Delhi District Court
Ved Prakash vs C.B.I on 17 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-02 : SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 274/17
Ved Prakash
S/o Late Sh. Asha Ram
R/o Village Doongar,
PO Pooth Khas,
Meerut, U.P.
.... Appellant
Versus
C.B.I.
(State of NCT of DELHI)
.... Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.07.2017
Date of Arguments : 03.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 17.08.2023
CA No. 274/17
Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 1 of 64
JUDGMENT
This case highlights that appellant was a victim of circumstances. This case also highlights how defective investigation can ruin future of innocent person.
1. Appellant namely Ved Prakash has filed present appeal thereby challenging the impugned judgment dated 26.12.2016 and order on sentence dated 05.06.2017 passed by Ld. Trial Court in CBI Case bearing RC No.31(A)/1993-DLI dated 29.03.1993.
2. Appellant herein was one of the accused, who was chargesheeted by CBI, for committing offences punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
3. Appellant shall be referred as accused in my subsequent paragraphs to avoid any confusion.
4. Trial court record revealed that CBI had chargsheeted accused along with co-accused persons namely Surjan Singh, Dharam Singh and Rampal Singh, for committing offences punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/120B IPC.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 2 of 645. Complaint Ex.PW1/A dated 29.03.1993, formed the bedrock of this case. That complaint was filed by Ram Sewak, Vigilance officer (Stores) Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as complainant). It was addressed to Superintendent of Police, CBI. Allegations in the said complaint, were that complainant had noticed that proprietor of M/S Kanwar Lal Ram Kishan, Daurala, U.P. in conspiracy with some officials of Northern Railway (Head Quarter), Baroda House had cheated Northern Railway by showing purchase of Loco Grease Soft Sodium and Grease Cup, fraudulently, by submitting forged purchased orders bearing number 04921198105549 dated 29.10.1992 and 04921197105548 dated 29.10.1992 (hereinafter referred as purchase orders in question), according to which delivery of material was to be made by 15.12.1992 but said material was not received, till the date of said complaint. The Head Quarter Office of Northern Railway, Baroda House had recommended payment of Rs.15,55,264/-, by believing that said transaction was a genuine transaction and therefore, issued cheque bearing no.D994512 dated 28.12.1992, for an amount of Rs.15,55,264/- in favour of M/S Kanwar Lal Ram Kishan, Daurala, U.P., drawn on SBI, Meerut, U.P. That amount was debited from the account of Northern Railway. Therefore, in that manner Northern Railway was cheated with the said amount.
6. Based on said complaint, CBI registered a case and investigation ensued. After completing investigation, accused CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 3 of 64 along with co-accused persons were chargesheeted.
7. Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned accused. Thereafter, proceedings u/s 207 Cr.P.C were concluded and after hearing arguments on charge, accused was charged with offences punishable u/s 419/420/467/468/471/477A/120B IPC. Ld. Trial Court found following acts of accused, prima facie making out ingredients of above mentioned offences.
a) That accused in criminal conspiracy with other accused persons cheated Northern Railway to the tune of Rs.15,55,264/- by obtaining payment on the basis of forged purchased orders and inspection cum collection certificates.
b) That accused in conspiracy with other accused persons had forged purchased orders in question.
c) That accused in conspiracy with other accused persons used forged purchase orders in question and demand cum collection certificates for cheating Northern Railway knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents.
d) That accused in conspiracy with other accused persons had falsified the challans of Northern Railway with intention to defraud it.
e) That accused in conspiracy with other accused persons had cheated State Bank of India, Meerut, as CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 4 of 64 accused Rampal Singh had impersonated himself as Ram Kishan while opening bank account in the name of M/S Kanwar Lal Ram Kishan (hereinafter referred as Firm in question).
8. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then fixed for prosecution evidence.
9. Prosecution examined forty-four (44) witnesses in total.
PW-1
10. PW1 Ram Sewak was the complainant, who deposed facts in tune with his complaint Ex.PW1/A, which are mentioned in my preceding paragraphs. Same needs no repetition.
PW-2
11. PW2 Anant Ram, Assistant Controller of Stores, Shakur Basti, Northern Railway deposed that between October, 1991 till August 1993, he was posted as Assistant Controller of Stores, at Baroda House. During his tenure, he had observed facts viz. that demand register of P-4 Section of Store Branch of the year 1992 did not mention any demand of Grease Cup and Low Grease Soft Sodium, that there is no corresponding entry in Tender Register regarding Mark PW2/1 and PW2/2, that no such tender based on Mark PW2/1 or Mark PW2/2 in confidential tender cell registers in Ex.PW2/C to Ex.PW2/E, that there is no entry of order of firm CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 5 of 64 in question in order typing register Ex.PW2/F. As per him, all purchased cases for more than Rs.40,000/- were sent to Stores Indent Section of Stores Account for vetting and there is no record of purchase orders in question prior to pre-numbering stage as per register Ex.PW2/G. The pre-numbers were given on Mark PW2/1 and Mark PW2/2 by pre-numbering sections as per relevant entries Ex.PW2/G1 and Ex.PW2/G2. As per record, of PGR register which is Ex.PW2/H, vide entry Ex.PW2/H-1, Code Numbers K6359 was alloted to firm in question on 03.08.1992. There was continuity in the serial number given by prenumbering system on Mark PW2/1 and Mark PW2/2. If there is no duplication or break in the continuity number of purchase order, the genuineness or otherwise of the purchase order cannot be established by the account department. It was usual feature in pre-inspected goods to stipulate payment to the extent of 90% to 98% on proof of delivery or inspection. He deposed that in this case payment of upto 98% was unusual as the record revealed that inspection stipulated was consignee inspection. He joined CBI investigation in which besides him and CBI team, two accused Surjan and Dharam Singh were present at the instance of said co-accused persons, Rs.49,900/- was recovered from the house of son-in-law of Surjan Singh in Ghaziabad and same was sealed vide memo Ex.PW2/I. Further son-in-law of Surjan Singh had taken them to another house from where Rs.11.5lacs, in the shape of 3/4FDRs were recovered, which were seized vide memo Ex.PW2/J. Further, at the instance of said co-accused persons, CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 6 of 64 Rs.2.5lacs were recovered from the place of brother-in-law of Surjan Singh, lying in cotton bag. One typewriter was produced by J.P. Singh from Modi Nagar on 19.04.1993, when said team had gone there. He identified documents viz. Fard Ex.PW2/M and other documents prepared during investigation Ex.PW2/I to Ex.PW2/R, which were memos, prepared by CBI during investigation. He identified his signatures taken on sheets Ex.PW2/N1 to Ex.PW2/N23, as S-152 to S-174.
PW-3
12. PW3 Gyan Chand Jatav deposed that accused Surjan Singh was his brother-in-law an accused Dharam Singh was son of Surjan Singh. About 1-2 years back (i.e. from the date of his deposition on 03.02.1995) accused Surjan Singh had given him a bag for keeping it away from children. Thereafter, CBI officials had come to him with accused Dharam singh and said bag was taken by CBI officials. On opening said bag, he found that there was money, which was lying in said bag. He identified memo Ex.PW2/K prepared by CBI officials. He admitted that he never opened the said bag and saw contents of said bag prior to the said visit by CBI officials. He fainted when he saw CBI officials and said currency notes in the bag, as he had never seen currency notes in said number in the past.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 7 of 64PW-4
13. PW4 J.P. Singh deposed that in September 1992 Surjan Singh had come to him for typing some papers, relating to purchase order of Railway Department bearing no.049211981055491 dated 29.10.1992 and he typed the said purchase order on Remington 2000 Typewriter Machine bearing no.245985 and after typing it he had given the paper to Surjan Singh. He identified specimen of his typing machine which he identified as Ex.PW2/N-1 to Ex.PW2/N-23. He also identified specimen sheet marked as Mark S-161 to S-164. He identified pointing out cum-recovery memo dated 19.04.1993 as Ex.PW2/L. PW-5
14. PW5 Veer Singh deposed that in April, 1993 CBI officials had come to his house along with accused Surjan Singh and Dharam Singh. He had handed over amount mentioned in Ex.PW2/I and pointing out cum recovery memo Ex.PW2/J was prepared in his presence. As per him, accused Dharam Singh and Surjan Singh had come to his house on 02.04.1993 and had kept cash, FDRs and documents mentioned in the above-mentioned memos which were collected by CBI officials on 16.04.1993 on searching.
