumar Sharma used to deposit her bill. No bill was given to A1 nor he deposited the bill in question and no paid bill was returned by him. A1 denied that he used to visit Morning Store and used to purchase goods on credit basis and when CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 110 of 8 there was large amount of arrears the payment was demanded from him. A1 also denied that he never offered to pay the telephone bills of PW47. He have never made purchases from PW47 so the question of dues does not arise. A1 stated that he never made a payment of Rs. 40,000/ to Rs. 50,000/ against the telephone bills and adjusted the amount towards purchases from the shop of PW47. A1 stated that he did not know whether telephone No. 6136808 was installed at the shop No.11, Sector D4, Vasant Kunj of PW55 Sh. Sanjay Kumar. PW55 never gave his telephone bill alongwith bill amount to be deposited with MTNL to A1 and A1 never claimed that he was working in the Nehru Place office as stated above. A1 stated that he never collected and deposited any telephone bill of PW55. A1 denied that he owed PW59 Rs. 30,000/ for the work done by PW59 at the house of A1 during the year 199697. A1 stated that infact, he never offered PW 59 to pay his telephone bill of Rs. 570/. A1 also denied that PW59 handed over to him the aforesaid bill and he never paid any bill of PW59 and therefore, handing over the counterfoil to him does not arise. A1 denied that he offered to deposit the telephone bills of PW60, on which PW60 gave him 2 or 3 bills to be deposited with MTNL. A1 stated that no bill was given to him by Sh. Jai Prakash for payment nor he deposited any bill and no counter foil was returned by him to PW59. A1 denied that at his instance, PW62 gave 12 bills to him to be deposited with MTNL.. A1 stated that no bill was given to him by Sh. Hem Chand for payment nor he CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 111 of 8 deposited any bill and no counter foil was returned by him to Hem Chand. A1 expressed his ignorance regarding the internal payment procedure in MTNL. A1 stated that MTNL has been issuing bills through computer and manually also, MTNL has been receiving the payment of the bills prepared manually.

With respect to the 73 contingent bill, A1 KP Singh stated that the telephone bills were raised by MTNL and contingent bills were prepared as per the procedure of the department (Naval Headquarters) and accordingly cheques were also prepared for making the payment of the bill as per the procedure of the department (NHQ). A1 stated that the cheques were deposited with the MTNL towards the payment of the telephone bills and an authorized official receipt was issued by MTNL and the same was kept in the official record of TMC (NHQ) which was seen and examined by the concerned official. The cheque was got encashed by MTNL against the above said bill. No payment of a civil telephone bill can be made through the cheque of Naval Headquarter. A1 also expressed his ignorance regarding the Post and Telegraph Manual Volume XIV and Swamy Treatise on Telephone rules and the billing system of telephones in MTNL and the fact that the bills were issued centrally by the computer as per the instructions of telephone billing services. Bills, so prepared were dispatched to the subscriber of area concerned for payment of the bills.

Regarding the duplicate bills being issued from the duplicate CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 112 of 8 counter in MTNL in red colour format to the subscriber, A1 stated that telephone bill can paid anywhere and the receipt shows the area concerned for information. Regarding the telephone bill for telephone No.4636957 in the name of Chief of the Naval Staff 81, Naval Headquarters and the bill Ex.PW3/15 (handwritten bill Ex.PW3/15B) raised for the period 1/4/95 to 31/5/95 for Rs. 40,359/ bearing the seal of Nehru Place Branch, A1 stated that the said bill was a genuine bill. Payment against the said bill was made through cheque issued by Naval Department to MTNL. Original & duplicate telephone bill can be obtained and paid from any Office of MTNL across Delhi. With respect to search conducted on 30.06.97, A1 stated that he has no knowledge about the said facts as the said seizure was made after the he was superannuated from service on 31.05.1997 and left TMC on 30.04.1997 as he had to report to Bombay Office for completion of his retirement formalities. Regarding seizure of the documents, A1 expressed his ignorance and stated that the same did not take place in his presence. A1 stated that for office which was meant for managing the telephones of Indian Navy installed in Delhi, Noida and nearby places, which were installed either in the offices or at the residences of the officers, there were about three Commissioned Officers, PW3 Commander MA Khan, PW4 Lt. Commander Shambhu Singh, Lt. Col. PN Chaudhary, who were incharge of the Office, about four uniform sailors and about four civilian staff including Pvt. Secretary Vishwa Nath, besides them. A1 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 113 of 8 denied that he along with his agents had been collecting telephone bills of private parties as well as PCOs from different part along with cash promising that he would get the amount reduced. He also denied that he used to collect cash from the private party and keep the cash with him. He never prepared any forged telephone bills in respect of any of the official telephone of the Indian Navy. No amount was ever collected from the private parties to be paid through the amount issued by the Naval Department in lieu of the telephone bills installed at the Naval Department. No forged bill was ever prepared and was processed as genuine and got passed. A1 stated that telephone bill for telephone numbers was raised by MTNL and contingent bill(s) was prepared as per the procedure of the department (Naval Headquarters) and a cheque was prepared for making the payment of the bill as per the procedure of the department (NHQ). The cheque was deposited with the MTNL towards the payment of the said telephone and an authorized official receipt was issued by MTNL and the same was kept in the official record of TMC (NHQ) which was seen and examined by the concerned official. The cheque was got encashed by MTNL against the telephone bill.

A1 denied that any cheque issued by the Naval Department was ever utilized for making payment for private party telephone bills. A1 stated that cheque were presented for payment at MTNL at Delhi for naval telephones only and appropriate receipt was issued on contingent bills as CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 114 of 8 per procedure, and copy of receipted contingent bill would remain in the office of TMC as Official record. No loss to the government has been incurred. A1 admitted that some times he used to go along with despatch rider to collect the telephone bills from tele box and from other telephone exchange all around Delhi and from Noida as well. A1 stated that he occasionally used to bring the cheque(s) from ALOGO( Supply Officer Account Branch) and under the instructions from his officerincharge he used to accompany despatch rider for depositing the cheque to MTNL Delhi. A1 admitted that he was entrusted with out door work in connection with telephones installation/shifting with MTNL Officers. He sometimes at the instructions of his superiors used to collect telephone bills from MTNL when the same was not received from MTNL. A1 admitted that when ever the original telephone bills was not received in the office, on the instructions from his superiors he used to arrange for duplicate telephone bill from MTNL and forward them to TMC for further action. A1 denied that contingent bills along with telephone bills are put in bulk. It was a routine work and all the telephone bills, contingent bills along with budget register are put up for his signature as and when received in the office. A1 stated that he has been falsely implicated. There has been absolutely no complaint against him regarding the illegal and unlawful using the cheques issued by Indian Navy towards the payment of the telephone bills of the private persons. That had there been any cheque which was issued by the CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 115 of 8 Navy in favour of MTNL Delhi which was not adjusted by the MTNL towards the telephone numbers/connections of Navy, then either the MTNL would have had kept the amount towards excess amount/unaccounted money or they would have disconnected a particulars telephone number for non payment of the bill .There has been absolutely no action taken by the MTNL against any telephone number/connection installed at the office as well as at the residences of Naval officers for non payment of bills. The MTNL never issued any kind of letter or disconnection notice to the Naval Headquarters regarding non payment of the bill amount of any telephone installed at the office or the at residence of the Naval officers during the said period. Meaning thereby the MTNL has been receiving regular payments for telephone bills raised by the them regarding telephones as mentioned above. A1 stated that it appears that MTNL employees had committed some mistake or negligence in the discharge of their duties. A1 stated that the officers of CDA (Navy) Bombay had been auditing the accounts of TMC (NHQ) Delhi quarterly and they did not find any kind of discrepancies in respect of payments made towards telephone bills for the telephones installed in office as well as residences of Naval Officers at Delhi since all paid contingent bill duly receipted by MTNL DELHI were available in the office of the TMC (NHQ) which were seized by CBI during the search from TMC (NHQ). It has been submitted that this fact alone shows that he had not committed any kind of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 116 of 8 violation or did any illegal and unlawful act.

A1 stated that TMC (NHQ) used to prepare three copies of contingent bills for issuing cheques, on the name MTNL for telephone bills received in TMC ( Naval Headquarters ) as a standard procedure. Two copies of contingent bill along with upper portion of telephone bills used to be despatched to supply officer(Account branch of INS India for issuance of cheque. The Supply officer (account branch) used to be despatch one copy of contingent bill along with the upper portion of bill after writing details such as cheques No, date, payment item No and dated twice a month to CDA (Navy) Bombay for post audit and record. TMC (NHQ) used to keep one copy of contingent bill along with counter foil (lower portion) of telephone bill and on receipt of cheque from Supply Officer(Account Branch) TMC used to deposit the counter foil of telephone bill along with cheque to MTNL and a proper receipt is given on the contingent bill by the MTNL for future record and reference. The CBI had collected all three copy of contingent bills as mentioned below:

a) Copy of contingent bills along with upper portion of telephone bill which are Ex. as Document No. D2 to D73 Collected from CDA (N) Bombay and which are shown and verified in the court by PW3, PW39 and PW79.

b) Copy of contingent bill along with details of cheque issued in favour of MTNL for payment of telephone bills collected from Supply CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 117 of 8 Officer (Accounts Branch)

c) Original copy of contingent bills duly received by MTNL Delhi for token of receipt against the telephone number mentioned in the contingent bill were collected from TMC (NHQ) and marked as an additional documents which were supplied after about 12 years of filling charge sheet in the court.

A detailed chart has been shown by A1 to prove that contingent bills collected from CDA (Navy) Bombay and TMC (NHQ) have duly been received by MTNL Delhi.

