Delhi District Court
Cbi vs Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma on 30 April, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF Ms. VEENA RANI, CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
CBI Versus Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma
RC No:11(S)/92/CBI/SCB/New Delhi
CC No:54/06/11
U/s 420/471/467/468/120B IPC
Date of filing of the charge sheet : 06011994
Date of reserving order : Not reserved.
Date of pronouncement : 30042015
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 54/06 of 02062011
(b) The date of the commission of : During 1987 to 1992 the offence
(c) The name of the complainant : CBI on source information.
(d) The name of the accused : 1. Pramod Kumar S/o
person, his parentage and Gyan Chand, work
residential address Charge Mate, DDA,
R/o 1306/90A, Tank
Road, Tri Nagar,
Delhi35
2. Lillu Sharma S/o Sh.
Bhulley Ram Sharma,
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 2 R/o Village Palla, PO Dadri, Distt., Ghaziabad, UP.
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 420/471/467/468/120
B IPC
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Both accused Acquitted.
(h) The date of the order : 30042015
JUDGMENT
1. This case No. RC 11(S) / 92 Delhi was registered by the CBI / Spl. Crime Branch / Delhi in 20081992 on the basis of the source information with the allegation that during the period 1986 - 1990 Shri. Jai Prakash, Srichand, Rajendar Singh , Dharamvir Singh, and Sushil Kumar joined service in the DDA on 'work charge' basis on the strength of bogus / forged transfer order(s). These persons were never employed by DDA, th transfer order vide which they had joined were forged. Furthermore, in connivance with the DDA officials and unknown persons the accused persons forged the documents such as the appointment letters service book, transfer / posting orders purportedly under the signature of various competent authorities of the DDA and thus cheated to the tune to Rs.1.06, 417.10 by way of salary etc. received by them. It is further the case of the prosecution that the proper procedure was not followed.
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 3
2. The CBI has explained the procedure in the chargesheet as under :
"When an employee is transferred from one division say D1 to another Division say D2, the transfer order is issued by Deputy / Asst. Director from the office of the said Zonal Chief Engineer. A copy of the said order is sent to D1 and D2 through the Peon Book of Zonal Chief Engineer. On the basis of the said transfer order, a relieving order is sent to the Executive Engineer D1 (Transferring Division) and a copy of the said relieving order is sent to the Zonal Chief Engineer as well as to the Executive Engineer D2 (Transferee Division). .... The order is sent through the Peon Book. After that the transferred employee submits report in D2 and he posted to one of the sub divisions of D2 (Transferee Division).... order to this effect is issued by Executive Engineer D2. Again a copy of the said order is said to the Zonal Chief Engineer and Executive Engineer D1. So that the transferring division i.e. D1 knows about the joining of the transferred employee and it also facilitates the accounting aspect. The service book, personal file, and the LPC of the transferred employee are to be sent from D1 to D2 alongwith a forwarding letter."
3. The abovesaid procedure was not followed and the accused Pramod Kumar working as Head Clerk ensured that copy of the joining report and the posting order did not reach D1 and the office of the Zonal Chief Engineer.
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 4
4. The CBI has further alleged that the accused Sh. Pramod Kumar while working as 'work charge beldar' of DDA of Eastern Division4 (earlier HD19) entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused Sh. Lillu Sharma for the purpose of inducing him in the service of DDA as 'work charge employee' without any 'appointment order' and on the basis of forged transfer / relieving order. The accused Sh. Lillu Sharma was never appointed in any of the divisions of DDA and there was no transfer order as mentioned in the service book.
5. The accused Pramod Kumar forged the service book and the personal file of accused Lillu Sharma by obtaining the official seal of ExEngineer of DDA (embossed with the signatures of the said engineer) and made the accused Lillu Sharma join the Eastern Division - 4 in the year 1985. The said ED4 was thus induced to believe that Lillu Sharma was a 'work charge employee'. The accused Sh. Lillu Sharma Singh drew salary and other benefits till the year 1992 from the said department. The GEQD has confirmed the handwriting of Sh. Pramod Kumar on the forges service book of the bogus appointee.
6. On 13.02.1995 the charges u/s 120(B) r/w S.420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC were framed against both the accused persons. The accused Pramod Kumar was also charged separately u/s 467, 468 IPC while the accused Lillu Sharma was also separately charged under S. 420/471 IPC.