[PW-6]
15. PW6 Suchita deposed that in May, 1991 she was posted as Assistant Manager in Baraut Branch of State Bank of India and CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 8 of 64 was Incharge of saving bank account. She had seen account opening form of saving account no.22329, which was opened on 22.01.1993. She knew accused herein as he was working as cashier cum clerk in that branch. The account opening form was taken from her by accused Ved Prakash and all the formalities for opening the account were completed by him. Accused had told him that he wanted the accused of one of his relative to be opened in the bank as said relative had lot of money and wanted FDRs to be opened. She identified account opening form Ex.PW6/A and handwriting of accused at Q-61 and Q-66. Further, as per her accused had already obtained signatures of account holder when he brought that document to her. As per her, accused was posted in saving bank account under her. She also identified pay in slip as Ex.PW6/B having signatures of accused at Q-67, Q-68. She also identified pay in slip Ex.PW6/C being written by accused at Q-69 which also noted signatures of accountant Hari Har Gautam. She identified other documents having handwriting of accused viz withdrawal forms Ex.PW6/D and Ex.PW6/E, form for closing the account Ex.PW6/F, application Ex.PW6/G, ledger sheet Ex.PW6/H, term deposit slips Ex.PW6/I and Ex.PW6/J, receipts for term deposit Ex.PW6/K to Ex.PW6/M and forms Ex.PW6/N to Ex.PW6/Q. [PW-7]
16. PW7 Moolchand Gupta deposed that he was working with OBC at Maliyana, Meerut in 1993. He identified documents viz.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 9 of 64seizure memo Ex.PW7/A, Mark PW7/1, Mark PW7/2, pay in slip Ex.PW7/B and cheque Ex.PW7/C. [PW-8]
17. PW8 R.B. Lal deposed that in 1992, he was working as division cashier in Northern Railway and was aware of the procedure of dispatch of cheque by Northern Railway to supplier of the material. One K.B. Sharma was looking after pay district 6A and his duty was to receive cheques from account department and deliver them to party. Outstation cheque used to be sent generally by registered post and could not be given to a party personally or to authorize representative of the party. He identified his writing in bill Ex.PW8/A and deposed that cheques mentioned on those bills were outstation cheques.
[PW-9]
18. PW9 Seva Ram Sharma deposed that in 1992 he was posted as Sub-Post Master in Daurala Post Office, District Meerut and his duties included supervision work of the office. As per him, there was no firm in question in the year 1992.
[PW-10]
19. PW10 Ram Singh deposed that in 1992 he was working as clerk in Northern Railway in PGR Section. His duties included receiving documents from firms, who used to apply for registration in PGR and then place the said documents before CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 10 of 64 concerned officer, U.P. Haryana and other states including Mumbai. He knew Kiran Dixit and Ravi Kiran, who used to work as clerks in his office. After registration of firm, said firms were provided a vendor code, which used to be entered in the registers kept in alphabetical orders. The concerned officers of different section of Railway department used to come to his office with purchase orders and note down the vendor code of the concerned firm. He identified register Ex.PW2/H having entry no.132, dated 03.08.1992 in the name of firm in question. That firm was not registered. The said register was maintained by Smt. Kiran Dixit, Ravi Kiran, Lehri Prasad and by him. He did not identify the handwriting in the said register pertaining to said entry.
[PW-11]
20. PW11 Virender Pal Singh deposed that in 1992 he was posted as accounts clerk in Northern Railway, Baroda House. His duty included passing of the bills of Sections P-14 and P-16 i.e. diesel items. Cases relating to rental bills were also used to be dealt by him. He had seen purchase orders Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2, which were received by him for payment.
[PW-12]
21. PW12 Smt. Kailash Ahulwalia deposed that in 1992, she was posted as CG-II, (LDC) in Baroda House, Northern Railway and was posted in Store Section, which used to deal with purchase orders. She identified Registers Ex.PW2/G, in which CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 11 of 64 entries Ex.PW2/G-1 and Ex.PW2/G-2 were made by him in his own handwriting. He also identified purchase orders delivery book where entry Ex.PW12/A was made by him.
[PW-13]
22. PW13- K.B. Sharma deposed that in 1992, he was working as Sr. Cashier, in Baroda House, New Delhi and his duties were to disburse the salary payments of railway employees as well as firms' cheques. Cheques to the outstation firms were issued to the party personally or through registered post. He identified bills Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B bearing his signatures at point A. Those bills were received by him alongwith cheques from the accounts section to deliver the same to the party. He delivered the said bills to R.L. Sharma who signed at Q-14/A in token of receipt of cheque no. 994512. After handing over the cheques, bills were sent to accounts section with letter Ex.PW13/A. The letter was sent by the bill preparing authority who was the partner of firm in question. He noted name of Surjan Singh on the reverse side and said Surjan Singh was present at the time of presentation of authority letter Ex.PW13/A with Ram Lal Sharma.
[PW-14]
23. PW14 Amrit Lal deposed that he knew accused Dharam Singh as said accused used to visit his office in 1992-1993, in connection with "Badi Karya". He had seen Ex.PW6/I and CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 12 of 64 identified signatures of Dharam Singh at Q/89. He had seen Ex.PW6/O, which noted signatures of accused Dharam Singh at point Q/101. He also identified signatures of said accused in Form Ex.PW14/A, noting signature of said accused at point Q-36 and Q-37. He identified signature of accused Dharam Singh in documents Ex.PW14/B to Ex.PW14/H. [PW-15]
24. PW15 Ram Niwas Gupta deposed that in 1992, he used to work as rubber stamp maker. Accused Surjan Singh had approached him and had given him name of firm in question and had demanded that he should prepare a stamp to the effect that quantity and date were checked by the tender and were found to be correct. He identified slips Ex.PW15/A and Ex.PW15/B, which were recovered from his shop at the instance of accused. He also identified pointing out-cum- recovery memo Ex.PW2/O and Ex.PW15/B. [PW-16]
25. PW16 Daya Kishan had deposed that in 1992, he was working as Head Clerk, Store Branch, Mechanized Cell, Baroda House and used to check code numbers and other details mentioned in the purchase order. His office used to receive three copies of purchase order from the section, out of which, two copies were sent to prenumbering section and one was kept with him. That copy was sent by him to EDP Section i.e. Electronic CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 13 of 64 Data Processing Section. He had seen purchase orders in question, which were received by his section, on which he had made initials at point A and B, in Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. He had sent those purchase orders to EDP Section bearing EDP K. No. 7560 and 7559.
[PW-17]
26. PW17 Ram Pal Singh deposed that in 1992, he was working as Senior Section Officer in Store Accounts Branch and used to credit verification of bills. He had seen H.S. Lamba, who was his colleague, signing and writing during official duties. He identified signatures of H.S. Lamba in bills Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B pertaining to firm in question, based on claims of suppliers who had supplied material to railways. Those bills noted his signatures at point C. He had initials the bills after checking purchase orders alongwith terms and conditions of bills. As per him, genuineness of the bills were verified by H.S. Lamba and Smt. Kailash.
[PW-18]
27. PW18 Shyam Prakash Sharma deposed that in 1992, he was working as Head Clerk, in General Branch (Store), in Baroda House, Northern Railway. His duty was to prenumber the purchase order received in his section. His office used to give five digit numbers and used to receive challan, duly signed by Section Incharge. The order was received by his office when it CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 14 of 64 was complete i.e. after being vetted by the accounts branch and signed by the purchase officer. He knew accused Surjan Singh as said accused used to work with Railways. He identified purchase order Ex.PW2/1 received by his office from P-4, Purchase Section. His office had received challan alongwith said purchase order i.e. Ex.PW18/A bearing signature of accused Surjan Singh at Q-34. He had put the number on the said purchase order as 05548, on 29.10.1992. Thereafter, one copy was taken by accused Surjan Singh and two copies were sent to Computer Section and Accounts Section. He identified stock register being kept in his section as Ex.PW18/B and identified the entry at Ex.PW18/C. Both entries 05548 and 05549 pertained to firm in question. The supplier code number K-6359 and value of Grease and loco Grease was indicated as Rs.717088.32 paisa and Rs.916381.44 paisa respectively. Delivery period was shown as 15.02.1992 and PL Number was alloted as 80030105 and 80030106 respectively. The entry was made by his assistant Smt. Gurcharan Kaur and he identified her writing at 05548 and 05549. He had not taken signature of accused Surjan Singh as there was no system for receiving said signature.