4.1 A2 SG Balasubramanian in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations leveled against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. A2 expressed his ignorances regarding the fact of payment of bills of private parties by coaccused persons and procedure of payment in MTNL. With respect to 73 contingent bills, A2 stated that the bills were raised by MTNL and contingent bills were prepared as per the procedure of the department and cheques were also prepared for making the payment of the bill as per the procedure of the department. It has been stated that the cheques were deposited with MTNL towards the payment of respective telephone bills and an authorized official receipts were issued by MTNL and the same were kept in the official record of TMC (NHQ) which were seen and examined by the concerned official. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 118 of 8 The cheques were got encashed by MTNL against the respective contingent bill. A2 also stated that no payment of civil telephone bill can be made through the cheque of Naval Headquarters. With respect to search conducted at his office, A2 stated that on 30.06.97, he was not present at his office as CBI had already taken him under their custody on 27.06.97 at 11:45pm vide arrest warrants signed by the then DySP Ganesh Verma. A2 stated that therefore, he is not aware of the seizure memo. A2 further stated that round rubber stamp of MTNL (in Hindi) reading as "bhugtan prapt hua cheque MTNL, Nai Dilli 50 Kendriya Shetra" was not in his SVK hand bag and documents i.e. counterfoil cheque book No.365020 containing record of cheques issued - A/c No.11852 of SG Balasubramanian and one driving license of SG Balasubramanian, are his personal documents and were in the SVK hand bag. He also stated that he put his signatures on demand from CBI officials under pressure and also stated recovery has been planted upon him by the CBI officials. A2 denied that the the office for managing the telephones of Naval Headquarters was manned by him. A2 stated that there were about three commissioned officers who were incharge of the office, about four uniform sailors and about four civilian staff besides them in the office. A2 denied that the he along with KP Singh and his agents had been collecting telephone bills of private parties as well as PCOs from different parties along with cash promising that they would get the amount reduced. He also denied that he collected any cash from the private party and kept CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 119 of 8 the cash with him. A2 stated that he never prepared any forged telephone bills in respect of any of the official telephone of the Indian Navy. No amount was ever collected from the private parties to be paid through the amount issued by the Naval Department in lieu of the telephone bills installed at the Naval Department. No forged bill was ever prepared and was processed as genuine and got passed. A2 stated that any cheque issued by the Naval Department was never utilized for making payment for private party telephone bills. Cheques were presented for payment at MTNL at Delhi for naval telephones only and appropriate receipt was issued on contingent bills as per procedure, and copy of received contingent bill would remain in the office of TMC as Official record. Accused stated that no loss to the government has been incurred.

A2 admitted that Telephone Management Cell used to look after the allotment, installment and payments of telephone bills of telephones installed at Naval Headquarters and at the residences of officials of Navy which were approx 2000 telephone lines. Asst. Director Naval Signals was Incharge of the said cell at Naval Headquarters. Accused Kiran Pal Singh (A1) was working as Chief Petty Officer from Navy and he (A2) used to prepare the contingent bills and A3 Ashok Kumar used to help him. Regarding telephone bills, A2 stated that some times he used to go along with despatch rider to collect the telephone bills from tele box and from other telephone exchange all around Delhi and from Noida as well. A2 CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 120 of 8 admitted that both civilian employee were responsible for office work/paper work in the office. With respect to telephone bills relating to Naval Headquarters being paid through RBI cheques issued from the office of Logistics Officer, INS, A2 stated that telephone bill for telephone numbers was raised by MTNL and contingent bill(s) was prepared as per the procedure of the department (NHQ). A2 denied that contingent bills along with telephone bills are put in bulk. A2 stated that it was a routine work and all the telephone bills, contingent bills along with budget register are put up for signature as and when received in the office. A2 admitted that only cheque from INS India were collected for payment at MTNL payment counter and not telephone bills. A2 stated that his specimen handwritings were taken however, the same were not taken in the presence of PW4. A2 stated that he is innocent. There has been absolutely no complaint against him regarding the illegal and unlawful using the cheques issued by Indian Navy towards the payment of the telephone bills of the private persons. A2 stated that had there been any cheque which was issued by the Navy in favour of MTNL Delhi which was not adjusted by the MTNL towards the telephone numbers/connections of Navy, then either the MTNL would have had kept the amount towards excess amount/unaccounted money or they would have disconnected a particulars telephone number for non payment of the bill. There has been absolutely no action taken by the MTNL against any telephone number/connection CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 121 of 8 installed at the office as well as at the residences of Naval officers for non payment of bills. A2 also stated that the MTNL never issued any kind of letter or disconnection notice to the Naval Headquarters regarding non payment of the bill amount of any telephone installed at the office or at residence of the Naval officers during the said period, meaning thereby the MTNL has been receiving regular payments for telephone bills raised by the them regarding telephones as mentioned above. A2 stated that MTNL employees had committed some mistake or negligence in the discharge of their duties. It has been submitted that the officers of CDA (Navy) Bombay had been auditing the accounts of TMC (NHQ) Delhi quarterly and they did not find any kind of discrepancies in respect of payments made towards telephone bills for the telephones installed in office as well as residences of Naval Officers at Delhi. This fact alone shows that he had not committed any kind of violation or did anything illegal or unlawful. 4.2 A3 Ashok Kumar in his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC, denied all the allegations levelled against him and expressed his ignorance. In regard to a specific question relating to contingent bill (D43) Ex.PW3/42 for Rs. 8,063/ regarding telephone No. 60650, bearing his handwriting at Q198, the accused stated that he was the most subordinate employee within the TMC Cell and had no discretionary powers and was acting like a puppet on the instructions of his seniors and superiors and never carried any CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 122 of 8 documents to officers concerned for approval and had made and prepared documents/ bills considering them to be part of his duty and he did not raise any bill which is illegal. In respect of the Bill alleged to be in his handwriting the accused stated that this bill was raised by MTNL and duly countersigned by the accounting officer and the officer concerned who had issued the aforesaid bill has not been examined before the court and from the signature name of the actual person who had signed this bill in MTNL is not clear. Accused denied that it was his handwriting. However, it was admitted that the contingent bill of Rs.8063/ was filled by him and was handed over to his senior for further processing by them. Accused further stated that it was the duty of his seniors before giving him the orders to ensure the veracity of the bill and he did not know whether the bill concerned is that of Bhikaji Kama Place. The entire amount was submitted against the telephone Bill of Naval Headquarters and the Copy of the paid Bill was available at Document D18 (Additional) on record. A3 stated that he has not committed any penal wrong and the aforementioned amount was not deposited against private Party and None of the private party was known to him. Accused Ashok Kumar also denied having any knowledge about the procedure relating to MTNL. Accused admitted that the specimen handwritings were taken by the IO. However he stated that specimen handwritings were not taken in accordance with the procedure. Accused stated that there were about three Commissioned Officers who were CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 123 of 8 incharge of the Office, about four uniform sailors and about four civilian staff besides them in the office. Accused stated that his job was confined to the office only and he had never gone to submit or receive bills from MTNL office nor he was concerned with the sanction and presentation of bills to the concerned officers at TMC. He was junior most employee and did not have any discretionary power and was working at the instructions and directives of his seniors/superiors. Accused Ashok Kumar admitted that there was cardex register where all details of telephone were entered/ available. However, he denied the knowledge about its seizure as the same was not carried out during his presence. Accused stated that the cardex register was always maintained by his seniors/superiors and not by him. Accused admitted that sometimes KP Singh used to go along with despatch rider to collect the telephone bills from tele box and from other telephone exchange all around Delhi and from Noida as well. In the absence of KP Singh, his another senior Sh. Balasubramanian used to go only and he had never gone to MTNL. Accused Ashok Kumar admitted the standard procedure adopted for issuance of cheque and for payment of cheques to MTNL.

Accused Ashok Kumar stated that he occasionally used to bring the cheque(s) from a logo and under the instructions from his officer incharge he used to accompany despatch rider for depositing the cheque to MTNL Delhi. He admitted that the Telephone Management Cell (TMC) in CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 124 of 8 Naval Headquarters was looking after allotment, installation and payments in respect of the telephone bills of the telephones installed at Naval Headquarters and at the residence of officers of Naval including telex lines. Accused Ashok Kumar admitted that in case certain telephone bills had not been received from MTNL, the duplicate telephone bills were being collected by accused A1 Kiran Pal Singh and after receipt of the bills, contingent bills were made and put up by accused A2 SG Balasubramaniam for the signatures of Asst. Director Naval Signals (ADNS). Accused Ashok Kumar denied that the contingent bills along with telephone bills were put in bulk. It was a routine work and all the telephone bills, contingent bills along with budget register were put up for signature as and when received in the office. Accused admitted that at many occasions he had collected cheque for payment to MTNL from INS India. Accused Ashok Kumar stated that PW4 was not present when his specimens were taken and only IO was present with him. Accused admitted that telephone and telex bills were paid by cheque issued in favour of MTNL, Delhi. He also admitted the procedure adopted for issuance of any cheque issued by Naval Department. Accused stated that the witnesses deposed under pressure from CBI. He was the junior most employee in the TMC Cell and had not discretionary power and he used to follow the instructions/directions of his seniors/superiors and he had not committed any penal wrong intentionally and deliberately and he had not made any wrongful gain to himself and CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 125 of 8 further had not caused wrongful loss to Naval Head Quarter. Accused stated that it is a false & fabricated case put up by CBI for reasons best known to the prosecuting agency.

4.3 A4 Nand Lal in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations leveled against him. He stated that telephone No.6716575 was his official telephone number during his service period. He denied having received any payment from PW16 and handing over any receipt to PW16 after 1015 days. He also denied to have prepared any duplicate bill for PW17 Jag Ram and making any endorsement on the back of bill Ex.PW17/A in the presence of PW17. Accused Nand Lal expressed his ignorance regarding meeting PW34 and asking him to pay 75% of the bill amount in cash. He denied having told that he had some Govt. official having Govt. cheques and payment through those cheques. Accused Nand Lal denied all the allegations. Regarding 73 contingent bills also, accused Nand Lal expressed his ignorance. Accused Nand Lal stated that it is a false case and the witnesses have deposed against him under the pressure from CBI. He further stated that he is innocent. He was transferred from AOTR(2) to Admn. Section under AGIM (A) in the year 1993. In this case, after filing this case, a departmental enquiry was held and he was exonerated from all the charges in the year 2004. Firstly, he was suspended from service in July 1997 and reinstated in service in the April 1999. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 126 of 8 4.4 A7 Surender Grover in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations and stated that he did not know the other accused persons. Regarding seizure of the documents, accused Surender Grover stated that the same is matter of record and he is not concerned. He stated that he never deposited any telephone bill personally. He further stated that he is innocent and none of the accused has anything to do with him. He stated that he did not know any person of telephone department, of Naval department and the private parties. It has been stated that he has been falsely implicated.