7. The CBI, in order to prove its case, has examined the following witnesses: RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 5 PW1 Sh. P.K. Nagpal, Assistant Director, Vigilance, DDA deposed that he was posted as Asstt. Director, Admn.II in the office of Chief Engg, East Zone from 121290 to 26993 and he is aware about the establishment orders issued from the said office. EO No:363 dt. 81097 for the transfer of Leelu Sharma from ED IX to ED XI was issued by the office of Chief Engg, East Zone. He deposed that first of all Head office at Vikas Minar used to issue an order giving EO No., if an employee on the work charge establishment of DDA was transferred from one Engg. Division to another and original office order is retained in the office file called EO book, wheras copies are sent to concerned divisions, after entering the same in Peon book, where the concerned employee is transferred as well as to the division to which he is transferred. On receipt of copy of the EO the transfer division passes order for relieving the employee transferred from that division. The EO is first seen by the Executive Engg.to whom it is required to be put up by the diarist and he marks it to the head clerk who marks it to the dealing hand and copy of the relieving order is sent to the head office, to the transferee division and to the concerned employees and copies of the same also sent to the account and some time also to the concerned Suptd. Engg. Normaly it takes about one week to issue the relieving order after receiving the transfer order. The transfer division also sends LPC, service book and personal file of the transferred employee to the transferee division along with a forwarding letter and some time with note after entering in the peon book and same is sent through the peon. The transferred employee is also required to submit joining report in the transferee division. If the RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 6 personal file is not recd.in the transferee division by the time the employee submits joining report there, a part file is open in the transferee division and posting order are issued undr the signatures of the concerned Executive Engg and the copies of posting orders are sent to all the concerned offices to whom copies of EO are sent. These are also sent through Peon after making entry in Peon Book and some time if peon book is not easily available such order are also sent through special messenger but in that case receipt is obtained on a piece of paper which is pasted in the peon book. If an employee brings the transfer order as well as relieving order to the transferee division and submits along with joining report, the concerned head clerk or the concerned Executive Engg. Is required to compare the copy brought by the employee with the copy recd in the division. If the copy of transfer order has not been recd.in the division, in normal course, the employee should not be allowed to join on the basis of the copy brought by him. Normally transfer orders are reced.in the concerned division within a week. The transfer orders are required to be entered in service book of the concerned employee, Executive Engg.is required to sign he service book of the employee and no one else is supposed to sign it. The entry regarding transfer is made in the service book by the transferor division and transferee division also.
Opportunity was granted to accused to cross examine this witness but same was nil on 18595.
PW2 Sh. S. C. Chugh, Head Clerk, Electric Division No:4, DDA, during his examination deposed that all the correspondence used to be RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 7 put up to him by dealing assistant and he used to put the same before Executive Engineer for approval. He deposed that either EC or Director(Work Charge) used to issue order for transfer of employees on work charge establishment from one division to another. He did not prepared any list of the work charge employee transferred from one division to another. He further deposed that the copies of the establishment orders transferring work charge employee from one division to another are sent to both the divisions from where the employee is transferred as well as to which the employee is transferred and one copy of the same is given to concerned employees. This witness further stated that it is the diarist who is responsible for sending the copies of the posting orders, to the dispatcher to the branched and concerned officials after making necessary entries in the peon book and dispatch register etc. On receipt of transfer orders the transferring division issues relieving orders on receipt of the copy of the orders. The relieving orders are issued by the Head Clerk and are signed by Executive Engg. and the proposal is initiated by the dealing assistant and the copies of the relieving orders are also sent to the division where the employee is transferred and copy of the same is also given to the employee transferred. The said documents are sent after making entries in the peon book and acknowledgment is obtained from the transferee division. Witness deposed that if any employee claims to have been transferred to a division he can not be allowed to join without receipt of EO transferring him to that division an without receiving his relieving orders by the division from which he has been transferred.
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 8 This witness was also not cross examined on 24795 by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW3 Brahm Singh, Head Clerk, LAB(Housing, in his chief examination deposed that he had worked with accused Pramod Kumar but he can not identify his handwriting and signature even if shown to him. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP and during his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he had joined hands with the accused or that he is intentionally refusing to recognize his signatures and handwriting.
This witness was also not cross examined on 24795 by the accused persons despite opportunity.