[PW-19]
28. PW19 Mela Singh, Assistant Controller of Store, Signal Depot, Ghaziabad UP, deposed that he was working as Assistant Controller of Store at Shakur Basti, New Delhi. As per him, authority letter Ex.PW19/A was not signed by him, rather CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 15 of 64 somebody had copied his signatures. No person with the name of R.C. Sharma was posted as DSAP (Deport Store Keeper) in his branch. No person with the name of Pyare Lal and Gurcharan Singh were posted in his branch. Further, he denied that authority letter Ex.PW19/B was not issued by him and he had not signed the said letter at point A. Further, he deposed that he knew Mr. Rajiv Trehan as he had worked with him. He denied signatures of Rajiv Trehan at point A in material inspection/collection certificate dated 14.11.1992, Mark A. He also denied signatures of Rajiv Trehan at point B in another material inspection/ collection certificate dated 16.11.1992, Mark B. His office had never received any supply order during his tenure at Shakur Basti. Further, authority letters Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B were not issued by him as it was not his duty rather such letters were issued by ACO/ Inspection/ SSB.
[PW-20]
29. PW20 Smt. Brahma Devi, Senior Clerk, Store Branch, Baroda House, deposed that she was working in the said department since 24.04.1991. At the relevant time, she was working as a demand clerk in Section P-4 and was maintaining the demand register. She was working under Assistant Superintendent, Surjan Singh (i.e. one of the accused persons). She identified signatures of accused Surjan Singh in challan no. 10, dated 28.10.1992, Ex.PW18/A at point Q-34. She denied that she had made any entries at no. 2 and 3, at Q-34. Further, she CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 16 of 64 admitted that entry no. 1 was made by her.
[PW-21]
30. PW21 Hari Har Gautam deposed that he had joined the department of State Bank of India in May 1979 as Rural Development Officer. In May 1990, he joined Baraut Branch of said bank. He identified account opening form in the name of firm in question as Ex.PW6/A. That form noted signatures of Suchita at point B. That account was introduced by accused Ved Prakash as per his signatures at Q-66. He identified credit vouchers Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F. He identified other documents Ex.PW6/G to Ex.PW6/Q. The STDR No. 083749, 083750 and 083751 for Rs. 3,00,000/- each in the name of Master Lokesh, Sachin Singh and Yash Kumari was prepared by him, noting his signatures at point A. Mr. Dharam Singh might had come to get STDR Ex.PW6/M prepared but he was not sure as to who had come to close said STDR.
[PW-22]
31. PW22 Prahlad Kumar deposed that he had worked as Deputy Store Keeper in Northern Railway, Baroda House from May 1990 to April 1993. At the relevant time, he was Deputy Store Keeper, in Baroda House, Northern Railway and had to keep an account of stock in various stores. Further, it was his duty to maintain the contact between Northern Railway and to CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 17 of 64 ensure the supply of material is done in time. One Phoenix Oil Company used to supply loco hard Grease and in this regard officials of said company had met him on 24.03.1993 and told him that certain orders worth Rs.22 Crores were with Controller of Stores, Northern Railway. As per his knowledge, there were no such orders as he had no record of the same. He wrote letter to Deputy Controller of Stores dated 26.03.1993, Ex.PW22/A and thereafter, made inquiry from accounts department. He was told by official concerned that some order for supply of sodium soft and Grease Cup were received from some firm of Durala. On checking records, he found that firm in question had obtained order. After making inquiries, he filed written complaint to Deputy Controller of Stores, Diesel.
[PW-23]
32. PW23 Bhoop Singh Yadav deposed that he was Deputy Store Keeper in Baroda House at the relevant time and his duty was to check computer coding and date on purchase order. He had seen purchase orders in question, which were received by Daya Krishan Pant, Head Clerk of his section. Those copies were received from pre-numbering cell and he identified them Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/B. His office used to receive three copies of purchase order. One of the said copy was kept for his office record and rest two copies were sent back to pre- numbering cell, which used to send it to concerned section. He identified cancellation orders Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/D. CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 18 of 64 [PW-24]
33. PW24 Gurvinder Singh deposed that in 1992, he was posted at Baroda House, Northern Railways, New Delhi and had seen files of PL No.80030506 and 80030105 for purchase of Grease soft sodium and Grease cups. Those files pertained to Deputy Controller of Stores, Shakur Basti, Northern Railway. As per him, no such order was placed by COS Office, Baroda House, as per record. His department had not given any order to firm in question and firm in question never supplied any material to his department vide purchase orders in question. The balance return sheets of grease cup Ex.PW24/D and Ex.PW24/E and Mark 24-X, nowhere revealed that between 01.07.1990 till 30.09.1993, his office had consumed and supplied articles mentioned in purchase orders in question.
[PW-25]
34. PW25 Shanti Swaroop deposed that in March 1993, he was asked by CBI to join as a shadow witness in raiding party. At that time, he was working as Intelligence Preventive Officer in Custom & Central Excise. He was asked by Assistant Collector Alok Tiwari to join as a witness alongwith Ram Ratan, who was his colleague. Thereafter, they assembled at CBI Office, Lodhi Colony and a raiding party was formed alongwith 4-5 CBI Officers. They went to Village Sikri Kalan, PO Modi Nagar, CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 19 of 64 District Ghaziabad, where they went to the house of accused Surjan Singh. House of said accused was searched in the presence of two witnesses from Village. CBI Officers had prepared one seizure memo Ex.PW25/A vide which some documents were seized from the house of accused Surjan, noting his signatures at point A. [PW-26]
35. PW26 Gajanand, deposed that in 1993, he was working as Deputy Controller of Stores, Northern Railway. He denied that purchase orders Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2, were processed in his office. Whenever his office received a demand for balance returns from Depot, the same were processed by competent authority. Those demands Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2 were not reflected in his official file Ex.PW26/A and Ex.PW26/B and also in demand register Ex.PW2/A. He explained that if a purchase order is genuine, tenders numbers are given from tender register Ex.PW2/B. The tender numbers mentioned in Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2, were 256/04921197 and 257/04921198 were false as tender register revealed that in 1992 only 96 tenders were issued by his office. Further, after opening the tender, Tender Committee proceedings started and said committee recommends as to whom the order should be placed. As per record, in this case, no Tender Committee proceedings were available. Further, after acceptance of tender by competent authority, the case is sent to purchase section and is entered into demand register Ex.PW2/A. CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 20 of 64 Thereafter, case is sent to order typing section, where it is entered in OT Register Ex.PW2/F. In this case, there is no entry of tenders in question in OT Register. Further, after purchase order is prepared, the same is sent to purchase officer, which is signed by him and then forwarded to Finance Department. The Finance Department again vets the purchase order and sends back to concerned section. The purchase section then again sends the purchase order in triplicate to Central Sequence Section i.e. OS/G. Then there purchase order is numbered and last five digits are allotted. Entry is also made in purchase section register Ex.PW26/C. In this case, as per purchase section register, no entry of purchase orders in question were made. Further, when purchase order is numbered finally, one copy is sent to finance and another to EDP Centre. Third copy of retained in the section. When the copies are received in the section, purchase order is issued. Before issuance of order i.e. in OSG Section, pre- numbering is done. The pre-numbering register in present case Ex.PW18/B and two purchase orders in question, are mentioned at serial no. 05548 and 05549 encircled at Ex.PW18/C. After knowing fraud in question, he checked EDP Section. Vendor Code is also essential for placing the order. The vendor code register Ex.PW2/H reveal that firm in question was given code number K-6359 dated 03.08.1992 and exhibited as Ex.PW2/H1. Fraud in question was revealed to his office when one DSKP had reported in 1993 that one forged cheque Ex.PW26/D was issued by Railway to a party.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 21 of 64[PW-27]
36. PW27 J.P. Pandey deposed that in 1990-1991, he was Senior Store Officer in Store Branch, Baroda House, New Delhi and in that capacity used to order for items, like locomotive spares, oil, lubrication, grease etc. His office used to determine the quality of the items, to be procured before sending purchase order. He denied that purchase order Ex.PW2/2 were issued by his office as they were not reflected in balance return files Ex.PW26/AB and in stock demand register Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B. Further, three other officers viz. ACOS, Deputy COS and Chief Material Manager had not dealt with forged purchase orders. The forged demand orders were not reflected in purchase order Ex.PW26/C. His signatures and handwriting did not appear in Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW2/2. As per him, those documents were forged by somebody and there may be possibility that accused Surjan Singh had forged them as said accused was Incharge of P- 4 Section.