4.5 A8 Jitender Pal Singh in his statement u/S.313 Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations and stated that he did not know the accused persons. He denied that PW13 Ashok Kumar handed over a bill of Rs.1,390/ to him. He stated that no bill was handed over to him personally and no bill was paid by him. He stated that the bill goes directly to subscriber and never to anyone else. Regarding duplicate bills from the telephone department accused Jitender Pal Singh stated that he did not obtain any duplicate bill from telephone department or paid any bill of anyone including PW12 Satbir Singh and PW12 Satbir Singh never paid any money to him. Accused also stated that he did not pay any bill of Jasbir Singh Sachdeva, Mrs. Minakshi Mitra and Sandeep Gupta. He stated that he has not deposited any CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 127 of 8 bill of Vijay Mehta and his wife Neera Mehta. Accused stated that he did not approach any person nor did he deposit any bill. With respect to payment of bill of telephone No.6870467, accused Jitender Pal Singh stated that the payment of the bill was made by his office as this phone was installed in his office. Accused also stated that Balbir Singh was his neighbour but he did not pay any sum of money for payment as alleged. He never interacted personally on these issues. With respect to 73 contingent bills, accused Jitender Pal Singh stated that he has no knowledge of billing system. He expressed his ignorance regarding mode of payment of telephone bill with MTNL. Accused Jitender Pal Singh stated that he is innocent. During the period under reference, he was running the business centre and dry cleaning business in the name of Jai Jawan Dry Cleaners. He had number of employees at that time and most of the time, he never used to sit in the premises as he was also doing property business independently. Further, being the president of Mini Market Association, Nank Pura, he had various social obligations to meet and he was engaged in number of activities for upliftment of business people of the Area. Being well known in area some people with malafide intentions have taken his name to falsely implicate him at the behest of CBI. Every witness tendered his/her statement for their own course and he has been falsely implicated. Accused Jitender Pal Singh stated that even IO did not say anything against him. He had no concern with the Govt. Departments related in this case. He had CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 128 of 8 never visited telephone department for depositing any bill and nor did he ever gone to Naval Department anywhere in India. Accused stated that he did not know any of the accused persons of the present case in any manner. He had no knowledge of seizures made from other parties and have no knowledge about the same. He stated that he did not know various persons whose bills have been paid and other accused persons who have been joined with them. Accused stated that he never deposited any telephone bill personally or instructed anyone to deposit the bills of others. His own bills have been deposited by one of his employees.

ARGUMENTS 5.0 Sh. Naveen Giri, Ld. PP for CBI submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It has been submitted that accused persons have made false contingent bills in order to make payment of telephone bills of private parties. Ld. PP submitted that A4 Nand Lal, who was employed in MTNL, used to help A1, A2 and A3, who were employed in Naval Headquarters, in preparing the forged or duplicate telephone bills on the basis of which, A1, A2 and A3 used to prepare the contingent bills. Ld. PP submitted that A3 Ashok Kumar used to enter the contingent bill in the cardex register. However, the telephone bills which had been prepared CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 129 of 8 manually were not entered in the cardex register. It has been submitted that the prosecution has examined official from MTNL i.e. PW39 Sh. Murli Singh Negi and PW40 Sohan Singh Gusain who has proved that vide different contingent bills, telephone bills of different private parties were paid. The detailed arguments put by Ld. PP in respect of the 73 contingent bills have been tabulated as follows :

 Sl.       Document           Exhibit              Remarks                      Accused 
 No
                                                                                   
 1.     contingent Bill     ExPW3/1,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh  
        No..325  Of Rs.    Ex3/1B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
        8594/ alongwith    ExPW3/1/A     telephone   No..3011645,   but 
        forged bill                        actually   payment   was   made 
        Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
        16423                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                           telephone No.. 635700 as per 
        (D2)                              remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                           the backside of the cheque) 



 2      contingent Bill     ExPW3/2,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
        No..327  Of Rs.    Ex3/2B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
        7460/ alongwith    ExPW3/2/A     telephone   No..3010660,   but 
        forged bill                        actually   payment   was   made 
        Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
        016439                             private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                           telephone No.. 605133 as per 
        (D3)                              remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                           the backside of the cheque) 



 3      contingent Bill     ExPW3/3,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
        No..329  Of Rs.    Ex3/3B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
        7144/              ExPW3/3/A     telephone   No..3010658,   but 



CC No.08/13                     CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 130 of 8
       alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16440                              telephone   No..   6884392   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D4)                              on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 



 4.   contingent Bill     ExPW3/4,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..330  Of Rs.    Ex3/4B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      35210/             ExPW3/4/A     telephone   No..65956,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16438                              telephone No.. 6881592 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D5)                              the backside of the cheque) 


 5    contingent Bill     ExPW3/5,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..336  Of Rs.    Ex3/5B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      7750/ alongwith    ExPW3/5/A     telephone   No..3011645,   but 
      forged bill                        actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      16466                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone No.. 6114235 as per 
      (D6)                              remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                         the backside of the cheque) 


 6    contingent Bill     ExPW3/6,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..338  Of Rs.    Ex3/6B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      1891/ alongwith    ExPW3/6/A     telephone   No..3010585,   but 
      forged bill                        actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      16468                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone   No..   6803093   as 
      (D7)                              per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                                         on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 




CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                       Page 131 of 8
  7    contingent Bill     ExPW3/7,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..340  Of Rs.    Ex3/7B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      1576/ alongwith    ExPW3/7/A     telephone   No..3011041,   but 
      forged bill                        actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      16470                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone No.. 224257 as per 
      (D8)                              remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                         the backside of the cheque) 
 8    contingent Bill     ExPW3/8,      The cheque was prepared for 
      No..341  Of Rs.    Ex3/8B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  K.P.Singh
      10972/             ExPW3/8/A     telephone   No..3010553,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16471                              telephone   No..   6857393   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D9)                              on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 9    contingent Bill     ExPW3/9,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..342  Of Rs.    Ex3/9B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      25184/             ExPW3/9/A     telephone   No..3792013,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16472                              telephone   No..   6870490   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D10)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 10   contingent Bill     ExPW3/10,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..362  Of Rs.    Ex3/10B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      26535/             ExPW3/10/A    telephone   No..388981   & 
      alongwith forged                   3010564, but actually payment 
      bill                               was   made   against   the 
      Cheque No..                        telephone   bill   of   private 
      16507                              person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
                                         6870490 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      (D11)                             No. written on the backside of 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                     Page 132 of 8
                                          the cheque) 


 11   contingent Bill     ExPW3/11,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..384  Of Rs.    Ex3/11B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      4438/              ExPW3/11/A    telephone            No..3013530, 
      alongwith forged                   3014167   &   3012070,   but 
      bill                               actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      16674                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone   No..   6803041   as 
      (D12)                             per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                                         on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 12   contingent Bill     ExPW3/12,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..362  Of Rs.    Ex3/12B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      12482/             ExPW3/12/A    telephone   No..3792001,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16684                              telephone No.. 6881547 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D13)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 13   contingent Bill     ExPW3/13,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..386  Of Rs.    Ex3/13B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      32772/             ExPW3/13/A    telephone   No..3792007,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      16685                              telephone No.. 6881547 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D14)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 14   contingent Bill     ExPW3/14,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..387  Of Rs.    Ex3/14B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      8533/              ExPW3/14/A    telephone   No..3013540,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 133 of 8
        16686                              telephone No.. 605249 as per 
                                          remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
       (D15)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 15    contingent Bill     ExPW3/15,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
       No..121  Of Rs.    Ex3/15B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
       40359/             ExPW3/15/A    telephone   No..4636957,   but 
       alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
       bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
       Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
       18284                              telephone   No..   6803969   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
       (D16)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 


 16    contingent Bill     ExPW3/16,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
       No..124  Of Rs.    Ex3/16B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
       39837/             ExPW3/16/A    telephone   No..3012919,   but 
       alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
       bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
       Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
       18289                              telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                             PW 17        remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
       (D17)                             the backside of the cheque) 




 17.   contingent Bill   ExPW3/17,       The cheque was prepared for  K.P. Singh
       No..226  Of Rs. Ex3/17B,         bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
       20094/           Ex3/17A         telephone   No..   6874243,   but 
       alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
       bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
       Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
       18847                              telephone   No..   675577   & 
       (D18)                             6803969 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
                                          No. written on the backside of 
                                          the cheque) 



CC No.08/13                    CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                      Page 134 of 8
  18   Contingent Bill     ExPW3/18,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..227  Of Rs.    Ex3/18B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      49669/             ExPW3/18/A    telephone   No..4631552,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      18848                              telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D19)                             the backside of the cheque) 
 19   Contingent Bill     ExPW3/19,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh &
      No..229  Of Rs.    Ex3/19B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Nand Lal
      45392/             ExPW3/19/A    telephone   No..3782307,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      18845                              telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D20)                             the backside of the cheque) 
                                                                                    
 20   contingent Bill     ExPW3/20,     The cheque was prepared for 
      No..248  Of Rs.    Ex3/20B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      24760/             ExPW3/20/A    telephone   No..3782267,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19029                              telephone   No..   6803041   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D21)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 21   contingent Bill     ExPW3/21,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..124  Of Rs.    Ex3/21B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      12848/             Ex3/21A,      telephone   No..   3782305,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex6/C,        actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex6/H         against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19102                              telephone   No..   6940523   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D22)                             on   the   backside   of   the 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                           Page 135 of 8
                                          cheque) 
 22   contingent Bill     ExPW3/22,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..289  Of Rs.    Ex3/22B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      40237/             Ex3/22A,      telephone   No..   6430183,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex34/C,       actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19255                              telephone No.. 688972 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D23)                             the backside of the cheque) 
 23   contingent Bill     ExPW3/23,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..314  Of Rs.    Ex3/23B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      37983/             Ex3/23A,      telephone   No..   6874749,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19304                              telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D24)                             the backside of the cheque) 
 24   contingent Bill     ExPW3/24,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..315  Of Rs.    Ex3/24B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      9294/              Ex3/24A,      telephone   No..   6872078,   but 
      alongwith forged    ExPW16/A,     actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                ExPW16/B      against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..         ExPW16/C      private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19305               ExPW16/D      telephone No.. 609451 as per 
                          ExPW16/E      remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D25)              ExPW16/F      the backside of the cheque) 


 25   contingent Bill     ExPW3/25,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..316  Of Rs.    Ex3/25B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      16435/             Ex3/25A,      telephone   No..   6873285,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex31/B        actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex39/R6       against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19303                              telephone   No..   6803969   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D26)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 
 26   contingent Bill     ExPW3/26,     The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.              Page 136 of 8
       No..318  Of Rs.    Ex3/26B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      44388/             Ex3/26A,       telephone   No..   6874101,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex34/D         actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex39/R7        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19302                               telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D27)                              on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 
 27   contingent Bill     ExPW3/27,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..342  Of Rs.    Ex3/27B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubramani
      16471/             Ex3/27A,       telephone   No..   606120,   but  a
      alongwith forged    Ex35/B         actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex39/T1        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..         Ex23/B         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19490               Ex27/A         telephone   No..   6803041   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D28)                              on the backside of the cheque 
                                          and MTNL receipt) 
 28   contingent Bill     ExPW3/28,      The cheque was prepared for  K.P.Singh
      No..359  Of Rs.    Ex3/28B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      39518/             Ex3/28A,       telephone   No..   600122,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex34/E         actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                                against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19521                               telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D29)                              on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 
 29   contingent Bill     ExPW3/29,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..367  Of Rs.    Ex3/29B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      17498/             Ex3/29A,       telephone   No..   3792013,   but 
      alongwith forged    Ex39/T11      actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                                against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19560                               telephone No.. 6960247 as per 
                                          remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D30)                              the backside of the cheque ) 
 30   contingent Bill     ExPW3/30, 
      No..371  Of Rs.    Ex3/30B,       The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 