PW4 Sh. R.K. Jain , Dy. Govt. Examiner, of Questioned documents, Simla, deposed that documents marked Q 173 to Q 178, Q 371 to Q 386 in service book pertaining to Leelu Ex. PW4/A, were received as disputed documents in their office from SP CBI SCB New Delhi. The specimen signature of Parmod Kumar marked S56 to S67 and S261 to S333 in marked A( exhibited in file No:43/2) also recd for comparison and on comparison of these documents I came to the opinion that the persons who wrote writings and signatures marked S56 to S67 and S261 to S333 also wrote writing and signatures marked Q 174 to Q 178, Q 379 to Q 386. His opinion is emboded in para 4 of his report Ex.PW4/C and original of the same is placed in file No:
40/2, CBI Vs. Ramesh Kumar etc. His report is common in all the 16 cases. The report is signed by him as well as by Sh. Santokh Singh Govt.Examinder who has also examined the documents of this case RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 9 independently and arrived at the same conclusion. The detailed reasons for his report is Ex.PW4/D. The negatives which are in 21 wallets pertaining to all the disputed and standard writings are Ex. PW5/D1 to D21. The photographs of all these relevant documents are in one envelope which is Ex. PW5/E1 to PE5/E308.
During his cross examination dated 14599, by Sh. Atul Sharma Advocate for accused persons, witness stated that he does not have the specimen of Jai Ram, Ved Ram, Babu Ram, Leelu, Prem Singh, Suman Kumar and Munish Kumar. It is stated by PW that he has been trained being handwriting expert for three years in Govt. of India Laboratory and Hyderabad and woring for the last about 30 years in this field , however, he is not being awarded any such diploma but he worked as faculty member in that Institute during the first diploma course. He further stated that the opinion expressed by a competent and thorough expert are also correct and thee are no chance of error. He denied that the opinion expressed by a competent and thorough export is not correct and conclusive. PW admitted that in respect of CS Saini the opinion is expressed only in the word Parveen Kumar and at one point word Chowkidar also. He denied that his opinion is wrong and not conclusive being incomplete facts and being based on incomplete science.
During his cross examination by Sh. Gurubachan Singh, counsel for accused Parmod Kumar, PW stated that he has not given any opinion on the disputed signatures RN Dadlani in comparison with specimen writing of Parmod Kumar including the writing mark S323 to S 328. He admitted that he has not given any opinion on the disputed signatures of RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 10 Executive Engg.in comparison with the specimen writing of Parmod Kumar. He further stated that he has not given any opinion on Q 409 and Q 410. He denied that his opinion is impartially and without applying any mind.
During his cross examination by Sh.K.K. Tyagi counsel for accused, PW stated that he has not received the specimen writing of the person called Dharamvir, Jai Parkash, Kishan Pal, Beepat Ram and Raj Pal.
PW5 Shri Ajay Rawat, deposed that in the year 1992 I was working as Sub Inspector of Police/CBI/SCB, New Delhi. I worked in this branch from Sept. 1990 till Feb., 1993.
The present case was assigned to me for investigation in the year 1992 (August). This case was regd. On the basis of source information recd. That in DDA during the period 1986 to 1990 certain persons were fraudulently appointed on the strength of bogus/forged transfer orders. Since these persons were never employed by the DDA, the transfer orders vide which they joined DDA were forged. Today I have been shown the FIR dt. 20.8.1992 which is signed by Shri Ashok Kumar, the then SP, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. The same was assigned to me for detail investigation.
During the investigation, I had contacted various DDA officers in Delhi and collected all the relevant documents including service books, transfer orders, relieving orders etc. During the investigation, searches were also conducted at various places in order to seize relevant documents and also to find out the various suspects involved in this case.
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 11 I had also recorded the statements of various DDA officers and other witnesses. Specimen handwritings and Signatures of various suspected persons/officials were also taken by me. The same were sent to GEQB for opinion.
I have seen FIR No. RC 11/S/92DLI Dt. 20.8.1992 u/s 120B r/w 420, 467,468 and 471 IPC lodged against the accused persons. It bears the signature of Sh. Ashok Kr. Supdt. Of Police, CBI, SCB, New Delhi at pointA. I identify his signature as I have seen him writing and signing. The FIR is Ex. PW5/A1, upon the basis which investigation chargesheet was filed agst. The accused persons by Sh. Akhil Kaushik, Inspector, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I have also seen seizure memo dt. 28.9.92 which bears my signature at pointA. This seizure memo was prepared after seizing 15 files from Estern Div. No. IV/DDA. The same is Ex. PW5/A2. Similarly a seizure memo dt. 19.10.92 is Ex. PW5/A3 it bears my signature at point - A. I have seen receipt memo dt. 11.1.93 vide which Sh. S.N. Gupta, Dy. Director, Vigilance, DDA had sent 5 files as listed in it to Supdt. Of Police, CBI. The same is Ex. PW/A4. I had received service book and personal file of Shri Krishan Pal Singh vide letter dt. 28.10.92 from Executive Engineer Ed6/DDA. The same is Ex. PW5/A5. A seizure memo dt. 19.10.92 through which documents which are listed from Sr. No. 1 to 6 were seized from Sh. R.P. Singh, Head Clerk, DDA by me, it bears my signature at point - A. The same is Ex. PW5/A6.