[PW-28]
37. PW28 R.N. Dubey deposed that since 30.11.1990 he was working as accounts officer. He was familiar with the accounts issues pertaining to purchase of required commodities. He explained that as per procedure, first of all a tender is issued for purchase of required commodities. Thereafter, tenders were invited and purchase order was allotted to one of those tender CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 22 of 64 floating entities, whose rates are found to be satisfactory and as per norms laid down by the department. After the acceptance of tender purchase order is prepared by controller of his stores office. Various copies of said purchase order were prepared and one of them had to be sent to accounts department. Purchase orders were received through DAK challan from COS office. He also had seen cash order 7 which was prepared when bill was passed by the store account branch. Case order 6 was prepared prior to cash order 7 by accounts clerk. A number is given to said cash order 6 in the computer. From computer Section said cash order was again sent to CO-6 clerk who further sends bill to concerned Section for passing. The concerned clerk thereafter, had to check R.R and puts the same to Section Officer concerned. If RR is found in order, it is then entered in RR register and sent to consignee. Thereafter, concerned clerk checks the bill with reference to purchase order. Thereafter, it was sent to concerned Section officer. The clerk also had to certify that he had to cheque the bills when the bill is checked by the clerk, it had to be sent to Section Officer for checking the terms and conditions and other details. The Section Officer then had to send it to recovery clerk who had to cheque it with the help of record, to verify as to whether any outstanding amount is due against Railways by the concerned company/firm. In case, there is any due amount, then said clerk endorses the same on the said bill as Nil. The concerned clerk thereafter, affixes him impressionable seal on the bill which notes gross amount deduction and net amount of the CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 23 of 64 bill. Thereafter, details are entered into bill books. The bill as well as bill book are thereafter, sent by Section Officer to the account officer. Purchase orders are not sent to Account Officer along with bill book. When the bill is prepared by the account officer, CO-7 is prepared which is done by computer. Subsequently, CO-7 is check by dealing clerk for verifying the same with the bill. CO-7 is put before Section officer and then to account officer by the Section Officer. Again it is sent back to dealing clerk and that clerk sends it to Computer Section for preparation of cheque requisition for a particular date. Thereafter, cheque writer prepares the cheque and same are checked by Section Officer who also signs the same along with counterfoils. The cheque is then sent to account officer for signatures. Thereafter, cheque is received back with the cheque writer and he collects all the documents and sends them to cash department. The cashier then enters the cheque in cheque register and PMR register (pre-master registration). Thereafter, payment is made at the counter or by registered post.
38. Regarding this case, he deposed that he had seen purchased orders Ex.PW23/A & Ex.PW23/B. He had also seen challan list Ex.PW28/A where said purchase orders were mentioned at point A. He identified entries made in continuity register at Ex.PW2/G regarding said purchase orders. He identified the bills raised in this case as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. At the time of receipt of said bills, number is given to them. Said bills are accompanied CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 24 of 64 with two material inspection/collection certificate which he identified as Mark A & B. Cheque Ex.PW26/D was issued by his department in favour of firm in question.
[PW-29]
39. PW29 R.C. Chopra deposed that he was working as clerk Grade-I, Baroda House on 12.03.1990, when he was promoted as COG, clerk. In general, when goods are supplied to Railways, bills are submitted for advance payment i.e. for 95%, 98% or 100% as per purchase order instruction. Bills were first submitted for getting A.B. number by computer room. After allotment of A.B. number, same is handed over to dealing clerk. He identified bills Ex.PW28/A and Ex.PW28/B where he had marked 17-A. Those bills pertain to firm in question. He had handed over two bills to Harjeet Singh Lamba, bills passing clerk of accounts branch.
[PW-30]
40. PW30 Ram Niwas Sharma deposed that he had joined Northern Railway as UDC on 26.05.1987 and was promoted as DSKP. At the relevant time, he was working as stockiest and his duties were to collect the parcel from railway stations, besides other duties. There was only District Controller in Shakur Basti Depot. There were three other Assistant Controllers during 1992 viz. Mohar Singh, Mela Singh and third whose name he did not remember. Five DSKPs were working in Shakur Basti in receipt Section. He identified letters dated 13.11.1992 as Ex.PW19/A CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 25 of 64 and Ex.PW19/B which were signed by R.C. Sharma. As per him, those letters were not genuine letter written by his department. He also deposed that material inspection collection certificates dated 14.11.1992 and 16.11.1992 which were Mark A & Mark B respectively were forged and fictitious. He was not sure about the signatures of any DCOS or ACOS on said documents. Generally, goods were not supposed to be transported through private trucks but if they were to be transported by private persons then, special permissions had to be obtained from GM. He denied that there was any person with the name of Pyare Lal and Gurbachan Singh in his department at the relevant time. Further, as per him, no permission was granted to manually pay the amount to firm in question as no such material was ever received. Further, there was no provision for collection of material from the firm in question at any point of time.
[PW-31]
41. PW31 Anil Kumar Garg deposed that he was doing business for last 25 years under the name and style of M/s. Rati Ram Jai Prakash Jewellers. As per him, telephone numbers 22782 and 21697, were numbers of his firm as mentioned in letter Ex.PW13/A but they were no more in use. He had no knowledge as to how those numbers appeared on letter Ex.PW13/A. CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 26 of 64 [PW-32]
42. PW32 Harjeet Singh deposed that he had joined Northern Railway on compensatory ground in November 1988. He was posted in pension section, as UDC and in 1992 was working in Store Department as Accounts Assistant. He received purchase orders in question from Smt. Kailash Ahulwalia, who was working as LDC. He also received two bills of firm in question viz., Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B and had checked the terms and conditions. He also calculated the exact amount to be given to the party concerned and affixed his stamp of same being checked. He had put his initials on both the said bills at point B. Thereafter, R.P. Singh, Section Officer had put his initials in the said bills at point C. Subsequently, those bills were sent to the Recovery Clerk for checking as to whether any outstanding amount was due to firm in question. Thereafter, Inder Mohan, Recovery Clerk had given his remarks as "NIL" at point D. Thereafter, they deducted the discount or any other amount which had to be deducted and affixed stamp at point E. Then, R.P. Singh, Section Officer had put his signatures after verifying the particulars at point F. Before sending the bill to Account Officer, they had verified and checked the particular of bill, dates, firm's name etc. and were sent to Accounts Officer Smt. Anju. Before sending the same, an entry was made in the bill book also. He identified the relevant entries at Ex.PW32/A in bill book Ex.B-1. Smt. Anju had signed the same at point G. Thereafter, bills alongwith bill book were received by him. They were sent to Computer Section CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 27 of 64 for preparation of CO-7, which he identified as Ex.PW32/C. Printed copy of CO-7 was received in his section, mentioning his initials at point A, initials of R.P.Singh at point B and initials of Accounts Officer at point C. Thereafter, Accounts Officer had sent CO-7 Ex.PW32/C alongwith paid vouchers to cheque writer section for preparation of cheque, which was then sent to Cash Section for delivery of cheques to firm in question.
[PW-33]
43. PW33 K.S. Joshi, SP, CBI, deposed that he was given present matter for investigation. During investigation, he had recorded statements of witnesses namely Gyan Chand Jain, Veer Singh Jatav, Jai Pal Singh Tomar, Smt. Suchita Khalon, Mool Chand and Ram Niwas Gupta. He had also seized/ recovered documents during investigation. He identified documents recovery memo Ex.PW2/O, Seizure Memos Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW7/A and FIR in question Ex.PW33/B. He had recovered certain documents vide pointing out-cum-recovery memo dated 19.04.1993, which he identified as Ex.PW2/L. His signatures on those memos were identified by him at point B. [PW-34]
44. PW34 R.H. Jaggi, SP CBI, deposed that he had also done part investigation in this case. He deposed that during investigation in his tenure, he had seized certain documents through seizure memos and had recorded disclosure and recovery CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 28 of 64 memo. He identified disclosure memo of accused Surjan Singh as Ex.PW30/A and that of Dharam Singh as Ex.PW30/B, which noted signatures of witnesses at point B and C. He also recorded another disclosure memo of accused Dharam Singh dated 16.04.1993, which he identified as Ex.PW2/M. He also identified memos viz., Ex.PW2/I to Ex.PW2/K, noting his signatures at point C. [PW-35]
45. PW35 A.K. Sharma, Inspector CBI, deposed that he had investigated present matter, partly. During his tenure, as an IO, he had recorded statement of witnesses except J.P. Singh, Ram Niwas, Gyan Chand Jatav, Vir Singh Jatav and Ram Niwas Gupta. He identified memos prepared by him during investigation as Ex.PW33/A, Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW35/A, Ex.PW35/B, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW35/C, Ex.PW35/D, Ex.PW35/E to Ex.PW35/M. He also identified his signatures in other memos prepared by other police officers during investigation.