CC No.08/13                    CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                       Page 137 of 8
       16695/             Ex3/30A        bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      alongwith forged    Ex3/30C,       telephone   No..   3016866   & 
      bill                Ex13/A         3014291, but actually payment 
      Cheque No..         Ex13/B         was   made   against   the 
      19570               Ex12/A, 12B    telephone   bill   of   private 
                          Ex15/A, 15/B   person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
      (D31)              Ex11/A, 11/B   603105   as   per   remarks/   Tel.. 
                          Ex8/B,8/A      No. written on the backside of 
                          Ex14A, 14/B    the cheque) 
                          Ex17/Px1
                          Ex38/A


 31   contingent Bill     ExPW3/31,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..372  Of Rs.    Ex3/31B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      5351/              Ex3/31C        telephone   No..   3385860, 
      alongwith forged    Ex3/31D        5132959,5715776   &   4692920, 
      bill                Ex3/31E        but   actually   payment   was 
      Cheque No..         Ex3/31F        made   against   the   telephone 
      19571               Ex3/31A,       bill   of   private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                          telephone   No..   6430768   as 
      (D32)                              per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                                          on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 
 32   contingent Bill     ExPW3/32,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..374  Of Rs.    Ex3/32B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      14286/             ExPW3/32A      telephone   No..   3010572,   but 
      alongwith forged    ExPW53/A       actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex             against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..         PW78/A24        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19580               PW78/A25        telephone No.. 609668 as per 
                          ExPW72/B        remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D33)              ExPW72/A        the backside of the cheque) 
 33   contingent Bill     ExPW3/33,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..400  Of Rs.    Ex3/33B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      13672/             Ex             telephone   No..   3010473,   but 
      alongwith forged    PW78/A26        actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                Ex39/L         against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..         Ex39/M         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      19571               Ex39/N         telephone   No..   0660009   as 
                          Ex39/O         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 



CC No.08/13                    CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 138 of 8
        (D34)              Ex3/33A,       on   the   backside   of   the 
                                           cheque) 
  34
       contingent Bill     ExPW3/34,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
       No..02  Of Rs.     Ex3/34B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
       135426/            ExPW3/34/A     telephone   No..3389865, 
       alongwith forged                    3012575   &   3792012     but 
       bill                                actually   payment   was   made 
       Cheque No..                         against   the   telephone   bill   of 
       020482                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                           telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
       (D35)                              remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                           the backside of the cheque) 
 35    contingent Bill     ExPW3/35,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
       No..04  Of Rs.    Ex3/35B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
       1158 &              Ex3/35C,       telephone   No..   4631942   & 
       Of Rs.120959        Ex3/35A,       3792007, but actually payment 
       alongwith forged                    was   made   against   the 
       bill                                telephone   bill   of   private 
       Cheque No..                         person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
       020481                              5726085 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
                                           No. written on the backside of 
       (D36)                              the cheque) 



 36    contingent Bill     ExPW3/36,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
       No..13  Of         Ex3/36B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
       Rs.116735/        Ex3/36C,       telephone   No..   6892535, 
       alongwith forged    Ex3/36D        4692920,   3291135,   6890479, 
       bill                Ex3/36E        3792246, 3792225 & 3010660, 
       Cheque No..         Ex3/36F        but   actually   payment   was 
       020532              Ex3/36G        made   against   the   telephone 
                           Ex3/36H        bill   of   private   person(s)   (i.e. 
       (D37)              Ex39/K1 to     telephone   No..   4698796   as 
                           13              per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                           Ex3/36A,       on   the   backside   of   the 
                                           cheque) 


 37    contingent Bill     ExPW3/37,      The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
       No..15  Of         Ex3/37B,       bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania



CC No.08/13                     CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 139 of 8
       Rs.26239/ &       Ex3/37C,      telephone   No..   61503,   65956 
      Of Rs. 38552/,     Ex3/37D       & 72105, but actually payment 
      Of Rs.17204/       Ex39/B        was   made   against   the 
      alongwith forged    Ex78/A        telephone   bill   of   private 
      bill                Ex78/A        person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
      Cheque No..         ExPW3/37/A    4694325 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      020534                             No. written on the backside of 
                                         the cheque) 
      (D38)


 38   contingent Bill     ExPW3/38,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..31  Of         Ex3/38B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      Rs.254382/        Ex3/38C,      telephone   No..   3792012, 
      alongwith forged    Ex3/38D       3792239   &   3792007,   but 
      bill                Ex3/38/E      actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..         ExPW3/38/A    against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      020671                             private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone   No..   6870689   as 
      (D39)                             per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                                         on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 39   contingent Bill     ExPW3/39,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..40  Of         Ex3/39B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      Rs.59776/         Ex3/39S,      telephone                        No..
      alongwith forged    ExPW3/39/A    3017552(alongwith   17   bills), 
      bill                               but   actually   payment   was 
      Cheque No..                        made   against   the   telephone 
      020972                             bill   of   private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      (D40) entry                       telephone No.. 6858781 as per 
      found in cardex                    remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      register                           the backside of the cheque) 
                                         The cheque was prepared for 
 40   contingent Bill     ExPW3/40,     bill   payment   of   official/Naval  S.G. 
      No..86  Of         Ex3/40B,      telephone   No..4634656,   but  Balasubrmania
      Rs.25153/         ExPW3/40/A    actually   payment   was   made   
      alongwith forged                   against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      bill                               private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      Cheque No..                        telephone No.. 6801736 as per 
      021128                             remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                     Page 140 of 8
                                          the backside of the cheque) 
      (D41)


 41   contingent Bill     ExPW3/41,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..100  Of        Ex3/41B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      Rs.56506/         Ex34/G        telephone   No..3010553,   but 
      alongwith forged    ExPW3/41/A    actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021191                             telephone   No..   6940523   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D42)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 42   contingent Bill     ExPW3/42,     The cheque was prepared for  Ashok Kumar
      No..119  Of        Ex3/42B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval 
      Rs.8063/          ExPW3/42/A    telephone   No..606510,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021227                             telephone   No..   6895972   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D43)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 43   contingent Bill     ExPW3/43,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..139  Of Rs.    Ex3/43B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      113797/            ExPW3/43/A    telephone   No..3792509   & 
      alongwith forged                   3792225, but actually payment 
      bill                               was   made   against   the 
      Cheque No..                        telephone   bill   of   private 
      021475                             person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
                                         6168781 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      (D44)                             No. written on the backside of 
                                         the cheque) 


 44   contingent Bill     ExPW3/44,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..149  Of Rs.    Ex3/44B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      26682/             ExPW3/44/A    telephone   No..4613202,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 141 of 8
       bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021617                             telephone No.. 6510404 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D45)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 45   contingent Bill     ExPW3/45,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..161  Of Rs.    Ex3/45B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      87017/             ExPW3/45/A    telephone No..65956, 66284 & 
      alongwith forged                   65076,   but   actually   payment 
      bill                               was   made   against   the 
      Cheque No..                        telephone   bill   of   private 
      021658                             person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
                                         6888972 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      (D46)                             No. written on the backside of 
                                         the cheque) 


 46   contingent Bill     ExPW3/46,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..186  Of Rs.    Ex3/46B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      19333/             ExPW3/46/A    telephone No..65956, 66284 & 
      alongwith forged                   72105,   but   actually   payment 
      bill                               was   made   against   the 
      Cheque No..                        telephone   bill   of   private 
      021925                             person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
                                         6851373 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      (D47)                             No. written on the backside of 
                                         the cheque) 


 47   contingent Bill     ExPW3/47,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..202  Of Rs.    Ex3/47B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      43265/             ExPW3/47/A    telephone   No..3792464,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021961                             telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D48)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 48   contingent Bill     ExPW3/48,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                      Page 142 of 8
       No..203  Of Rs. Ex3/48B,         bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      49382/           ExPW3/48/A      telephone   No..3792007,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021962                             telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D49)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 49   contingent Bill     ExPW3/49,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..205  Of Rs.    Ex3/49B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      8737/              ExPW3/49/A    telephone   No..3010660,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021963                             telephone   No..   6804605   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D50)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 50   contingent Bill     ExPW3/50,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..211  Of Rs.    Ex3/50B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      17771/             ExPW3/50/A    telephone   No..3792544,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      021990                             telephone   No..   6880407   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D51)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 51   contingent Bill     ExPW3/51,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..215  Of Rs.    Ex3/51B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      16688/             ExPW3/51/A    telephone   No..3384395, 
      alongwith forged                   6192078,   3292412,   6106467, 
      bill                               3013761, 3012012 & 0606619, 
      Cheque No..                        but   actually   payment   was 
      022124                             made   against   the   telephone 
                                         bill   of   private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      (D52)                             telephone No.. 5455247 as per 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 143 of 8
                                          remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                         the backside of the cheque) 


 52   contingent Bill     ExPW3/52,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..222  Of Rs.    Ex3/52B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      23737/             ExPW3/52/A    telephone   No..61503,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022159                             telephone   No..   6804423   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D53)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 
      contingent Bill                    The cheque was prepared for 
 53   No..225  Of Rs.    ExPW3/53,     bill   payment   of   official/Naval  S.G. 
      43642/             Ex3/53B,      telephone   No..65956,   but  Balasubrmania
      alongwith forged    ExPW3/53/A    actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022149                             telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D54)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 54   contingent Bill     ExPW3/54,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..227  Of Rs.    Ex3/54B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      46060/             ExPW3/54/A    telephone   No..72105,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022154                             telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D55)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 55   contingent Bill     ExPW3/55,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..261  Of Rs.    Ex3/55B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      108774/            ExPW3/55/A    telephone No..61503 & 66284, 
      alongwith forged                   but   actually   payment   was 
      bill                               made   against   the   telephone 
      Cheque No..                        bill   of   private   person(s)   (i.e. 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                      Page 144 of 8
       022372                             telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D56)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 56   contingent Bill     ExPW3/56,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..262  Of Rs.    Ex3/56B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      3476/              ExPW3/56/A    telephone   No..3384395,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022373                             telephone No.. 6136808 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D57)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 57   contingent Bill     ExPW3/57,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..268  Of Rs.    Ex3/57B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      3219/              ExPW3/57/A    telephone   No..4613202,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022371                             telephone No.. 5465247 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D58)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 58   contingent Bill     ExPW3/58,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..270  Of Rs.    Ex3/58B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      2613/              ExPW3/58/A    telephone   No..65956,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022397                             telephone   No..   6870689   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D59)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 59   contingent Bill     ExPW3/59,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..273  Of Rs.    Ex3/59B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      24814/             ExPW3/59/A    telephone   No..65956,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                      Page 145 of 8
       Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022428                             telephone   No..   6803046   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D60)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 60   contingent Bill     ExPW3/60,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..275  Of Rs.    Ex3/60B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      7136/              ExPW3/60/A    telephone   No..65076,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022426                             telephone   No..   6805636   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D61)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 61   contingent Bill     ExPW3/61,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..286  Of Rs.    Ex3/61B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      35805/             ExPW3/61/A    telephone   No..3010580,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022455                             telephone No.. 6518856 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D62)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 62   contingent Bill     ExPW3/62,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..287  Of Rs.    Ex3/62B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      38340/             ExPW3/62/A    telephone   No..3010572,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022456                             telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D63)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 63   contingent Bill     ExPW3/63,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..293  Of Rs.    Ex3/63B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                       Page 146 of 8
       5661/            ExPW3/63/A       telephone   No..3010919   & 
      alongwith forged                    3010935, but actually payment 
      bill                                was   made   against   the 
      Cheque No..                         telephone   bill   of   private 
      022466                              person(s)   (i.e.   telephone   No.. 
                                          6804564 as per remarks/ Tel.. 
      (D64)                              No. written on the backside of 
                                          the cheque) 