Similarly, seizure memo dt. 23.9.92 through which two files were seized from Head Clerk, ED/VIII, DDA by me and it bears my signature at point - A. The same is Ex. PW 5/A7. Another seizure DDA by me and RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 12 it bears my signature at point - A. Seizure memo is Ex. PW 5/A8. Another seizure memo dt. 20.8.92 through which 10 files were seized from AVO, DDA by me and it bears my signature at point - A. The seizure memo is Ex. PW 5/A9. I have seen Establishment order (2 nos. pages) sent by Asstt. Director, Admn. II, CE (EZ) office DDA vide which they had sent 34 EO numbers which have details of genuine number as well as forged Eos number received from CBI office by AD (Admn.) the same are Ex. PW 5/A10. Likewise another Establishment order sent by Asstt. Director, Admn. II CE (EZ) office, DDA vide which they had sent 34 EO numbers received from CBI office AD (Admn.) the same are Ex. PW 5/A11, consists of 3 pages and both of these establishment orders bears signatures of Asstt. Director Admn. at point - A. I have seen specimen signature/handwriting of Mahender Singh running into 29 sheets and same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/A1 to A29. Further I have seen specimen/handwriting of Sh. Mahender Singh running into 37 sheets and the same bears my signature on each sheets at point - A which are Ex. PW 5/B 1 to B37. Likewise I have seen specimen handwriting of R.S. Nim running into 45 sheets and the same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/C1 to C46. I have seen specimen signature of R.S. Nim running into 38 sheets, it bears my signatures at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/D1 to D38. I have seen specimen handwriting/signature or Pramod Kr. running into 12 sheets and the same bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/E1 to E12. Likewise I have seen specimen RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 13 handwriting of Pramod Kr. Running into 28 sheets and the same bears my signatures at point - A on each sheet which are Ex. PW 5/ F1 to F28. I have also seen specimen hadnwriting/signature of Pramod Kr. Running into 45 sheet it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/ G 1 to G45. I have also seen specimen signatures/handwriting of Ramesh Kr. Running into 18 sheets, it bears my signature at point A which are Ex. PW 5/H1 to H18. I have also seen specimen signatures/handwriting of Ramesh Kr. Running into 38 sheets. The first sheet bears my signature at point - A which has already been marked as Ex. PW4/C. Rest of the 37 sheets bears my signatures at pointA which are Ex. PW 5/I1 to I37. I have also seen handwriting bears my signatures at pointA on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/J1 to J15. Further I have also seen handwriting/signature of Subhash Dhame running into 28 sheets, it bears my signature at pointA on each sheet and which are Ex. PW 5/K1 to K28. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of C.S. Saini Running into 16 sheet, it bears my signature at point - A on each page and which are Ex. PW 5/ L 1 to L16. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of C.S. Saini running into 54 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheet which are Ex. PW 5/ M 1 to M54. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of G.L. Khurana Running into 7 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/ N 1 to N7. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of R.L. Padianl running into 6 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/ O 1 to O6. I have also seen specimen RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 14 handwriting/signature of R.L. Jain running into 3 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/ P 1 to P3. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of K.D. Sharma running into 3 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheets which are Ex. PW 5/ Q 1 to Q3. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of I.M. Mathur running into 6 sheets, it bears my signatures at point - A on each sheet which are already marked B1 to B6. I have also seen specimen handwriting/signature of Lal Chand Aggarwal, running into 6 sheets, it bears my signature at point - A on each sheet first and second sheet are Ex. PW 5/R1 to R2 and remaining four sheets are already marked A1 to A4.