[PW-36]
46. PW36 B.A. Beg, AGE QD, Shimla, deposed that he was M.Sc., PhD in physics and had received specialize training in Scientific Examination of documents including handwriting identification, detection of forgery and allied subjects in Government of India Laboratory in Shimla for about 03 years. He had examined thousands of documents and had expressed his CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 29 of 64 opinion based on said inspection, independently. He had also given evidence in various courts of law, throughout the country and had 23 years of experience. In this case, after receiving documents from CBI. He identified documents Ex.PW35/J and Ex.PW35/K. He identified questioned documents given to him for examination.
[PW-37]
47. PW37 Baleshwar Dayal Tyagi, deposed that in 1993, he was Senior Administrative Officer in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. In 1993, CBI Inspector had seized and sealed certain documents in his presence in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in relation to one employee namely Ram Pal posted in the court of IVth Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. He identified his signatures at point A in seizure memo Ex.PW35/C. [PW-38]
48. PW38 S.K. Kapoor, Manager, SBI Bank deposed that in 1993, he was posted as Branch Manager, SBI Bank, Baraut Branch, UP. At that time, CBI Officer had visited his office and had seized certain documents. Initially, Mr. Sharma, CBI Inspector had come and on second occasion, Mr. Joshi, DSP had come. He had handed over those documents to said officer and identified seizure memo Ex.PW35/A and Ex.PW33/A prepared by the officers of CBI in his presence, bearing his signatures at CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 30 of 64 point C. [PW-39]
49. PW39 Arun Kapoor, Assistant Manager, SBI, Swasthya Vihar, Delhi deposed that in 1993, he was working at Baraut Branch of SBI in UP as Assistant Manager. Accused Ved Prakash Sharma was working as a clerk in the said branch at that time. During the relevant time, documents were seized from his bank and he had handed over the said documents to IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/F noting his signatures at point B. He identified accused Ved Prakash in the court.
[PW-40]
50. PW40 Rajan Babu Gera, Officer Superintendent, Cash Office, Baroda House, Northern Railways Delhi, deposed that in 1993, he was working as Senior Clerk in Northern Railways Headquarters, New Delhi. He identified accused Surjan Singh in the court. He also identified accused Ram Pal Singh in the court and deposed that CBI Inspector had taken some specimen signatures and handwriting of above mentioned accused persons, which were marked as Mark S to 222 in Ex.PW40/A1 to Ex.PW40/A21, which noted his signatures at point A. He identified specimen signatures of accused Surjan in sheets S-75 to S-201 bearing his signatures at point A, prepared by Inspector A.K. Sharma. He also identified specimen signatures of above mentioned accused persons as Ex.PW40/B-1 to Ex.PW40/B-26.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 31 of 64[PW-41]
51. PW41 Sh. R.K. Bassi, Deputy Manager (Retired) SBI deposed that he was posted as deputy manager, SBI, Baraut Branch, in 1993. He identified seizure memo Ex.PW35/E, bearing his signatures at point A, prepared by A.K. Sharma, Inspector CBI in his presence.
[PW-42]
52. PW42 Ram Rattan deposed that in 1993 he was posted as Customs Inspector, CR Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi and had witnessed search conducted by CBI in village Sikri Kalan, P.O. Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad on 30.03.1993. He identified seizure memo Ex.PW25/A bearing his signatures at point B. [PW-43]
53. PW43 Rajiv Dutt, Financial Advisor and Chief Account Officer Central Railway Mumbai, deposed that in 1993 he was posted as Deputy Chief Account Officer, Stores and Workshops, Northern Railway, Head Quarters, Baroda House, New Delhi. On 31.03.1993 on the directions of Inspector, CBI he had handed over certain documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW35/B bearing his signatures at point B. He also identified documents viz. PW43/A, Ex.PW43/B, Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW43/C, Ex.PW19/B, Ex.PW43/D, Ex.PW26/D CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 32 of 64 to Inspector CBI. After payment was made to the party, they came to know that purchase orders Ex.PW43/A and Ex.PW43/B along with material Inspection cum collection certificate Ex.PW43/C and Ex.PW43/D were forged documents. When payments were made, those documents were believed to be genuine. Those documents were submitted by the party. Bills were passed on the basis of forged documents and payment in the form of cheque was given to the concerned party and it was received from cash and pay office, Northern Railway, Baroda House, HQ New Delhi. After bill was paid, they came to know that no material was supplied.
[PW-44]
54. PW44 Rajiv Trehan, Senior DMM, Sikandrabad, South Central Railway, deposed that in 1992 he was posted as District of Controller of Stores, Northern Railway, Shakurpur Basti. He did not know about any order for supply of Grease Cup or Loco Grease Soft Sodium. He had seen letter Ex.PW19/A and Ex.PW19/B but did not know any R.C. Sharma, Pyare Lal or Gurbachan Singh, who has signed those letters. He identified his signatures at point Q23 and Q30 in material inspection/collection certificate Ex.PW43/C & Ex.PW43/D. He was not sure as to whether any such material was inspected, collected and loading on the trucks mentioned on those certificates. He was not sure whether any material was received in Shakurpur Basti Depot. He was not sure as to whether his signatures at point Q23 and Q.30 CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 33 of 64 were genuine or not.
55. After examination of above-mentioned witnesses, prosecution closed its evidence and matter was then fixed for recording of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
56. All the incriminating evidence was put to accused which he denied. He only admitted that he was working in SBI bank but had no knowledge about documents Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D Ex.PW2/E, Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G-1, Ex.PW2/G-2, Ex.PW2/H-1 and Ex.PW2/H. He had no knowledge about specimen typewriter Ex.PW2/N-1 and documents viz. Ex.PW2/J, Ex.PW2/L, Ex.PW2/P, Ex.PW2/R, Ex.PW2/K, Ex.PW2/N-23. He admitted that he had taken account opening form Ex.PW6/A by telling the concerned bank official that he wanted to open the bank account of his relative. He admitted his handwriting at point Q61 and Q66 in Ex.PW6/A. He also admitted his handwriting in Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D at points Q67, Q68, Q69, Q70. He also admitted his writing at Q92 in Ex.PW6/K and at Q94 in Ex.PW6/L. He also admitted ledger sheet Ex.PW6/H having his writing at point A, deposit slips Ex.PW6/I and Ex.PW6/H bearing his signature at point Q88 and Q89 respectively. He admitted deposit slip Ex.PW6/K having his writing at Q92, receipt Ex.PW6/L having its writing at Q94 and deposit slips Ex.PW6/M having its writing at Q97. He admitted document Ex.PW6/A and CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 34 of 64 Ex.PW6/D. He explained his brother-in-law Dharam Singh had approached him and had asked him for opening saving bank account of Kanwar Lal and Ram Kishan, who were accompanying him. Since he was posted as cashier at that time, so at the request of Dharam Singh, he had introduced Kanwar lal and Ram Kishan for the purpose of opening a bank account and thereafter got account open in his name. Kanwar Lal and Ram Kishan had deposited Rs.12lacs in fix deposit and had withdrawn Rs.3,50,000/- from the bank account. The cheque was deposited in their bank account was drawn on the account of Ministry of Railways. He did not prefer to lead defence evidence, though, other accused persons led defence evidence.
57. Other accused persons examined three witnesses in their defence.
58. DW1 Iqbal Singh Senior Assistant Financial Advisor (Stores) Northern Railway Baroda House deposed that purchase bills were vetted and checked by account Assistant or Section Officer. The recommendation of tender committee are not kept in the file of purchase bills. The procedure involved in clearance of a bill is very exhaustive. The list is available in the Indian Railways store Code. The vetting of purchase bills is done by Senior Financial Advisor (Stores Indent).
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 35 of 6459. DW2 (Inadvertently referred as DW1) R.K. Bajaj, Senior Assistant Financial Advisor/Store Indent, Baroda House, New Delhi deposed that all purchase orders which come for vetting, usually come in a file i.e. purchase file. The purchase file contains demand, tabulation statements, firms offer and acceptance. In case, where amount exceeds Rs.10lacs, then tender committed is formed and if amount does not exceed Rs.10lacs then acceptance is given by the concerned competent officer. He had no idea or knowledge as to when issue regarding Rs.10lacs purchase was revised. After vetting the purchase order, the stamp containing the quantity, rate etc., verified was affixed on the purchase order. He was not sure exactly in which cases 98% payment against the purchase order was permissible.