 64   contingent Bill      ExPW3/64,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..294  Of Rs.     Ex3/64B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      21143/              ExPW3/64/A    telephone   No..0606120,   but 
      alongwith forged                    actually   payment   was   made 
      bill  Cheque No..                   against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      022469                              private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                          telephone   No..   6870689   as 
      (D65)                              per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
                                          on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 


 65   contingent Bill      ExPW3/65,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..298  Of Rs.     Ex3/65B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      122959/             ExPW3/65/A    telephone   No..3792007,   but 
      alongwith forged                    actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                                against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022603                              telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D66)                              on   the   backside   of   the 
                                          cheque) 


 66   contingent Bill      ExPW3/66,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..305  Of Rs.     Ex3/66B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      27720/              ExPW3/66/A    telephone   No..6106121,   but 
      alongwith forged                    actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                                against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                         private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022615                              telephone   No..   6870689   as 
                                          per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D67)                              on   the   backside   of   the 



CC No.08/13                    CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                     Page 147 of 8
                                          cheque) 


 67   contingent Bill     ExPW3/67,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..371  Of Rs.    Ex3/67B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      96986/             ExPW3/67/A    telephone   No..6100122,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022673                             telephone No.. 5117764 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D68)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 68   contingent Bill     ExPW3/68,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..346  Of Rs.    Ex3/68B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      91417/             ExPW3/68/A    telephone   No..3018574,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      022898                             telephone   No..   6888972   as 
                                         per   remarks/   Tel..   No.   written 
      (D69)                             on   the   backside   of   the 
                                         cheque) 


 69   contingent Bill     ExPW3/69,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..348  Of Rs.    Ex3/69B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      109893/            ExPW3/69/A    telephone            No..3792007, 
      alongwith forged                   3792221   &   3792464,   but 
      bill                               actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      022904                             private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone No.. 5117764 as per 
      (D70)                             remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                         the backside of the cheque) 



 70   contingent Bill     ExPW3/70,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..365  Of Rs.    Ex3/70B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      24628/             ExPW3/70/A    telephone   No..3792144,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 



CC No.08/13                   CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.                    Page 148 of 8
       Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      023056                             telephone No.. 6511280 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D71)                             the backside of the cheque) 



 71   contingent Bill     ExPW3/71,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..367  Of Rs.    Ex3/71B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      100927/            ExPW3/71/A    telephone   No..6106889,   but 
      alongwith forged                   actually   payment   was   made 
      bill                               against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      Cheque No..                        private   person(s)   (i.e. 
      023057                             telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
                                         remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
      (D72)                             the backside of the cheque) 


 72   contingent Bill     ExPW3/72,     The cheque was prepared for  S.G. 
      No..395  Of Rs.    Ex3/72B,      bill   payment   of   official/Naval  Balasubrmania
      125004/            ExPW3/72/A    telephone            No..3792012, 
      alongwith forged                   3792142   &   3792106,   but 
      bill                               actually   payment   was   made 
      Cheque No..                        against   the   telephone   bill   of 
      023287                             private   person(s)   (i.e. 
                                         telephone No.. 6898141 as per 
      (D73)                             remarks/   Tel..   No.   written   on 
                                         the backside of the cheque) 




5.1            Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. Counsel led the defence on behalf

of the accused persons submitted that the prosecution has not produced the complete facts. It has been submitted that investigation is defective in nature and on such a faulty investigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be believed. Ld. Counsel relied upon Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1. Ld. Counsel submitted that in CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 149 of 8 this case it was held that public prosecutor has an important role to discuss and is supposed to remain impartial. Ld. Counsel submitted that in this case it was inter alia held that "the public prosecutor is a statutory office of high regard. He does not represent the investigating agencies, but the State. He has wider set of duties than to merely ensure that accused is punished, the duties of ensuring fair play in proceedings, all relevant facts are brought before court in order for determination of truth and justice for all parties including the victims. These duties do not allow the Prosecutor to be lax in any of his duties as against the accused. The court must also ensure that Prosecutor is doing his duties to utmost level of efficiency and fair play."

Ld. Defence counsel submitted that in this case certain additional documents were filed as reflected vide order sheet dated 05.12.2012. It has been submitted that the filing of these documents have prejudiced the accused. It has further been submitted that had these been filed at initial stage, it would have proved the innocence of the accused persons at earlier stage. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that contingent bills on which the prosecution has relied its case were used to be prepared in triplicate. The first copy of the contingent bill which was filed alongwith chargesheet was sent alongwith telephone bill to CDA, Mumbai. The second copy which has been filed in additional document was sent to MTNL alongwith counter foil of telephone bill and MTNL used to affix the stamp in token of having received the bill. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that these telephone bills have duly been received by the MTNL which CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 150 of 8 shows the innocence of accused persons. Ld. Counsel submitted that third copy is also lying in the record. It has been submitted that the investigation of this case has also been conducted in a hap hazard manner and in the same way the prosecution has not conducted the trial properly. Ld. Counsel submitted that in respect of contingent bill (D35), even the Ld. PP has admitted that the entry regarding this bill Ex.PW3/34 (D35) has duly been made in cardex register. It was also pointed out that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that the telephone number written on the backside of the cheque have been written by the accused persons. Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has not examined any witness from Navy to the fact that telephone bills of Navy remained unpaid. Ld. Defence counsel pointed out towards the cross examination of PW40 conducted by Sh. HR Dhamija, Advocate on 16.07.2013. In the cross examination, the witness stated that his opinion on bills Ex.PW3/34B & Ex.PW3/34C that these should have been signed by concerned accounts officer of central area, is based on the preliminary verification of the bills. The witness admitted that he was not aware whether any inquiry was made in relation to this observation. The witness was also not aware that how many copies of contingent bills were being prepared nor this witness have been assigned the duty of receiving contingent bills alongwith cheques presented by the employees of the Navy. The witness also admitted that during investigation, he has not been shown CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 151 of 8 the paid contingent bills bearing the stamp of MTNL. The witness admitted that there was a procedure for obtaining a duplicate bill from MTNL that was being prepared by the system and was given to the subscriber in case the subscriber has lost the bill or in case he has not received the bill.

Ld. Defence counsel submitted that during cross examination conducted by him, the witness admitted that if the payment of the bill has been made by a particular cheque then the same cheque cannot be used for the payment of another bill. He also admitted that no additional payments can be made against the said cheques against different telephone number bearing different bill number. Ld. Counsel submitted that the witness in the cross examination also admitted that bill Ex.PW78/A28, Ex.PW78/A30, Ex.PW78/A32, Ex.PW34/F, Ex.PW54/A, Mark PW56/PX and Ex.PW14/C are the bills pertaining to private parties which have duly been paid. Similarly, the witness stated that bill of telephone number 6870490 of Sh. Jitender Pal Singh for an amount of Rs.19,911/ is also seen as paid. PW40 stated that similarly there are other telephone bills relating to private parties duly stamped by MTNL and paid.

Ld. Defence counsel pointed out that the witness specifically admitted that the payments related to the Naval telephone was made separately and the payment of the telephone bills belonging to private parties were made separately. Ld. Counsel submitted that the specimen CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 152 of 8 handwriting could not have been taken by the IO without the permission of the court. It was pointed out that it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that regular audit is conducted by the Navy. However, no audit report has been placed on the record. IO has also admitted in the cross examination that he did not make any effort to call any such audit report. There is no evidence on the record which could indicate that there was any complaint regarding unpaid bills of Navy.

5.2 Sh. Vijay Singh, Ld. Counsel for A3 Ashok Kumar submitted that PW81 Sh. Ganesh Verma admitted in the cross examination that through cheque No.021227 dated 23.07.1996 for an amount of Rs. 8,063/ the payment has been made to MTNL. IO admitted that A3 was Peon and had no discretionary power and his duty was only to put the prepared bill before his seniors. It has also come in the testimony of PW81 that prepared bills were presented to the commander, who was the signing authority and after checking the contingent bills, he used to affix his signatures over the contingent bills.

5.3 Sh. Hari Om Bhaskar, Ld. Counsel for A4 Nand Lal submitted that against his client the prosecution has examined PW16 Hawa Singh, PW17 Jag Ram, PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, PW41 Baldev Singh, PW46 Jai Ram CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 153 of 8 and PW52 Chander Prakash. It has been submitted that out of this, PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh and PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija are totally unreliable as these witnesses were initially arrested by the IO and after their release their statement was recorded by the CBI. These witnesses have made the statements under pressure of CBI. PW16 Hawa Singh and PW17 Jag Ram have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW41 Baldev Singh is an MTNL employee and he has also deposed at the dictate of the CBI. However, Ld. Counsel submitted that this witness has not produced any documentary evidence to show the involvement of A4 Nand Lal. PW46 Jai Ram again a MTNL employee has not deposed anything against his client. Ld. Counsel further submitted that PW52 Chander Prakash is also a MTNL employee who had stated to have handed over some money for payment of his bill. Ld. Counsel submitted that merely on the basis of testimony of PW42 VP Bhardwaj it cannot be presumed that payment of telephone bill of telephone number 676956 was made through the Navy cheque.

5.4 Sh. Amitesh Gaurav, Ld. Counsel for A1, A2, A7 and A8 Sh. Hari Om Bhaskar, Ld. Counsel for A4 and Sh. Vijay Singh, Ld. Counsel for A3 consistently argued that IO has conducted grave illegality in this case. He arrested PWs Gulshan Kumar, Shyam Pal Singh Lohia, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 154 of 8 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, Sita Ram, Jai Prakash Bansal and Hem Chand Bansal and they remained in custody for substantial period. However, later on, after their release their statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on the basis their statements, the chargesheet has been filed against the accused persons. It has been submitted that this fact alone shows that the investigation has been conducted in a malafide manner. IO arrested the persons without any ground, kept them in illegal custody and subsequently after their release made them to depose so as to suit the case of CBI. It has been submitted that this shakes the very base of the prosecution and makes it liable to be thrown out. Ld. Counsel submitted that in these circumstances, the testimony of PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, PW59 Sita Ram, PW60 Jai Parkash Bansal, PW62 Hem Chand Bansal and PW65 Laxmi Devi cannot be considered at all and if these witnesses are excluded from the zone of consideration, CBI's case is likely to fell like pack of cards.