During his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel PW deposed that in the year 1992, I was working as SI of police, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I worked in this branch from Sept. 1990 till Feb. 1993. The present case was assigned to me for the investigation in the year 1992, August. This case was registered on the basis of source information, received, that in DDA during the period 1986 to 1990 certain persons were fradulantly appointed on the strength of bogus/forged transfer orders. Since, these persons were never employed by DDA, the transfer orders vide which they joined DDA, were forged. Today, I have been shown a photocopy of FIR dated 20.8.92 which is signed by Sh. Ashok Kr., the then SP, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. The same was assigned to me for detailed investigation. I have been shown original FIR which lies in C.S. No. 4/2 and the same has been compared by me with the photocopy. During the investigation I had contacted various DDA officers in Delhi RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 15 and collected all the relevant documents including service books, transfer orders, relieving orders etc. During the investigations, searches were conducted at various places in order to seize relevant documents and also to find out the various suspects involved in this case. I had also recorded the statements of various DDA officials, another witnesses. Specimen handwriting and signatures of Pramod Kumar, G.L. Khurana, R.N. Dadlani, R.C. Jain, K.D. Sharma, I.M. Mathur and Lal Chand were also taken by me and the same were sent to GEQD for opinion. I have seen photocopy of FIR No. RC 11(S)/92, DLI dated 20.8.92, u/s 120B, r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC lodged against the accused persons and it bears the signatures of Ashok Kr. SP, CBI, New Delhi at point A. I identify his signatures as I have seen him and signing in day to day official working. The FIR is Ex. PW 5/A1. On the basis of which investigation was conducted. After the completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons by Sh. Akhil Kaushik, Inspector, CBI, SCB, New Delhi. I have also seen photocopy of seizure memo dated 19.10.92. Original of the same is lying in chargesheet no. 56/2. I have compared the photocopy with original one. It bears my signature at point A. Vide the seizure memo 8 documents were seized including three personal file and service book of Mr. Lilu Sharma. And the same is Ex. PW 5/A2.I have seen service book of Lilu Sharma which bears Ex. PW 4/A (Already Ex.) I have also seen personal file of Lilu Sharma from page 1 to 5, 6 to 20 and 21 to 85 respectively contained in three files. The same was seized by me which is Ex. PW 5/A3, A4, and A5 respectively. I have been shown specimen handwriting/signatures RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 16 of Pramod Kumar running into page 1 to 85 which bears my signatures at point A on each sheet which is Ex. PW 5/A6. I have been shown specimen initials/signatures of G.L. Khurana marked as S 530 to 536 and specimen signatures of Sh. R.N. Dadlani from S 165 to S 170 and specimen signature of R.C. Jain from S 172 to 174 and specimen signature of K.D. Sharma from S 181 to S 183, specimen signature of I.M. Mathur from S 184 to S 189, specimen signature of Lal Chand Adwani from S 190 to S 195. All the specimen signatures bears my signature at point A which is Ex. PW 5/ A7. I have been shown GEQD opinion dated 26.11.93 which pertains to this case. As I have already mentioned that I worked in this branch till Feb. 93 this opinion was received later on after my transfer from this branch.
During his cross by Sh. R. Menon counsel for the accused PW stated that there was no written complaint from DDA and this FIR was lodged on source information by me. My Sr. Officer recd. source information. There was not much of gap may be one week in our receiving information and lodging the FIR. FIR is dated 1992. I do not remember the month. I had investigated the case till March 1993. I had to leave the investigation because I was transferred to ACUVI. After I was transferred the charge of investigation and later chargesheet was prepared and filed by Sh. Akhil Kaushik. As and when it was required I was called for assisting Mr. Akhil Kaushik who was then the IO.At this stage defence counsel has stated that the cross examination done by Ms. Anjana Prabhakar Adv. Accused Ramesh Kr. May kindly be read in X examination as part and parcel of all the cases. Heard and RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 17 allowed.During my investigation, I might have examined officials lower level then Execute Engineer who know about the procedure of the transfer. Since, Head Clerk and others are generally dealing with transfer. I do not remember whether any clerk has given me statement regarding the procedure for transfer of an employee from one deptt. of another. It is wrong to suggest the investigation of this case was transfered from me as I was shielding Sr. Officers Voln. The case was handed over to Mr. Kaushik because I was transferred on promotion. I obtained the signatures of accused persons in my office, in the presence of independent witnesses. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