60. DW3 (inadvertently referred as DW2) Ramesh Kumar, Senior Material Manager at Baroda House, New Delhi deposed that purchase officer after acceptance of offer sends the tender case to finance for vetting of purchase order if the value of the purchase order needs vetting. He further deposed that presently every vendor is allotted a unique vendor code as on date. Both registered and unregistered are allotted this unique vendor code. In case vendor is not registered with the Northern Railways, then before placing any purchase order vendor code is necessary and a formal request is sent for the allotment of the same to the registration cell of stores department, Northern Railway. Purchase file contains demand, approval of tender, offers and CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 36 of 64 acceptance of the purchase officer. He further deposed that inspection clause regarding the consignment of material is decided by the purchase officer based on tender document and offer of the vendor. In case of Grease inspection can be done by the consignee or third party inspecting authority, depending upon the conditions of the purchase order. In case of reputed vendors material can be accepted after visual inspection on test and guarantee certificate provided by the vendor. He deposed that vendor is supposed to give test and guarantee certificate along with material. He was not sure about the fact that the said certificate to be issued on the letter head of the concerned firm who placed the offer or on a plain paper. He was also not sure about the fact that vendor cash provide guarantee on dispatch document itself. He deposed that 98% payment or 95% payment can be released against railway receipt/consignee receipt and inspection certificate if the purchase order contains such conditions.
61. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and matter was then fixed for final arguments.
62. After hearing final arguments, accused was convicted vide impugned judgment and thereafter, he was sentenced as per impugned order on sentence.
63. Accused filed present appeal within limitation period.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 37 of 6464. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that Ld. Trial court did not appreciate the evidence brought on record by prosecution correctly. He highlighted that there were material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witness which Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate while passing impugned judgment. On the same grounds present appeal was preferred.
65. Ld. APP for the State argued that impugned judgment and order on sentence needs no interference.
66. Primarily, accused has challenged the appreciation of evidence, done by Ld. Trial Court, by way of present appeal. In this regard, I must mention relevant law governing appreciation of evidence of witnesses.
67. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Satish Bombaiya Vs. State, 1991 JCC 6147, had observed:
"While appreciating the evidence of a witness, approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 38 of 64 general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertained to the insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the latter, however no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases."
68. So, in the wake of above law, minor discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have to be avoided. Evidence has to be appreciated as a whole and it has to be concluded, as to whether said evidence after being considered as a whole, gave the impression of being true version of actual incident.
69. Considering the above understanding of law, I am proceeding further and appreciating the facts and evidence CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 39 of 64 brought on record by prosecution.
70. Accused herein was charged with offences punishable u/s 419/420/468/467/471/477A/120B IPC.
71. The allegations against accused herein based on the charge which was framed against him are mentioned below:
a) That accused had cheated Northern Railway to the tune of Rs.15,55,264/-.
b) That accused had cheated Northern Railway with said amount on the basis of forged purchase orders and inspection-cum-collection certificates.
c) That accused had forged purchase orders in question and demand cum collection certificates dated 14.11.1992 and 16.11.1992.
d) That accused had used forged purchase orders in question and demand cum collection certificates as mentioned above, for the purpose of cheating Northern Railway, knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be forged documents.
e) That accused had falsified the challan of Northern Railway with intent to defraud Northern Railway.
f) That accused had cheated State Bank of India, Baraut, by impersonating Ram Pal Singh as Ram Kishan while opening bank account in the name of CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 40 of 64 firm in question.
g) That accused had committed above-mentioned cheating in criminal conspiracy with other co-
accused persons.
72. I will be appreciating evidence brought on record, for the purpose of concluding whether offences which are charged against accused/appellant herein, were proved beyond reasonable doubt or not, individually, in my subsequent paragraphs:
[Section 420 IPC]
73. Section 420 IPC mandates that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
74. Essential ingredients of the said provisions are:
1) There must be deception that is the accused must have deceived someone
2) That by the said deception, the accused must induce a person either to deliver any property or make, alter or destroy the whole or part of valuable CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 41 of 64 security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable property.
3) That the accused did so dishonestly.
75. For a person to be convicted u/s 420 IPC, it has to be establish not only that he has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person, who was so cheated to deliver any property etc.
76. There has to be a dishonest intention from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence. Reliance in this regard, is placed upon case law titled as Joseph Salvaraj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2011 SC 2258.
77. So, in this case, prosecution had to prove that accused had cheated Northern Railway by Inducing Northern Railway to believe that purchase orders in question and Inspection cum collection certificates were genuine documents, which were not so and based on said impression, Northern Railway had disbursed Rs.15,55,264/-, in favour of firm in question, which Northern Railway, would not have done, had it not been so deceived.
78. Admittedly, accused had no face to face interaction with any of the officials of Baroda House, Northern Railway New CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 42 of 64 Delhi. It was never the case of prosecution that accused himself had gone to the office of Northern Railway and had deceived any of the officials of said department, to believe that purchase order in question and inspection cum collection certificate were genuine, though they were forged.
79. Accused never received any single penny, in his account or in cash, out of Rs.15,55,264/-, as there was no such evidence, brought on record by prosecution.
80. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that it was accused who had cheated Northern Railways, with said amount by making any inducement, in any form.
81. No evidence was brought on record, to the effect that it was accused who had presented purchase orders in question and inspection cum collection certificates to the concerned officials of Northern Railway for the disbursal of Rs.15,55,264/-.
82. PW38 S.K.Kapoor, PW39 Arun Kapoor and PW41 R.K. Bassi, were the officials from SBI Bank where accused was employed as clerk at the relevant time. None of the said officials deposed any incriminating fact against accused. They only deposed that accused was employed in SBI Bank, Baraut, U.P. at the relevant time. So, their testimonies did not indicate that accused had done any illegal act in SBI Bank, Baraut Branch, U.P. CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 43 of 64
83. Rest of the prosecution witnesses, including CBI officers also did not depose that accused had done any act for inducing officials of Northern Railway, for parting away Rs.15,55,264/- in favour of firm in question, illegally. None of them deposed that accused was benefited in any manner based on disbursal of Rs.1555264/- in favour of firm in question.
84. The essential ingredients of inducement of Northern Railway, by accused and accused getting benefit by any part of Rs.15,55,264/-, were missing in entire prosecution story and also in prosecution evidence.
85. Therefore, ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused.
[Section 419 IPC]
86. Section 419 IPC mandates that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
87. Above mentioned provisions therefore, makes it an offence if somebody cheats by personation.
88. In this case, no evidence is brought on record during trial that accused had personated himself to be somebodyelse and by CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 44 of 64 doing said personated had cheated Northern Railways, in any manner.
89. So, offence u/s 419 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused.
[Section 467 IPC]
90. Section 467 IPC mandates that whoever forges a document which purports to be a transfer any valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
91. Above mentioned provisions, therefore, makes a person offender if he forges a document by purporting it to be a valuable security or an authority to transfer any valuable security or to receive or deliver any money.
92. In the case in hand, the purchase orders in question and inspection cum collection certificates dated 14.11.1992 and CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 45 of 64 16.11.1992 were allegedly forged documents.
93. No evidence was brought on record by prosecution, to the effect that above-mentioned forged documents were prepared by accused or used by accused, for the purpose of getting Rs.15,55,264/- from the department of Northern Railways between October to December, 1992. So, offence punishable u/s 467 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution.
[Section 468 IPC]
94. Section 468 IPC mandates that 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 sever years, and shall also be liable to fine.
95. Abovementioned provisions therefore, makes it an offence, if somebody commits forgery, intending that the said forged document shall be used for the purpose of cheating.
96. In the case in hand, I have already concluded that ingredients of cheating were not proved by prosecution. Coupled with the same, prosecution failed to place on record any proof which could indicate that accused had forged any document including purchase orders in question and inspection cum collections certificates in question. No FSL report, in this regard was placed on record by prosecution. Infact, it was not deposed CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 46 of 64 by any prosecution witness that accused had committed forgery of any document. Therefore, offence u/s 468 IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused by prosecution.
[Section 471 IPC]
97. Section 471 IPC mandates that 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).
98. Abovementioned provision makes it an offence it somebody fraudulently or dishonestly uses a document as genuine, knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be a forged document.