Ld. Counsel pointed out that as per PW63 Sh. Vishwanath, A2 SG Balasubramanian was present in the office on 30.06.97 whereas as per the case of the CBI itself, he has been arrested on 27.06.97. It has been submitted that this indicates that entire investigation is dishonest and CBI was predetermined and CBI has acted in a most callous manner and there only motive was to implicate the accused persons. Ld. Counsel invited the attention of the court towards the cross examination of PW80 Dr. BA Vaid, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 155 of 8 GEQD wherein the expert admitted that though he had prepared the notes but neither filed the same in the court nor brought the same today. The expert also admitted that his laboratory has not received the seal in original. It has also come in the cross examination that the questioned seal was compared with the specimen as well as admitted impression and the opinion was given on the basis of admitted/specimen seal impression supplied to them. Ld. Counsel also invited the attention of the court towards the cross examination of PW39 Murli Singh Negi on behalf of A1 conducted on 10.01.2011 wherein the witness admitted that there is no difference between the procedure of payment in respect of telephone bills of the general public and official bills. The witness also stated that on receipt of cash or cheque qua the payment of telephone bill, the concerned bill clerk used to keep with him counter foil attached with the bill and returned the original bill after proper receipt on the same bill to the person who had come to deposit the bill at the counter. Ld. Counsel submitted that if the testimony of this witness is taken into account, it would reveal that the telephone bills of the Navy on the basis of which the contingent bills were prepared had been returned without endorsement on receipt on the same. It was submitted that if through RBI cheques prepared on the basis of contingent bills and Navy telephone bills, the telephone bills of private parties were paid then the telephone bills of the Navy must have been returned without an endorsement and in such a case this fact must have CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 156 of 8 come to the notice of the higherups in the department or in the audit. It has been submitted that there is nothing on record which could show that the telephone bills of the Navy remains unpaid.

5.4 The defence has submitted that the prosecution did not file best possible evidence against the accused persons and they withheld the same and therefore, an adverse inference is required to be drawn against them. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon Musauddin Ahmed Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3813. in this case it was inter alia held as under :

"13. It is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such a material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such part and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence (vide Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413)."

The defence has consistently argued that investigation in this case has not been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and this has caused huge prejudice and harassment to the accused persons. In support of his contention reliance was placed upon Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 254. In this case, it was inter alia held as under :

"32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 157 of 8 objectionable features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior motive. It is also the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the accused. The Investigating Officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The Investigating Officer "is not to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the court to record conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth". (Vide R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866; Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822; and Mahmood Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC

69).

45. Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation."

In respect of additional documents filed by the prosecution at a later stage, the defence has relied upon UOI through Inspector, CBI Vs. Purnandu Biswas, 2005 (8) Scale, in which it was inter alia held that a material document which was in favour of the respondents was not annexed with the chargesheet and had such documents being disclosed by the prosecution, the court would not have arrived at a given finding. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 158 of 8

In respect of the specimen handwriting taken by the IO, Ld. Counsel submitted that this was totally illegal in view of the law laid down in Sukhvinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1994 SC 764, wherein it was inter alia held that S.73 of the Evidence Act cannot be made use of for collecting specimen writings during the investigation and recourse to it can be had only when either the Court holding an enquiry or the trial, before which proceedings are pending, requires the writing for the purpose of 'enabling it to compare' the same. It was further held that a court holding an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure is indeed entitled under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to direct an accused person appearing before it to give his specimen handwriting to enable to court by which he may be subsequently tried to compare it with the disputed writings. A court which is not holding an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure or conducting the trial is not permitted, on the plain language of Section 73 of the Evidence Act, to issue any direction of the nature contained in the second paragraph of Section 73 of the Evidence Act.

In respect of the fact that certain persons were initially arrested by the IO and then subsequently they were made witnesses, the defence has relied upon P. Sirajuddin etc. Vs. The State of Madras etc., AIR 1971 SC 520 wherein it was inter alia held that granting of amnesty to two persons CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 159 of 8 who are sure to be examined as witnesses for the prosecution was highly irregular and unfortunate. In this case, the Hon'ble High court had also observed that "neither the Criminal Procedure Code nor the Prevention of Corruption Act recognises the immunity from prosecution given under these assurances and that the grant of pardon was not in the discretion of police authorities." In the present case, the IO in flagrant violation of laws and norms arrested some persons and subsequently made them witnesses. CONCLUSION 6.0 The present case i.e. RC No.2(A)/97 was lodged on 27.06.97 on the basis of source information against A1 KP Singh, MA Khan, Shambu Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian and A3 Ashok Kumar. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed on 18.12.2000 against accused persons KP Singh, SG Balasubramanian, Ashok Kumar, Nand Lal, Virender Kumar Kalra, Mool Chand Goel, Surender Grover, Jitender Pal Singh and Bhupender Singh. However, MA Khan, Shambhu Singh, Dharmdass Subhash Chander, Shyam Pal Lohia, Bhushan Kumar Hasija, M. Pulickan Chako, OP Gupta, Jai Prakash Bansal, Hem Chand Bansal, Smt. Kiran Sharma, Dharmdass and Sita Ram Sharma were kept in column No.2 and were not sent up for trial on the ground that no evidence has appeared against them during investigation. As per the case of the prosecution, the duty of A1 KP Singh was to collect the telephone bills of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 160 of 8 Naval Headquarters from MTNL, New Delhi and to handover the same to TMC for processing and making payment to MTNL.

A2 SG Balasubramanian who was working as Asstt. in TMC, Naval Headquarters was supposed to check and process the telephone bills received from MTNL and to prepare the contingent bills and got the same passed from Dy. Director/ Competent officer Incharge, TMC. The duty of A2 also included sending the duly passed contingent bills to the Dy. Director, Pay & Allowance, Naval Headquarter for counter signatures and thereafter, to send the same to the Logistic Officer, INS, India for preparation of cheques for making payment to MTNL.

A3 Ashok Kumar was working as LDC in TMC, NHQ, New Delhi during the relevant period and his duties included typing of contingent bills and to assist A2 in performance of his official duties. The case of CBI is based on the premises that accused persons forged the bills of the telephones relating to Navy and on the basis of such forged telephone bills, the contingent bills were prepared, processed and got passed and thereafter, on the basis of RBI cheques the payment of telephone bills of private parties was made.

7.0 The accused persons have been charged for the offence u/S. 120B IPC r/w S.420, 466, 467, 471 IPC and S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 161 of 8 POC Act 1988. Other than this, the public servants A1 to A4 have also been charged for the offence u/S.420 IPC for dishonestly inducing INS, India to deliver the cheque on the basis of 72 false contingent bills and they deposited the same alongwith telephone bills of private subscribers. Similarly, A1 KP Singh has been charged for the offence u/S.466 IPC for forging 22 telephone bills. A2 SG Balasubramanian and A3 Ashok Kumar have been charged for the offence u/S.466 IPC for forging 69 bills and one bill, respectively. Besides this, A1 to A3 have been charged for the offence u/S.467 IPC for forging 72 contingent bills on the basis of forged telephone bills. A1 to A4 have also been charged for the offence u/S.471 IPC for using 72 forged MTNL bills as genuine. The public servants have also been separately charged for having committed misconduct u/S.13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) of POC Act, 1988.

7.1 First and foremost on the basis of evidence of record, it has to be examined that whether there is any conspiracy amongst the accused persons. The criminal conspiracy has been defined u/S.120A IPC which reads as under :

"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 162 of 8

1. an illegal act, or

2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy ; Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be:

a) an object to be accomplished ;

b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object ;

c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby they become definitely committed to cooperate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means ; and

d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act.

The punishment of criminal conspiracy has been defined u/S. 120B IPC. The law regarding criminal conspiracy is very well settled. In order to prove the conspiracy amongst the accused persons, the prosecution is bound to prove that there was meeting of mind amongst them. There has to be cogent and creditworthy evidence on record to prove that there was an agreement between the parties to do a particular job. Mere association or relation is not enough to establish the same. It is not possible to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. However, a few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 163 of 8 the accused with the commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. The prosecution is bound to show that all means adopted and illegal act done were in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy hatched. The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in point of time than the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Reliance can be placed on John Pandian Vs. State, JT 2010 (13) SC 284.

It is very rare to have any direct evidence as normally the conspiracy are hatched in secrecy and executed in dark. The prosecution would be considered to be successful if they are able to bring any material including circumstances on the record that there was transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design. The prosecution is required to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. Reference can be made to Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1086.

7.2 The star witnesses in this case are PW3, PW39 and PW40.

PW3 Captain Matloob Aslam Khan, joined Directorate of Naval Signals in February 1994 till February 1999. This witness deposed about the functioning of Telephone Management Cell (TMC) and the duties of A1 to A3, and specifically proved the 73 contingent bills as well as the CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 164 of 8 cheques prepared on the basis of these contingent bills and the same have duly been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment as well as while discussing the statement of accused persons. In the cross examination, the witness admitted that the telephone numbers mentioned in Ex.PW3/1B to Ex.PW3/72B are the bills pertaining to departmental telephone connections, however, he could not tell whether these telephone bills were paid or not because there were no MTNL receipts regarding this bills. The witness stated that whenever the bill is paid either in cash or through cheque or demand draft, a receipt is issued by the MTNL on the telephone bills itself. The accused persons have not disputed the preparation of the contingent bills as being specifically stated by the witness in the examination in chief. It is a matter of record that these contingent bills were accompanied with the telephone bills of the telephone belonging to the navy. These telephone bills have also been proved by PW3.