In his cross by Ms. Anjana Barbhakar, adv. for accused Ramesh Kumar, PW admitted that EXPW3/A1 is carbon copy of FIR. It is correct that I can tell designation of a person who had signed EXPW3/A10 and A11, same are not written in my presence. It is only after seeing documents I cannot tell person who had signed it. These documents were perhaps received by post. It is correct that EO number mentioned in EXW3/A10 and A11 had not been collected by me. I have not recorded statements of persons who have signed EXPW3/A10 and A11. It is wrong to suggest that specimen writing of accused was taken again and again at different point of time because hand writing expert was unable to express his opinion. It is incorrect to suggest that I have not conducted investigation in this case properly. It is incorrect to suggest that specimen writing of accused Ramesh Kumar was not taken by me. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely. I have gone through RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 18 the record. The Establishment Order (EOO are only relieving and transfer orders. In our second initial EO or appointment letters are bogus and after the joining subsequent EO are genuine. I have not compared the subsequent orders which are genuine. It is incorrect to suggest that accused Pramod Kumar was only filing up the forms and not signing the relieving and transfer orders. Transfer orders are either signed by AE or Executive Engineers. I have examined the concerned Executive Engineers and they have confirmed that relevant transfer orders/appointment letters were never issued from their office. It is not in my knowledge those Enginers Suptds have been examined on oath in this Hon'ble Court.It is wrong to suggest that accused Pramod Kumar have been falsely implicated in this case and the investigation as far as this accused is concerned is not proper or that I am deposing falsely to support the case of the prosecution. I do not remember whether the statement given by Head Clerk Braham Singh was in my handwriting or somebody else, but it is a fact that the statement was not written by PW Braham Singh or any other witness for that matter. The statement u/s 161 of the witnesses were written in their presence but their signatures were not obtained on those statements. I do not remember what statement u/s 161 Head Clerk Braham Singh gave whether it was in favour of Pramod Kumar or against. It is not in my knowledge Head Clerk Braham Singh had resigned from his previous statement u/s 161 or not. It is incorrect that original relieveing and transfer orders are not on record.
In his cross by Ms. Anjana Prabhakar counsel for the accused Pramod Kumar PW admitted that the employment of Leelu Sharma, RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 19 Babu, Ram, Ved Ram Suman Kumar, Jai Ram and Prem Singh was not done in a regular basis but they were employed in the DDA through a scheme. And, they were employed in the DDA through a proper procedure followed for the appointment of any employee in DDA. It is correct that all the above mentioned employees were transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. I cannot say whether they were transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. I cannot say whether they were transferred from HD 14 to HD 19. It is in my knowledge that accused Pramod Kumar was working in one of the divisions but I cannot say that he was working in HD 19. I do not recall whether there was any head clerk in that division. It is correct that Dadalani was one of the Executive Enginers, I cannot say whether he was heading that division or not where Pramod Kumar was appointed. I do not know who was Superintendent Engineer (SE) of that circleIII. I cannot say that R.B. Dadlani was heading both the division i.e. Sh. R.L. Dadlani u/s 161 Cr.P.C. it is not in my knowledge whether R.L. Dadlani had taken the specimen signatures of R.L. Dadlani and also his signatures on various documents including service book etc. for comparison and sent these signatures to GEQD. It is correct that GEQD has mentioned that his specimen signatures are not tallying with signatures appearing on the questioned documents. Pramod Kumar's specimen signatures were taken on different occassion as and when the files were recd. from various divisions where signatures were alleged to be forged by the accused persons. I had been shown the document listed as D_13 which indicates the list of forged Eos recd. from CBI office RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 20 by Addl. Director to Chief Engineer and this tally also indicates about the list of genuine Eos on page 2 EO No. 363 dt. 8.10.87 of Leelu Sharma indicates the signatures are genuine of Sh. R.L. Madan but I cannot comment as Sh. Akhil Kaushik had dealt with this aspect after I was transferred in the year 199 I cannot ascertain at this point of time whether I had taken signatures of above mentioned four employees and compared them with those of Sh. Pramod Kumar. As far as D 14 which is the opinion of handwriting expert Sh. R.K. Jain is concerned it had also been recd. after my transfer and dealt with by Mr. Akhil Kaushik so I cannot comment on that also. The personal file contains the various documents including the alleged transfer order/relieving order. I have gone through the original and as per the personal file of Sh. Lilu Sharma he joined DDA vide Establishment order No. 18 dt. 25.2.87 and there is no transfer reliving order in case of Sh. Lilu Sharma.