99. In the case in hand, alleged forged documents were purchase orders and inspection cum collection certificates in question.
100. None of the prosecution witness deposed that accused had forged said purchase orders and/or inspection cum collections certificates in question.
101. No expert opinion was brought on record, to the effect that said purchase orders and/or inspection cum collection certificates were falsely or dishonestly used by accused, as genuine CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 47 of 64 documents. There was no evidence to the effect that accused had forged said documents.
102. So, ingredients of Section 471 IPC were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution.
[Section 477A IPC]
103. Section 477A IPC mandates that whoever, being a clerk, officer or servant, or employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer or servant, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, (electronic record) papers, writing, valuable security or account which belongs to or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received by him for or on behalf of his employer, or wilfully, and with intent to defraud, makes or abets the making of any false entry in, or omits or alters or abets the omission or alteration of any material particular from or in, any such book, (electronic record) papers, writing, valuable security or account, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to sever years, or with fine, or with both.
104. Abovementioned provision makes it an offence if any clerk or officer willfully and with intent to defraud or falsify any valuable security belonging to employer makes or abets making of any false entry or omits or alters any material particular in such book or valuable security or account.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 48 of 64105. Again there was no direct evidence, to the effect that accused had willfully falsified any book or entry in the records of SBI bank where he was employed.
106. PW6 Smt. Suchita, who was Assistant Manager, SBI Bank Baraut Branch, U.P. had deposed that on 22.01.1993, when account was opened in the name of Ram Kishan vide account opening form Ex.PW6/A, accused had told her that one of the relative of accused wanted to open account in the said bank. She also identified writing of accused in documents Ex.PW6/B to Ex.PW6/Q, which were different forms filled, for the purpose of opening of account.
107. PW6 in her testimony nowhere deposed that accused had filled the abovementioned documents, in the absence of any customer. As per her testimony, documents which she had identified were not written in her presence. It was not her case that accused had filled the said documents for opening of account in the bank, with some ulterior motive. So, she did not level any allegation against the working of accused.
108. Coupled with the same, PW6 testified that ordinarily her department was required to interview the account holder before allotting account to him/her. In the same breath she deposed that in practice, her office was not recording the fact that said CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 49 of 64 interview was being taken. She also testified that for opening bank account, if a customer requires assistances, then she would send that customer to their clerk, dealing with the account and would ask the concerned bank official to fill the form. She also deposed that banking services were based on customer oriented outlook and bank tries to give maximum facility to the customer under the rule.
109. Abovementioned testimony indicated that she wanted to convey that at the relevant time, when account opening form was filled, approach of her bank was to get the said account opened, without much hassles being faced by the customer. In that light, accused must have filled the forms/documents, she identified in her testimony. Now, to conclude that accused had filled those forms/documents, only with the intention to falsify the records of the bank, would be far fetched. Moresowhere, PW6 did not depose that conduct of accused was doubtful, prior to or at the time of filling up of account opening form Ex.PW6/A. The fact that accused did not get any financial benefit, only aided the cause of accused.
110. Testimony of PW6, therefore, did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused had falsified any document.
111. PW21 Hari Har Gautam who was Deputy Manager, SBI Bank, Baraut Branch was another witness when documents as CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 50 of 64 identified by PW6 were executed. He identified again those documents, being prepared in ordinary course of business during his tenure.
112. Again, PW21 did not depose any incriminating fact against accused to the effect that accused had falsified any document for cheating SBI. This witness also did not depose that accused had himself filled account opening form Ex.PW6/A and other documents in the absence of any customer, by himself. Infact, as per his testimony no inquiry was conducted in this matter by the concerned bank. It means that malafide of accused was not zeroed down by the concerned bank. Abovementioned documents identified by this witness were executed in ordinary course of business. No ulterior motive can be attributed on accused on the basis of execution of the said documents, by itself, in the light of any other incriminating fact.
113. Testimony of PW21, therefore, did not prove the fact that accused had falsified any document.
114. PW38 S.K. Kapoor was Branch Manager, SBI Bank, Baraut, U.P. In his testimony, he had only testified that certain documents were handed over to CBI Officers. He identified the seizure memos, Ex.PW35/A and Ex.PW33/A prepared by CBI officers in his presence. As such, he did not depose that accused had falsified any document.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 51 of 64115. PW39 Arun Kapoor was Assistant Manager, SBI Bank, Baraut, U.P. In his testimony, he identified seizure memo Ex.PW35/F. Beyond that, he did not depose any incriminating fact against accused, though he identified accused in the court. As such, he did not depose that accused had falsified any document.
116. PW41 R.K. Bassi was Deputy Manager, SBI Bank, Baraut, U.P. In his testimony, he identified seizure memo Ex.PW35/E. This witness also did not depose any incriminating fact against accused, though he identified accused in the court. As such, he did not depose that accused had falsified any document.
117. So, none of the abovementioned officers of SBI Bank, Baraut Branch U.P., where accused was employed at the relevant time, when account was opened in the name of Ram Kishan, vide Ex.PW6/A, deposed that accused had done any illegal act by filling up said form and other documents. The only conclusion which I can draw, based on testimonies of said witnesses is that accused had helped co-accused Ram Pal Singh, in getting opened bank account in his bank as another co-accused Dharam Singh was known to him. Beyond that, accused/appellant herein had done nothing wrong. Opening of bank account with the assistance of accused/appellant, by itself cannot lead to conclusion that accused had done so, with ulterior motive. Moresowhere, prosecution failed to prove that accused was CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 52 of 64 benefited financially or otherwise, in any manner, by the said act.
118. Testimonies of abovementioned officials of SBI bank therefore, did not prove the ingredients of Section 477A IPC.
119. Rest of the prosecution witnesses deposed facts, which were not relevant for the purpose of appreciating applicability of Section 477A IPC, as against accused. Therefore, their testimonies are discarded by me.
Section 120B IPC.
[Section 120B IPC]
120. Section 120B IPC mandates that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
121. [Ingredients of abovementioned provisions are]
(i)an agreement between two or more persons;
(ii)The agreement should be to do or cause to be done some illegal act or some act which is not illegal, by illegal CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 53 of 64 means, provided that where the agreement is other than one to commit an offence, the prosecution must further prove;
(iii)That some act besides the agreement was done by or more of the parties in pursuance of it .
122. Circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, committed by illegal means. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with commission of the crime of criminal conspiracy. It has to be shown that all means adopted and illegal acts done were in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. 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 alleged conspiracy. Reliance in this regard is placed upon case law titled as John Pandian v. State 2010 (8) Supreme 389.
123. So, for constituting the offence of criminal conspiracy, prosecution has to prove that accused persons had conspired together based on meeting of minds, for achieving the object of doing any illegal act. Further, prosecution has to prove that circumstances indicating conspiracy are prior to the commission of offence.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 54 of 64124. In the light of abovementioned understanding, I am proceeding further and reverting back to the facts of present case.
125. In the case in hand, prosecution failed to prove that accused had prior meeting of mind, in any manner with co- accused persons, to cheat Northern Railways with amount of Rs.15,55,264/-, on the basis of forged documents. There was no direct or indirect evidence, to the effect that accused had criminally conspired with co-accused persons, for the purpose of cheating Northern Railways, by way of using forged documents or by way of impersonation.
126. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that accused was acquainted with co-accused persons, for the purpose of committing offences in question, prior to October, 1992. There was nothing on record, which indicated that accused had met co- accused persons prior to disbursal of Rs.15,55,264/- by Northern Railways, in favour of firm in question, for the purpose of executing said plan. In other words, prosecution did not prove the fact that accused knew the plan of co-accused persons, to withdraw said amount of Rs.15,55,264/-, illegally from the department of Northern Railways.
127. There is no evidence to the effect that accused was benefited in any manner, on the basis of alleged offences.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 55 of 64128. PW25, PW33, PW34, PW35, PW37 and PW42 were different officers who had joined investigation, in the capacity of being witness or in the capacity of being investigating officers in this case at different stages of investigation. None of them deposed that accused/appellant herein, had conspired with co- accused persons to commit any of the offences with which accused/appellant was charged. Infact, they did not depose, as to what was the cogent admissible evidence, based on which accused/appellant herein could be said, to have committed offences with which she was charged. Their testimonies therefore, did not help the cause of prosecution and I discarded their testimonies accordingly.