Another star witness PW39 Sh. Murli Singh Negi who was a senior MTNL official proved the telephone bills placed alongwith the contingent bills and specifically made the statement regarding the discrepancies in the said bills. To start with, in regard to the contingent bill D2 dtd. 27/10/94 for Rs. 8,594/, he stated that bill against telephone No. 3011645 has been prepared without any detail. He also specifically stated that this bill was not paid through cheque No. 016423 Ex.PW3/1A. Similarly, in respect of contingent bill D3 No. 526 against telephone No. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 165 of 8 3010660 Ex. PW3/2B, the witness deposed that this bill was not paid from cheque No. 16439 Ex.PW3/2A. Similar statement has been made in respect of contingent bill D4 No. 527 Ex.PW3/3B, he specifically stated that the payment of this bill was also not deposited against this bill. PW39 has made a specific statement like this regarding bill D5 No. 525 Ex.PW3/4B as well. The witness pointed out the discrepancy in contingent bill D6 Ex.PW3/5, D7 Ex.PW3/6, D8 Ex.PW3/7, D9 Ex.PW3/8, D10 Ex.PW3/9, D13 Ex.PW3/12, D14 Ex.PW3/13, D18 Ex.PW3/14. In respect of D16 Ex.PW3/15B, the witness specifically stated that against the cheque prepared on this contingent bill, the bill for telephone No. 6803969 and 6888972 were paid. If we peruse the testimony of PW34, the telephone No. 6888972 pertains to him and telephone No. 6803969 pertains to PW31 Sh. Shyam Pal Singh Lohia. It has come in the testimony of PW34 Sh. Bhushan Kumar that this bill was collected by A4 Nand Lal. Similarly, PW31 Sh. Shyam Pal Singh Lohia has also named A1 Kiran Pal Singh and A4 Nand Lal. In respect of contingent bill D17, it came that the cheque prepared against this bill was not deposited. In respect of contingent bill D18 Ex.PW17B, it came that from the cheque prepared against this bill, the payment of telephone No. 6803969 and 675577 was made. As discussed above, the telephone No. 6803969 pertains to PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia and he has specifically named A1 Kiran Pal Singh and A4 Nand Lal. The telephone No. 675577 also belonged to one private person. Similarly, if CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 166 of 8 we analyse and appreciate the evidence of PW39, it has come on record that the cheque prepared against the contingent bills were either not deposited for the payment of the navy telephones or these cheques were used for the payment of private telephones not belonging to the navy. The testimony in relation to this has been discussed in detail while discussing the evidence and therefore, has not been repeated herein to avoid making the judgment verbose. It is interesting to see that in the cross examination there is not even a single suggestion on behalf of any of the accused that the payment of private telephone bills were not made through the RBI cheques prepared on the basis of the contingent bills. The accused persons have not disputed the preparation of handwritten telephone bills. Their defence is that since sometime the bills were used to be misplaced the telephone bills were being prepared at the TMC. Sh. Sohan Singh another MTNL employee who appeared as PW40 also corroborated the case of the prosecution. He has also made a detailed statement regarding all the contingent bills in question and pointed out the discrepancies in the contingent bills. The prosecution has taken pain to bring the entire material on the record so as to point out the discrepancies and irregularity in these bills. It is interesting to see that in the cross examination of this witness also there is nothing to discredit the version placed by him. Rather, interestingly, he has been cross examined regarding the contingent bills for which he has nothing to do as the contingent bills were used to be prepared in the TMC and this was a CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 167 of 8 witness from the MTNL. The present case of the prosecution can be divided into two parts one is the preparation of the contingent bills and the telephone bills in the TMC and preparation of RBI cheque on the basis of such contingent bills. And the second part is the deposit of RBI cheque in the MTNL against the bills of private persons. The preparation of contingent bills and telephone bills have duly been proved by PW3. The discrepancies in the same have been proved by PW39 and PW40. The combined reading of these two witnesses also proves that in many of the cases, the payment of the private telephone bills were made from the RBI cheques. This has again been strengthened by a document D74 duly proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW81/R wherein, in the 11 pages report it has specifically been shown that from the RBI cheques, bills of private persons have been paid. This document was duly proved by the IO and the accused persons have not raised any objection regarding the authenticity and genuineness of this document. The link evidence that the private telephone bills were collected by the accused persons have also been produced by the CBI like in regard to A8 Jitender Pal Singh, prosecution has examined PW8 Shashi Shekhar Gaur, PW9 Vijay Mehta, PW11 Ashish Jhingan, PW12 Satbir Singh, PW13 Ashok Kumar Arora, PW14 Sangeeta Chauhan, PW15 Jashbir Singh, PW29 Sandeep Gupta, PW38 Balbir Singh, PW53 Harbans Singh, PW54 Ashok Gulati, PW58 Kulwant Singh, PW71 Ashish Mitra and PW72 Rajiv Maggon. In regard to A1 Kiran Pal Singh, prosecution has CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 168 of 8 examined PW19 Naunihal singh, PW21 Mahinder Pal Singh, PW22 Ajay Kumar Gupta, PW23 Anil Kumar, PW25 Gulshan Rai Virmani, PW28 Sh. Surender Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia, PW32 Mam Kaur, PW33 Raja Ram, PW35 Om Prakash Gupta, PW36 Commander Rajwant Singh (Retd)., PW45 Raj Kumar Sharma, PW47 Parveen Kumar, PW55 Sanjay Kumar, PW59 Sita Ram, PW60 Jai Prakash Bansal, PW62 Hem Chand Bansal, PW66 Kiran Sharma and PW76 Satya Pal Singh and in regard to A4 Nand Lal, the prosecution has examined PW16 Hawa Singh, PW17 Jag Ram, PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, PW52 Chander Prakash, PW65 Lakshmi Devi. The testimony of these witnesses have been discussed in detail and has been put to the accused persons in the statement of accused. This would clearly show that there was a conspiracy amongst the accused persons in pursuance of which the telephone bills were collected from the private persons and the same were deposited in the MTNL on the basis of the RBI cheques issued by the Naval. 7.3 If we peruse the evidence on record which has been discussed in detail herein above, it is apparently clear that A1, A2 and A3 who were part of TMC in Naval Headquarters prepared false contingent bills on the basis of forged telephone bills and thereafter, on the basis of such bills got the cheque issued and with the help of A4 Nand Lal, who was a MTNL employee, made payment of private telephone bills through the cheque CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 169 of 8 issued by Naval Headquarter. In order to link the chain with the collection of private bills, the prosecution has examined number of witnesses who have deposed on oath that A7 Surender Grover and A8 Jitender Pal Singh who were private persons collected the bills from private persons and the payment of such bills were made by RBI cheques issued on the basis of forged contingent bills.

7.4 The conspiracy amongst the accused persons is writ large on the basis of material available on record. Though, the prosecution witnesses have made detailed submissions which has been discussed herein above. However, in order to illustrate the conspiracy the following specific samples are detailed herein below :

a) Bill of telephone number 6514693 and 6864848 handed over by PW6 Ms. Ranjana Malhotra to A6 Late Sh. Mool Chand was deposited vide cheque No.021617 and 019102, Ex.PW3/44A and Ex.PW3/21A, respectively through contingent bill No.282 (D22) and 149 (D45) Ex.PW3/44, respectively.

b) Bill pertaining to telephone No.606971 handed over to A8 Jitender Pal Singh by PW8 Shashi Shekhar Gaur was paid through cheque No.019570, Ex.PW3/30A of contingent bill 371 (D31), Ex.PW3/30. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 170 of 8

c) Bill handed over by PW9 Vijay Mehta of telephone No.603377 and 604455 to A8 Jitender Pal Singh was paid through cheque No. 016438, Ex.PW3/4A of contingent bill 330 (D5), Ex.PW3/4.

d) Bill of telephone No.6214699 and 6479706 handed over by PW10 Hoshiar Singh to A5 Late Sh. Virender Kalra was paid through cheque No.021128, Ex.PW3/40A and cheque No.021925, Ex.PW3/46A of contingent bill No.86, Ex.PW3/40 and contingent bill No.186 (D47), Ex.PW3/46.

e) Telephone bill of telephone No.6804921 handed over by PW17 Jag Ram to A4 Nand Lal was paid through cheque No.021658, Ex.3/45A of contingent bill No.161 (D46), Ex.PW3/45.

f) Telephone Bill of telephone No.6898141 handed over by PW18 Gulshan Kumar to A4 Nand Lal paid through cheque No.018289, Ex.PW3/16A of contingent bill No.124 (D17), Ex.PW3/16.

g) Bill of telephone No.5622992 of PW21 Mahinder Pal Singh handed over to A1 KP Singh was paid through cheque No.022428, Ex.PW3/59A of contingent bill No.273, Ex.PW/59. CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 171 of 8

h) Bill of telephone No.5418821 of PW22 Ajay Kumar handed over to A1 KP Singh was paid through cheque No.021963, Ex.PW3/49A, of contingent bill No. 205(D50), Ex.PW3/49. It is pertinent to mention here that the bill was handed over to A1 KP Singh against his purchase from this witness.

i) Bill of telephone No.6803836 handed over by PW28 Surender Kumar to A1 KP Singh was paid through cheque No.022466, Ex.PW3/63A of contingent bill No.293 (D64), Ex.PW3/63.

j) The payment of telephone No.6803969 of PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia handed over to A1 KP Singh and A4 Nand Lal was paid through cheque No.022673, Ex.PW3/67A of contingent bill No.321 (D68), Ex.PW3/67.

k) PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija specifically stated that A4 Nand Lal used to return the paid bill and collect 75% of the bill amount from him.

l) The prosecution witnesses have made a specific statement that accused persons used to give some discount on the bills collected by them.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 172 of 8

m) PW43 Sh. NR Tikania specifically proved that handwritten bill Ex.PW3/15B is bogus, forged and fictitious bill.

n) PW46 Jai Ram specifically deposed that bill Ex.PW3/15B, Ex.PW3/ 19B, Ex.PW3/22B, Ex.PW3/26B and Ex.PW3/28B did not bear his signatures. It came in his testimony that bills pertain to Chankya Puri area and Nehru Place circle and therefore, it was not possible for Nehru Place circle to issue duplicate bill pertaining to number falling in central district.

o) Bills pertaining to telephone No.6804605 and 6803357 of PW47 Sh.

Parveen Kuar from where A1 used to purchase household articles were paid through cheque No.021925, Ex.PW3/46A and 022428, Ex.PW3/59A, of contingent bill No.186(D47), Ex.PW3/46 and contingent bill No.273, Ex.PW3/59.

p) Bill of telephone No.4691278 of PW61 Sh. Ashok Kumar Jawa handed over to accused Surender Grover was paid through cheque No.020534, Ex.PW3/37A of contingent bill No.15(D38), Ex.PW3/37.

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 173 of 8

q) Bill of telephone No.4694325 in the name of Surender Grover was also paid through cheque No.020534, Ex.PW3/37A of contingent bill No.15(D38), Ex.PW3/37.

The above illustrations which have only been taken as a sample to show conspiracy amongst the accused persons, clearly shows meeting of mind amongst the accused persons. The accused persons in a preplanned manner collected bills from private persons and then forged the telephone bills purported to be of official telephones and on the basis of such prepared contingent bills got issued the cheques. The entire work of preparation of bills was used to be done in the TMC. This TMC was being handled by A1 to A3. In such a cell where huge number of forged contingent bills were being prepared, it is not possible that such bills were prepared without the officials being in conspiracy with each other.