PW6 Sh. Akhil Kaushik Inspector, CBI, Dehradun, during his examination in chief dt 2372003, deposed that in 1992 he was posted as Sub Inspector in CBI, Spl. Crime Branch, deposed that Sh.Ajay Rawat investigated and completed the investigation and further investigation of the case was handed over to him and in the present case he(Akhil Kaushik) recorded the statement of some witnesses and filed the charge sheet in the court. Chargesheet which bears his signature at point A and is Ex.PW7/Ex.1/A&B. Charge sheet also bears the signature of Ashok Kumar the then SP, CBI, SCB at point B. The list of witnesses and documents appeared with the charge sheet also contains his signature at point A, Ex.PW7/Ex1/C & D. RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 21 During his cross examination dated 19112002, PW7 denied the suggestion that has not done any investigation in the present case or that charge sheet has not been prepared by him. He further stated that he does not remember that if he had conducted and written statement for few witnesses after Mr. Ajay Rawat(1st IO) had been transferred, however, he has only signed and presented the charge sheet.
8. Statements of the Accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and during their statement both the accused have stated they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Both the accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
9. I have heard ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. PP for the CBI.
10. Sections 463 and 464 IPC are as under : S.463. Forgery. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
S. 464. Making a false document. [A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record First--Who dishonestly or fraudulently--
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 22
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practiced upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.]
11. Section 463 IPC deals with making a false document with RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 23 the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or with the intention that fraud may be committed. Since Section 463 IPC deals with "making false documents", obviously, one has to turn to Section 464 IPC which defines under what circumstances, a document is said to be made falsely. A bare perusal of Section 464 IPC clearly reveals that a person is said to make a false document when it is done with dishonest and fraudulent intention, when a part of document is made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such a document was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person whom or by whose authority, the maker knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed by the said authority. Moreover, if the maker, without a lawful authority, cancelled or otherwise altered the said document after the document was made. Only under these circumstances is it said a document is made falsely. S. 468 IPC :: Forgery for purpose of cheating : Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or Electronic Record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
12. A bare perusal of the said section clearly reveals that first ingredient of Section 468 IPC is the commission of forgery i.e., as RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 24 defined in Section 463 IPC. It is only after the forgery has been committed that one would examine the purpose of committing forgery i.e., whether it is done for the purpose of cheating or not? However, in the present case, since the first ingredient is conspicuously missing i.e., commission of forgery, the charge for offence under Section 468 IPC could not be framed.
13. Section 471 IPC is as under: Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record] -- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record].
WHETHER FORGERY IS MADE OUT:
14. The service book of the accused Lillu Sharma has been exhibited by PWSh. R.K. Jain Dy. GEQD) as the exhibit Ex.PW4/A. As per the expert opinion / report Ex.PW4/C, the document mark Q 174 to Q 178, Q 379 to Q 386 are in the handwriting of the accused Pramod Kumar. Th is witness has explained the procedure of the appointment and transfer etc.
15. The question concerning the evidentiary value of the opinion of a hand writing expert in the context of Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been considered in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court. In Fakhruddin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326 it was observed as under:
RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 25 "10. Evidence of the identity of handwriting receives treatment in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Handwriting may be proved on admission of the writer, by the evidence of some witness in whose presence he wrote.
This is direct evidence and if it is available the evidence of any other kind is rendered unnecessary. The Evidence Act also makes relevant the opinion of a handwriting expert (Section
45) or of one who is familiar with the writing of a person who is said to have written a particular writing. Thus besides direct evidence which is of course the best method of proof, the law makes relevant two other modes. A writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular individual by the evidence of a person familiar with the handwriting of that individual or by the testimony of an expert competent to the comparison of handwritings on a scientific basis. A third method (Section 73) is comparison by the Court with a writing made in the presence of the Court or admitted or proved to be the writing of the person.
16. Both under Section 45 and Section 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. "
17. In the present case the witness PW P.L. Nagpal has stated that he had worked with the accused Pramod Kumar, however, he was unable RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 26 to identify the handwriting and signatures of the said accused. This turned hostile as he was not supporting his earlier statement. Therefore the CBI has not been able to prove the handwriting of the accused Pramod Kumar visàvis S.47 of the Indian Evidence Act.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Murari Lal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1980 SC 531) considered the approach to be adopted and the caution to be observed while considering the opinion evidence of handwriting expert under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Supreme Court observed that while corroboration may not be insisted upon as an invariable rule, the approach of a court while dealing with opinion of handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons of opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. In paras 11 and 12 of the said judgment it was observed:
"We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 27 uncorroborated testimony of a handwriting expert may be accepted."