129. PW36 was the handwriting expert, who was examined by prosecution. This witness had examined the specimen writing of accused viz. S-46 to S-105 and had identified his reports Ex.CX120/93, Ex.PW35/P, Ex.PW36/A and Ex.PW36/B. He had concluded in his report that accused had signed in documents Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/M. Those signatures/handwriting were admitted by accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Said reports, only proved the fact that accused had signed/written on those documents. I have already concluded that those documents were prepared, in ordinary of officials business. There was nothing on record that accused had signed/written on those documents with mensrea. The only possibility, which I observed was that accused CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 56 of 64 had signed/written on those documents believing that contents of those documents based on information given by co-accused persons was true and correct. There was nothing on record based on which it can be concluded that accused knew he was signing/filling up those documents, knowingly or having reason to believe the same to be based on false facts. Filling up/signing of those documents of accused by itself did not make accused liable for any offence with which he was charged. The aspect of mensrea on the part of accused was missing and it was not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. So testimony of PW36 is discarded by me being inconsequential in nature.
130. Rest of the prosecution witnesses were either public witnesses or witnesses from Northern Railways. Said witnesses also did not depose that accused had entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused persons to commit offences in question. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies, being inconsequential in nature.
131. The malafide of accused was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution.
132. The only conclusion which I can draw, after considering testimonies of witnesses, is that accused had acted bonafide, under the influence of co-accused persons for the purpose of filling up account opening form and other documents in SBI CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 57 of 64 Bank, Baraut Branch, U.P. Accused did not know the conspiracy of co-accused persons. There was no prior meetings of minds between accused and co-accused persons.
133. Offence u/s 120B IPC read with 419/420/468/471/477A/120B IPC therefore, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution.
134. The defence witnesses examined by co-accused persons had deposed facts which were of general nature. The said facts deposed by them did not refer to the chain of events which had happened in this case. Therefore, their testimonies are discarded by me being inconsequential in nature.
]Defective Investigation]
135. Another important aspect, which I must mention here is the fact that investigation was not properly done in this case. There are various reasons based on which I have come to said conclusion.
136. To start with investigating officers in this case did not investigate the aspect of malafide on the part of accused/appellant. In other words, there was no investigation as to how and why accused /appellant was interested in committing in offences in question. The solitary act of accused, in getting bank account opened and filling up of relevant documents for opening said account and for withdrawal of amount, by itself, did CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 58 of 64 not prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that accused had malafide to commit offences in question.
137. Investigating officers failed to investigate the aspect as to why other bank officials of SBI bank, Baraut Branch, U.P. were not to be blamed for opening of bank account in question and for withdrawal of amounts as accused was not solely responsible for the said acts.
138. There was no investigation with regard to the knowledge of accused/appellant, to commit offences in question based on preplanned criminal conspiracy.
139. There was no investigation with regard to acquaintance of accused with firm in question and with regard to purchase orders and inspection cum collection certificate in question, which were allegedly false.
140. Surprisingly, PW3 had deposed in his testimony that co-
accused Surjan Singh and Dharam Singh had given him one bag with directions to not open it . Lateron, when CBI raided his house, it was revealed that said bag contained cash amount of Rs.2.5lacs. Further, PW6 had deposed that he had handed over the amount mentioned in Ex.PW2/1 to CBI. He explained that co-accused Dharam Singh and Surjan Singh had given him cash, FDRs and documents on 02.04.1993 by visiting his house and had assured him that they will collect the same later on.
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 59 of 64141. Both the aforesaid witnesses based on their testimonies, had received crime proceeds. Now, why they were made Scot- free by CBI, was never explained, by CBI during trial. Said witnesses, based on their testimonies were very much involved in crime in question. Therefore, approach of CBI in picking and choosing based on the whims of CBI, reflected faulty approach on the part of CBI. Said conduct of CBI only prejudice the rights of accused/appellant herein.
[Probable Defence of accused]
142. Accused raised the defence of being falsely implicated in this case. He explained in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, that his brother in law i.e. co-accused Dharam Singh had approached him with reequest for opening account form in his bank in the name of Kanwar Lal and Ram Kishan who accompanied Dharam Singh. Thereafter, account was opened in the name of Ram Kishan. At that time, accused was cashier in SBI Bank, Baraut Branch, U.P. Both, Kanwar Lal and Ram Kishan deposited Rs.12lacs in fixed deposit and withdrew Rs.3,50,000/-. The cheque which was deposited in the said bank account was drawn on the account of Ministry of Railways.
143. The abovementioned explanation appeared to be probable.
CBI did not investigate the matter from the perspective of accused, to the extent, explained above. Infact, CBI did not verify CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 60 of 64 the version of accused/appellant.
144. Surprisingly, in complaint Ex.PW1/A, complainant viz.
Ram Sewak, Vigilance Officer (Stores), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi had claimed that Northern Railway Head Quarters was cheated to the tune of Rs.15,55,264/- by proprietor of firm in question, in conspiracy with some officials of Northern Railway, Head Quarters, Baroda House, New Delhi by showing forged purchase orders. There was no investigation by CBI with regard to involvement of officials of Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi. Infact, complainant himself in his testimony did not specify as to which officials he was referring in his complaint. So, investigation done by CBI was incomplete in nature.
145. The officials from Northern Railway, Baroda House, who were examined by prosecution in this case, viz., PW1, PW2, PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW16, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW20, PW22, PW26, PW27, PW28, PW29, PW30, PW32, PW40, PW43 & PW44, nowhere deposed any incriminating fact against any official of Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi. Those witnesses deposed about presentation of false purchase orders but they did not explain as to which official of Northern Railway, Baroda House New Delhi did not verify the veracity of said purchase orders, which led to encashment of Rs.15,55,264/-, by firm in question, from the CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 61 of 64 department of Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. Testimonies of said witnesses, therefore, did not prove the case of prosecution regarding involvement of accused/appellant herein. Therefore, I discarded their testimonies being inconsequential in nature.
146. The investigation done by CBI, was based on collection of documents. It did not cater to the issue of how criminal conspiracy had taken place between accused/appellant and co- accused persons. So, that flaw did not help the cause of prosecution.
147. The documents regarding opening of bank account in the name of Ram Sewak and subsequent withdrawal of amount from the said account viz. Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/Q1, were not only signed by accused/appellant only. It is admitted position that accused/appellant was clerk in SBI Bank Baraut branch, U.P. and was not solely responsible for the opening of bank account and for withdrawal of amount from said account. If that is so, then why other bank officials of SBI bank, Baraut Branch, U.P. were not arrayed as accused persons, in this case. That question was never answered by prosecution and it only probablised the fact that accused/appellant had signed/written in those documents, under a bonafide mistake as co-accused Dharam Singh had met him in ordinary course of business and there was no ground for accused/appellant, to be suspicious about the conduct of co-
CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 62 of 64accused persons including co-accused Dharam Singh. None of the bank officials, examined by prosecution deposed that accused/appellant had done some act, contrary to any rule or regulation, governing the said bank for the purpose of opening bank account or for the purpose of withdrawing any amount from the said account.
148. CBI conducted investigation which left various aspects unanswered. To highlight the same, I am mentioning few of them below:
Whether there was any criminal conspiracy between accused persons and any official of Northern Railway, Baroda House New Delhi?
Whether there was any criminal conspiracy between accused persons and bank officials of SBI Bank Baraut Branch, New Delhi, besides accused?
Whether accused/appellant had flouted any procedure established by law while opening bank account through Ex.PW6/A?
What was the basis of treating accused as conspirator with co-accused persons?
Why PW3 & PW5, who had deposed that accused Dharam Singh and Surjan Singh had given them cash amount were not considered as conspirators?CA No. 274/17 Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 63 of 64
149. Absence of answers to the said aspects made the case of CBI, open ended. It only indicated innocence of accused herein.
150. The net result is that accused was able to place on record probable defence which was reasonable and proabable.
151. Prosecution case as against accused/appellant was vague and incomplete. Various questions remained unanswered during trial, which were relevant and which were to be answered by prosecution. So, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
152. Accused was wrongly convicted by Ld. Trial Court for committing offence punishable 120B IPC read with Section 419/420/468/471/477A/120B IPC. Accused Ved Prakash S/o Sh. Asha Ram is acquitted from said offences.
153. Therefore, present appeal stands allowed.
154. Impugned judgment and order on sentence, stands set aside.
Announced in Open Court [Prashant Sharma]
On 17th August, 2023 ASJ-02/South East District
Saket Courts/New Delhi
CA No. 274/17
Ved Prakash Vs. CBI Page 64 of 64