As I have discussed above, it is not possible to get the direct evidence of the conspiracy. It is also to be understood that prosecution cannot prove the case against the accused persons beyond all doubts. The prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. It has to be seen that even Evidence Act shifts the burden of proving the facts upon the persons who have special knowledge of the fact. The accused persons were part and parcel of TMC and therefore, they were required to explain that whether the bills attached with the alleged contingent bills were CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 174 of 8 genuine or not. It was for the accused persons also to explain and come clean to show that telephone bills attached with the contingent bills were genuine and those were duly paid. The facts which were within the special knowledge of the accused persons were to be proved by them. It is a matter of record that there were thousands of telephones installed at the residences and office of Naval officers. At such a huge magnitude it is not possible for the supervisory officer to check each and every bill. Unless there is specific evidence on record it cannot be presumed that supervisory officers were also part of conspiracy. They may be guilty of lack of supervision, but in absence of any specific or concrete material on record they cannot be held guilty for criminal conspiracy. I consider that there is cogent and creditworthy material on record to held that accused persons were in conspiracy with each other and in pursuance to this conspiracy, the payment of private parties were being made through cheques issued by the Naval Headquarter.

8.0 The defence has taken an objection that since audit report has not been produced therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. The plea of the defence is that in absence of any audit objection it has to be presumed that all the contingent bills are correct. I am afraid that this argument cannot be accepted. The audit is conducted on the CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 175 of 8 sample basis and moreover only because the department could not find out the fraud, it would not mean that this court would be deprived of holding the wrong guilty.

The defence has also taken a serious objection regarding the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. It has been submitted that IO in this case arrested several persons initially and after they remained in custody for substantial time and released on bail, they were made the witnesses. It has been submitted that these persons have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The defence has taken a serious objection as to the credibility of these witnesses. This plea was also raised by the defence during the course of arguments and pursuance to this, Sh. Ganesh Verma, Retd. SP (IO) and Insp. MS Bisht were summoned. The ordersheet dated 01.10.2014 indicates that Sh. Ganesh Verma, Retd. SP submitted that he had arrested PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, PW35 OP Gupta, PW59 Sita Ram, PW60 Jai Prakash Bansal and PW62 Hem Chand Bansal on the suspicion that they were beneficiaries and subsequently he was transferred and thereafter, the investigation was handed over to Insp. MS Bisht. Insp. MS Bisht submitted that at the conclusion of the investigation, it was found that there was no evidence against them, hence they were placed in column No.2. It is a matter of record that no specific application was moved for getting these persons discharged or making them approver. This proposition has two CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 176 of 8 perceptions. One is that, what IO did cannot be approved at all. If it is allowed to happen then the investigating agency would arrest the persons in a casual and mechanical manner, which is against the spirit of law. 9.1 S.41 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C.") prescribes that when police may arrest without warrants. It has consistently been held that to arrest a person without justification is one of the serious encroachment upon the liberty of an individual. S.41 Cr.P.C. empowers the police to arrest a person without a warrant. However, such arrest can be effected only if a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists against such person. The police cannot act in a mechanical manner. Since it is the discretion and police is not bound to arrest the accused even if the allegation against him of having committed a cognizable offence, an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty of an individual and it effects the reputation and status of an individual and therefore, the power of arrest has to be cautiously exercised.

In the landmark judgment Joginder Kumar Vs. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349(1), the full bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia held as under :

"24. The above guidelines are merely the incidents of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No arrest can CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 177 of 8 be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lockup of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and selfesteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A 268 person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do."

It is also a settled law that there must be sufficient reasons for exercising such power of the police officials and a person is not liable to be arrested merely on suspicion of complicity in an offence. Ram Prapanna Vs. State of UP, 2007 Cril.LJ (NOC) 439 and M.D. Farooquzzaman Vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (3) Pat. LJR 165 (Pat).

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 178 of 8 8.2 In Sarkar, the code of Criminal Procedure 10th Edition, Vol. I, the essential contents of arrest have been enumerated as follows :

a) commission of cognizable office or reasonable complaint concerning it ;

b) reasonable suspicion (i.e., founded on some definite facts) but not bare suspicion or surmises ; or

c) credible information (i.e., sufficiently likely to be believable and from reliable source) of a person's having been concerned in any cognizable offence ; and

d) exercise of personal responsibility and personal judgment in making arrest without reliance on the belief of any other person.

It has repeatedly been held that mere suspicion is not enough and the burden is on the police officer to satisfy the court before which the arrest is challenged that he has reasonable ground to arrest the person. It is a matter of record that when IO Ganesh Verma (PW81) was summoned in the court on 01.10.2014, he merely stated that these persons were arrested on the basis of suspicion that they were beneficiaries.

I consider that IO or CBI failed to satisfy the court that there were sufficient or reasonable ground to effect the arrest of these persons. Though, arrested persons have not approached this court but to the mind of this court, this was an apparent violation of human rights of persons who CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 179 of 8 were arrested by the IO apparently without sufficient grounds and therefore, it becomes bounden duty of this court to take cognizance of this fact and to take action against the delinquent officer and the investigating agency so that this can be set as an example for avoiding recurrence of these unlawful incidents.

The second perception to this fact is that whether the testimony of these persons be discarded outrightly only because they were initially arrested by the CBI and later on were made witnesses for the prosecution. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of a witness has to be assessed or appreciated in totality to see whether it is reliable or unreliable. If we peruse the testimony of PW18 Gulshan Kumar, PW31 Shyam Pal Singh Lohia, PW34 Bhushan Kumar Hasija, PW35 OP Gupta, PW59 Sita Ram, PW60 Jai Prakash Bansal and PW62 Hem Chand Bansal, though this fact has been brought in the cross examination that they were arrested by the CBI and later on their statements were recorded but there is nothing on record which could shake or discredit their testimonies. If we disbelieve or held these witnesses as false witnesses, it would be double injustice to them. Firstly, they were wrongly arrested by the CBI and then when they were made the witnesses and came to the court then they are branded false witnesses. Unless and until, the testimony of such witnesses is not creditworthy, it would not be justified to disbelieve them. Every witness has to be assessed and weighed on the basis of the value of CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 180 of 8 his testimony which has been made before the court. The cross examination is a powerful tool for the defence. This tool can be used to demolish the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. I consider that in the present case, the defence has miserably failed to discredit and discard the testimonies of these witnesses and therefore, I consider that testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded outrightly only because they were arrested by the investigating agency and were made accused initially.

In respect of the defects in investigation, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hema Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 31 of 2013, reiterated that for certain defects in the investigation, the accused cannot be acquitted. The full bench cited with approval the judgment delivered in C. Muniappan and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567, as under:

"55. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 181 of 8 criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."

In Dayal Singh and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 (8) SCC 263, while reiterating the principles rendered in C. Muniappan (supra), the Supreme Court interalia held:

"18. ... Merely because PW 3 and PW 6 have failed to perform their duties in accordance with the requirements of law, and there has been some defect in the investigation, it will not be to the benefit of the accused persons to the extent that they would be entitled to an order of acquittal on this ground. ..."

Similarly, in Gajoo vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2012 (9) SCC 532, while reiterating the same principle again, Apex Court held that defective investigation, unless affects the very root of the prosecution case and is prejudicial to the accused should not be an aspect of material consideration by the Court.

In regard to defective investigation, Apex Court in Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (supra) while dealing with the cases of omissions and commissions by the investigating officer, and duty of the court in such cases, held as under:

"27. Now, we may advert to the duty of the court in such cases. In Sathi Prasad v. State of U.P this Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 182 of 8 given in court should be relied upon and such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab, held:

'5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so [pic]would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."

Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the Apex Court in Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1999(2) SCC 126 enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.

It is pertinent to mention here that in Hema's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to held that with the passage of time, the law also developed and the dictum of the Court emphasized that in a criminal case, the fate of proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong, in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the community as a whole and is CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 183 of 8 harmful to the society in general. Thus, the superior Courts have held time and again that in case of defective investigation, it would not be right to acquit the accused only on this account. Acquittal in such cases would tantamount to playing in the hands of the IO, if the investigation is designedly defective. The duty of a Judge includes discharge of his judicial function objectively and in a correct perspective. If an attempt has been made to misdirect the trial on the basis of designedly defective investigation, the Court should be very cautious and must ensure that the justice delivery system is not subverted. The court of law must make an endeavour to impart justice and protect the interest of the society as a whole.

8.3 Thus, in view of the discussion made, I consider that only on the ground of some defects in investigation, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out. The discussion made herein above proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to this conspiracy, on the basis of forged contingent bills and telephone bill used as a genuine, payment of telephone bills of private parties were made through government exchequer.

9.0 A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar and CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 184 of 8 A4 Nand Lal are the public servants. They have also been charged and tried for the offence u/S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act, 1988. The offence of misconduct has been defined u/S.13(1)(d) of POC Act, which reads as under :

"13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant: (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,

(d) if he,

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

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest ."

The necessary ingredients of Section 13(1)(d) are as follows :

1) accused was a public servant;

2) accused used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position; and,

3) accused obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

The act and conduct of A1 to A4 proves beyond reasonable doubt that they have misconducted and abused their official position. In CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 185 of 8 view of the above findings, I consider that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons that accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance to that conspiracy telephone bills of private parties were made through government bills. 10.1 As far as charges of forgery u/S.466 and 467 IPC concerned, I consider that prosecution has not been able to led credible and cogent evidence in this regard. The specimen handwriting of the accused persons has also not been taken in accordance with law. Hence, accused persons are acquitted for the offence u/S.466 and 467 IPC extending benefit of doubt. However, it has been proved on record that forged documents were used as genuine by the accused persons.

11.0 As discussed above :

1. all the accused persons are convicted for the offence u/S.120B IPC r/w S.420 & 471 IPC and S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of POC Act 1988 ;

2. A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar and A4 Nand Lal are convicted for the offence u/S.420 IPC for making the payment of private telephone bills through government cheques ;

CC No.08/13 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors. Page 186 of 8

3. A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar and A4 Nand Lal are also convicted for the offence u/S.471 IPC for fraudulently and dishonestly using as genuine the forged documents which they knew or had reason to believe to be forged.

4. A1 KP Singh, A2 SG Balasubramanian, A3 Ashok Kumar and A4 Nand Lal have also misconducted and abused their official position and hence are convicted for the offence u/S.13(2) r/w S. 13(1)(d) of POC Act, 1988.

Announced in Open Court                            ( Dinesh Kumar Sharma )
on 15.11.2014                                     Spl. Judge (PC Act) : CBI01
                                                   Saket Courts : New Delhi.




CC No.08/13                 CBI Vs. Kiran Pal Singh & Ors.               Page 187 of 8

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

C.B.I. vs . 1) Kiran Pal Singh on 18 November, 2014