19. Handwriting expert basing his conclusion about identity of the accused who had written the questioned documents by comparing the same with the sample writing (which in his opinion appeared to be disguised) merely on the ground that there was some similarity in some of the letters and figures occurring in the sample handwritings here and there and similar letters and figures appearing in questioned documents. Such opinion of expert not corroborated by reliable evidence and hence cannot be relied upon. In absence of corroboration such evidence cannot be relied upon and prosecution case failed to be proved beyond reasonable doubts regarding identity of the accused. (State of U.P., v. Charles Gurmukh Sobhraj, 1996 Cri LJ 3844 : (1996) 9 SCC 472 : 1996 SCC 1065).
20. It is also to be remembered that comparison of handwriting is an imperfect science and an expert would not be able to state with 100% certainty that a particular signature is that of the person who purportedly signed it. He can only state that there is high probability and this he has done in his report. (M.K. Usman Koya v. C.S. Santha, AIR 2003 Ker 191 at 193)
21. PW(I.O.) Ajay Rawat has admitted that the employment of the accusedherein was not done in a 'Regular Basis' but he was employed in the DDA through a scheme. He further admitted that the accused herein was transferred alongwith the scheme from one division to another scheme. The said witness PW/IO further admitted that the RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 28 document listed as D13 (which indicates the list of forced EO records) also indicates the list of genuine Eos on page 2 EO No. 363 dt. 08.10.1987 of Lilu Sharma indicates that the signatures of Sh. R.L. Madan were genuine. As per PW/IO, the personal file of Lilu Sharma indicates that he had joined the DDA vide Establishment Order (EO) No. 18 dated 25.02.1987 and there was no transfer /relieving order in case of Lilu Sharma.
22. As far as the expression 'benefit of doubt' is concerned the Third Edition of P.Ramanatha Aiyar's 'Law Lexicon' explains 'benefit of doubt' as "The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error or the weight of the evidence". This expression is not (and possibly cannot be) defined either in the Code of Criminal procedure or in the Indian Evidence Act. This expression cannot exist alone and it always follows as an adjunct of the expression 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.
23. Sir James Fritzjames Stephen, the father of the Indian Evidence Act, in his epic work 'The Indian Evidence Act : with an Introduction on the Principles of Judicial Evidence' (Macmillan Co., London, 1872 at page 36) has stated:
"It is commonly said in reference to judicial inquiries, that in criminal cases guilt ought to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt," and that in civil cases the decision ought to be in favour of the side which is most probably right. ...The question, what sort of doubt is "reasonable" in criminal cases is a question of prudence. Hardly any case ever occurs in which it is not RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 29 possible for an ingenious person to suggest hypotheses consistent with the prisoner's innocent. The hypothesis of falsehood on the part of the witnesses can never be said to be more than highly improbable.
24. The following passage of Lord Sankey, L.C. in Woolmington vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (1935 ALL E.R.Page 1) is often quoted:
"Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seenthat is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained."
25. The concept of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'benefit of doubt' have been imported into our Criminal Jurisprudence by Superior Courts and they have come to stay now. In a criminal case, it is the burden on the prosecution to prove various relevant facts and it is enough if the quality of proof satisfies the definition of the word RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 30 'Proved' in Sec.3. At that juncture, the Court should not test the evidence on the anvil of the concept of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', but should test it on the touchstone of the definition of the word 'Proved' in Sec.3. After all the relevant facts are proved, while drawing inference from the proved facts, if the Judge has a reasonable doubt about coming to the inference in respect of the fact in issue, then only the benefit of that doubt should be extended to the accused. This principle has been very clearly explained by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath & Others (1999 (5) SCC 96) as follows: ".....But the principle of benefit of doubt belongs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence. The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can be invoked when there is reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious judicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which affords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evidence, if the Judge conscientiously and reasonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused"
26. The testimony of PWIO Ajay Rawat would indicate that the accusedherein was employed under some scheme. That goes to say that the case in hand would at the best be a matter of improper transfer rather than criminal. The benefit of doubt goes to the RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma 31 accused persons. Both the accused persons Parmod Kumar and Lillu Sharma are acquitted in the present case.
Accused Parmod Kumar is acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 467/468 IPC. Accused Parmod Kumar is also acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 120B, r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Accused Lillu Sharma is acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 420/471 IPC. Accused Lillu Sharma is also acquitted from the charges framed upon him on 1321995, u/s 120B r/w Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
Their bail bonds & surety bonds are discharged. Compliance of Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. be made accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30042015 ( VEENA RANI ) Chief Metropolitan Magistrate South East District / Saket Courts New Delhi/30042015 RC No:11(S)/92 (C C No:54/06/11), CBI Vs. Parmod Kumar & Lillu Sharma